CIE 5060

Study and Comparison of

Shell Design Codes
For Adaptation to Design Geometrically
Complex Steel Shell Structures

A Masters thesis submitted in part fulfilment of

the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science of Civil Engineering
by
Eoin Dunphy
Student No.: 4035879
March 1, 2013

ABSTRACT
The Eurocode and American Bureau of Shipping code analytical methods of determining
the buckling resistance of 6 axially loaded steel shell cylinders was studied. The Eurocode
MNA/LBA and GMNIA numerical methods were also studied using finite element analysis
and compared against the results of the analytical methods. Following these comparisons
the intention was to give an overview of the different methods and their applicability. Further suggestions were then made on how these methods could be used in the future analyses
of more geometrically complex steel shell structures.
It was found that the Eurocode significantly underestimates the buckling resistance of ring
and stringer stiffened cylindrical shells when compared to the ABS code (34% to 54% lower).
The MNA/LBA numerical method currently allows the determination of the buckling resistance of simple structures under load conditions not covered by the classical theory. The
MNA/LBA method shows potential for greater usage in more geometrically complex analyses provided that the required buckling parameters for its use are pre-determined. If these
parameters are available the MNA/LBA method would be a less time consuming design
method than the more rigorous GMNIA method.
The GMNIA method is the most complex analysis and as it is purely computational the
importance of correctly modelling the structure and its imperfections is paramount in the
determination of a realistic buckling resistance. The pitfalls of these requirements is that the
correct imperfection type is difficult and time consuming to determine and the introduction
of these imperfections has implications on further modelling of the structure. However, the
GMNIA method is adaptable to unique cases without precedent and there is potential for
research based on its usage as opposed to through physical experimentation.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to show my gratitude to my thesis committee; Prof. ir. Jan Rots, Dr. ir.
Jeroen Coenders, Ir. Andrew Borgart and Dr. ir. Pierre Hoogenboom for their guidance,
support and their help throughout the course of this graduation project.
I would also like to sincerely thank all my family and friends for their continued support
and encouragement.
Eoin Dunphy

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract

Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Shell Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.1 Bifurcation of Equilibrium . . . . . . .
1.3.2 Limit Load Buckling . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.3 Buckling Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Flat Plates and Curved Panels . . . . . . . .
1.4.1 Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.2 Shell panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 Eurocode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5.1 EN 1993-1-6: Strength and stability of
1.5.2 EN 1993-4-1: Silos . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6 American Bureau of Shipping . . . . . . . . .

ii

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
1
1
3
3
5
6
8
9
11
14
14
16
16

2 Problem Definition
2.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19
20

3 Theoretical Background
3.1 Axial Buckling of Cylindrical Shells . . . . . . . .
3.2 External Pressure Buckling of Cylindrical Shells .
3.3 Imperfections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Finite Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

21
21
24
25
27

4 Methodology
4.1 Eurocode: EN 1993-1-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Meridional Buckling . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2 Circumferential Buckling . . . . . . . .
4.1.3 Stress Design Method . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Eurocode: EN 1993-4-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 ABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Unstiffened or Ring-Stiffened Cylinders
4.3.2 Ring and Stringer-stiffened Shells . . . .
4.4 Computational Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Static Structural Stress Analysis . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

29
29
29
31
32
34
37
38
41
44
45

. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
shell
. . .
. . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
structures
. . . . . .
. . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4

Linear Buckling Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction of Imperfections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Linear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Design Code Analytical Method

5.1 Ring Stiffened Cylinders . . . . . . . .
5.1.1 Cylinder IC-1 . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.2 Cylinder 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.3 Cylinder 6.1 . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Ring and Stringer Stiffened Cylinders
5.2.1 Cylinder IC6 . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Cylinder 2-1C . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Cylinder 2-1B . . . . . . . . . .

46
47
47

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

54
54
54
63
64
64
64
65
66

6 Computational Method
6.1 Ring Stiffened Cylinders . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Cylinder IC-1 . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Cylinder 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.3 Cylinder 6.1 - First Eigenmode .
6.1.4 Cylinder 6.1 - Second Eigenmode
6.2 Ring and Stringer Stiffened Cylinders .
6.2.1 Cylinder IC6 . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Cylinder 2-1C . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.3 Cylinder 2-1B . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.4 Mesh Sensitivity . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

68
68
68
83
86
90
92
92
95
99
103

7 Comparison
7.1 Analytical Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.1 Ring Stiffened Cylinders . . . . . . . .
7.1.2 Ring- and Stringer Stiffened Cylinders
7.2 Computational Comparison . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1 Ring-stiffened Cylinders . . . . . . . .
7.2.2 Ring- and Stringer-stiffened Cylinders

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

104
105
105
112
114
114
115

8 Discussion
8.1 General Discussion . . . . . . . . .
8.2 Computational Method Discussion
8.2.1 The MNA/LBA Method . .
8.2.2 The GMNIA method . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

117
117
120
120
125

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

9 Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Study

129
9.1 Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
References

134

I
II

Appendix A - Singly curved plate example

Appendix B - Matlab ABS Script

139
141

III

Appendix C - Eurocode Script

152

IV

Appendix D - ANSYS Element Types

161

Appendix E - Sample ANSYS Report

164

vi

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Buckling resistance reduction factor

ov

Overall buckling resistance reduction factor for complete shell

Plastic range factor in buckling interaction

Strain

Interaction exponent for buckling

Partial factor

Poissons ratio

CExR

Classical axial buckling stress of a cylinder

ExB

Elastic compressive buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell

Relative slenderness of shell

squash limit relative slenderness (value of at which stability reductions

commence)

ov

Overall relative slenderness for the complete shell (multiple segments)

plastic limit relative slenderness (value of below which plasticity affects

the stability)

Relative length parameter for shell

xP

Lower bound knock down factor

CExR

The classical buckling stress of a cylinder under axial loading

ExB

The elastic compressive buckling stress of an imperfect stringer-stiffened

shell

cr

Critical buckling stress

Classical buckling stress

The elastic buckling stress of a stringer stiffened shell

Material modulus of elasticity

Second moment of area of section

Applied load

Rcr,perf ect

Geometrically and materially non-linear resistance of perfect shell

Ise

The moment of inertia of stringer stiffener plus associated effective shell

plate width

vii
Ncr

Critical buckling load

Rcr

Elastic critical buckling resistance of a perfect shell

Rpl

Plastic critical buckling resistance of a perfect shell

Amplitude of geometric imperfection

Length

Radius to middle surface of shell

Thickness of plate/shell

Displacement

Length of panel

Width of panel

Boundary condition parameter

se

Reduced effective width of shell

zb

The Batdorf width parameter

vii

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1

General

In the field of civil engineering the design codes and guidelines for to designing steel shells
are of very limited use when it comes to geometrically complex structures. The typical
steel shells that civil engineers are principally concerned with are silos, tanks, pipelines,
chimneys, towers and masts which are covered in Eurocode 3. For larger scale steel shells
of increased geometrical complexity there is little guidance as current knowledge of shell
structures is dominated by and based upon shells of revolution (Rotter; 1998). As such,
when it comes to structures like the Yas Hotel bridge (Figure: 1.1) which are neither pure
shells nor typical beam and column structures the design can be approached in a number of
ways; from complicated modelling from the beginning of the design process, to developing
a design based on a simplification on the structure. To base the design of such a building
on a model with too many simplifications could lead to neglecting some very important and
advantageous characteristics of shell behaviour, resulting in inefficiently designed, wasteful
and potentially unsafe structures. Similarly, it is impractical and time consuming to design
such a structure from the early design stages using detailed computational models and it
can be difficult to accurately model the design situation. A solution may be to have some
guidelines or rules of thumb around which the preliminary design of the structure may be
based which takes into account the structurally advantageous behaviour of shells.

1.2

Shell Structures

Shell structures have a long history and have existed since before structural engineering and
architecture were even recognised sciences; one of the oldest known example of a concrete
shell being the Pantheon dome in Rome which was completed sometime around 125AD.
From an early age the aesthetics of shells and their natural strength and stability has been
well known, despite the lack of mathematical reasoning behind them. Dome structures
continued to be the most significant shell structure for quite some time and are visible
throughout history as part of many cathedrals, mosques and mausoleums up until the early

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Yas Hotel Bridge, Abu Dhabi

20th century where shell structures underwent a revival.
During the 20th century a greater understanding of the mechanical properties of shell structures was developed, not only were their aesthetics appreciated but also the economy of
such structures due to their efficient load distribution. This knowledge however was mainly
only applicable to geometrically regular curved surfaces which can be easily described by
analytical mathematical functions. With the advent of computational technology and in
particular FEM (Finite Element Modelling) engineers and architects could model more
complex shapes and venture into the analysis of more free form structures. The increased
capability and desire for free form shell structures is evident in many designs from wellknown architects such as Zaha Hadid architects, Future Systems, ONL Oosterhuis, Norman Foster and Partners, Asymptote Architects and UN Studios. With this drive toward
more complex geometry there is a demand for increased research and design procedures
for these structures and in the instance of shells, where form and force are so intricately
linked, it seems that the engineering aspects are lagging behind the architectural demand.
Interestingly there have been some projects in which shipbuilding companies have designed
and built steel civil engineering structures using steel or aluminium plates such as the Yas
hotel link bridge in Abu Dhabi and the J.P. Morgan media centre in Lords Cricket Ground
in London. This meeting of two disciplines of design poses interesting research topics into
how applicable approaches from other disciplines are to the design of civil engineering struc-

Introduction
tures and what assumptions remain valid or could be modified for better design as despite
being based on the same theory, different approaches may be taken in design.

1.3

Buckling

Buckling is an important behaviour in the design of metal structures. Generally buckling

may be defined as the sudden failure, or instability, of a structural member subject to
compressive stress. This instability occurs at a maximum point on the load-deflection curve
at which point instability may fall into one of two categories:
1. Bifurcation of equilibrium or;
2. Limit load buckling

1.3.1 Bifurcation of Equilibrium

If a perfect member is subject to an external load and initially deforms in one configuration,
then at a critical load the deformation of this structure changes to another pattern (referred
to as the buckling mode), the instability is said to be bifurcation buckling, it occurs
when two (or more) equilibrium paths pass through the same point. Take for instance a
column subject to axial loading; initially the column will shorten, then at a critical load the
column will begin to bend. This type of buckling can be found in structures such as axially
compressed columns, plates and cylindrical shells and may be further broken down based
on postbuckling behaviour to i) stable postbuckling or ii) unstable post buckling.

Introduction

1.3.1.1 Stable Postbuckling

Figure 1.2: Stable postbuckling curve

The load required to keep the structure in a deformed configuration increases as the deformation increases in magnitude. For example, an axially compressed plate will develop
tensile membrane stresses as it deforms which will result in an increase of stiffness.

Introduction

1.3.1.2 Unstable Postbuckling

Figure 1.3: Unstable postbuckling curve

The external load required to maintain equilibrium decreases as the postbuckling deformation increases, e.g. an axially compressed cylindrical shell.

1.3.2 Limit Load Buckling

Figure 1.4: Limit load buckling

5

Introduction
When the initially stable path loses its stability at the limit point of the system and there
is a jump, or snap through non-equilibrium states to another stable path this is known
as limit load, or snap-through buckling. This behaviour may be seen in buckling of shallow
arches or spherical caps.

1.3.3 Buckling Modes

For stiffened structures buckling may occur at different levels, or modes, which can be
generalised as a scale of buckling. The failure of plates and stiffened panels can be further subdivided into three of these modes or levels, namely, the plate level; which is local
buckling between minor stiffeners. The stiffened panel level; which is larger scale buckling
between more major stiffeners and the entire grillage level; which is buckling at a global
level (see Figure: 1.5)

Figure 1.5: Stiffened panel failure levels (American Bureau of Shipping - Guide for buckling
and ultimate strength assessment for offshore structures; 2004)
Similarly, such a distinction can be made with shell structures, for instance the probable
buckling modes of ring- and/or stringer-stiffened cylindrical shells can be sorted as follows:

Introduction

Figure 1.6: Buckling modes of stiffened cylindrical shells (Das et al.; 2003)
These categories of buckling are of particular interest for shell structures and are examined in detail within the American Bureau of Shipping - Guide for buckling and ultimate
strength assessment for offshore structures (2004) and can be described as follows:
Local shell or curved panel buckling (i.e., buckling of the shell between adjacent
stiffeners). The stringers remain straight and the ring stiffeners remain round.
Bay buckling (i.e., buckling of the shell plating together with the stringers, if present,
between adjacent ring stiffeners). The ring stiffeners and the ends of the cylindrical
7

Introduction
shells remain round.
General buckling, (i.e., buckling of one or more ring stiffeners together with the attached shell plus stringers, if present).
Additionally, the ABS guidelines for buckling of offshore structures also examines the following:
Local stiffener buckling (i.e., torsional/flexural buckling of stiffeners, ring or stringer,
or local buckling of the web and flange). The shell remains undeformed.
Column buckling (i.e., buckling of cylindrical shell as a column).

1.4

Flat Plates and Curved Panels

A plated structure as defined by Eurocode EN 1993-1-5 is a structure built up from nominally flat plates which are connected together [where] the plates may be stiffened or unstiffened and a stiffener is defined as a plate or section attached to the plate to resist buckling
or to strengthen the plate. Structural plates and panels are very common in the fields of
civil engineering and also in other disciplines such as marine and offshore engineering. In
typical civil engineering structures they are often seen as elements in built up sections, such
as plate girders or columns which primarily function as beams, but due to their geometrical
aspects must be considered as plates.
It is important to note that mathematically we can define three different types of plates:
(1) thin plates with small deflections, (2) thin plates with large deflections and (3) thick
plates, each with their own theory and conditions. As this thesis is concerned with buckling
of thin shell elements the most closely related category is that of thin plates with large
deflections.
Eurocode EN 1993-1-6:2007 Strength and Stability of Shell Structures defines a shell panel
as an incomplete shell of revolution, or more explicitly that the shell form is defined by
a rotation of the generator about the axis through less than 2 radians. The main suppositions of the theory of thin plates also form the basis for the usual theory of thin shells.
There exists, however, a substantial difference in the behaviour of plates and shells under
the action of external loading. The static equilibrium of a plate element under a lateral
load is only possible by action of bending and twisting moments, usually accompanied by
shearing forces, while a shell, in general, is able to transmit the surface load by membrane
8

Introduction

Figure 1.7: Steel plate girder

stresses which act parallel to the tangential plane at a given point of the middle surface and
are distributed uniformly over the thickness of the shell. This property of shells makes
them, as a rule, a much more rigid and a more economical structure than a plate would be
under the same conditions (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger; 1959).
The advantage of introducing curvature can be demonstrated using a simple example:
Given the same geometrical properties i.e a thickness of 5mm, height of 1000mm and a
loaded edge length of 1570.8mm. Both the plate and the curved panel are simply supported
on all four edges and are loaded byan evenly distributed force on the short edge.

1.4.1 Plate
The classical buckling strength of a flat plate loaded in plane which is simply supported on
its sides is (Timoshenko and Gere; 1961, p.353):
c = k

2E
12(1 2 )(b/t)2

(1.1)

Introduction
where:
a is the length of the plate,
b is the width of the plate,
t is the thickness of the plate,
E is the modulus of elasticity of the material,
is Poissons ratio and;
b a
k = ( + )2
a b

(1.2)

So for the given boundary conditions k=4.873.

So;
c = 4.873

2 (2 105 )
12(1 0.32 )(1570.8/5)2

c = 8.92 N/mm2

10

Introduction

Figure 1.8: First buckling mode of flat plate - deformed shape and stress
This result is compared to a finite element computation (see Figure: 1.9). A linear
buckling analysis on the plate gives a load factor of 62466 to a load of 1N distributed over
the short edge. Therefore the buckling load is 62kN which is 11% smaller than the hand
calculation. In reality the plate strength would probably be larger due to the stable post
buckling behaviour.

1.4.2 Shell panel

If the same dimensions are used but a large curvature is introduced, the buckling strength
of the plate increases significantly. A MATLAB script (See Appendix A) was used to
determine the buckling stress of the same plate curved with a radius of 500mm into a semi
circular shape. By adapting the theory for flat plates the compressive buckling coefficient
is changed (Gerard and Becker; 1957) to:
k=

12zb2 2
(n2 + 2 )2
+
2
4 (n2 + 2 )2

(1.3)

zb = (b2 /rt)(1 2 )1/2

(1.4)

Where:

11

Introduction

Figure 1.9: ANSYS - First buckling mode flat plate and buckling stress
= b/

(1.5)

(r)
n

(1.6)

This equation for k is minimised to determine n, the wave number in the circumferential
direction of cylinders and singly curved plates. For this example it can be seen from the
MATLAB plot (Figure: 1.10) that this results in 5 waves. This is also illustrated graphically
by an ANSYS linear buckling analysis of the same plate (Figure: 1.11).

12

Introduction

Figure 1.10: Wave number vs. Buckling coefficient

Figure 1.11: First buckling mode of curved panel - deformed shape and stress
This gives a value of k=269.06 which results in a critical buckling stress for the curved plate
of:

13

Introduction

cr = 1215.9N/mm2
Or, for the sake of comparison with the ANSYS model, the buckling force multiplier is
= 9.6783e+006. Giving a buckling force of:
Ncr = 9.6783e + 006

Over an area of:

Area = rt = 7854 mm2
Resulting in a buckling stress of:
cr = 1232.3 N/mm2

1.5

Eurocode

The EN Eurocodes are a series of 10 European Standards, EN 1990 - EN 1999, providing

a common approach for the design of buildings and other civil engineering works and construction products (The EN Eurocodes; n.d.).
Methods based on two Eurocode documents are used in this study. These documents
areEurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-6: Strength and stability of shell structures (2007), which applies to the structural design of plated steel structures that have the
form of a shell of revolution, and Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 4-1: Silos
(2007).

1.5.1 EN 1993-1-6: Strength and stability of shell structures

Part 1-6: Shells deals with four different limit states for shell structures: Plastic limit, cyclic
plasticity, buckling and fatigue however the area of interest for this study was on buckling
so this section will be explained. There are different methodologies for analysis mentioned
in Part 1-6: Shells; one set being hand calculations (referred to as stress design) which
are based on existing membrane theory formulae, the other methodologies being numerical
analysis which are computational.
14

Introduction
The following types of shell analysis are defined in EN 1993-1-6 :

Figure 1.12: Types of shell analysis

The Annexes of Part 1-6: Shells contain much information relating to hand calculations
of shell structures which are broken down as follows:
Annex A - Membrane theory stresses in shells
Annex B - Additional expressions for plastic collapse resistances
Annex C - Expressions for linear elastic membrane and bending stresses
Annex D - Expressions for buckling design
The most relevant to this study being Annex D which contains semi empirical formulae for
determining the buckling strength of cylindrical shells for various load cases such as; axial
compression, external pressure, shear and combinations of pressurised and axial compression
and a transformation of wind loading to and external pressure distribution. This method
of determining the buckling resistance is essentially the traditional method and is known
as design by means of buckling stresses in the Eurocode. The semi-empirical element of
this method is that it is a lower bound approach, that is that is that the yield stress is
knocked down by under predicting the strength by a specific percentile calibrated from
test specimens which were examined under the same phenomena. There are two other
approaches approved by the Eurocode, both of which are computational and are defined as:
Design by means of a global numerical GMNIA analysis
15

Introduction
Design by means of a global numerical MNA/LBA analysis

1.5.2 EN 1993-4-1: Silos

This standard is concerned with the resistance and stability of silo structures and is broken
down into the design of many aspects of silo structures; from rectangular silos, to cylindrical
silos, conical hoppers, and roof structures. EN 1993-4-1 covers limit state design where the
ultimate limit state is defined that the design resistance of the structure must be greater
than the design loads.
Sd < Rd
Where S and R represent any appropriate limit state action and resistance respectively.
Though Part 4-1: Silos states that the modelling of the structural shell should follow
the requirements of Part 1-6: Shells and that the method of analysis should also be carried out according to the requirements of EN 1993-1-6 it was deemed appropriate to study
the document related to silos in order to compare the approaches for the design of cylinders. Part 4-1: Silos includes a different analytical method to determine the axial buckling
stress (Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 4-1: Silos; 2007, p. 53-54) and external
buckling stress (Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 4-1: Silos; 2007, p. 56-57) for
stiffened orthotropic cylindrical walls compared to that of Annex D of Part 1-6: Shells. This
orthotropic method takes into account the contributions of the stiffeners making it more
comparable to the method used in the American Bureau of Shipping - Guide for buckling
and ultimate strength assessment for offshore structures. As a study, this method has been
adjusted so that it can model stiffened isotropic cylindrical walls (see Weingarten et al.
(1968) and Baruch and Singer (1963)).

1.6

American Bureau of Shipping

The American Bureau for Shipping is an offshore and marine classification society which
establishes rules and standards for the design and construction of offshore structures and
marine vessels. The American Bureau of Shipping - Guide for buckling and ultimate strength
assessment for offshore structures (2004) (ABS) approaches the design of shell structures
in a similar, though not identical, manner as the Eurocode buckling stresses method.

16

Introduction
Whereas the Eurocode has a lower bound approach to strength assessment there is another
method of strength formulation which can be used known as the mean value formulation.
This approach predicts the strength as the mean value based on all test specimens and is
implemented in some, though not all, of the buckling stress predictions of certain buckling
modes in the ABS guide.
Taking for instance the bay buckling strength assessment for an unstiffened or ring stiffened
cylinder. This buckling strength is determined by a lower bound approach similar to that
adopted in the Eurocode. Whereby the elastic compressive buckling stress for an imperfect
cylindrical shell is given by:
ExR = xR CCExR
where:
xR

is the lower-bound knock down factor to account for shape imperfections,

is a length dependent coefficient and;

CExR

is the classical buckling stress.

Differences in the strength predictions occur, however, for curved panels. In this instance
the elastic buckling stress for an imperfect curved panel between adjacent stringer stiffeners
is given as:
ExP = BxP xP CCExP
where:
xP

is once again a lower bound knock down factor and;

BxP

is another factor to compensate for the lower bound nature of xP .

Though not explicitly stated in the ABS guide, it can be read in Buckling and ultimate
strength criteria of stiffened shells under combined loading for reliability analysisDas et al.
(2003), upon which the ABS guide is based that B is a mean bias factor which would
increase the buckling stress from a lower-bound prediction, to a less conservative mean
value based prediction. Apart from this difference the strength prediction is similar to the
Eurocode where as in this instance the classical buckling stress of a curved panel is based
on the theory used in the shell panel example given in the introduction (Subsection: 1.4.2).
17

Introduction
The ABS method for determining the buckling stress for ring and stringer stiffened
shells is also semi-empirical and is quite different from the Eurocode approach. The elastic
compressive buckling stress of an imperfect stringer-stiffened shell is given as:
ExB = s + c
where:
s

is the elastic buckling stress of a stringer stiffened shell

= xB

is the modulus of elasticity

As

is the cross sectional area of the stringer stiffener

is the distance between stringer stiffeners

0.605E(t/r)
1 + (As /st)

Which is the classical buckling stress of a column reduced by a constant imperfection factor
of xB = 0.75 and further reduced by a parameter dependent on the area and the spacing
of the stringer stiffeners.

Ise

is the elastic buckling stress of a column

2 EIse
= 2
l (As + se t)
is the moment of inertia of stringer stiffener plus associated effective shell plate width

se

is the reduced effective width of shell

is the length of the shell segment

c
c

Which is the classical Euler buckling stress formula for a column, but incorporating the
associated shell width of the cylinder.
Similarly the critical buckling stress for a ring and stringer stiffened cylinder is also determined semi-empirically incorporating the properties of the stiffeners into derivation.
These are some examples of differences between the ABS code and the Eurocode, the
differences between the methods shown in greater detail in the Methodology section (Chapter: 4).

18

19

2 PROBLEM DEFINITION
One of the major problems with constructing such structures is that there are few guidelines
for the design of geometrically complex shell structures or for structures with curved steel
panels in the field of civil engineering. The purpose of this thesis is to explore another
disciplines of design, maritime engineering, and to see if the codes or design guidelines from
this field could be adapted to be used for civil engineering structures.

Figure 2.1: Yas hotel link bridge stiffeners

The Yas hotel was mentioned earlier as an example of a steel shell structure. Though
not a pure shell, this structure exhibits shell behaviour. Some of the structural engineers
that were involved in the design of the Yas hotel bridge were contacted and they mentioned several topics that could have influenced the design but which there was insufficient
information to be found on1 . These topics were:
Design of stiffening beams and incorporating effective widths of shell segments
1

Stated in an e-mail conversation with a structural engineer that worked on the Yas Marina Bridge
project, Abu Dhabi whose name has purposefully not be printed to maintain confidentiality

Problem Definition
The effect of curvature on the buckling of the steel panels
Modelling of minor stiffeners
Stiffener orientation (orthogonal, radial, stress flow driven)
It was decided that the most interesting topic to investigate would be methods to determine the buckling resistance of steel shell structures and to investigate the approaches these
methods take in accounting for the stiffeners in these shell structures. By researching these
topics perhaps some useful conclusions could be drawn that will aid designers in having a
greater understanding of the behaviour of steel shell structures, and could lead to a more
accurate reflection of the behaviour of these stiffened structures which could lead to better,
safer and more economically designed buildings.
It was decided that the American Bureau of Shipping - Guide for buckling and ultimate
strength assessment for offshore structures (2004) would be an appropriate code to compare
with the Eurocode. The ABS code was developed by a classification society with a long
history in the development of standards for the design and construction of large steel structures. Their work involves the standardisation of marine vessels and offshore structures the
likes of which companies such as centraalstaal design and build. As centraalstaal are now
working to design and build geometrically complex steel shell structures it was regarded as
befitting that a set of standards that the company would be familiar with be studied.

2.1

Objective

The objective of this Masters thesis is to investigate and compare the Eurocode and
the American Bureau of Shipping methods of analytically determining the buckling
resistance of steel shell cylindrical structures.
Following this a comparison of the numerical methods of determining buckling resistance of shell structures is to be made with particular focus on the two Eurocode
methods specified in EN 1993-1-6: Strength and stability of shell structures
Upon comparison, to make recommendations as to how these methods may be adapted
or adopted to approach the design of more geometrically complex steel structures.

20

21

3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.1

Axial Buckling of Cylindrical Shells

The theoretical buckling stresses of cylindrical shells are misleading as they may substantially overestimate the actual carrying resistance of the shell. This will be illustrated through
the derivation of the theoretical buckling stress of an elastic, thin cylinder of medium length.
Assuming that the buckled shape will give radial displacements according to the expression:
w = A sin

mx
l

(3.1)

This assumption is important as we can already predict the shape at which we expect the
cylinder to buckle across length, l, according to each mode, m.

Figure 3.1: First and second modal shapes

Theoretical Background
The strain in the axial direction, 1 and the strain in the circumferential direction, 2
can be obtained by applying the condition that the axial compressive force during buckling,
Ncr , remains constant.
The axial strain before buckling is given by the following expression:
0 =

Ncr
Et

(3.2)

Applying the above constant compressive force condition:

1 + 2 = (1 2 )0

(3.3)

It can be observed that the strain in the circumferential direction is:

w
r

(3.4)

mx
A
sin
r
l

(3.5)

2 = 0
Substituting in the assumed radial displacement:
2 = 0 +
We also find that:
1 = 0

A
mx
sin
r
l

(3.6)

The change of curvature in the axial plane is given as:

x =

2w
m2 2
mx
=
A
sin
2
2
x
l
l

(3.7)

Using the energy method (Equation: 3.8) the obtained solutions for 1 , 2 and x are
substituted into the equations for the strain energy of a deformed shell due to bending:
1
U1 = D
2

Z Z

[(x + y )2 2(1 )(x y 2xy )] dA

(3.8)

and the strain energy of a deformed shell due to stretching of the middle surface:
Et
U2 =
2(1 2 )

Z Z

1
[(1 + 2 )2 2(1 )(1 2 4 )] dA
4

(3.9)

22

Theoretical Background
Where D is the flexural rigidity given by:
D=

Et
12(1 2 )

(3.10)

We find that the increase of the strain energy during buckling is given by the equation:
Zl
U = 2tE0

A sin

A2 Etl
4 m4
mx
rlD
dx +
+ A2
l
2r
2l4

(3.11)

And the work done by compressive forces during buckling is:

Zl
T = 2Ncr (

A sin

mx
r m2 2
dx + A2
)
l
4
l

(3.12)

Where:

Rl

A sin

r 2 m2 2
A l
4

mx
dx
l

is due to the change of 1 -0 of the axial strain and;

is due to the bending of the generators given by the

assumed radial displacement, w.

Equating the work done by the compressive forces during buckling with the increase of
strain energy during buckling gives us:
cr =

m2 2
E
l2
Ncr
= D( 2 + 2
)
t
tl
r D m2 2

(3.13)

And assuming that there are many waves formed along the length of the cylinder during
buckling and considering cr as a continuous function of m/l, we find that the minimum
value of the critical buckling stress is:
cr =

2
Et
EDt = p
rt
r 3(1 2 )

(3.14)

And substituting in the Poissons ratio for steel, = 0.3 the theoretical critical buckling

23

Theoretical Background
stress for perfect elastic steel cylinders may be given as:
Et
r

(3.15)

Et
r4 D

(3.16)

cr = 0.605
Which occurs at:
m
=
l

r
4

So, the length of the half-waves into which the shell buckles (in its first mode, m=1) can
be given as:
l
=
m

r
4

r2 D
Et

s
=

r2 t2
1.72 rt
2
12(1 )

(3.17)

The theoretical basis of this approach is that at loads lower than the elastic critical load,
the gain of strain energy in the elements is less than the potential energy of the loads. A
condition of instability is defined, as the stage when the change of the above two energies
is zero, that is, the stiffness of the structure is zero. Then the structure will not resist any
random disturbance. (Mahfouz; 1999)
Readers requiring a more detailed coverage of shell buckling are advised to consult Theory
of elastic stability (Timoshenko and Gere; 1961)
This theoretical buckling stress for elastic thin shells is used both in the Eurocode and
the ABS guide to buckling for offshore structures.
In the ABS code it is denoted as the classical compressive buckling stress for a perfect
cylindrical shell:
CExR = 0.605

Et
r

Whereas in the Eurocode this stress is denoted as the critical buckling stress of the isotropic
wall or the meridional critical buckling stress resistance:
E
t
Et
x,Rcr = p
= 0.605
2
r
r
3(1 )

3.2

External Pressure Buckling of Cylindrical Shells

The theory used to determine the external buckling pressure of cylindrical shells differs
slightly between the two design codes examined. The Eurocode is based on a simplification
of the method described in Theory of elastic stability(Timoshenko and Gere; 1961, p.474)
24

Theoretical Background
where the three simultaneous partial differential equations representing the relationships
between the displacement in the axial, circumferential and radial directions were simplified
by neglecting higher-order terms (Donnell; 1933). This was simplification was adopted by
Batdorf (Batdorf; 1947) and the Eurocode equation for the critical circumferential buckling
stress was obtained from this (Rotter; 2008, p.176), but with some changes to the coefficients
relating to the boundary conditions and geometry of the cylinder (which will be explained
in further detail in Chapter 5).
Though the references for the theory on the calculation of the circumferential buckling
stresses are not explicitly stated in the ABS buckling guide it is assumed that they were
also at some stage derived from the method derived by Batdorf (Batdorf; 1947) as the
Batdorf parameter is used. There are, however, some differences between the ABS method
and the Eurocode method relating to the parameters accounting for geometrical properties
and boundary conditions. American Bureau of Shipping - Commentary on the guide for
buckling and ultimate Strength assessment for offshore structures (2005) states that much
of the ABS buckling guide recommendations are based on experimental data of past and
current offshore-related research and references a report on such experimental data (Das
et al.; 2003).

3.3

Imperfections

It has already been stated that the bifurcation process is purely mathematical and the end
result is the theoretical upper limit for the strength of a structure. However, when geometrical imperfections, material non-linearity, residual stresses etc. are taken into account
the critical buckling load may be significantly lower than the theoretical load anticipates;
the primary source of these discrepancies being shape imperfections. It is not correct to
assume that all shells are highly sensitive to imperfections. the sensitivity depends on a the
type of shell and the type of loading. For instance, a cylindrical shell is highly imperfection
sensitive to a wide range of imperfection forms when compressed in the meridional direction, however their imperfection sensitivity is quite low under uniform external pressure for
example. This sensitivity is of course dependent on the type of imperfection and it should
be noted that cylindrical shells are extremely sensitive to axisymmetric geometric imperfections (Forasassi and Frano; 2006). For eigenmode pre-deformed shells it can even be the
case that the buckling stress of a cylindrical shell under uniform external pressure can be

25

Theoretical Background
higher than that of a perfect cylindrical shell under uniform external pressure Schneider
and Brede (2005).

Figure 3.2: A geometric imperfection illustrated as a crease in a cylinder

This difference relates to the buckling modes, under axial loading the buckling modes are
characterised by waves which, compared to the diameter are short in both the longitudinal
and circumferential direction. Small imperfections on the surface of the shell are likely
to have the same characteristic shape as some of the critical buckles and will tend to
deepen under increasing load and trigger snap-through buckling at an earlier loading
stage. The buckling pattern under external pressure consists of buckles which are longer in
the meridional direction and less numerous in the hoop direction, therefore these buckles are
probably considerably larger than the initial imperfections (Faculty of Civil and Geodetic
Engineering, University of Ljubljana; n.d.).
Sensitivity to geometric imperfections is dependant on both the form and the amplitude of
the imperfection, it can be the case that imperfections strengthen the structure, in fact, large
amplitude imperfections may raise the strength of the structure above what is associated
with smaller amplitudes and unfortunately the form of geometric imperfection that is most
critical in determining the strength of a structure cannot be easily defined (Rotter; 2008).

26

Theoretical Background

3.4

Finite Elements

Figure 3.3: 4-noded quadrilateral shell element

The main finite elements types used were 4-noded shell elements (Figure: 3.3) which
can account for both membrane and bending forces. Each of the four nodes has six degrees
of freedom (three translational, three rotational) with the following translational and rotational polynomials (see Figure: 3.4):
1
u = (uI (1 s)(1 t) + uj (1 + s)(1 t) + uk (1 + s)(1 + t) + uL (1 s)(1 + t))
4

(3.18)

1
v = (vI (1 s)(1 t) + vj (1 + s)(1 t) + vk (1 + s)(1 + t) + vL (1 s)(1 + t))
4

(3.19)

1
w = (wI (1 s)(1 t) + wj (1 + s)(1 t) + wk (1 + s)(1 + t) + wL (1 s)(1 + t)) (3.20)
4
1
x = (x (1 s)(1 t) + x (1 + s)(1 t) + x (1 + s)(1 + t) + x (1 s)(1 + t)
4

(3.21)

1
y = (y (1 s)(1 t) + y (1 + s)(1 t) + y (1 + s)(1 + t) + y (1 s)(1 + t))
4

(3.22)

1
z = (z (1 s)(1 t) + z (1 + s)(1 t) + z (1 + s)(1 + t) + z (1 s)(1 + t))
4

(3.23)

The number of integration points through the thickness of this element can be chosen
as 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9. The default option is three integration points (top, middle and bottom) however when plasticity is present the minimum number of integration points is five.
Full integration was used as opposed to reduced integration, which is not recommended,
according to:
27

Theoretical Background

Figure 3.4: 4 node shell

Z1 Z1
f (x, y)dxdy =
1 1

m X
l
X

Hj Hi f (xi , yj )

(3.24)

j=1 i=1

Where:
f (x, y)

is the function to be integrated,

Hi and Hj

are weighting factors,

xi and yj

are the locations to evaluate the function and;

l and m

are the number of integration points.

The basic functions for the transverse shear strain have been changed to avoid shear locking by use of the Mixed Interpolation of Tensorial Components (MITC) method (For further reading consult Dvorkin (1984), Dvorkin and Bathe (1984) and Bathe and Dvorkin
(1986)).The basic idea of the MITC technique is to interpolate displacements and strains
separately and connect these interpolations at tying points (Lee and Bathe; 2004).
Other Finite Elements may be found in Appendix D

28

29

4 METHODOLOGY
4.1

Eurocode: EN 1993-1-6

The following equations from Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-6: Strength
and stability of shell structures (2007) were used in the design code comparison and have
been transcribed here for easy reference.
The length of the shell segment is characterised in terms of the dimensionless length parameter ;
l
=
r

r
l
=
t
rt

(4.1)

The boundary conditions are defined in the Eurocode in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Eurocode defined boundary conditions

4.1.1 Meridional Buckling

The critical meridional buckling stress, using a value of Cx should be obtained from:
xRc = 0.605ECx

t
r

(4.2)

Methodology
For short cylinders with:
1.7

Cx = 1.36

1.83 2.07
+ 2

(4.3)

For medium cylinders with:

1.7 0.5

r
t

Cx = 1

(4.4)

For long cylinders with:

r
0.5 <
t

Cx = 1 +
but

t
0.2
[1 2 ]
Cxb
r

(4.5)

Cx 0.6

Table 4.1: Parameter Cxb for the effect of boundary conditions on the critical meridional
buckling stress in long cylinders
Case

Cylinder end

Boundary condition

Cxb

end 1
end 2

BC 1
BC 1

end 1
end 2

BC 1
BC 2

end 1
end 2

BC 2
BC 2

The meridional elastic imperfection factor should be obtained from:

x =

0.62
1 + 1.91(wk /t)1.44

(4.6)

where wk is the characteristic imperfection amplitude

1
wk =
Q

r
t
t

(4.7)

30

Methodology
Where Q is the meridional compression fabrication quality parameter.
Table 4.2: Values of fabrication quality parameter Q
Fabrication Quality Class

Description

Class A
Class B
Class C

Excellent
High
Normal

40
25
16

x0 , the plastic range factor , and the interaction

The meridional squash limit slenderness
exponent should be taken as:
x0 = 0.2

= 0.6

= 1.0

Cylinders need not be checked against meridional shell buckling if they satisfy:

r
E
0.04
t
fy,k

4.1.2 Circumferential Buckling

For short cylinders with:

< 20
C
the critical circumferential buckling stress should be obtained from:
Rc = 0.92E

Cs t
r

(4.8)

For medium-length cylinders with:

20

r
1.63
C
t

the critical circumferential buckling stress should be obtained from:

Rc = 0.92E

C t
r

(4.9)

31

Methodology
For long cylinders with:

r
> 1.63
C
t
the critical circumferential buckling stress should be obtained from:
t
C r 4
Rc = E( )2 [0.275 + 2.03(
) ]
r
t

(4.10)

0 , the plastic range factor , and the interaction

The meridional squash limit slenderness
exponent should be taken as:

0 = 0.4

= 0.6

= 1.0

Cylinders need not be checked against circumferential shell buckling if they satisfy:
s
E
r
0.21
t
fy,k
Table 4.3: Values of based on fabrication quality
Fabrication quality class

Description

Class A
Class B
Class C

Excellent
High
Normal

0.75
0.65
0.50

4.1.3 Stress Design Method

The buckling resistance should be represented by the buckling stresses as defined in 1.4.5.
The design buckling stresses should be obtained from:
x,Rd = x,Rk /M

(4.11)

,Rd = ,Rk /M

(4.12)

The characteristic buckling strengths should be obtained by multiplying the characteristic

yield strength by the reduction factors:
x,Rk = x fy,k

(4.13)
32

Methodology

Table 4.4: External pressure buckling factors for medium-length cylinders C

Case

Cylinder end

Boundary condition

Value of C

end 1
end 2

BC 1
BC 1

1.5

end 1
end 2

BC 1
BC 2

1.25

end 1
end 2

BC 2
BC 2

end 1
end 2

BC 1
BC 3

0.6

end 1
end 2

BC 2
BC 3

end 1
end 2

BC 3
BC 3

Table 4.5: External pressure buckling factors for short cylinders Cs

Case

Cylinder end

Boundary condition

end 1
end 2

BC 1
BC 1

1.5 +

10
5

2 3

end 1
end 2

BC 1
BC 2

1.25 +

4
8

2 3

end 1
end 2

BC 2
BC 2

end 1
end 2

BC 1
BC 3

Cs

1.0 +
0.6 +

3
3

1
0.3
3
2

33

Methodology
,Rk = fy,k

(4.14)

The reduction factors x and should be determined as a function of the relative slender from:
ness of the shell

=1

= 1 (
0 )
p

= 2

when

when

when

where:r

=
p
1
=
x

p
fy,k /xRc

p
fy,k /Rc

4.2

Eurocode: EN 1993-4-1

The following equations from Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 4-1: Silos (2007)
were used in the design code comparison and have been transcribed here for easy reference.
Eurocode EN 1993-4-1 states that the buckling resistance for isotropic walls should use
the method described above. For determining the buckling resistance of isotropic walls with

vertical stiffeners (and the spacing of the stringer stiffeners is less than 2 rt which is the
case for the stringer stiffened cylinders studied) the designer is given the option to design
the shell wall in the same manner as an unstiffened wall, or by the global analysis procedure
in EN 1993-1-6.
There is, however, another design approach for stiffened corrugated shells which are treated
as stiffened orthotropic shells. This method is of interest as it incorporates the properties
of the stiffening members, making it comparable to the ABS design method. However,
as this method is for orthotropic shells with stiffening members the equations had to be
34

Methodology
altered to make it applicable for isotropic walls with vertical stiffeners. This was performed
by changing the equations to match those given in Weingarten et al. (1968, p.25). The
Eurocode does not state that this method in determining the buckling stresses is allowed
but it was deemed interesting to examine. In order for this to be done the flexural stiffness
must be changed from:
D =

Et3
12(1 2 )

1
2 d2
(1 +
)
4l2

D = 0.13Etd2
2

Gt3
2d
=
(1 + 2 )
12
4l

to flexural stiffnesss for isotropic cylinders:

D =

Et3
12(1 2 )

D =

Et3
12(1 2 )

D = 2D
The critical buckling stress resultant nx,Rcr per unit circumference of the orthotropic
shell should be evaluated at each appropriate level in the silo by minimising the following expression with respect to the critical circumferential wave number j and the buckling height li :
nx,Rcr =

1
j 22

(A1 +

A2
)
A3

(4.15)

The critical buckling stress for uniform external pressure pn,Rcru should be evaluated by
minimising the following expression with respect to the critical circumferential wave number, j:
pn,Rcru =

1
A2
(A1 +
)
2
rj
A3

(4.16)

with:
A1 = j 4 [ 4 C44 + 2 2 (C45 + C66 ) + C55 ] + C22 + 2j 2 C25

(4.17)

35

Methodology
A2 = 2 2 (C12 + C33 )(C22 + j 2 C25 )(C12 + j 2 2 C14 )
( 2 C11 + C33 )(C22 + j 2 C25 )2

(4.18)

2 (C22 + 2 C33 )(C12 + j 2 2 C14 )2

A3 = ( 2 C11 + C33 )(C22 + C25 + 2 C33 ) 2 (C12 + C33 )2

(4.19)

C11 = C + EAs /ds

(4.20)

with:

C12 =

C C

(4.21)

C14 = es EAs /(rds )

(4.22)

C22 = C + EAr /dr

(4.23)

C25 = er EAr /(rdr )

(4.24)

C33 = C

(4.25)

C44 = [D + EIs /ds + EAs e2s /ds ]/r2

(4.26)

C45 =

p
D D /r2

(4.27)

C55 = [D + EIr /dr + EAr e2r /dr ]/r2

(4.28)

C66 = [D + 0.5(GIts /ds + GItr /dr )]/r2

(4.29)

r
jli

(4.30)

where:
li

is the half wavelength of the potential buckle in the vertical direction

As

is the cross-sectional area of a stringer stiffener

Is

is the second moment of area of a stringer stiffener about the circumferential

axis (vertical bending)

ds

is the separation between stringer stiffeners

Its

is the uniform torsion constant of a stringer stiffener

es

is the outward eccentricity from the shell middle surface of a stringer stiffener

Ar

is the cross-sectional area of a ring stiffener

36

Methodology
is the second moment of area of a ring stiffener about the vertical

Ir

axis (circumferential bending)

dr

is the separation between ring stiffeners

Itr

is the uniform torsion constant of a ring stiffener

er

is the outward eccentricity from the shell middle surface of a ring stiffener

is the sheeting stretching stiffness in the axial direction

is the sheeting stretching stiffness in the circumferential direction

is the sheeting stretching stiffness in membrane shear

is the sheeting flexural rigidity in the axial direction

is the sheeting flexural rigidity in the circumferential direction

D is the sheeting twisting flexural rigidity in twisting

is the radius of the silo.

The characteristic buckling stress may be determined from this critical buckling stress
resultant from:
nx,Rk = glob tm fy,k
where:
s

tm fy,k
nx,Rcr

glob

tm

smeared wall thickness

t + As /b

This method has been verified by comparing the value of from EN 1993-4-1 (Equation: 4.30) with that of the Eurocode method in Annex D of EN 1993-1-6 (Equation: 4.1).
If these values match it is noted in the results table with a Yes. It should be noted that
the method adopted for this study is a very simplified approach to this theory, a more
detailed method based on this theory may be found in Buckling of axially compressed
cylinders (Miller; 1977,).

4.3

ABS

The following equations from American Bureau of Shipping - Guide for buckling and ultimate strength assessment for offshore structures (2004) were used in the design code comparison and have been transcribed here for easy reference.
37

Methodology

4.3.1 Unstiffened or Ring-Stiffened Cylinders

4.3.1.1 Critical Buckling Stress for Axial Compression or Bending Moment
The critical buckling stress of unstiffened or ring-stiffened cylindrical shell subjected to axial
compression or bending moment may be taken as:

CxR =

ExR

ExR Pr 0

0 [1 Pr (1 Pr ) 0 ] ExR > Pr 0
ExR

where:
Pr

proportional linear elastic limit of the structure, which may be taken as 0.6 for steel

ExR

elastic compressive buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell

xR CCExR

CExR =
=

=
=

classical compressive buckling stress for a perfect cylindrical shell

Et
0.605
r
length dependant coefficient

1.0
z 2.85

1.425/z + 0.175z

xR

=
=

z < 2.85

nominal or lower bound knock-down factor

)
0.75 + 0.003z(1

300t

r
0.75 0.142(z 1)0.4 + 0.003z(1
)

300t

0.35 0.0002 r
t

to allow for shape imperfections

z<1
1 z 20
z 20

Batdorf parameter
l2
1 2
rt

length between adjacent ring stiffeners (unsupported)

mean radius of cylindrical shell

38

Methodology
t

thickness of cylindrical shell

modulus of elasticity

Poissons ratio, 0.3 for steel

specified minimum yield point

4.3.1.2 Critical Buckling Stress for External Pressure

The critical buckling stress for an unstiffened or ring-stiffened cylindrical shell subjected to
external pressure may be taken as:
CR = ER
where:

plasticity reduction factor

1
0.45
+ 0.18

1.31
1 + 1.15
1/

=
=
=

ER =
=

R
K

for 0.55
for 0.55 < 1.6
for 1.6 < < 6.25
for 6.25

ER
0
elastic hoop buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell
qCER(r+0.5t)
R
K
t

nominal or lower bound knock-down factor to allow for shape imperfections

0.8

coefficient to account for the effect of ring stiffener

qCER =

elastic buckling pressure

39

Methodology

1.27E t 2

1.18

AL + 0.5 r

0.92E t 2

AL r

1.061 E t

0.836C
p

0.275E t
r

AL 2.5

2.5 < AL 0.208

r
t

r
r
0.208 < AL 0.285
t
t

0.285

r
< AL
t

AL

z
1.17 + 1.068k
(1 2 )1/4

0 for lateral pressure

0.5 for hydrostatic pressure

where K is defined as:

K

1 k
G
1 + t(tw + l
)/AR

AR

AR (

r 2
)
rR

cosh2 cos2
(sinh2 + sin2)

1.56 rt

Nx /N for lateral pressure

Nx /N + 0.5 for hydrostatic pressure

AR

cross sectional area of ring stiffener

Nx

axial load per unit length

sinhcos + coshsin
0
sinh2 + sin2

40

Methodology
N

circumferential load per unit length

rR

radius to centroid of ring stiffener

thickness of cylindrical shell

tw

stiffener web thickness

length between adjacent ring stiffeners (unsupported)

4.3.2 Ring and Stringer-stiffened Shells

4.3.2.1 Critical Buckling Stress for Axial Compression or Bending Moment
CxB =

ExB

ExB Pr 0

0 [1 Pr (1 Pr ) 0 ] ExB > Pr 0
ExB

where:
Pr

proportional linear elastic limit of the structure,

which may be taken as 0.6 for steel

ExB

elastic compressive buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical stringer

stiffened shell

c + s

elastic compressive buckling stress of stringer-stiffened shell

xB

xB

0.75

elastic buckling stress of column

2 EIse
l2 (As + se t)

moment of inertia of stringer stiffener plus associated effective shell plate width

2
Is + As zst

Ise

0.605E(t/r)
As
1+
st

se t
se t3
+
As + s e t
12

41

Methodology
Is

moment of inertia of stringer stiffener about its own centroid axis

zst

distance from centerline of shell to the centroid of stringer stiffener

As

cross sectional area of stringer stiffener

se

reduced effective width of shell

0.53
s
xP

for xP > 0.53

for xP 0.53

shell plate width between adjacent stringers

xP

reduced shell slenderness ratio

r
0
ExP

ExP

elastic compressive buckling stress for imperfect curved panel between

adjacent stringer stiffeners

ExP is defined in another section of the ABS code as:

Exp = BxP xP CExP
where:
CExP

KxP

xP

classical buckling stress for a perfect curved panel between

adjacent stringer stiffeners
t
2E
( )2
KxP
2
12(1 ) s

3zs2
4
0.702zs

nominal or lower bound knock-down factor to allow for shape imperfections

1 0.019zs1.25 + 0.002zs (1

4+

for zs 11.4
for zs > 11.4

r
)
300t

for zs 11.4

42

Methodology

BxP

1.5 27
r

+ 2 + 0.008 zs (1
)
zs
zs
300t

0.27 +

factor compensating for the lower bound nature of xP

1.15
f or n > 1

1 + 0.15n

zs

f or

for zs > 11.4

n 1

0
xP CExP

1 2

s2
rt

spacing of stringer stiffeners

4.3.2.2 Critical Buckling Stress for External Pressure

The critical buckling stress for ring and stringer-stiffened cylindrical shells subjected to
external pressure may be taken as:
CB = (CR + sp )Kp 0
where:
CR

critical hoop buckling stress for the unstiffened shell

sp

collapse hoop stress for a stringer stiffener plus its associated shell plating

qs (r + 0.5t)
K
t

collapse pressure of a stringer stiffener plus its associated shell plating

16
As |zst |0
sl2

zst

distance from centerline of shell to the centroid of stringer stiffener

KP

effective pressure correction factor

qs

43

Methodology

0.25 +

1.10

geometrical parameter
l 2 As
2
Ns Is

Ns

4.4

0.85
g
500

for g 500

for g > 500

number of stringer stiffeners

Computational Analysis

For this study Ansys Workbench version 13.0.0 was used. The cylinders were drawn in AutoCAD 2013 by first creating a base circle representing the base of the cylinder; this base
circle was then copied using the array function with spacing equal to the spacing between
the ring stiffeners. A thin surface was then extruded from each circle to the next, creating a separate surface between each circle, where each circular line represents a ring stiffener.

Figure 4.2: Wireframe model

Figure 4.3: Separation of surfaces

The AutoCAD file was then saved as an Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES)
file, which was then imported into the Ansys workbench geometry modeller (called DesignModeller). The option to stich surfaces was disabled so that each of the individual
surfaces were kept separate and the option to process line bodies was enabled so that the
lines representing the ring stiffeners could be imported.
44

Methodology
Within the DesignModeller the ring stiffener cross section was defined and then assigned
to each of the line bodies representing the ring stiffeners. These were then offset from their
centroidal axis so that they were correctly positioned and orientated. A thickness was then
defined for the imported surfaces thereby rendering the geometric modelling of the structure
complete. Using the defined geometry a number of analyses were run:

4.4.1 Static Structural Stress Analysis

A linear buckling analysis must be preceeded by a static structural analysis.
Supports:
The base of the cylinder was defined as simply supported. The top ring of the cylinder was
radially constrained, i.e. it could only move in the vertical direction. The ring stiffeners for
the linear buckling analysis were modelled as cross-sectional elements.
Mesh:
The typical mesh size of each analysis is a minimum edge length of 10mm and a maximum
edge length of 30mm. The meshes were quadrilateral shell elements (a description of which
is given in Section: 3.4) and were pinched or matched at the intersections between two
surfaces and the ring stiffeners so that the structure was modelled as one contiguous part.
Loading:
Two loadcases were examined for the linear analyses: axial loading, and external pressure
loading (See Figures: 4.4 and 4.5). For the axial loading case a vertical compressive load
of 1N was distributed on the top of the cylinder, whereas for the external buckling case, a
uniform pressure of 1Pa was placed acting externally on each of the shell segments.
Steps and substeps:
For this type of analysis there was only one step and substep required as it is a direct (as
opposed to iterative) solution process.
Solution process:
A sparse matrix direct solver process was used and there were six degrees of freedom per
45

Methodology

Figure 4.4: Axial loading

Figure 4.5: External pressure loading

node; three translational and three rotational.

4.4.2 Linear Buckling Analysis

The Block Lanczos method was used to extract the first three modal buckling shapes (Further information on this method can be found in Rajakumar and Rogers (1991)).
The result of a linear buckling analysis is a load factor that when multiplied by the load applied in the previous static analysis will result in buckling. So, if a load of 10N were applied
in the preceding static structural analysis and the result of the linear buckling analysis is a
load factor of 550 then the buckling load is 10 x 550 = 5500N.

46

Methodology

4.4.3 Introduction of Imperfections

The modal buckling shapes that have been extracted from a linear buckling analysis can
be scaled and the shape exported for further analysis. For this study the first modal shape
was extracted and scaled by a number of values, and a non-linear buckling analysis was
performed on each of these geometries.
Taking Cylinder IC1 as an example:

A linear buckling analysis was performed, the first three modal shapes and buckling
factors were determined
The geometry of the first model shape was extracted
The deformation of the first modal shape was scaled by 1 and a non-linear analysis
was performed on the resulting geometry
The first modal shape was scaled by a factor of 5 and a non-linear analysis was
performed on the resulting geometry
The first modal shape was scaled by a factor of 10 and a non-linear analysis was
performed on the resulting geometry etc.
This allowed an imperfection sensitivity analysis to be performed when the resulting buckling stresses from the non-linear analyses were compared.

Figure 4.6: Computational analysis procedure

4.4.4 Non-Linear Analysis

Multiple non-linear analyses were performed on each cylinder in this study. The Eurocode
section describes some of these in detail. The following description is the methodology
for the geometrically and materially non-linear analysis of a cylinder of perfect geometry
47

Methodology
(That is that the modal imperfection shape was not used, the geometry is the same as the
linear analysis i.e. geometric imperfection free) and a description of the non-linear analysis
performed on each cylinder with introduced imperfections (Geometrically, materially nonlinear analysis with included imperfections of which, approximately 30 of these analyses
were performed). The external uniform pressure loadcase was not analysed non-linearly, it
was decided that axial loading was of greater interest as axial loading of cylindrical shells
has more critical post-buckling behaviour. Given the limitation of time and computational
storage space non-linear analyses of axial loading alone was deemed sufficient. Further
information on non-linear analyses of cylindrical shells under uniform external pressure
may be found in Consistent equivalent geometric imperfections for the numerical buckling
strength verification of cylindrical shells under uniform external pressure Schneider and
Brede (2005).
Supports:
The base of the cylinder was defined as simply supported. The top ring of the cylinder was
radially constrained, i.e. it could only move in the vertical direction. The ring stiffeners
for the non-linear buckling analysis were modelled as infinitely radially stiff1 i.e. that they
could not displace laterally but were free to move in the vertical direction.
Mesh:
The typical mesh size of each analysis is a minimum edge length of 10mm and a maximum edge length of 30mm. The meshes were quadrilateral elements and were pinched
or matched at the intersections between two surfaces and the ring stiffeners so that the
structure was modelled as one contiguous part.
Loading:
The loading procedure for the non-linear analyses was to apply a vertical displacement to
the top of each cylinder in the direction of the base putting the cylinder under compression.
The imposed displacement varied per analysis. The procedure was to perform an initial
1
This was a requirement as the surfaces of the buckled shape could not be split and a supporting line
element could not be introduced. Therefore constraints were placed directly on the nodes at the locations
of the stiffeners, a comparison was performed between a case where line elements could be used and a case
where nodal constraints were used, this is discussed in more detail in the discussion of computational results
section

48

Methodology
buckling analysis with a large imposed displacement then once convergence was lost, the
displacement at which the structure became unstable was determined. Upon inspection of
the load vs. displacement diagram it was determined if this instability was induced by buckling (or improper modelling). The applied displacement was then adjusted to a value closer
to that which induced buckling and the analysis was run again. This resulted in smaller
load increments allowing the resulting buckling load to be more accurately determined.
Steps and substeps:
For each analysis there was one load step which was further subdivided into substeps.
The initial subdivision into substeps was performed automatically by the program until an
approximate buckling load (from induced displacement) was determined. After an approximate buckling load was determined the substeps were typically set to a minimum of 50.
This meant that for each substep the load increment was the (imposed displacement/50).
After 50 steps, the total imposed displacement was then equal to the applied displacement.
Analysing the model in 50 substeps allowed the load vs. displacement diagram to be giving
the behaviour of the structure in good detail. A greater number of substeps would result in
greater computation time, but more accurate results. The accuracy given with 50 substeps
was considered sufficient for this study.
Solution process:
The non-linear analysis was analysed using the full Newton-Raphson method with sparse
matrix direct solver and the convergence criteria used was an L2-norm (Weisstein; n.d.) of
force (and moment) tolerance equal to 0.5%.
Once again the nodes had six degrees of freedom; six translational and six rotational.

4.4.4.1 Global numerical MNA/LBA analysis

This approach is given in section 8.6 of Part 1-6: Shells and is explained in (Figure: 4.7)
and has essentially the same basis of the traditional stress design buckling approach.
1. Firstly a linear buckling analysis (LBA) is performed - this determines the elastic
critical buckling resistance Rcr of a perfect shell.
2. A material non-linear, or elastic-plastic, analysis is performed to determine the plastic
reference resistance of the shell Rpl
49

Methodology

Figure 4.7: Steps in buckling strength assessment using design by global numerical
MNA/LBA analysis (Rotter; 2008)
3. The relative slenderness, ov , is deduced where:
ov =

Rpl /Rcr

(4.31)

4. The overall buckling reduction factor ov is then determined from:

ov = 1
ov
ov

ov ov,0 ov
)
= 1 ov (
ov,p ov,0
ov
= 2
ov

when

ov ov,0

when

ov,0 < < ov,p

when

ov,p ov

where: r
ov
ov,p =
1 ov
As the analyses are of cylinders under meridional loading, ov , ov and ov were
chosen as the same as x , x and x , so the elastic imperfection factor ov is also
determined the same way as a cylinder under meridional loading.

50

Methodology

ov =

0.62
1 + 1.91(wk /t)1.44

(4.32)

and wk is determined by Equation: 4.7

5. The characteristic buckling resistance, Rk , is then obtained from:
Rk = ov Rpl
6. and the design bucking resistance, Rd , is given by:
Rd = Rk /M
where:
M 1

is the partial factor for resistance

4.4.4.2 Global numerical GMNIA analysis

Figure 4.8: Definition of buckling resistance from global GMNIA analysisRotter (2008)
The procedure is summarised as follows:
1. Firstly a linear buckling analysis (LBA) is performed - this determines the elastic
critical buckling resistance Rcr of a perfect shell.
2. A materially non-linear analysis is performed on a perfect shell - this determines the
plastic reference resistance Rpl of a perfect shell.
51

Methodology
3. These two resistances are used to establish the overall relative slenderness ov of the
shell.
4. Next geometrically and materially non-linear analysis are performed using a number
of imposed imperfection amplitudes on the same cylinder to determine the imperfect
elastic-plastic critical buckling resistance RGM N IA , which is determined as one of the
values (Figure: 4.8):
The maximum load factor (limit load) on the load-deformation curve C1
The bifurcation load factor, where this occurs before the limit load is reached C2
The largest tolerable deformation C3
The load factor at which the equivalent stress at the most highly stressed point
on the shell surface reaches the design value of the yield stress.
The buckling loads were graphed in non-dimensional form. the buckling load for
each imperfection amplitude (Ncr , also denoted RGM N IA ) was divided by the
buckling load for the perfect cylinder (Ncr,perf ect , also denoted RGM N A ) and the
imperfection amplitude was divided by the shell thickness.
5. For the buckling design by global numerical GMNIA analysis a required amplitude
of the adopted equivalent geometric imperfection form, w0,eq , was determined from
the larger of:
w0,eq,1 = lg Un1
w0,eq,2 = ni tUn2
where:
lg

is the relevant gauge length

ni

is a multiplier to achieve an appropriate tolerance level

(ni = 25 is recommended)

Un1 and Un2

are the dimple imperfection factors given in Table: 4.6:

6. The imperfect elastic-plastic critical buckling resistance, RGM N IA , for this amplitude
was then determined from linear interpolation of the previous GMNIA results (see
Figure:
52

Methodology
Table 4.6: Recommended values for dimple imperfection parameters (Eurocode 3 - Design
of steel structures - Part 1-6: Strength and stability of shell structures; 2007)
Fabrication quality class

Description

Recommended Un1

Recommended Un2

Class A
Class B
Class C

Excellent
High
Normal

0.01
0.016
0.025

0.01
0.016
0.025

7. The characteristic buckling resistance should be obtained from:

Rk = kGM N IA RGM N IA
Where kGM N IA is the calibration factor and was assumed to be 1 (one)2 .
8. The design bucking resistance, Rd , is given by:
Rd = Rk /M
where:
M 1

is the partial factor for resistance

Figure 4.9: Example interpolation of the RGM N IA for the amplitude of the adopted equivalent geometric imperfection

kGM N IA can lie between 0.8 and 1.2 but if it falls outside this range the analytical results are deemed
invalid, it is determined through comparison with known results or tests

53

54

5 DESIGN CODE ANALYTICAL METHOD

American Bureau of Shipping - Commentary on the guide for buckling and ultimate Strength
assessment for offshore structures (2005) has six example steel structures to which the guide
was applied to. Three cylinders stiffened only with ring stiffeners and three cylinders with
both ring and stringer stiffeners. These examples were used to verify the Matlab script
written for the ABS the guide for buckling and ultimate strength assessment for offshore
structures (see Appendix B) but these structures were also designed using the Eurocode and
finite element analysis to compare the design approaches and see what range of buckling
stresses are given for the different design approaches. The basic geometric information is
given in Tables 5.1 and 5.8 but for further details such as stiffener dimensions, loading etc.
please consult the ABS commentary (2005). This chapter will present the results of the
design methods, their results will be compared and discussed in Chapters 6 and 8.

5.1

Ring Stiffened Cylinders

Table 5.1: Ring stiffened shell geometry
Model Name
Total Length(Assumed)
Length between ring stiffeners
Mean radius
Thickness
Specified minimum yield stress
Modulus of elasticity
Poissons ratio

IC-1
L (mm)
l (mm)
r (mm)
t (mm)
0 (N/mm2 )
E (N/mm2 )

2239.5
746.5
749.7
3.52
281
2.05E+05
0.3

6.1

2438.49
812.83
197.2
12.57
301
2.04E+05
0.3

2522.1
840.7
3175
6.35
276
1.99E+05
0.3

5.1.1 Cylinder IC-1

Ring stiffened steel cylinder subject to axial loading only.
For this first example the equations will be written but for further examples only the key
values will be given.

Design Code Analytical Method

5.1.1.1 Eurocode - Meridional (Axial) Loading

The length of the shell segment is characterised in terms of the dimensionless length parameter :
l
=
r
=

r
l
=
t
rt

746.5
= 14.53
749.7 3.52

The critical meridional buckling stress, using a value of Cx , should be obtained from:
xRc = 0.605ECx

t
r

where the coefficient Cx is a length dependent factor and as:

1.7 0.5

r
t

the cylinder is classified as medium length so:

Cx = 1
The critical meridional buckling stress can be determined as:
xRc = 0.605 (2.05 105 ) 1

3.52
= 582.32 N/mm2
749.7

The meridional elastic imperfection factor should be obtained from:

x =

0.62
1 + 1.91(wk /t)1.44

where wk is the characteristic imperfection amplitude:

1
wk =
Q

r
t
t

55

Design Code Analytical Method

where Q is the meridional compression fabrication quality parameter (see Table: 4.2), which
for this study is assumed to be excellent1 , so:
1
wk =
40

749.7
3.52 = 1.28
3.52

and:
x =

0.62
1 + 1.91(1.28/3.52)1.44
x = 0.4284

x0 , the plastic range factor , and the interaction

The meridional squash limit slenderness
exponent should be taken as:
x0 = 0.2

= 0.6

= 1.0

So, determining the reduction factor x :

=
p
=
p

0.4284
= 1.03
1 0.6

and:
=
x
=
x

q
fy,k /xRc

p
281/582.32 = 0.6947

as
0
x
p

The reduction factor x may be taken as:

x
0

x = 1 (
0 )
p
1

This is a significant assumption but the fabrication quality of a manufacturer is difficult to determine. A
manufacturer was approached about their fabrication tolerances but they never responded so an assumption
was required. Reducing the fabrication quality to High results in a design buckling stress of 148.37N/mm2
which is a 10% reduction of the Excellent value. If the quality was reduced to Normal the buckling
strength would be 120.42N/mm2 , a 26% reduction of the Excellent value.

56

Design Code Analytical Method

x = 1 0.6(

0.6947 0.2
) = 0.64
1.03 0.2

The characteristic buckling strengths should be obtained by multiplying the characteristic

yield strength by the reduction factors:
x,Rk = x fy,k
x,Rk = 0.64 281 = 181.11 N/mm2
Although for this study the characteristic buckling stresses are compared, for the sake of
completeness the Eurocode design buckling stresses should be obtained from:
x,Rd = x,Rk /M
x,Rd = 181.11/1.1 = 164.65 N/mm2

5.1.1.2 ABS - Axial Loading

The elastic buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell is defined as:
ExR = xR CCExR
where xR , the nominal or lower bound knock-down factor and the length dependent coefficient, C, are dependent on the Batdorf parameter, z:
l2 p
1 2
rt
746.52 p
z=
1 0.32 = 201.44
749.7 3.52
z=

in this case, where:

20 z
then xR is determined by:
xR = 0.35 0.0002
xR = 0.35 0.0002

r
t

749.7
= 0.3074
3.52

57

Design Code Analytical Method

for the length dependent coefficient when:
z 2.85
then C is defined as:
C=1
The classical compressive buckling stress CExR for a cylinder is the same that was derived
in theory (see Section: 3.1):
CExR = 0.605
CExR = 0.605

Et
r

(2.05 105 ) 3.52

= 582.32 N/mm2
749.7

so the elastic buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell is:

ExR = 0.3074 1 582.32 = 179.01 N/mm2
but as the elastic buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell falls into the elastic-plastic
range:
ExR > Pr 0
the critical buckling stress of unstiffened or ring-stiffened cylindrical shell subjected to axial
compression or bending moment may be taken as:
CxR = 0 [1 Pr (1 Pr )

CxR = 281[1 0.6(1 0.6)

0
ExR

281
] = 175.14 N/mm2
179.00

Table 5.2: Cylinder IC-1 - Axial

Eurocode

ABS

Plasticity

Elasto-plastic

Length coefficient, Cx

Elastic stress, x,Rc

Critical stress, x,Rk

582.32
181.11

N/mm

N/mm

Plasticity

Plastic effects

Length coefficient, C

Elastic stress, ExR

582.32

N/mm2

175.14

N/mm2

Critical stress, CxR

58

Design Code Analytical Method

5.1.1.3 Eurocode - Circumferential Loading

The equation for the critical buckling stress for circumferential is length dependent so firstly
the non-dimensional length of the cylinder must be defined using and C . The value
for has already been determined, and the value for C is dependent on the boundary
conditions (see Table: 4.4) which were assumed to be pinned-pinned2 . For pinnedpinned conditions the value of C may be taken as:
C = 1
As the non-dimensional length is:

< 20
C
the critical circumferential buckling stress should be obtained from:
Rc = 0.92E

Cs t
r

where the value for Cs is taken from Table 4.5 which for pinned-pinned conditions is
defined as:
Cs = 1 +
Cs = 1 +

3
1.35

3
= 1.08
14.531.35

The critical circumferential buckling stress can then be determined as:

Rc = 0.92E
Rc = 0.92 (2.05 105 )(

Cs t
r

1.08 3.52
)(
) = 65.87 N/mm2
14.53 749.7

The value for is based on the fabrication quality and is taken from Table 4.3:
= 75
0 , the plastic range factor , and the interaction
The meridional squash limit slenderness
exponent should be taken as:
2

This is the boundary condition which most closely matched the ABS code

59

Design Code Analytical Method

0 = 0.4

= 0.6

= 1.0

So, determining the reduction factor :

=
p
=
p

0.75
= 2.07
1 0.6

and:
=

q
fy,k /Rc

p
281/65.87 = 2.07

as
p

The reduction factor may be taken as:

= 2

0.75
= 0.1758
2.072

The characteristic buckling strengths should be obtained by multiplying the characteristic

yield strength by the reduction factors:
,Rk = fy,k
,Rk = 0.1758 281 = 49.4

N/mm2

Although for this study the characteristic buckling stresses are compared, for the sake of
completeness the Eurocode design buckling stresses should be obtained from:
,Rd = ,Rk /M
,Rd = 49.4/1.1 = 44.91 N/mm2

60

Design Code Analytical Method

5.1.1.4 ABS - External Pressure Loading

Firstly AL will be calculated:

z
1.17 + 1.068k
(1 2 )1/4

AL =
where:
k

0 for lateral pressure

201.44

the elastic buckling pressure is dependent on AL , so

AL =

201.44
1.17 + (1.068 0) = 13.36
(1 0.32 )1/4

which falls into the range of

2.5 < AL 0.208

r
t

then the elastic buckling pressure is determined as

qCER =

qCER =

0.92E t 2
AL r

0.92 2.05 105 3.52 2

= 0.31P a
13.36
749.7

Next the coefficient to account for the effect of ring stiffener, K , must be determined:
K

1 k
G
1 + t(tw + l
)/AR

AR

AR (

r 2
)
rR

cosh2 cos2
(sinh2 + sin2)

1.56 rt

sinhcos + coshsin
0
sinh2 + sin2

61

Design Code Analytical Method

k

Nx /N for lateral pressure

Nx /N + 0.5 for hydrostatic pressure

AR

cross sectional area of ring stiffener

Nx

axial load per unit length

circumferential load per unit length

rR

radius to centroid of ring stiffener

thickness of cylindrical shell

tw

stiffener web thickness

length between adjacent ring stiffeners (unsupported)

Substituting in the known values results in:

Nx

624.14

9.32

AR

0.11

173.39

Giving a coefficient to account for the effect of ring stiffener of

K

The elastic hoop buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell is:
ER = R

qCER(r+0.5t)
K = 53.14 N/mm2
t

and is:
=
=

ER
0

53.14
= 0.19
281

which falls into the range:

0.55

62

Design Code Analytical Method

so
=1
which means the critical buckling stress for an unstiffened or ring-stiffened cylindrical shell
subjected to external pressure may be taken as:
CR = ER
CR = 1 53.14 = 53.14

N/mm2

Table 5.3: Cylinder IC1 - External Pressure

Eurocode

ABS

Plasticity

Elastic

Plasticity

Elastic

Hoop stress, ER

53.14

N/mm2

Critical stress, CR

53.14

N/mm2

Circumferential stress, ,Rc

65.87

N/mm

Characteristic stress, ,Rk

44.91

N/mm2

5.1.2 Cylinder 1
Ring stiffened cylinder subject to hydrostatic pressure only. The stiffeners of this structure
are located externally.
Table 5.4: Cylinder 1 - Axial
Eurocode

ABS

Plasticity

Elasto-plastic

Length coefficient, Cx

0.6

Elastic stress, x,Rc

Critical stress, x,Rk

Plasticity

Plastic effects

Length coefficient, C

Elastic stress, ExR

2728.8

N/mm2

293.03

N/mm2

4720.25

N/mm

291.56

N/mm2

Critical stress, CxR

Table 5.5: Cylinder 1 - External Pressure

Eurocode
Plasticity

ABS

Elasto-Plastic

Plasticity

Plastic effects

Hoop stress, ER

571.95

N/mm2

Critical stress, CR

235.23

N/mm2

Circumferential stress, ,Rc

783.43

N/mm

Characteristic stress, ,Rk

260.04

N/mm2

63

Design Code Analytical Method

5.1.3 Cylinder 6.1

Ring stiffened cylinder subject to combined radial pressure and axial loading.
Table 5.6: Cylinder 6.1 - Axial
Eurocode

ABS

Plasticity

Elastic

Length coefficient, Cx

Elastic stress, x,Rc

Elastic

Length coefficient, C

Elastic stress, ExR

240.79

N/mm2

60.20

N/mm2

240.79

N/mm

81.73

N/mm2

Critical stress, x,Rk

Plasticity

Critical stress, CxR

Table 5.7: Cylinder 6.1 - External Pressure

Eurocode
Plasticity

ABS
Elastic

Plasticity

Elastic

Hoop stress, ER

61.72

N/mm2

Critical stress, CR

61.72

N/mm2

Circumferential stress, ,Rc

78.66

N/mm

Characteristic stress, ,Rk

58.99

N/mm2

5.2

Ring and Stringer Stiffened Cylinders

Table 5.8: Ring and stringer stiffened cylinders geometry
Model Name

IC6

2-1C

2-1B

Total length(Assumed)

L (mm)

2847.36

9909.97

9919.09

Length between ring stiffeners

l (mm)

180

228.6

228.6

Mean radius

r (mm)

160

571.4

571.1

Thickness

t (mm)

0.84

1.96

1.97

Specified minimum yield stress

0 (N/mm2 )

348

393.2

395.7

Modulus of elasticity

E(N/mm2 )

2.01E+05

2.16E+05

2.18E+05

0.3

0.3

0.3

Poissons ratio

5.2.1 Cylinder IC6

Axial force alone.

64

Design Code Analytical Method

Table 5.9: Cylinder IC6 - Axial
Eurocode
Plasticity

ABS

Elasto-plastic

Elastic stress, x,Rc

Critical stress, x,Rk

638.43

N/mm

215.38

N/mm2

Plasticity

Plastic effects

Elastic stress, ExB

1400.77

N/mm2

327.25

N/mm2

Critical stress, CxB

Table 5.10: Cylinder IC6 - External pressure

Eurocode
Plasticity

ABS
Elastic

Plasticity

Elastic

Unstiffened stress, CR

54.24

N/mm2

Critical stress, CB

126.49

N/mm2

Circumferential stress, ,Rc

67.15

N/mm

Characteristic stress, ,Rk

50.37

N/mm2

Table 5.11: Cylinder IC6 - Alternative Eurocode

EN 1993-4-1 Method
Axial

External Pressure

Omega match

Yes

Critical stress, nx,Rcr

107.62

N/mm2

Critical stress, Pn,Rcru

39.99

N/mm2

5.2.2 Cylinder 2-1C

Radial pressure alone.
Table 5.12: Cylinder 2-1C - Axial
Eurocode
Plasticity
Elastic stress, x,Rc
Critical stress, x,Rk

ABS

Elasto-plastic
2

448.25

N/mm

175.06

N/mm2

Plasticity

Plastic effects

Elastic stress, ExB

3.88e+03

N/mm2

383.63

N/mm2

Critical stress, CxB

65

Design Code Analytical Method

Table 5.13: Cylinder 2-1C - External pressure
Eurocode
Plasticity

ABS
Plastic

Plasticity

Plastic

Unstiffened stress, CR

96.50

N/mm2

Critical stress, CB

184.28

N/mm2

Circumferential stress, ,Rc

122.18

N/mm

Characteristic stress, ,Rk

91.62

N/mm2

Table 5.14: Cylinder 2-1C - Alternative Eurocode

EN 1993-4-1 Method
Axial

External Pressure

Omega match

Yes

Critical stress, Nx,Rcr

142.17

N/mm2

Critical stress, Pn,Rcru

68.66

N/mm2

5.2.3 Cylinder 2-1B

Combined loading of radial pressure and axial load.
Table 5.15: Cylinder 2-1B - Axial
Eurocode
Plasticity

ABS

Elasto-plastic

Elastic stress, x,Rc

Critical stress, x,Rk

454.95

N/mm

177.55

N/mm2

Plasticity

Plastic effects

Elastic stress, ExB

3.94e+03

N/mm2

386.16

N/mm2

Critical stress, CxB

Table 5.16: Cylinder 2-1B - External pressure

Eurocode
Plasticity

ABS
Plastic

Plasticity

Plastic effects

Unstiffened stress, CR

98.21

N/mm2

Critical stress, CB

188.92

N/mm2

Circumferential stress, ,Rc

124.34

N/mm

Characteristic stress, ,Rk

93.25

N/mm2

66

Design Code Analytical Method

Table 5.17: Cylinder 2-1B - Alternative Eurocode
EN 1993-4-1 Method
Axial

External Pressure

Omega match

Yes

Critical stress, Nx,Rcr

143.16

N/mm2

Critical stress, Pn,Rcru

71.06

N/mm2

67

68

6 COMPUTATIONAL METHOD
In the following section the analytical results are given for each of the cylinders. The
results of linear buckling analyses for axial loading and external pressure loading are given
followed by non-dimensionalised results for the non-linear analyses of each cylinder with
varying imperfection amplitudes to illustrate the effect that such imperfections have on the
structures. These analytical results are then used to determine the buckling resistances of
the cylinders according to the analytical methods defined in Eurocode 3 Part 1-6: Strength
and stability of shell structures.

6.1

Ring Stiffened Cylinders

6.1.1 Cylinder IC-1

Figure 6.1: Cylinder IC1 AutoCAD model

Computational Method
Geometry:
The cylinder geometry was defined in AutoCAD as a 3D structure with three cylindrical
surfaces representing the shell surface between the ring stiffeners and four circular line bodies
to represent the ringstiffeners. The geometry was saved as an Initial Graphics Exchange
Specification (IGES) file and then imported into the Ansys workbench DesignModeller.
Within the DesignModeller a thickness of 3.52mm was assigned to the three surface
bodies and a cross section was defined for the ring stiffeners. The cross sectional dimensions
of the ring stiffeners are taken from the ABS commentary, for cylinder IC1 the ring stiffeners
had a thickness of 3.52mm and depth of 48mm (Figure: 6.2).

Figure 6.2: Cylinder IC1 - Cross section of ring stiffeners

The Ring stiffeners were offset so that they were orientated in the corrected direction and
in contact with the cylinder on the interior of the cylinder.
Supports:
Next the support conditions of the cylinder were defined. The base of the cylinder was
69

Computational Method
defined as pinned, as there 6 degrees of freedom per node this meant restraint in the x- yand z- translational directions, with no rotational restraint. The top nodes of the cylinder
were radially constrained. Lateral translation (x- and y- directions) was constrained but the
nodes were not restrained in the vertical (z) direction (see Figure: 6.3). The ring stiffener
supports were included as the structural elements as can be seen in Figure: 6.4.

Figure 6.3: Cylinder IC1 - Radial constraints on top nodes

Mesh:
The mesh defined was a quadrilateral mesh with a face size of 25mm and the mesh was
matched at the interfaces between the shell surfaces and the ring stiffeners so that the structure was modelled as a contiguous structure. The shell elements are defined as shell181
elements, the ring stiffener elements are beam181 elements and the loaded edge elements
are surf156 elements (See Appendix D). The resulting model had a total of 7374 nodes
and 7198 elements.

70

Computational Method

Figure 6.4: Cylinder IC1 - Junction between two shell segments and a ring stiffener
Loading:
A vertical compressive load of 1 kN was applied to the top edge of the cylinder in a staticstructural pre-analysis. This pre-analysis is a prerequisite for the linear buckling analysis
which determines the load multiplier. The load multiplier is the value that the load defined
in the pre-analysis must be factored by in order to initiate linear buckling of the structure.
For cylinder IC1 the determined load multiplier was 10354 (see Figure: 6.5) which means
that linear buckling occurs at a load of 1000 10355 = 10355000N .

71

Computational Method

Figure 6.5: Cylinder IC-1 - Linear axial buckling

The area of upon which this load was applied is the top edge of the cylindrical wall, this
area is defined as:
2rt = 16580.97 mm2
The elastic buckling stress is determined by dividing the critical buckling load over the
loaded area:
Rcr =

10355000
= 624.55
16580

N/mm2

It can also be seen that the first eigenmode buckled shape matches the expected buckled
shape, that is one half wave between the stiffeners as (see Figure: 3.1). However, the buckling
stress due to axial loading is 624.55N/mm2 as opposed to the theoretically determined
stress, which is:
cr = 0.605

Et
= 582.32 N/mm2
r

This difference may be attributed to the influence of the ring stiffener structural properties,

72

Computational Method
which were included in the linear buckling analysis, or it may be a result of too large a
mesh, or possibly a combination of both.
A mesh sensitivity analysis was performed setting the element face size to 10mm, this
resulted in a model with 49398 nodes and 48940 elements. The load multiplier from the
linear buckling analysis for this case was 9738 resulting a buckling load of 587.3N/mm2 .
The computation time for the denser mesh was 1165 seconds compared to the less dense
mesh that had a computation time of 5 seconds; which is an increase of 1160 seconds. As
there was such an increase in computation time, it was considered reasonable to use the less
dense mesh size as a finer mesh in the non-linear analyses would cause impractically long
computation times for the study1 . As such, a compromise was made between computation
time and the accuracy of results.
Table 6.1: Cylinder IC-1 - Ansys Linear Buckling
Mode 1
Load multiplier

10355

Buckling load

10355000

Buckling stress, Rcr

624.55

N/mm2

Using the same model but changing the load from a vertical compressive load of 1 N to a
uniform external pressure load of 1 Pa, another linear buckling analysis was performed.
1
By changing the value of the elastic buckling resistance the influence on further characteristic buckling
resistances was small. For instance, the characteristic buckling resistance from the LBA/MNA analysis using
an elastic buckling resistance of 624.55N/mm2 was 185.78N/mm2 where as if an elastic buckling resistance
of 587.3N/mm2 had been used, the LBA/MNA resistance would be 180.96N/mm2 . This is a 2.7% difference
in results

73

Computational Method

Figure 6.6: Cylinder IC-1 - External pressure buckling

For this loadcase the load multiplier was determined as 3.3795e+05, which means linear
buckling occurs at a uniform external pressure of 337950 Pa.
Converting Pascals to N/mm2 , the critical external buckling pressure is:

Critical Pressure=

337950
= 0.338
1e + 06

N/mm2

Table 6.2: Cylinder IC-1 - Ansys Linear External Pressure Buckling

Linear Buckling - Pressure Load
Load multiplier

3.379e+005

Buckling load

337950

Pa

Buckling pressure

0.338

N/mm2

6.1.1.1 Introduction of imperfections and first GMNIA analysis

Non-linear analyses were only performed using the axial loading loadcase. The following procedure details how the imperfections were included and the GMNIA procedure for
Cylinder IC1 specifically for Ansys as was performed in this study.

74

Computational Method

Figure 6.7: Introduction of analyses and GMNIA modules

Geometry:
The first eigenbuckled shape was exported from the linear buckling analysis of cylinder IC1
under axial loading using the APDL upgeom command. For the first case, the eigenbuckled shape was scaled to a factor of 1, so the deformed shape matches that given in Figure 6.5.
This eigenbuckled shape has a maximum imperfection amplitude, a of 1.0231mm. Following
this the model was imported into the finite element modeller which allows the prebuckled
shape to be converted to a parasolid file for further analysis. This parasolid geometry was
then imported into a new static structural module, in which the non-linear (GMNIA)
analysis was performed.
Supports:
By exporting the eigenbuckled shape the separation between shell segments is lost as the finite element modeller module skin detection tool stitches the entire shell surface together.
This procedure removes the ring supports of the structure, as such the simplification was
made that the nodes at the locations of the ring stiffeners of cylinder IC1 were infinitely
radially stiff (As seen in Figure: 6.3). These nodes were selected, constrained and coupled
using APDL commands. The result is that the nodes at the elevations of the ring stiffeners were unable to translate laterally, but were coupled in vertical translation so that they
moved in unison.
The nodes at the base of the cylinder were constrained in the same manner as the linear
analysis, that is that translation was constrained in the x-, y- and z-directions making the
base a pinned support. Once again, the top nodes of the cylinder were radially constrained. Lateral translation (x- and y- directions) was constrained but the nodes were not
restrained in the vertical (z) direction.
Mesh:
75

Computational Method
The mesh used for the non-linear analysis was a quadrilateral mesh with a face size of
25mm. The shell elements used were shell181 with 5 integration points to account for
material plasticity. The resulting model had a total of 6726 nodes and 6608 elements.
Loading:
The loading for all non-linear analyses was displacement controlled. For this analysis a
displacement of -20mm was applied to the top nodes of the cylinder which would compress
the cylinder. The reaction force from the base of the cylinder was used to determine the
equivalent force applied.
Steps and Substeps:
For this analysis an applied displacement of -20mm was set at load step 1. This load step
was then further subdivided into 100 substeps. The result is an incremental displacement
increase of 0.2mm per substep.
Solution process:
The non-linear analysis was analysed using the full Newton-Raphson method with sparse
matrix direct solver and the convergence criteria used was an L2-norm (Weisstein; n.d.) of
force (and moment) tolerance equal to 0.5%.
Solution:
The solution of this analysis took 316 seconds with a total of 118 iterations to reach the
final solution.

Figure 6.8: Cylinder IC-1 - Force convergence for first analysis

76

Computational Method
The resultant reaction force for each substep can be used to determine the buckling stresses
by dividing the reaction forces by the area over which the force was applied.

Figure 6.9: Cylinder IC-1 - Deformation vs. Reaction stress for first analysis
From this graph it can be seen that the buckling resistance is 227.17N/mm2 (which it can
be seen is equivalent to C2 from Figure 4.8).
The maximum equivalent stress diagram shows that cylinder IC-1 exhibits elastic behaviour
and plastic behaviour (see Figure: 6.10) which is as expected as it was seen in the analytical
analysis (see Section: 5.1.1.1) that the relative slenderness of the cylinder lies between the
0
x
p . As such
squash limit slenderness and the plastic limit slenderness, i.e that
elastic-plastic behaviour is expected (see Figure: 7.3 later).
The result of this analysis could then be graphed non dimensionally by plotting the nondimensional imperfection amplitude on the x-axis, this is the maximum imperfection amplitude from the prebuckled shape (a) divided by the thickness of the shell wall (t):
a
1
=
= 0.28
t
3.52

77

Computational Method

Figure 6.10: Cylinder IC-1 - Maximum equivalent (Von-mises) stress for first analysis
This was plotted against Ncr /Ncr,perf ect (or RGM N IA /RGM N A )2 to give the ratio of buckling resistance of the structure with the given magnitude of imperfection to the buckling
resistance of the structure without included imperfections.
Ncr
227.17
RGM N IA
=
=
= 0.86
RGM N A
Ncr,perf ect
263.07
This procedure was then repeated, however for the next analyses rather than scaling the
initial pre-buckled shape by a factor of 1, it was scaled to a factor of 5. This resulted in
analysing a cylinder with a maximum geometric imperfection amplitude of:
1 5 = 5mm
2

RGM N A was determined by an identical procedure as the one described here except that the imperfect
prebuckled shape was not imported, but rather the perfect geometry with no included imperfections was
analysed instead

78

Computational Method
which results in a non dimensional amplitude of:
a
5
=
= 1.42
t
3.52
resulting in a buckling resistance (RGM N IA ) of 218.38N/mm2 , so:
Ncr
RGM N IA
218.38
=
=
= 0.83
RGM N A
Ncr,perf ect
263.07
and so forth.
Table 6.3: Cylinder IC-1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure
Deformation Factor

Amplitude (a/t)

Buckling (Ncr /Ncr,perf ect )

1
5
10
15
20

0.28
1.42
2.84
4.26
5.68

0.86
0.83
0.68
0.62
0.60

Figure 6.11: Cylinder IC-1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure

79

Computational Method

6.1.1.2 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode MNA/LBA Method

For this first example the equations will be written but for further examples only the key
values will be given.
The plastic reference resistance is taken from an ANSYS analysis. The analysis performed to
obtain this plastic reference resistance is identical to the procedure to obtain RGM N A (The
analysis described above without the inclusion of imperfections) apart from the following
changes:
Large deflection effects are not included
No plastic hardening effects are included in the analysis

Figure 6.12: Cylinder IC-1 - Plastic reference resistance, Rpl

This allows determination of the plastic reference resistance:
Rpl = 280.62 N/mm2
Relative slenderness:
ov =
ov =

p
Rpl /Rcr

p
280.62/624.55 = 0.67
80

Computational Method
The characteristic imperfection amplitude:
r
1 r
wk =
t
Q t
r
1 749.7
wk =
3.52 = 1.28
40 3.52
For all Eurocode analyses it was assumed that the fabrication quality, Q, was excellent
resulting in a value of Q=40.
The meridional elastic imperfection factor:
x =
x =

0.62
1 + 1.91(wk /t)1.44

0.62
= 0.43
1 + 1.91(1.28/3.52)1.44

Overall buckling reduction factor:

ov = 1 ov [

ov ov,0 ov
]
ov,p ov,0

when

ov,0 ov ov,p

Where for meridional buckling:

ov,0 = 0.2 ov = 0.6 ov = 1
so;
ov = 1 0.6[

0.67 0.2 1
] = 0.66
1.03 0.2

The characteristic buckling resistanceis then determined as:

Rk = ov Rpl
Rk = 0.66 280.62 = 185.77

N/mm2

And the design buckling resistance:

Rd = Rk /M 1
Rd = 185.77/1.1 = 168.88 N/mm2

6.1.1.3 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode GMNIA Method

For the buckling design by global numerical GMNIA analysis a required amplitude of the
adopted equivalent geometric imperfection form,w0,eq , was determined from the larger of:
81

Computational Method
w0,eq,1 = lg Un1
w0,eq,2 = ni tUn2
where:
lg

is the relevant gauge length

ni

is a multiplier to achieve an appropriate tolerance level

(ni = 25 is recommended)

Un1 and Un2

are the dimple imperfection factors given in Table 4.6:

Which for Cylinder IC-1 resulted in an amplitude of the adopted geometric imperfection of w0,eq = 2.0548mm. From this the imperfect elastic-plastic buckling resistance,
RGM N IA , was interpolated from the non-linear analyses of various imperfection amplitudes
(Figure 6.11). As the amplitude of the adopted geometric imperfection is 2.0548mm, the
equivalent (a/t) is:
2.0548/3.52 = 0.584
As this falls between the first and second data points in Table 6.3 the equation for this line
is taken; this is:
y = 0.0294x + 0.8719
where x is 0.584, so:
y = 0.0294(0.584) + 0.8719 = 0.8547
The y-axis is Ncr /Ncr,perf ect (or RGM N A /RGM N IA ), so to determine the equivalent RGM N IA
for the Eurocode amplitude of the adopted geometric imperfection the buckling resistance
of the perfect cylinder (RGM N A = 263.07N/mm2 ) is multiplied by 0.855:
RGM N A = 263.07 0.855 = 224.85 N/mm2
The characteristic buckling resistance was then taken to be:
Rk = kGM IN A RGM N IA = 224.95 N/mm2
where kGM N IA was taken to be 1, which will be further discussed in the comparison.
This results in a design buckling resistance for the GMNIA analysis as:
Rd = Rk /M 1 = 204.5

N/mm2
82

Computational Method

6.1.2 Cylinder 1
Ring stiffened cylinder subject to hydrostatic pressure only. The stiffeners of this structure
are located externally.

6.1.2.1 Linear Buckling Analyses

Figure 6.13: Cylinder 1 - Linear axial buckling

Table 6.4: Cylinder 1 - Ansys linear axial buckling

Linear Buckling - Axial Load
Load multiplier

96053

Buckling load

96053000

Buckling stress, Rcr

6167.212

N/mm2

83

Computational Method

Figure 6.14: Cylinder 1 - External pressure buckling

Table 6.5: Cylinder 1 - Ansys external pressure buckling

Linear Buckling - Pressure Load
Load multiplier

5.15E+07

Buckling load

51526000

Buckling pressure

51.53

Pa
N/mm2

6.1.2.2 Non-Linear Buckling Analyses

Table 6.6: Cylinder 1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure
Deformation Factor

Amplitude (a/t)

Buckling (Ncr /Ncr,perf ect )

1
10
25
50

0.08
0.80
1.99
3.98

1.00
0.95
0.84
0.68

84

Computational Method

Figure 6.15: Cylinder 1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure

6.1.2.3 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode MNA/LBA Method

Plastic reference resistance is taken from an ANSYS analysis:
Rpl = 300.70 N/mm2
Relative slenderness:
ov = 0.22
The characteristic imperfection amplitude:
wk = 1.244mm
The meridional elastic imperfection factor:
x = 0.58
Overall buckling reduction factor:
ov = 0.99
Characteristic buckling resistance:

85

Computational Method
Rk = 296.97

N/mm2

Rd = 269.97

N/mm2

Design buckling resistance:

6.1.2.4 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode GMNIA Method

Amplitude of the adopted equivalent geometric imperfection form:
w0,eq = 3.1425mm
Interpolated imperfect elastic-plastic buckling resistance:
RGM N IA = 299.19

N/mm2

Calibration factor:
kGM N IA = 1
The characteristic buckling resistance was then taken to be:
Rk = 297.21

N/mm2

Design buckling resistance for the GMNIA analysis:

Rd = 270.19

N/mm2

6.1.3 Cylinder 6.1 - First Eigenmode

Ring stiffened cylinder subject to combined radial pressure and axial loading.

86

Computational Method

6.1.3.1 Linear Buckling Analyses

Figure 6.16: Cylinder 6.1 - Linear axial buckling

Table 6.7: Cylinder 6.1 - Ansys linear axial buckling

Linear Buckling - Axial Load
Load multiplier

31706

Buckling load

31706000

Buckling stress, Rcr

250.29

N/mm2

87

Computational Method

Figure 6.17: Cylinder 6.1 - External pressure buckling

Table 6.8: Cylinder 6.1 - Ansys Linear External Pressure Buckling

Linear Buckling - Pressure Load
Load multiplier

1.88E+05

Buckling load

188020

Pa

Buckling pressure

0.188

N/mm2

6.1.3.2 Non-Linear Buckling Analyses

Table 6.9: Cylinder 6.1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure
Deformation Factor

Amplitude (a/t)

Buckling (Ncr /Ncr,perf ect )

1
5
15
20
50

0.16
0.79
2.36
3.15
7.88

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99

88

Computational Method

Figure 6.18: Cylinder 6.1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure (first eigenmode)

6.1.3.3 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode MNA/LBA Method

Plastic reference resistance is taken from an ANSYS analysis:
Rpl = 241.34 N/mm2
Relative slenderness:
ov = 0.98
The characteristic imperfection amplitude:
wk = 3.55mm
The meridional elastic imperfection factor:
x = 0.34
Overall buckling reduction factor:
ov = 0.35
Characteristic buckling resistance:
89

Computational Method
Rk = 84.95 N/mm2
Design buckling resistance:
Rd = 77.23 N/mm2

6.1.3.4 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode GMNIA Method

Amplitude of the adopted equivalent geometric imperfection form:
w0,eq = 5.68mm
Interpolated imperfect elastic-plastic buckling resistance:
RGM N IA = 186.73

N/mm2

Calibration factor:
kGM N IA = 1
The characteristic buckling resistance was then taken to be:
Rk = 186.73 N/mm2
Design buckling resistance for the GMNIA analysis:
Rd = 169.75

N/mm2

6.1.4 Cylinder 6.1 - Second Eigenmode

The GMNIA analysis was performed using another eigenmode as the analysis above was
very imperfection insensitive.

90

Computational Method

Figure 6.19: Cylinder 6.1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure (second eigenmode)

6.1.4.1 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode GMNIA Method

Amplitude of the adopted equivalent geometric imperfection form:
w0,eq = 5.68mm
Interpolated imperfect elastic-plastic buckling resistance:
RGM N IA = 81.95 N/mm2
Calibration factor:
kGM N IA = 1
The characteristic buckling resistance was then taken to be:
Rk = 81.95

N/mm2

Design buckling resistance for the GMNIA analysis:

Rd = 74.5

N/mm2

91

Computational Method

6.2

Ring and Stringer Stiffened Cylinders

6.2.1 Cylinder IC6

Axial force alone.

6.2.1.1 Linear Buckling Analyses

Figure 6.20: Cylinder IC6 - Linear buckling axial loading

Table 6.10: Cylinder IC6 - Ansys linear axial buckling

Linear Buckling - Axial Load
Load multiplier

574.5

Buckling load

574500

Buckling stress, Rcr

680.32

N/mm2

92

Computational Method

Figure 6.21: Cylinder IC6 - External pressure buckling

Table 6.11: Cylinder IC6 - Ansys external pressure buckling

Linear Buckling - External pressure
Load multiplier

4.11E+05

Buckling load

411160

Pa

Buckling pressure

0.412

N/mm2

6.2.1.2 Non-Linear Buckling Analyses

Table 6.12: Cylinder IC6 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure
Deformation Factor

Amplitude (a/t)

Buckling (Ncr /Ncr,perf ect )

1
5
10
20

1.19
5.95
11.90
23.81

1.02
0.90
0.53
0.53

93

Computational Method

Figure 6.22: Cylinder IC6 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure

6.2.1.3 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode MNA/LBA Method

Plastic reference resistance is taken from an ANSYS analysis:
Rpl = 339.38 N/mm2
Relative slenderness:
ov = 0.71
The characteristic imperfection amplitude:
wk = 0.29mm
The meridional elastic imperfection factor:
x = 0.44
Overall buckling reduction factor:
ov = 0.46
Characteristic buckling resistance:
94

Computational Method
Rk = 217.73

N/mm2

Rd = 197.94

N/mm2

Design buckling resistance:

6.2.1.4 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode GMNIA Method

Amplitude of the adopted equivalent geometric imperfection form:
w0,eq = 0.46mm
Interpolated imperfect elastic-plastic buckling resistance:
RGM N IA = 333.09

N/mm2

Calibration factor:
kGM N IA = 1
The characteristic buckling resistance was then taken to be:
Rk = 333.05

N/mm2

Design buckling resistance for the GMNIA analysis:

Rd = 302.77

N/mm2

6.2.2 Cylinder 2-1C

Radial pressure alone.

95

Computational Method

6.2.2.1 Linear Buckling Analyses

Figure 6.23: Cylinder 2-1C - Linear axial buckling

Table 6.13: Cylinder 2-1C - Ansys linear axial buckling

Linear Buckling - Axial Load
Load multiplier

4112.4

Buckling load

4112

Buckling stress, Rcr

584.41

N/mm2

96

Computational Method

Figure 6.24: Cylinder 2-1C - External pressure buckling

Table 6.14: Cylinder 2-1C - Ansys external pressure buckling

Linear Buckling - External pressure
Load multiplier

4.94E+05

Buckling load

493950

Buckling pressure

0.494

Pa
N/mm2

97

Computational Method
Table 6.15: Cylinder 2-1C - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure
Deformation Factor

Amplitude (a/t)

Buckling (Ncr /Ncr,perf ect )

0.5
1
5
10
20

0.26
0.51
2.55
5.10
10.20

0.64
0.76
0.65
0.19
0.15

6.2.2.2 Non-Linear Buckling Analyses

Figure 6.25: Cylinder 2-1C - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure

6.2.2.3 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode MNA/LBA Method

Plastic reference resistance is taken from an ANSYS analysis:
Rpl = 293.72 N/mm2
Relative slenderness:
ov = 0.71
The characteristic imperfection amplitude:
98

Computational Method
wk = 0.84mm
The meridional elastic imperfection factor:
x = 0.40
Overall buckling reduction factor:
ov = 0.62
Characteristic buckling resistance:
Rk = 181.13

N/mm2

Rd = 164.66

N/mm2

Design buckling resistance:

6.2.2.4 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode GMNIA Method

Amplitude of the adopted equivalent geometric imperfection form:
w0,eq = 1.34mm
Interpolated imperfect elastic-plastic buckling resistance:
RGM N IA = 79.65 N/mm2
Calibration factor:
kGM N IA = 1
The characteristic buckling resistance was then taken to be:
Rk = 187.64 N/mm2
Design buckling resistance for the GMNIA analysis:
Rd = 170.58

N/mm2

6.2.3 Cylinder 2-1B

Combined loading of radial pressure and axial load.

99

Computational Method

6.2.3.1 Linear Buckling Analyses

Figure 6.26: Cylinder 2-1B - Linear axial buckling

Table 6.16: Cylinder 2-1B - Ansys linear axial buckling

Linear Buckling - Axial Load
Load multiplier

4147.7

Buckling load

4147700

Buckling stress, Rcr

586.74

N/mm2

100

Computational Method

Figure 6.27: Cylinder 2-1B - External pressure buckling

Table 6.17: Cylinder 2-1B - Ansys external pressure buckling

Linear Buckling - External pressure
Load multiplier

5.95E+05

Buckling load

595080

Pa

Buckling pressure

0.595

N/mm2

101

Computational Method

6.2.3.2 Non-Linear Buckling Analyses

Table 6.18: Cylinder 2-1B - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure
Deformation Factor

Amplitude (a/t)

Buckling (Ncr /Ncr,perf ect )

0.5

0.25

0.72

0.51

0.78

2.54

0.60

10

5.08

0.59

15

7.61

0.60

Figure 6.28: Cylinder 2-1B - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure

6.2.3.3 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode MNA/LBA Method

Plastic reference resistance is taken from an ANSYS analysis:
Rpl = 395.9

N/mm2

Relative slenderness:
ov = 0.82
102

Computational Method
The characteristic imperfection amplitude:
wk = 0.84mm
The meridional elastic imperfection factor:
x = 0.40
Overall buckling reduction factor:
ov = 0.53
Characteristic buckling resistance:
Rk = 210.76

N/mm2

Rd = 191.60

N/mm2

Design buckling resistance:

6.2.3.4 EN 1993-1-6 Eurocode GMNIA Method

Amplitude of the adopted equivalent geometric imperfection form:
w0,eq = 1.34mm
Interpolated imperfect elastic-plastic buckling resistance:
RGM N IA = 252.69

N/mm2

Calibration factor:
kGM N IA = 1
The characteristic buckling resistance was then taken to be:
Rk = 252.69 N/mm2
Design buckling resistance for the GMNIA analysis:
Rd = 229.72

N/mm2

6.2.4 Mesh Sensitivity

A mesh sensitivity analysis was not performed on the numerical analyses, however it is
stated in Egltis et al. (2009) that an element size to shell radius ratio of 1/20 was sufficient
for their simulations. This ratio was met by all analyses.
103

104

7 COMPARISON
In this chapter the analytical and numerical methods for approaching shell design will be
discussed. The results of the design code method and computational method chapters have
been compiled here in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 for easy reference.
Table 7.1: Compiled axial loading results
Ring Stiffened
Cylinder
EN 1993-1-6
ABS
MNA/LBA
GMNIA

IC1
181.11
175.14
185.78
224.85

1
291.56
293.03
296.97
297.21

6.1
81.73
60.2
84.95
81.95*

N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2

Ring- and Stringer Stiffened

Cylinder
EN 1993-1-6
EN 1993-4-1
ABS
MNA/LBA
GMNIA

IC6
215.38
107.62
327.25
217.73
333.05

2-1C
175.06
142.17
383.63
181.13
187.64

21-B
177.55
143.16
386.16
210.76
252.69

N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2

Table 7.2: Compiled external pressure loading results

Ring Stiffened
Cylinder
EN 1993-1-6
ABS

IC1
44.91
53.14

1
260.04
235.23

6.1
58.99
61.72

N/mm2
N/mm2

Ring- and Stringer Stiffened

Cylinder
EN 1993-1-6
EN 1993-4-1
ABS

IC6
50.37
39.99
126.49

2-1C
91.62
68.66
184.28

* The value for the second eigenmode is shown here

21-B
93.25
71.06
188.92

N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2

Comparison

7.1

Analytical Comparison

7.1.1 Ring Stiffened Cylinders

Firstly looking at the ring stiffened cylinder the characteristic axial buckling resistances are
very similar when the Eurocode and the ABS code are compared. For cylinder IC1 the
ABS code is 3.3% lower than the Eurocode, for cylinder 1 the ABS is 0.5% higher with the
exception being cylinder 6.1 in which the ABS buckling resistance is 25.4% lower than the
Eurocode.
The Eurocode and the ABS code both approach the design of non-stringer stiffened cylindrical shells similarly, i.e. the ABS takes the classical buckling stress and reduces it by a
lower bound knock down factor dependent, where as the Eurocode determines the slenderness of the structure and knocks down the yield stress with a reduction factor. Though
both methods are based on the same parameters, their implementation is slightly different.
For instance, the ABS uses the traditional Batdorf parameter z which is replaced by the
dimensionless length parameter in the Eurocode. The advantages of are that it is a nondimensional length that increases linearly with increasing cylinder length and normalises
the length relative to the characteristic dimensions that control the shell behaviour. As
opposed to the Batdorf parameter which depends weakly on Poissons ratio (Rotter; 2008).
z=

1 2 (l2 rt) = 2 1 2

The length dependent factor, denoted C in the ABS and Cx in the Eurocode is required
as the classical buckling stress for cylinders without it is valid for medium length cylinders.
For short cylinders the length dependent parameter will increase the buckling resistance
as when a cylinder length decreases, the model becomes increasing like an infinitely wide
plate strip, whereas for long cylinders the buckling behaviour is closer to that of an Euler
column (Timoshenko and Gere; 1961, p465-467). Interestingly, there are only two length
domains in the ABS code with regard to C, the length dependent coefficient, which could be
categorised as short and medium. The Eurocode states that once the cylinder becomes
long enough that flexural buckling is dominant the procedures listed in EN 1993-1-6 and EN
1993-4-1 are no longer sufficient as flexural buckling is not covered and length dependant
factor is limited to a maximum of 0.6 causing a plateau in the buckling strength as the
length increases. In this case the designer is to consult the flexural buckling section in EN
1993-1-1. It can be seen in Figure: 7.1 that this Euler flexural buckling behaviour is also
105

Comparison
not covered by the ABS code.

Figure 7.1: Buckling resistance vs. Increasing length

With regards to the difference between the Eurocode and the ABS code analytically
determined buckling resistance for cylinder 6.1, the ABS code determines the buckling resistance to be 25.4% lower than that of the Eurocode value. Cylinder 6.1 is the most
slender of the cylinders studied (see Figure: 8.9) so it is possible that the ABS code determines more conservative buckling resistances for more slender structures. However, this
is one other difference between how the Eurocode and the ABS code analytical methods
determine the buckling resistance, and that is the influence of the support conditions.
The Eurocode boundary conditions are absolutely defined as various degrees of fixed, pinned
or free (see Table: 4.1) as opposed to the ABS code which takes the properties of the stiffeners into account. With the ABS code there are checks to ensure that the second moment
of area of the stiffeners is sufficient, something that is not as rigorously defined within the
Eurocode. For a chapter on cylindrical shells with ring stiffeners under external pressure
the Buckling of Steel Shells - European Design Recommendations (2008, p331-347) uses
the rules from the Deutscher Ausschu f
ur Stahlbau (Richtlinie; n.d.). As restraint of flexural buckling of the ring stiffeners is crucial in controlling the global buckling check of a
106

Comparison
stiffened steel shell (ECCS, 2008) it is advisable for the Eurocode to adopt clearer and
more stringent design requirements for the minimum stiffness of stiffeners. For example,
the minimum stiffness of the stiffeners is clearly defined in the ABS code as follows:
The moment of inertia of the ring stiffeners, Ir , together with the effective length of
shell plating, leo , should not be less than that given by the following equation:
Ir =

E
x (1 + )tre4 re2 lt
ze
+
(1 +
)
500el
2EK
100r 0 R

where:
x

compressive stress in longitudinal direction

compressive hoop stress midway between adjacent ring stiffeners

compressive hoop stress at outer edge of ring flange

As /st

ir

leo

moment of inertia of the ring stiffeners with associated effective shell length, leo

1.56 rt l

re

radius to the centroid of ring stiffener, accounting for the effective

length of shell plating

ze

distance from inner face of ring flange to centroid of ring stiffener,

accounting for the effective length of shell plating

coefficient to account for the effect of ring stiffener

thickness of cylindrical shell

modulus of elasticity

specified minimum yield point

As

cross sectional area of stringer stiffener

shell plate width between adjacent stringers

maximum allowable strength utilization factor for stiffened

cylindrical shells subjected to external pressure

The moment of inertia of the stringer stiffeners, is, with effective breadth of shell plating,
sem , is not to be less than:
io =

st3
0
12(1 2 )

where:
107

Comparison
0

(2.6 + 4.0)2 + 12.4 13.21/2

l/s

Poissons ratio

Using this ABS check, the ratio of the actual ring-stiffener stiffness, Irs , to the minimum
required ring-stiffener stiffness, Ir is tabled in Table: 7.3 where any value > 1 denotes that
the stiffener meets the minimum stiffness requirements.

Table 7.3: Ring stiffener stiffness check

Cylinder

Irs /Ir

IC1
1
6.1

24.2
0.88
0.29

It can be seen that cylinder 6.1 falls well below the minimum stiffness requirements
for the ABS code but as the stiffness of the ring stiffener is not taken into account in the
formulation of the buckling resistance for ring-stiffened cylinders under axial loading, it can
be concluded that the ABS code determines more conservative buckling resistances for more
slender cylinders.
The elastic-plastic stability interaction is dealt with in different ways in both codes,
where the ABS defines a piecewise function that alters the critical buckling stress over
a certain proportional limit of the yield stress. The Eurocode accounts for this in the
formulation of the stability reduction factor , through determining the relative slenderness
of the shell structure.
The relative slenderness is defined as a ratio of the plastic buckling resistance to the elastic
buckling resistance. In the analytical case the plastic buckling resistance is taken as the
yield stress of the material. The elastic buckling resistance is easily determined by the
classical elastic buckling resistance equations, so:
s
=

fy,k
R,cr

The relative slenderness of a shell structure can fall within three ranges according to the
Eurocode. The first range is when the slenderness is below the squash limit slenderness, 0 .
108

Comparison

Figure 7.2: Effect of plasticity on critical buckling stress in ABS codes

In this range the reduction factor = 1. In this range purely plastic behaviour is expected
from the shell structure.
The next range that the relative slenderness may fall into is between the squash limit slenderness and the plastic limit slenderness, 0 p . Within this range the structure
is expected to show elastic, and plastic behaviour. In this range the reduction factor is
determined by not only the plastic limit slenderness, p , and the squash limit slenderness
0 , but also by the plastic range factor, , and the interaction exponent, .
The last region into which the relative slenderness may fall is when the relative slenderness
is greater than the plastic limit slenderness, p . Within this region the structure behaves purely elastically. The most important and critical parameter for the reduction factor
in this region is the elastic imperfection slenderness, , known as the knock-down factor.
These parameters are experimentally determined and define the curve of the reduction
factor (see Figure: 7.3). These factors are given for basic buckling cases in Annex D of
EN 1993-1-6 and they may be altered adjusted based on other data but it is recommended
that conservative values are used if they cannot be evaluated formally for the global system

109

Comparison
under the loading types that may be featured in the design (Rotter; 2008, p.105). However, all these factors apart from the elastic imperfection factor may also be determined
computationally (see Rotter 2005) allowing their use to become more case specific.

Figure 7.3: Capacity curve and parameters , , 0 and (Rotter; 2007)

For the ring stiffened cylinder examples the ABS critical buckling stress for external pressure
is also quite close to the Eurocode characteristic buckling resistance under external pressure.
For cylinder IC1 the Eurocode buckling resistance is 15.5% lower than that of the ABS code,
for cylinder 1 the Eurocode resistance is 9.5% higher and for cylinder 6.1 the Eurocode
resistance is 4.4% lower.
This is interesting as both codes take different approaches. On the one hand the ABS
derives an elastic hoop buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell that is dependent
on loading conditions (radial or hydrostatic pressure), length and slenderness parameters
but also dependent on the strengthening effect of the ring stiffener which is determined by
the structural properties of the stiffener. This is then knocked down by a constant lowerbound knock down factor. Similarly the derivation of this buckling stress is also a piecewise
function to take into account the effects of plasticity.
The Eurocode on the other had uses the classical buckling stress of a cylinder subject to
external pressure which is also adjusted dependent on a non-dimensional length, in this case
, but also dependent on clearly defined boundary conditions. So as opposed to defining the
stiffness of the ring stiffeners dependent on their structural properties they are categorised
110

Comparison
as either; free, pinned, radially pinned, fixed etc. (See Table: 4.1).
The similarity of the buckling resistances under this loading condition is interesting as
despite the fact that the ABS code takes into account the structural properties of the ring
stiffeners but the Eurocode doesnt. Also, as can be seen in Table: 7.3 the minimum stiffness
is not met by cylinder 1 and cylinder 6.1. The correlation of the results is due to the fact
that despite the stiffness of the ring stiffener not being sufficient, the length between the
ring stiffeners is large enough that the influence of these stiffeners does not come into effect.
That is to say that the distance between the stiffeners is larger than the half wave length of
the buckle. This is can be shown by examining the determination of the factor K , which
is the factor taking into account the ring stiffeners:
K

1 k
G
1 + t(tw + l
)/AR

AR

AR (

r 2
)
rR

cosh2 cos2
(sinh2 + sin2)

1.56 rt

Nx /N for lateral pressure

Nx /N + 0.5 for hydrostatic pressure

AR

cross sectional area of ring stiffener

Nx

axial load per unit length

circumferential load per unit length

rR

radius to centroid of ring stiffener

thickness of cylindrical shell

tw

stiffener web thickness

length between adjacent ring stiffeners (unsupported)

sinhcos + coshsin
0
sinh2 + sin2

So, in order for G 0 then must be less than 2.4l. Which can only occur if the length
between ring stiffeners is less than 2.4 times the theoretical half-wave length for external
111

Comparison

pressure buckling. So, provided 1.56 rt < 2.4l the structural properties of the ring stiffeners
have no influence.

7.1.2 Ring- and Stringer Stiffened Cylinders

Significant differences in the critical buckling resistances of the structures occur when ringstiffeners and stringer stiffeners are present. The procedure to calculate the buckling resistance in the ABS code was mentioned previously in the methodology chapter, however
the Eurocode states that for ring- and stringer-stiffened silo structures the cylindrical wall
should be designed by the same criteria as the unstiffened wall or by the global analysis

procedure in EN 1993-6-1 provided the spacing of the stringer stiffeners is greater than 2 rt
(Clause 5.3.3.3 (1) EN 1993-4-1 Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 4-1: Silos
(2007)), which is the case for the three stringer stiffened structures studied.
It can be seen that the differences in buckling resistance is quite large if the stringer stiffened
method in the ABS code is compared against the unstiffened Eurocode method. Alternative approaches are suggested in the Eurocode such as carrying the axial compression in the
stiffeners alone, thus not taking into account the membrane action of the shell wall which
is not of interest for this study. As such, another approach which is modified from the
methods described in clauses 5.3.4.3.3(3) and 5.3.4.5(4) of EN 1993-1-4 was studied. These
Eurocode methods are theoretical methods based on differential equations which take into
account the structural properties of the stiffeners. These two clauses detail similar procedures for determining the meridional buckling resistance and the external pressure buckling
resistance (Section: 4.2).
The results of the modified Eurocode method, which takes into account the geometrical
properties of the stiffeners, were studied (labelled EN 1993-4-1 in Tables: 7.1 and 7.2). The
buckling resistances under axial compression and uniform external pressure are reasonable,
yet conservative, values. No examples of their use could be found so the results of the
calculations performed were verified by calculating and comparing the values from the
two different Eurocode axial loading methods (Equations: 4.1 and 4.30). As these values
matched it was deemed that the calculations were performed correctly and that the results
are correct.
The Eurocode states that when vertical stiffeners are present and the spacing of the stiffen
ers is less than 2 rt then the cylinder is to be designed in the same manner as an unstiffened
112

Comparison
shell or through the global analysis procedures of EN 1993-1-6, however, the fundamental
theory is there to allow the development of an analytical process to determine the buckling
resistance of ring and stringer stiffened cylindrical shells.
A similar method to the modified Eurocode approach taken in this study is used in Rotter
(2008, p.353-363) to determine the buckling resistance of cylindrical shells under longitudinal compression but which does not take into account the effect of the ring stiffeners. The
range of applicability of the method adopted in the Buckling of Steel Shells - European
Design Recommendations 2008 limits the degree of stiffening to:
As
2
bt
Is
15
bt3
Its
2.4
bt3
where:
As

is the area of the stringer stiffener

is the separation between stiffener centres

Its

is the uniform torsion constant (Saint-Venants torsion) of a stiffener

is the thickness of the cylindrical shell

It is also stated that for shells that are more heavily stiffened than [these conditions] there
do not appear to be enough test results to formulate precise rules (Rotter; 2008). In
comparison, the ABS method which is semi-empirical is based around theoretical buckling
stresses but has indeed been calibrated using experimental data. So, some experimental
data required to make such rules for the Eurocode does exist, but it may be possible that
the Eurocode committee deemed this data to be insufficient. Regardless, it seems as though
the development of an analytical approach that takes the stringer stiffeners into account
would be a useful addition to the Eurocode.

113

Comparison

7.2

Computational Comparison

7.2.1 Ring-stiffened Cylinders

Comparing the results of the computational analyses to that of the design codes we see that
there is quite a close correlation when examining the cylinders without stringer stiffeners.
The characteristic buckling resistances determined from both the LBA/GMNA and the
GMNIA analyses tend to be slightly higher values than those obtained in the codes.
The MNA/LBA analysis are between 1.8% and 3.8% higher than the Eurocode analytical
methods for determining the buckling resistance. This increase in buckling resistance is
unexpected as the MNA/LBA method is virtually identical to the Eurocode analytical
method apart from the fact that using the MNA/LBA method the relative slenderness is
obtained computationally. If it is recalled that;
s
=

fy,k
R,cr

and numerically:
s
=

Rpl
Rcr

and it was seen in Section: 6.1.1 that with a sparser mesh the classical elastic buckling resistance, Rcr , derived from the numerical analysis is higher than that of the classical theory,
R,cr . So, as Rpl is very close to the yield stress of the material, fy,k it can be concluded that
the relative slenderness that was determined numerically is slightly lower than that of the
analytical method, resulting in a slightly higher reduction factor (i.e. less of a reduction)
and therefore a slightly higher numerically determined characteristic buckling resistance.
A large discrepancy in the numerical buckling resistance results can be seen with the
GMNIA analysis for cylinder 6.1s first eigenmode where the GMNIA buckling resistance is
much higher than any other method, in fact it is 128.5% higher the Eurocode analytically
determined buckling resistance. This could well be due to the apparent imperfection insensitivity of cylinder 6.1. It is possible that if the calibration factor k was used in this study
the value would be outside the accepted range (0.8 < kGM N IA < 1.2), thereby deeming the
analysis invalid.
This result is considerably different than any other resistance determined for the same struc114

Comparison
ture so there is little confidence that this is the correct characteristic buckling resistance.
It should be noted that cylinder 6.1 falls into the elastic relative slenderness range i.e. the
overall slenderness of this structure is greater than the plastic limit relative slenderness p
meaning its behaviour is within the heavily knocked down elastic imperfect buckling range.
As such, another study was performed using geometric imperfections based around another
eigenmode. The results of this second analysis are much closer to the analytical buckling
resistances and 56.1% lower than the first eigenmode buckling resistance which reiterates
how important it is to make sure that the most detrimental geometrical imperfection is used
and illustrates the importance of having an expectation of the behaviour of your structure
before it is computationally analysed.

7.2.2 Ring- and Stringer-stiffened Cylinders

The computational buckling resistances become quite different to the design code resistance once stringer stiffeners are introduced. The ABS code resistances are much higher
than those of the computational models or the Eurocode as neither the ANSYS models nor
the Eurocode incorporated the stringer stiffeners into their buckling resistance formulation.
So the numerical analyses can only be compared to the Eurocode analytical method.
Once again we see that the MNA/LBA determined buckling resistances are higher than the
Eurocode analytically determined buckling resistance, as there have been no other changes
this difference is still likely due to the reason given above.

Table 7.4: Numerical buckling resistance comparison table

Cylinder

IC6

2-1C

21-B

Eurocode

215.38

175.06

177.55

N/mm2

MNA/LBA

217.73

181.13

210.76

N/mm2

GMNIA

333.09

187.67

252.69

N/mm2

The GMNIA analyses buckling resistances do not correspond so well for these 3 case
study cylinders. In fact for cylinder IC6 the GMNIA result is 54.7% higher than the
Eurocode analytical method and for cylinder 21-B the GMNIA result is 42.3% higher. This
is likely due to the same reason that a higher buckling resistance was found for cylinder

115

Comparison
6.1, that is that the imperfection modelled was not as detrimental as the real imperfections
used in the determination of the lower-bound knock-down factor. Given more time it would
have been appropriate to analyse more imperfections types.

116

117

8 DISCUSSION
8.1

General Discussion

It can be said that there are two approaches to shell design. One in which a shell structure
is designed to be purely functional, the other in which the shell structure is optimised. Taking the Eurocode approach to analytically designing the stringer stiffened cylindrical shells
for instance; this approach is purely functional. The potential buckling resistance of a ring
and stringer stiffened shell is drastically under estimated in comparison to the buckling
resistance which can be derived by the American Bureau of Shipping code. To design a
structure around this conservative resistance is under utilising the potential load resistance
of the structure. Though the design may be safer, the result is a conservative design with
an inefficient usage of materials with probable higher costs. In terms of more geometrically
complex structures this underestimation of the strength could potentially increase the cost
of the project significantly as the scale of the structure could be much larger. As such, an
alternative to purely functional design would be recommended.
Such an alternative is optimised design. This method would utilise complex analyses, such
as the Eurocode GMNIA method to design shell structures. The significant disadvantage of
using complex numerical methods to optimise the design of shell structures, however, is the
computational time required. As seen from this study, incorrectly modelling of imperfections can result in overestimating the buckling resistance of shell structures. In order to get
an accurate representation of the buckling resistance of the shell structure numerous imperfection studies must be performed. If structural elements (such as supports) were then to
be repositioned in the model in order to determine the most optimal support configuration
then these imperfection studies must be run for each configuration further increasing the
computation time and further more imperfection sensitivity analyses should be run for each
type of imperfection. It can be seen that more the design is to be optimised, the greater
the number of analyses that must be run (see Figure: 8.1 as the number of support configurations go from 1 to j, the number of imperfection types go from 1 to k and the number of
amplitudes analysed go from 1 to n the complexity of the computational design approach

Discussion

Figure 8.1: Analysis tree for optimised design

significantly increases). With such potential increases in computation time the decision to
optimise the design of a structure must be justified. This justification can be based on:
Economics or;
Consequence of failure
If the structure, for example a silo, is to be mass produced then it may be prudent to optimise the design so that the cost per unit is as low as possible while still meeting the safety
criteria. This would result in a lower net financial cost for the production of this structure.
Alternatively if the shell structure contains hazardous materials and people or the environment may be at risk then it is logical to accurately determine the resistance of the structure
so that this resistance will not be exceeded. Similarly, if a geometrically complex shell
structure were to have people inside the structure and if their lives were to be at risk if the
118

Discussion
structure fails then it would be wise to design the structure in such a way that the buckling
resistance is accurately known, and that the expected loading conditions will not exceed
this resistance.
The time required to design a shell structure optimally may be reduced by experience. Say
for instance if the designer knows what method a structure will fail and the approximate
critical load at which failure occurs prior to running a numerical analysis. In this case, a
numerical analysis is more of a tool to confirm the suspected failure mode and to give a
more accurate critical buckling load. This approach is best illustrated using cylinder 6.1 as
an example. The initial full GMNIA procedure that was run using the first eigenmode as a
pre-deformed shape resulted in a characteristic buckling resistance of 186.73N/mm2 . However, when looking at the characteristic buckling stresses determined by the design codes
which are based on experimental data we get values of 81.73N/mm2 and 60.2N/mm2 from
the Eurocode and ABS code respectively. These values are 44% of and 32% of the finite
element analysis determined buckling stress which is quite a significant difference. Similarly,
the characteristic buckling resistances for cylinder IC6 and cylinder 21-B were higher than
expected in the GMNIA analyses when compared to the analytical analyses. The numerical
analyses performed to obtain the critical buckling stresses were the full analysis including
material non-linearity and geometric imperfections and, had it not been known to expect a
lower value, an inexperienced engineer may make the error of using this higher characteristic
buckling load. In reality an engineer should double check that the obtained characteristic
buckling load from the numerical analysis is the lowest critical value by running multiple
analyses but it may also be the case that familiarity breeds complacency as in each of the
other finite element analyses run on ring stiffened cylinders, the first eigenmode was sufficient.
The Eurocode includes a check to ensure that these errors do not occur by using the calibration factor, k. This calibration factor was described previously but to reiterate the
numerical critical buckling stress is to be compared to the known buckling stress of a similar structure and if this ratio falls outside the range of 0.8 < k < 1.2 the numerical result
is deemed invalid. This calibration factor is a good check for simple shells upon which
many experiments have been performed, but when analysing more geometrically complex
shell structures where there may be no precedent its usefulness comes into question. The
computational model may be compared to scale model tests, but then the question arises
as to whether the scale model tests accurately describe the structural behaviour of the full
119

Discussion
size structure. The necessary load combinations, imperfections, supports may be far more
accurately modelled computationally as opposed to modelled by a scaled down structure.
This leads to the second approach to designing shell structures; rigorously designing the
structures computationally.
The experience built up from this study of singly curved cylindrical steel shells structures
has provided a foundation upon which the design of more complex shells can be based.
The critical aspects of simple shell design must be fully understood before the designer can
confidently approach the design of more complex cases. As well as this the designer must
also become competent with the computational programs required to perform the numerical
analyses. It could be said that the understanding of shell behaviour and the competency
with finite element programs go hand in hand as in order to have confidence in the numerically determined results, there is a certain amount of experience required to interpret if
these results are correct.

8.2

Computational Method Discussion

8.2.1 The MNA/LBA Method

The usefulness of the MNA/LBA method in this study was limited, this is due to the geometry and the load case examined. The aspect that seperates the MNA/LBA analysis
apart from the Eurocode analytical method is that the relative slenderness is determined
numerically. In the case of a uniformly compressed, axially loaded cylinder, the elastic
buckling stress is easy to determine through theory and the plastic buckling stress in this
study was typically found to be approximately the buckling stress. As such, the MNA/LBA
analysis had no benefits over the Eurocode analytical approach and was in fact, more time
consuming.
The MNA/LBA analysis becomes useful in the case when the elastic buckling load or plastic
buckling load are not so easy to determine, such as asymmetric loading or more complicated geometry. The buckling parameters used in the determination of the reduction factor
also open the MNA/LBA analysis up to more complex shapes provided that these buckling
parameters have been determined for such geometry. With more complex or freeform geometry the numerical method would be required to determine the elastic and plastic buckling
resistances and from these the relative slenderness could be determined.
Assuming the buckling parameters are already known for the structure or structural ele120

Discussion
ment being analysed, this means that only two numerical analyses are required; one for
the elastic resistance, the other for the plastic resistance. Comparing this to the GMNIA
method, this is a great reduction in the required computation time.
The critical point regarding the applicability of the MNA/LBA analysis is that the
buckling parameters must be pre-defined. This makes this method suitable for the mass
production of particular shells or shell panels. If the manufacturer mass produces certain
shells or panels, then it would be interesting if there was a standardisation in the determination of the buckling parameters. If this were the case, the buckling parameters could be
supplied by the manufacturer to the design engineer to simplify the analysis process and
to save computation time. With these buckling parameters at hand, the design engineer
would not be required to resort to GMNIA analyses if is not felt that such time consuming
analyses are justified.
Knowing the buckling parameters and being able to determine the relative slenderness also
has advantages of its own.

8.2.1.1 Relative Slenderness

The determination of the relative slenderness in the Eurocode method is a useful tool in
determining the expected buckling behaviour of the shell structure. Taking cylinder 1,
which is the least slender cylinder out of those studied, and cylinder 6.1, which is the most
slender the expected buckling behaviour can be shown through the non-linear finite element
analysis.
Cylinder 1 has a relative slenderness, ov , of 0.22. This places it very close to the squash
limit relative slenderness 0 of 0.2. As such, we expect to a significant influence of plasticity and stresses equal to or higher than (due to plastic strain hardening) the yield stress of
301N/mm2 . This is illustrated graphically in Figures 8.3 and 8.2.
Buckling in these shell structures occurs when the analysis fails to converge, so the characteristic buckling stress is between the second last data point and the next increment.
Convergence is lost before the stress of this next increment can be determined causing the
graph to go to 0 at the end of the load step.

121

Discussion

Figure 8.2: Cylinder 1 - Stress distribution before buckling

Figure 8.3: Cylinder 1 - Stress vs. Applied displacement

Cylinder 6.1 has a relative slenderness, ov , of 0.98. This places it past the plastic limit
relative slenderness 0 of 0.92 for this cylinder in the heavily knocked down elastic-imperfect
buckling region. As such, plasticity is not expected and buckling is expected to be quite

122

Discussion
sudden. The yield stress for this cylinder is 276N/mm2 . This is illustrated graphically in
Figures 8.5 and 8.4.

Figure 8.4: Cylinder 6.1 - Stress distribution before buckling

Figure 8.5: Cylinder 6.1 - Stress vs. Applied displacement

These examples show that the relative slenderness of a structure is a useful guide in deter123

Discussion
mining the ductility of the structure. For low slenderness values the structure will behave
more plastically resulting in plastic deformations before failure. Where as for slender structures the buckling behaviour will be sudden and brittle. This is further illustrated by the
load deformation Figures 8.7 and 8.6.

Figure 8.6: Cylinder 1 - Reaction stress vs. Applied displacement

124

Discussion

Figure 8.7: Cylinder 6.1 - Reaction stress vs. Applied displacement

The ability to quickly be forewarned of the buckling behaviour of a structure or structural
element without the requirement of running GMNIA analyses is a useful tool in designing for
ductile failure. Knowing the relative slenderness that causes the structure to fail suddenly
and elastically allows the designer to exert a measure of control on the expected failure of
a shell structure or shell element.
A level of risk can be associated with the relative slenderness of a structure if its behaviour
can be predicted. This may allow the determination of a financial cost for insurance, or
a fee for the structural consultants. As the slenderness increases, so the risk of failure
may increase and as the risk for failure increases, the time and skill required to design the
structure safely increases.

8.2.2 The GMNIA method

The GMNIA method is the most complex approach to numerical design. As there is no
experimentally determined knock-down factor the determination of the buckling resistance
using this method is a purely numerical design approach. A major consequence of such a
complex method is the time required to run the required analyses as has been previously
discussed. The advantage of the GMNIA method, however, is that it opens up the prospect
of running very complex analyses; multiple loadcases, asymmetric loading, complex geome125

Discussion
try etc. As a result the GMNIA analysis can become a tool for analysing very case specific
structures. If the structure being designed has no precedent, then the GMNIA method is
an excellent approach in determining its buckling resistance.
A word of warning is that the GMNIA method is not without its pitfalls. The GMNIA

Figure 8.8: Results of a reliable selection of published axial compression cylinder tests,
compared to the EN buckling curves (Rotter; 2008)
method can, theoretically, determine everything that the structural engineer needs to know
from the model input into the program. The problem with this is how accurately the model
may reflect reality and how these results are interpreted as the interpretation may vary
from one program user to the next.

8.2.2.1 Interpretation of GMNIA results

The potential difficulties with the interpretation of the results is best illustrated using the
case study cylinders in which the GMNIA analysis determined a much higher characteristic
buckling load than then analytical analyses. So cylinders IC6, 2-1B and the first eigenmode
of cylinder 6.1; in these cases if there were no other analyses to give the GMNIA a base
comparison, then the numerically determined buckling resistances could be interpreted as
correct.
126

Discussion
Determining the relative slenderness of a structure is an excellent measure to decide how
imperfection sensitive the structure is and how cautious the designer should be in interpreting the results. The relative slenderness may also be used as a guide to determine how
rigorous the designer should be with modelling of different types of imperfections and ensuring that the modelled imperfection does not over-estimate the strength of the structure.
This is illustrated through Figures 8.8 and 8.9. It can be seen from the experimental data
in Figure 8.8 that as the slenderness goes up, the reduction factor becomes more influential
in the reduction of the buckling resistance, comparing this to cylinders studied (Figure 8.9)
it can be decided which cylinders to be more cautious with, cylinder 6.1 being a prime
example as its relative slenderness lies above the plastic limit slenderness in the heavily
knocked down elastic range.

Figure 8.9: Buckling resistance vs. non-dimensional slenderness

8.2.2.2 Difficulties Modelling the GMNIA Analysis

An example of the potential modelling difficulties for the GMNIA analyses is the simplification that had to be made in this study due to the use of the pre-eigenbuckled shape.
In this study there was no difficulty in the solution or post-processing phases of the analysis
127

Discussion
process but a modelling problem was encountered in the pre-processing phase, that is the
modelling of the structural geometry. In order for the ring and stringer stiffeners to be
introduced to the model the shell surface had to be split at the junction of their intersection
(see Figure: 6.4). This was possible provided that no pre-eigenbuckled shape was imported
however, once the pre-eigenbuckled shape was exported it was as a contiguous shell surface
with no edges where the supports should be included. A simplification could be made with
regard to the ring stiffeners, but unfortunately no simplification could be justified for the
stringer stiffeners, the result of which being the stringer stiffeners were not modelled in the
GMNIA analyses.
A number of other geometry modelling programs were used in an effort to split the
surfaces but it was found that it was either impossible, or beyond the capabilities of a user
with limited experience in these programs. The geometry modeller that is integrated in
Ansys workbench was also found to have limited capabilities when it came to more complex
geometry. This raises the question as to whether using the pre-eigenbuckled shape is an
appropriate method to introduce imperfections into the model.
Though imperfections were introduced to the case study cylinders they were not representative of the realistic imperfections to be expected in such structures. As well as this, the
introduction of these imperfections came at the cost of properly modelling the structural
geometry. The end result in using the pre-eigenbuckled shape to introduce imperfections
was that the full analytical capabilities of the finite element analysis were not utilised in
analysing the real structural geometry. Had other methods of introducing imperfections
been used it may have been the case that the stiffeners could be added to the structure
resulting in a potentially more realistic determination of the buckling resistance.
It can be speculated that this modelling problem would introduce great difficulties if the
shell geometry is modelled by a party other than the designers who will be doing the finite
element analysis. For example, if the shell geometry was defined by an architectural firm
and this geometry was sent to structural engineers for analysis and optimisation the surface
would have to be pre-split where the stiffeners are expected to be so that they could be
introduced and modelled. It is likely that the location and orientation of these stiffeners
would not be decided upon before beginning numerical analyses. In order to manipulate
the given geometry, it would be a requirement that the structural engineering consultants
and the architectural firm have compatible software.
128

129

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER STUDY
A study was performed on the Eurocode and American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) methods
of determining the buckling resistance of 6 axially compressed steel shell cylinders. A comparison was made between the analytical approaches to determining the buckling resistance
of these cylinders and also a comparison was made of the numerical methods to determine
the buckling resistance of these same structures. A minor objective of this study was to
make recommendations as to how these methods could be adopted or adapted to aid in the
design of geometrically complex steel shell structures. Based on this study the following
conclusions have been made:
By not taking into account the stringer stiffeners the Eurocode analytical method for
determining the buckling resistance of steel shell structures is 34% to 54% lower than
that of the buckling resistance of the same structures determined by the American
Bureau of Shipping Guideline to Buckling of Offshore Structures code.
The Eurocode MNA/LBA numerical method to determine the buckling resistance of
shell structures shows excellent potential for reducing computation time provided that
the required buckling parameters to determine the reduction factor have already been
pre-determined. As these buckling parameters can be determined through numerical
GMNIA analyses, the most time consuming analyses of the numerical approach would
not have to be repeated.
The introduction of different imperfection types can have a significant affect on the
numerically determined GMNIA buckling resistance of a steel shell structure. For
instance, the buckling resistance of cylinder 6.1 with a second eigenmode pre-buckled
shape was 56% lower than when the pre-buckled shape used was the first eigenmode
with the same maximum imperfection amplitude. So, in circumstances where there
is sufficient experimental data to perform an analytical determination of the buckling
resistance, such as simple geometry under simple loading, complex GMNIA analyses

Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Study

are unnecessary and may in fact result in unconservative buckling resistances if the
incorrect imperfection type is modelled.
The computational time required to design accurately by the GMNIA method can
be so long that its use may not be warranted in cases where an alternative design
approach would be sufficient. The usage of this method could be justified by other
external factors such as economics or consequences of failure.
Utilisation of the pre-eigenbuckled shape to introduce imperfections into the GMNIA
analyses resulted in simplifications being made to the structural geometry of the case
study cylinders and as a result of such simplifications the minor stiffeners were not
modelled computationally. For example, the numerical GMNIA buckling resistance
for cylinder 2-1C was 51% lower than the analytically determined ABS buckling stress
for the same structure.

9.1

Recommendations for Further Study

Based on this study it was found that there are potential topics for further research. Recommendations for the further study of these topics are given below:
Further research is warranted into the Eurocode buckling parameters. As their use
can reduce computation time, simplify numerical analyses procedures and give insight into the expected behaviour of shell structures a greater understanding of these
parameters is justified. Research could be done into how the scale of a structure influences these parameters, whether the parameters can be interpolated between different
geometric shapes or sizes. Research can be done in trying to determine the influence
of the addition of stiffeners on these parameters. The significance of such research
could be that a geometrically complex structure the buckling parameters could be
determined for a set geometry under the expected loading conditions, then if these
buckling parameters do not change a significant amount for changes in stiffener size or
orientation then the computation time for each design iteration could be significantly
reduced. Another advantage of this research is that manufacturers could supply these
buckling parameters to designers for their products in a similar way that the structural properties and resistances of I-sections are readily available to the structural
engineer. This would cut out the requirement for GMNIA analyses for the structural
130

Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Study

engineer, and these analyses would become the responsibility of the manufacturer.
The significance of imperfections in shell design is well known to researchers of shell
structures. This study also illustrated their significance for very simple shell geometry and as shell geometry gets more complicated, the influence of imperfections is
less easy to determine. The affect of imperfections on simple shell geometry has been
determined through physical experimentation and lower-bound curve fitting but the
capabilities of complex computational analysis have also been made clear in this study.
It is proposed that further research be done into numerically determining the influence of imperfections as opposed to this being done through physical experimentation.
Through programming it becomes a simple, automated process to run a large number
of pre-defined analyses and save the results for comparison. The computational analyses could then be benchmarked against physical experimentation. The potential of
these numerical studies is a much more cost efficient approach to imperfections studies. As opposed to materials being purchased and shell structures being constructed
a model could be computationally built and structural properties assigned.
As there are significant differences between the Eurocode and ABS code analytically
determined buckling resistances for the ring and stringer stiffened cylinders it is recommended that the Eurocode includes a method of incorporating a method to analytically determine the buckling resistance of such structures. It was found that there has
been sufficient theory developed to form such methods and their implementation in
the Eurocode could result in less-conservative and more economical structures being
designed.

131

132

REFERENCES
American Bureau of Shipping - Commentary on the guide for buckling and ultimate Strength
assessment for offshore structures (2005). American Bureau of Shipping (ABS).
American Bureau of Shipping - Guide for buckling and ultimate strength assessment for
offshore structures (2004). American Bureau of Shipping (ABS).
Baruch, M. and Singer, J. (1963). Effect of eccentricity of stiffeners on the general instability of stiffened cylindrical shells under hydrostatic pressure, Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Science 5(1): 2327.
Batdorf, S. B. (1947). A simplified method of elastic-stability analysis for thin cylindrical
shells I: Donnells equation, Technical Report NACA-TN-1341, NASA, Langley Research
Center.
Bathe, K. and Dvorkin, E. (1986). A formulation of general shell elementsthe use of mixed
interpolation of tensorial components, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 22(3): 697722.
Das, P., Thavalingam, A. and Bai, Y. (2003). Buckling and ultimate strength criteria
of stiffened shells under combined loading for reliability analysis, Thin-walled structures
41(1): 6988.
Donnell, L. H. (1933). Stability of thin-walled tubes under torsion., Technical Report NACATN-179, NASA, Langley Research Center.
Dvorkin, E. (1984). On nonlinear finite element analysis of shell structures, PhD thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dvorkin, E. and Bathe, K. (1984). A continuum mechanics based four-node shell element
for general non-linear analysis, Engineering computations 1(1): 7788.
Egltis, E., Kalni
ns, K. and Ozolins, O. (2009). Experimental and numerical study on
buckling of axially compressed composite cylinders, Scientific Journal of Riga Technical
University. Construction Science 10(10): 3349.

REFERENCES
Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-6: Strength and stability of shell structures
(2007). Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN).
Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 4-1: Silos (2007). Comite Europeen de
Normalisation (CEN).
Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana (n.d.). The European
Steel Design Education Programme (ESDEP) Course notes, http://www.fgg.uni-lj.
si/kmk/esdep/master/wg08/l0700.htm. Accessed: 12/12/2012.
Forasassi, G. and Frano, R. (2006). Buckling of imperfect thin cylindrical shell under
lateral pressure, Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering
18(1-2): 287290.
Gerard, G. and Becker, H. (1957). Handbook of structural stability part III: buckling of
curved plates and shells (naca, washington, dc) technical note, 3783.
Lee, P. and Bathe, K. (2004). Development of MITC isotropic triangular shell finite elements, Computers & structures 82(11): 945962.
Mahfouz, S. (1999). Design optimization of structural steelwork, PhD thesis, University of
Bradford, UK.
Miller, C. D. (1977,). Buckling of axially compressed cylinders, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE 103(ST3): 695 721.
Rajakumar, C. and Rogers, C. (1991). The lanczos algorithm applied to unsymmetric generalized eigenvalue problem, International journal for numerical methods in engineering
32(5): 10091026.
Richtlinie, D. (n.d.). 017: Beulsicherheitsnachweise f
ur schalenspezielle falle. entwurf
1992. deutscher ausschu f
ur stahlbau, Stahlbau-Verlagsgesellschaft .
Rotter, J. (1998). Shell structures: the new european standard and current research needs,
Thin-walled structures 31(1-3): 323.
Rotter, J. (2005). The practical design of shell structures exploiting different methods of
analysis, Shell Structures: Theory and Applications pp. 7186.

133

REFERENCES
Rotter, J. (2007). Recent advances in the philosophy of the practical design of shell structures, implemented in eurocode provisions, Proc. SEMC .
Rotter, John Michael Schmidt, H. (2008). Buckling of Steel Shells - European Design
Recommendations, number 125, 5th edn, ECCS European Convention for Constructional
Steelwork.
Schneider, W. and Brede, A. (2005). Consistent equivalent geometric imperfections for
the numerical buckling strength verification of cylindrical shells under uniform external
pressure, Thin-Walled Structures 43(2): 175 188.
The EN Eurocodes (n.d.). http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed: 05/02/2013.
Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J. (1961). Theory of elastic stability, McGraw-hill New York.
Timoshenko, S. and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959). Theory of plates and shells, Vol. 2,
McGraw-hill New York.
V.I. Weingarten, E.J. Morgan, P. S. (1965). Elastic stability of thin-walled cylindrical and
conical shells under axial compression, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journel(AIAAJ) pp. pp.500505.
Weingarten, V., Seide, P. and Peterson, J. (1968). Buckling of thin-walled circular cylinders.
nasa sp 8007, Space Vehicle Design Criteria (Structures) .
Weisstein, E. W. (n.d.). L2 -Norm. From Mathworld - A Wolfram Web Resource, http:
//mathworld.wolfram.com/L2-Norm.html. Accessed: 31/01/2013.

134

135

LIST OF FIGURES
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12

Yas Hotel Bridge, Abu Dhabi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stable postbuckling curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unstable postbuckling curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limit load buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stiffened panel failure levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Buckling modes of stiffened cylindrical shells . . . . . . . . . . .
Steel plate girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
First buckling mode of flat plate - deformed shape and stress . .
ANSYS - First buckling mode flat plate and buckling stress . . .
Wave number vs. Buckling coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
First buckling mode of curved panel - deformed shape and stress
Types of shell analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2
4
5
5
6
7
9
11
12
13
13
15

2.1

Yas hotel link bridge stiffeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

First and second modal shapes . . . .

A geometric imperfection illustrated as
4-noded quadrilateral shell element . .
4 node shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21
26
27
28

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

Eurocode defined boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29
Wireframe model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
Separation of surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
Axial loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
External pressure loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
Computational analysis procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
Steps in buckling strength assessment using design by global numerical MNA/LBA
analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
Definition of buckling resistance from global GMNIA analysis . . . . . . . .
51
Example interpolation of the RGM N IA for the amplitude of the adopted
equivalent geometric imperfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53

4.8
4.9
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7

. . . . .
a crease
. . . . .
. . . . .

. . . . . . . .
in a cylinder
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

Cylinder IC1 AutoCAD model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cylinder IC1 - Cross section of ring stiffeners . . . . . .
Cylinder IC1 - Radial constraints on top nodes . . . . .
Cylinder IC1 - Junction between two shell segments and
Cylinder IC-1 - Linear axial buckling . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder IC-1 - External pressure buckling . . . . . . . .
Introduction of analyses and GMNIA modules . . . . . .

.
.
.
a
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
ring stiffener
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

68
69
70
71
72
74
75

LIST OF FIGURES
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
6.21
6.22
6.23
6.24
6.25
6.26
6.27
6.28

Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

76
77
78
79
80
83
84
85
87
88
89
91
92
93
94
96
97
98
100
101
102

7.1
7.2
7.3

Buckling resistance vs. Increasing length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of plasticity on critical buckling stress in ABS codes . . . . . . . . . .
Extended capacity curve and parameters , , 0 and . . . . . . . . . . .

106
109
110

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8

Analysis tree for optimised design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cylinder 1 - Stress distribution before buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 1 - Stress vs. Applied displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 6.1 - Stress distribution before buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 6.1 - Stress vs. Applied displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 1 - Reaction stress vs. Applied displacement . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 6.1 - Reaction stress vs. Applied displacement . . . . . . . . . . .
Results of a reliable selection of published axial compression cylinder tests,
compared to the EN buckling curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Buckling resistance vs. non-dimensional slenderness . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118
122
122
123
123
124
125

8.9

IC-1 - Force convergence for first analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .

IC-1 - Deformation vs. Reaction stress for first analysis . . . .
IC-1 - Maximum equivalent (Von-mises) stress for first analysis
IC-1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IC-1 - Plastic reference resistance, Rpl . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 - Linear axial buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 - External pressure buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 - Linear axial buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 - External pressure buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure (first eigenmode) . . . .
6.1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure (second eigenmode) . . .
IC6 - Linear buckling axial loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IC6 - External pressure buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IC6 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1C - Linear axial buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1C - External pressure buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1C - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1B - Linear axial buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1B - External pressure buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1B - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

126
127

136

137

LIST OF TABLES
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6

Parameter Cxb for the effect of boundary conditions on the critical meridional
buckling stress in long cylinders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Values of fabrication quality parameter Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Values of based on fabrication quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
External pressure buckling factors for medium-length cylinders C . . . . .
External pressure buckling factors for short cylinders Cs . . . . . . . . . .
Recommended values for dimple imperfection parameters . . . . . . . . . .

30
31
32
33
33
53

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17

Ring stiffened shell geometry . . . . . . . . .

Cylinder IC-1 - Axial . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder IC1 - External Pressure . . . . . . .
Cylinder 1 - Axial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 1 - External Pressure . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 6.1 - Axial . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 6.1 - External Pressure . . . . . . .
Ring and stringer stiffened cylinders geometry
Cylinder IC6 - Axial . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder IC6 - External pressure . . . . . . .
Cylinder IC6 - Alternative Eurocode . . . . .
Cylinder 2-1C - Axial . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 2-1C - External pressure . . . . . . .
Cylinder 2-1C - Alternative Eurocode . . . .
Cylinder 2-1B - Axial . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylinder 2-1B - External pressure . . . . . . .
Cylinder 2-1B - Alternative Eurocode . . . .

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13

Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

54
58
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
65
65
66
66
66
66
67

IC-1 - Ansys Linear Buckling . . . . . . . . . . .

IC-1 - Ansys Linear External Pressure Buckling
IC-1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . .
1 - Ansys linear axial buckling . . . . . . . . . .
1 - Ansys external pressure buckling . . . . . . .
1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . . . .
6.1 - Ansys linear axial buckling . . . . . . . . .
6.1 - Ansys Linear External Pressure Buckling .
6.1 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . . .
IC6 - Ansys linear axial buckling . . . . . . . . .
IC6 - Ansys external pressure buckling . . . . . .
IC6 - Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure . . . . . .
2-1C - Ansys linear axial buckling . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

73
74
79
83
84
84
87
88
88
92
93
93
96

LIST OF TABLES
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18

Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder

2-1C
2-1C
2-1B
2-1B
2-1B

Ansys external pressure buckling

Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure
Ansys linear axial buckling . . .
Ansys external pressure buckling
Amplitude vs. Buckling pressure

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4

Compiled axial loading results . . . . . . . . . .

Compiled external pressure loading results . . .
Ring stiffener stiffness check . . . . . . . . . . .
Numerical buckling resistance comparison table

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

97
98
100
101
102

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

104
104
108
115

138

Appendix A

clear all;
clc;
% Buckling of axially loaded singly curved plates
E=2*10^5;
nu=0.3;
t=5;
b=1000;
r=500;

%
%
%
%
%

Modulus of Elasticity (N/mm^2)

Poisson ratio
Plate thickness (mm)
Plate length
Radius of curvature

Area=t*pi*r;

% Loaded Area (mm^2)

for j=1:50;
% nwav=zeros(1,length(j));
nwav(j)=0+j;
%lambda=zeros(1,length(j));
lambda(j)=(pi*r)/nwav(j);
%beta=zeros(1,length(j));
beta(j)=b/lambda(j);
zb=(b^2/(r*t))*sqrt(1-nu^2);
A(j)=((nwav(j)^2+beta(j)^2)^2/beta(j)^2);
B(j)=((12*zb^2*beta(j)^2)/(pi^4*(nwav(j)^2+beta(j)^2)^2));
kc(j)=A(j)+B(j);
n_wav=find(kc==min(kc));
n=n_wav;
end
plot(kc)
lambda=(pi*r)/n;
beta=b/lambda;
A=((n^2+beta^2)^2/beta^2);
B=((12*zb^2*beta^2)/(pi^4*(n^2+beta^2)^2));
kc=A+B;
sigma=((pi^2*E)/(12*(1-nu^2)));
sigmacr=kc*sigma*(t/b)^2;
fprintf('Critical Buckling Stress for curved plate is: %.2f N/mm^2',sigmacr)
force=sigmacr*Area;
fprintf('\nCritical Buckling Force for curved plate is: %.2f N',force)

Appendix B

fprintf('\n-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-')
fprintf('\nAmerican Bureau of Shipping\n')
fprintf('-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- \n')

%% 3

Unstiffened or Ring-Stiffened Cylinders

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Critical Buckling Stress due to Axial Compression (Section 4 - 3.3)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
Classical compressive buckling stress for a perfect cylindrical
shell(N/mm^2)
sigma_CExR=0.605*((E*t)/r);
%
Batdorf parameter (l=length between adjacent ring stiffeners
(unsupported))
z=(l^2/(r*t))*sqrt(1-nu^2);
%

Length dependent coefficient

if (z>=2.85)
C=1;
else
C=(1.425/z)+(0.175*z);
end

Nominal or lower bound knock-down factor to allow for shape imperfections

if (z<1)
rho_xR=0.75+0.003*z*(1-(r/(300*t)));
elseif (1<=z && z<20)
rho_xR=0.75-(0.142*(z-1)^(0.4))+0.003*z*(1-(r/(300*t)));
else
rho_xR=0.35-0.0002*(r/t);
end

%
Elastic compressive buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell
(N/mm^2)
sigma_ExR=rho_xR*C*sigma_CExR;
%
The critical buckling stress of unstiffened or ring-stiffened cylindrical
shell subjected to axial compression
%
or bending moment may be taken as:
if (sigma_ExR<=P_r*sigma_0)
sigma_CxR=sigma_ExR;
else
sigma_CxR=sigma_0*(1-P_r*(1-P_r)*(sigma_0/sigma_ExR));
end
fprintf('\nThe critical buckling stress of unstiffened or ring-stiffened
cylindrical shell subjected to axial compression\n')
fprintf('sigma_CxR= %.2f N/mm^2 \n',sigma_CxR)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Critical Buckling Stress due to External Pressure (Section 4 - 3.5)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%

The critical buckling stress for an unstiffened or ring-stiffened

cylindrical shell subjected to external pressure may be taken as:

Nominal or lower bound knock-down factor to allow for shape imperfections

rho_thetaR=0.8;

%
K_theta
if (N_theta>0)
pressure=menu('Loading from:','Radial Pressure','Hydrostatic Pressure');
switch pressure
case 1
k=(N_x/N_theta);
%
For lateral pressure ((N_x/N_theta)+0.5 for
hydrostatic pressure)
k1=0;
%
0 for lateral pressure, 0.5 for hydrostatic
pressure
case 2
k=(N_x/N_theta)+0.5;
k1=0.5;
%
0 for lateral pressure, 0.5 for hydrostatic
pressure
end
elseif (N_theta==0)
k=0;
k1=0;
%
0 for lateral pressure, 0.5 for hydrostatic
pressure
end
alpha=l/(1.56*sqrt(r*t));
% Code says it must be greater than or equal to 0 which wasn't adhered
% to in some examples in the ABS commentary document
if
2*((sinh(alpha)*cos(alpha)+cosh(alpha)*sin(alpha))/(sinh(2*alpha)+sin(2*alpha
)))>=0
G_alpha=2*((sinh(alpha)*cos(alpha)+cosh(alpha)*sin(alpha))/(sinh(2*alpha)+sin
(2*alpha)));
else
G_alpha=0;
end

omegabar=(cosh(2*alpha)cos(2*alpha))/(alpha*(sinh(2*alpha)+sin(2*alpha)));
Abar_R=(A_R)*(r/r_R)^2;
K_theta=1-((1-k*nu)/(1+(t*(t_w+l*omegabar)/Abar_R)))*G_alpha;
%

Elastic buckling pressure (N/mm^2)

A_L=((sqrt(z))/(1-nu^2)^(1/4))-1.17+1.068*k1;
C_p=(A_L)/(r/t);

if (A_L<=2.5)
q_CEthetaR=((1.27*E)/(A_L^(1.18)+0.5))*(t/r)^2;
elseif (2.5<A_L && A_L<=0.208*(r/t))
q_CEthetaR=((0.92*E)/A_L)*(t/r)^2;
elseif (0.208*(r/t)<A_L && A_L<=2.85*(r/t))
q_CEthetaR=(0.836*C_p^(-1.061)*E)*(t/r)^3;
else
q_CEthetaR=0.275*E*(t/r)^3;
end
%

Elastic hoop buckling stress for an imperfect cylindrical shell (N/mm2)

sigma_EthetaR=rho_thetaR*((q_CEthetaR*(r+(0.5*t)))/t)*K_theta;
DELTA=sigma_EthetaR/sigma_0;

Plasticity reduction factor

if (DELTA<=0.55)
PHI=1;
elseif (0.55<DELTA && DELTA<=1.6)
PHI=(0.45/DELTA)+0.18;
elseif (1.6<DELTA && DELTA<=6.25)
PHI=1.31/(1+(1.15*DELTA));
else
PHI=1/DELTA;
end

sigma_CthetaR=PHI*sigma_EthetaR;
fprintf('\nThe critical buckling stress for an unstiffened or ring-stiffened
cylindrical shell subjected to external pressure\n')
fprintf('sigma_CthetaR= %.2f N/mm^2 \n',sigma_CthetaR)
%% 5

Curved Panels

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Critical Buckling Stress for Axial Compression or Bending Moment (Section
4 - 5.3)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%

z_s
z_s=sqrt(1-nu^2)*(s^2/(r*t));

KxP
if (z_s<=11.4)
K_xP=4+((3*z_s^2)/pi^4);
else
K_xP=0.702*z_s;
end

Nominal or lower bound knock-down factor to allow for shape imperfections

if (z_s<=11.4)
rho_xP=1-(0.019*z_s^(1.25))+((0.0024*z_s)*(1-(r/(300*t))));

else
rho_xP=0.27+(1.5/z_s)+(27/z_s^2)+(0.008*sqrt(z_s)*(1-(r/(300*t))));
end
%
Classical buckling stress for a perfect curved panel between adjacent
stringer stiffeners (N/mm2)
sigma_CExP=K_xP*((pi^2*E)/(12*(1-nu^2)))*(t/s)^2;
%

Lambda_n
lambda_n=sqrt(sigma_0/(rho_xP*sigma_CExP));

Factor compensating for the lower bound nature of rho_xP (Bias factor)
if (lambda_n<=1)
B_xP=1+(0.15*lambda_n);
else
B_xP=1.15;
end

Elastic buckling stress for an imperfect curved panel (N/mm^2)

sigma_ExP=B_xP*rho_xP*sigma_CExP;

if (sigma_ExP<=P_r*sigma_0)
sigma_CxP=sigma_ExP;
else
sigma_CxP=sigma_0*(1-P_r*(1-P_r)*(sigma_0/sigma_ExP));
end
fprintf('\nThe critical buckling stress of a curved panel subjected to axial
compression\n')
fprintf('sigma_CxP = %.2f N/mm^2 \n',sigma_CxP)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Critical Buckling Stress under External Pressure (Section 4 - 5.5)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
%

The critical buckling stress for curved panels bounded by adjacent

pairs of ring and stringer stiffeners subjected to external pressure
may be taken as:

%
Circumferential wave number starting at 0.5Ns and increasing until a
%
mininum value of qCE?P is attained
alpha_2=(pi*r)/l;
if (N_s<1)
for j=1:50;
wav(j)=0+j;

Elastic buckling pressure (N/mm^2)

q_minCEthetaP(j)=(((E*t)/r)/wav(j)^2+(k*alpha_2^2)1)*((((wav(j)^2+alpha_2^2-1)^2/(12*(1nu^2)))*(t/r)^2)+(alpha_2^4/(wav(j)^2+alpha_2^2)^2));
n_wav=find(q_minCEthetaP==min(q_minCEthetaP));
n=wav(n_wav);

end
elseif (N_s>=1)
vec_j=0.5*N_s:50;
for j=1:length(vec_j);
wav(j)=vec_j(j);

Elastic buckling pressure (N/mm^2)

q_minCEthetaP(j)=(((E*t)/r)/(wav(j)^2+k*alpha_2^21))*(((wav(j)^2+alpha_2^2-1)^2/(12*(1nu^2)))*(t/r)^2+(alpha_2^4/(wav(j)^2+alpha_2^2)^2));
n_wav=find(q_minCEthetaP==min(q_minCEthetaP));
n=wav(n_wav);
end
end
%
Elastic buckling pressure (N/mm^2)
q_CEthetaP=(((E*t)/r)/(n^2+k*alpha_2^2-1))*(((n^2+alpha_2^2-1)^2/(12*(1nu^2)))*(t/r)^2+(alpha_2^4/(n^2+alpha_2^2)^2));
%
Elastic hoop buckling stress of imperfect curved panel (N/mm^2)
sigma_EthetaP=((q_CEthetaP*(r+0.5*t))/t)*K_theta;
DELTA2=sigma_EthetaP/sigma_0;
%
Plasticity reduction factor
if (DELTA2<=0.55)
PHI2=1;
elseif (0.55<DELTA2 && DELTA2<=1.6)
PHI2=(0.45/DELTA2)+0.18;
elseif (1.6<DELTA2 && DELTA2<=6.25)
PHI2=1.31/(1+(1.15*DELTA2));
else
PHI2=1/DELTA2;
end
sigma_CthetaP=PHI2*sigma_EthetaP;
fprintf('\nThe critical buckling stress of a curved panel subjected to
external pressure\n')
fprintf('sigma_CthetaP = %.2f N/mm^2 \n',sigma_CthetaP)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%
% Critical Buckling Stress for Axial Compression or Bending Moment (Section
4 - 7.3)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%
%
%

The critical buckling stress of ring and stringer-stiffened cylindrical

shells subjected to axial compression or bending may be taken as:

Reduced shell slenderness ratio

lambda_xP=sqrt(sigma_0/sigma_ExP);

Reduced effective width of shell (mm)

if (lambda_xP>0.53)
s_e=(0.53/lambda_xP)*s;
else
s_e=s;
end

A_s=(d_st*t_st)+(b_st*t_fst);
%
Cross sectional area of stringer stiffener (mm^2)
switch stringerstiffener
case 1
%
Distance from inner surface of shell to centroid of stringer stiffener
y_st=(((d_st+(t_fst/2))*(t_fst*b_st))+((d_st/2)*(t_st*d_st)))/(A_s);
%
Moment of inertia of stringer stiffener
I_s=(1/3)*((t_st*y_st^3)+(b_st*((d_st+t_fst)-y_st)^3)-((b_stt_st)*(((d_st+t_fst)-y_st-t_fst)^3)));
z_st=y_st; %r-y_st;
%
Distance from centerline
of shell to the centroid of stringer stiffener (mm)
case 2
%
Distance from inner surface of shell to centroid of stringer stiffener
y_st=(d_st+t_st)-((t_st*(2*d_st+b_st)+d_st^2))/(2*(d_st+b_st)); % Short edge
of leg in contact with cylinder
%y_st=(d_st+t_st)-((t_st*(2*d_st+b_st)+d_st^2))/(2*(d_st+b_st)); % Long edge
of leg in contact with cylinder
z_st=y_st; %r-y_st;
%
Distance from centerline
of shell to the centroid of stringer stiffener (mm)
%
Moment of inertia of stringer stiffener
I_s=(1/3)*((t_st*y_st^3)+(b_st*((d_st+t_st)-y_st)^3)-((b_stt_st)*(((d_st+t_st)-y_st-t_st)^3)));
end
%
Minimum moment of inertia of stringer stiffeners
alpha_0=l/s;
if A_s>0
delta=A_s/(s*t);
else
delta=0;
end
gamma_0=((2.6+(4.0*delta))*alpha_0^2)+(12.4*alpha_0)-(13.2*alpha_0^(0.5));
I_0=((s*t^3)/(12*(1-nu^2)))*gamma_0;
%

Check moment of inertia of stringers

if (I_0<I_s)
sufficiency='OK';
else
sufficiency='Insufficient';
end

fprintf('\nStringer moment of inertia = %s \n',sufficiency)

%
Web of Stringer Stiffener Check
if ((d_st/t_st)<=1.5*(E/sigma_0)^0.5);
sweb='OK';
else
sweb='Not OK';
end
fprintf('\nStringer stiffener web d/t ratio check = %s \n',sweb)
%

Imperial Factor
rho_xB=0.75;

%
Moment of inertia of ring stiffener plus associated effective length of
shell (mm^4)
y_rs2=(((d_rs*t_w)*(t_frs+d_rs/2))+((l_eo*t)*(t_frs+d_rs+(t/2)))+(((b_rs*t_fr
s)*(t_frs/2))))/((t_frs*b_rs)+(d_rs*t_w)+(l_eo*t));
I_rss=(((l_eo*t^3)/12)+((l_eo*t)*((t_frs+d_rs+(t/2))y_rs2)^2))+(((t_w*d_rs^3)/12)+((d_rs*t_w)*(abs((t_frs+(d_rs/2))y_rs2))^2))+(((b_rs*t_frs^3)/12)+((b_rs*t_frs)*((abs((t_frs/2)-y_rs2))^2)));
%
Moment of inertia of stringer stiffener plus associated effective shell
%
plate width (mm^4)
y_st2=(((d_st*t_st)*(t_fst+d_st/2))+((s_e*t)*(t_fst+d_st+(t/2)))+(((b_st*t_fs
t)*(t_fst/2))))/((t_fst*b_st)+(d_st*t_st)+(s_e*t));
% New centroidal axis
I_se=(((s_e*t^3)/12)+((s_e*t)*((t_fst+d_st+(t/2))y_st2)^2))+(((t_st*d_st^3)/12)+((d_st*t_st)*(abs((t_fst+(d_st/2))y_st2))^2))+(((b_st*t_fst^3)/12)+((b_st*t_fst)*((abs((t_fst/2)-y_st2))^2)));
%

Elastic compressive buckling stress of stringer-stiffened shell (N/mm2)

sigma_s=rho_xB*((0.605*E*(t/r))/(1+(A_s/(s*t))));

Elastic buckling stress of column (N/mm^2)

sigma_c=(pi^2*E*I_se)/(l^2*(A_s+s_e*t));

%
%

Elastic compressive buckling stress of imperfect stringer-stiffened

shell (N/mm^2)
sigma_ExB=sigma_c+sigma_s;

if (sigma_ExB<=P_r*sigma_0)
sigma_CxB=sigma_ExB;
else
sigma_CxB=sigma_0*(1-P_r*(1-P_r)*(sigma_0/sigma_ExB));
end
fprintf('\nThe critical buckling stress of ring and stringer-stiffened
cylindrical shells subjected to axial compression\n')
fprintf('sigma_CxB = %.2f N/mm^2 \n',sigma_CxB)

%% 7

Ring and Stringer-stiffened shells

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Critical Buckling Stress for External Pressure (Section 4 - 7.5)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%

The critical buckling stress for ring and stringer-stiffened

cylindrical shells subjected to external pressure may be taken as:

Geometrical parameter
g=2*pi*((l^2*A_s)/(N_s*I_s));

Effective pressure correction factor

if (g<=500)
K_p=0.25+((0.85/500)*g);
else
K_p=1.10;
end

%
%

Collapse pressure of a stringer stiffener plus its associated shell

plating (N/mm^2)
q_s=(16/(s*l^2))*A_s*abs(z_st)*sigma_0; %(16/(s*l^2))*A_s*abs(z_st(t/2))*sigma_0;
%
%

Collapse hoop stress for a stringer stiffener plus its associated

shell plating (N/mm^2)
sigma_sp=((q_s*(r+0.5*t))/t)*K_theta;

sigma_CthetaB=min((sigma_CthetaR+sigma_sp)*K_p,sigma_0);
fprintf('\nThe critical buckling stress for ring and stringer-stiffened
cylindrical shells subjected to external pressure\n')
fprintf('sigma_CthetaB = %.2f N/mm^2 \n',sigma_CthetaB)
%% Overall Critical Buckling Stress
BUCK=[sigma_CxR,sigma_CthetaR,sigma_CxP,sigma_CthetaP,sigma_CxB,sigma_CthetaB
];
sigma_Cij=min(BUCK);
fprintf('\nOverall Critical Buckling Stress\n')
fprintf('sigma_Cij = %.2f N/mm^2 \n',sigma_Cij)

%%
%

Factors
Adjustment factor
if (sigma_Cij <= 0.55*sigma_0)
psi=0.833;
else
psi=0.629+0.371*(sigma_Cij/sigma_0);
end

beta=(s/t)*sqrt((sigma_0/E));
%
Slenderness ratio ('b' has been
replaced by 's', the short length of plate)

eta=1; % 0.8*psi;
%
Maximum allowable strength
utilization factor of shell buckling (0.6 or 0.8 times psi)

% NOTE: eta is based on factors of safety given in offshore installation

% rules characterised by loading conditions.
if A_s>0
delta=A_s/(s*t);
elseif A_s<=0
delta=0;
end
%%
%

Longitudinal Stress
Stress due to axial force
sigma_a=P/(2*pi*r*t*(1+delta));

Stress due to bending moment

sigma_b=M/(pi*r^(2)*t*(1+delta));

Longitudinal Stress
sigma_x=sigma_a+sigma_b;

%%

Hoop Stress

K_thetaR=(1-k*nu)/(1+(Abar_R/(t*(t_w+l*omegabar))));
%
%

The hoop stress may be taken as...

At midway of shell between adjacent ring stiffeners:
sigma_theta=((q*(r+0.5*t))/t)*K_theta;

%
%

The hoop stress may be taken as...

At inner face of ring flange:
sigma_thetaR=((q*(r+0.5*t))/t)*(r/r_F)*K_thetaR;

%% Minimum moment of inertia of ring stiffeners

I_r=((sigma_x*(1+delta)*t*r_R^4)/(500*E*l))+(((sigma_theta*r_R^2*l*t)/(2*E*K_
theta))*(1+((y_rs/(100*r))*(E/((eta*sigma_0)-sigma_thetaR)))));
%

Check moment of inertia of ring stiffeners

if (I_r<I_rs)
ringsufficiency='OK';
else
ringsufficiency='Insufficient';
end
fprintf('\nRing stiffener moment of inertia = %s \n',ringsufficiency)
%% Curved Panel Buckling Unity Check (Section 5.1)
% The buckling limit state of curved panels between adjacent stiffeners can
% be defined by the following equation

%
%

Coefficient to reflect interaction between longitudinal and hoop

stresses (negative values are acceptable)
phi_p=((0.4*(sigma_CxP+sigma_CthetaP))/sigma_0)-0.8;

BSL=(sigma_x/(eta*sigma_CxP))^2(phi_p*(sigma_x/(eta*sigma_CxP))*((sigma_theta/(eta*sigma_CthetaP))))+(sigma_
theta/(eta*sigma_CthetaP))^2;
fprintf('Curved Panel Buckling State Limit %.2f \n',BSL)
if (BSL<=1)
Unity_Check='OK';
else
Unity_Check='Fail';
end
fprintf('Curved Panel Unity Check: %s \n',Unity_Check)
fprintf('\nFor Excel Spreadsheet: Unstiffened/Ring-stiffened\n')
fprintf('Axial\n')
fprintf('Knockdown Factor: %.2f \n',rho_xR)
fprintf('Classical buckling stress (bay in axial compression): %.2f
\n',sigma_CExR)
fprintf('Elastic buckling stress: %.2f \n',sigma_ExR)
fprintf('Critical buckling stress: %.2f \n',sigma_CxR)
fprintf('Pressure\n')
fprintf('Plasticity: %.2f \n',PHI)
fprintf('Elastic hoop stress: %.2f \n',sigma_EthetaR)
fprintf('Critical buckling stress: %.2f (N/mm^2)\n',sigma_CthetaR)
fprintf('\nFor Excel Spreadsheet: Ring- & Stringer-stiffened Axial\n')
fprintf('Axial\n')
fprintf('Knockdown Factor: %.2f \n',rho_xB)
fprintf('Elastic compressive buckling stress of stringer-stiffened shell:
%.2f \n',sigma_s)
fprintf('Elastic buckling stress of column: %.2f \n',sigma_c)
fprintf('Elastic buckling stress: %.2f \n',sigma_ExB)
fprintf('Critical buckling stress: %.2f \n',sigma_CxB)
fprintf('Pressure\n')
fprintf('Plasticity: %.2f \n',DELTA)
fprintf('Critical buckling stress: %.2f (N/mm^2)\n',sigma_CthetaB)

Appendix C

fprintf('\n -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-')
fprintf('\nEUROCODE\n')
fprintf('Axial Buckling to Annex D: EC3, ENV 1993-1-6:1999\n')
fprintf('External Pressure Buckling to Clause 5.3.4.5: EC 3: Design of steel
structures - Silos, EN 1993-4-1')
fprintf('\n -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- \n')
%
Material Properties and Safety Factors
f_yk=sigma_0;
gamma_M1=1.1;
alpha_n=0.8;
ro=r+(t/2);
ri=r-(t/2);
A=2*pi*r*t;
%
Loading
F_x=P;
sigma_xEd=F_x/A;
sigma_thetaEd=(q*r)/t;

%
%
%

Meridional Loading
Meridional Stress
Hoop Stress

omega=l/sqrt(r*t);
BC1=menu('First boundary condition:','Fixed','Pinned','Free');
BC2=menu('Second boundary condition:','Fixed','Pinned','Free');
Fabricationquality=menu('Fabrication Quality
is:','Excellent','High','Normal');
pressure=menu('The Pressure on the cylinder is:','External','Internal');
switch Fabricationquality
case 1
Q=40;
alpha_theta=0.75;
alpha_tau=0.75;
case 2
Q=25;
alpha_theta=0.65;
alpha_tau=0.65;
case 3
Q=16;
alpha_theta=0.5;
alpha_tau=0.5;
end
%
Boundary Coniditions
if (BC1==1 && BC2==1)
C_xb=6;
elseif (BC1==1 && BC2==2)
C_xb=3;
elseif (BC1==2 && BC2==2)
C_xb=1;
end
if (BC1==1 && BC2==1)
Case=1;

elseif (BC1==1 && BC2==2)

Case=2;
elseif (BC1==2 && BC2==2)
Case=3;
elseif (BC1==1 && BC2==3)
Case=4;
elseif (BC1==2 && BC2==3)
Case=5;
elseif (BC1==3 && BC2==3)
Case=6;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%
Axial Buckling
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
if (1.7<omega && omega<(r/(2*t)))
C_x=1;
Cylinderlength='medium';
elseif (omega<1.7)
C_x=1.36-(1.83/omega)+(2.07/omega^2);
Cylinderlength='short';
else
C_x=min((1+((0.2/C_xb)*(1-(2*omega*(t/r))))),0.6);
Cylinderlength='long';
end
sigma_xRc=0.605*E*C_x*(t/r);
buckling stress

% The elastic critical meridional

deltawk=(1/Q)*sqrt(r/t)*t;
amplitude
lambdabar_x=sqrt(f_yk/sigma_xRc);
meridional direction

% The characteristic imperfection

% Relative shell slenderness in

switch pressure
case 1
alpha_x=0.62/(1+(1.91*(deltawk/t)^1.44));
imperfection reduction factor
case 2
alpha_x1=0.62/(1+(1.91*(deltawk/t)^1.44));
imperfection reduction factor
pbar=(q*r)/(t*sigma_xRc);

% The meridional elastic

% The meridional elastic

alpha_xpe=alpha_x1+(1-alpha_x1)*(pbar/(pbar+(0.3/alpha_x1^0.5)));
A factor covering pressure-induced elastic stabilisation
s=(1/400)*(r/t);
alpha_xpp=(1-(pbar^2/lambdabar_x^4))*(1(1/(1.12+s^1.5)))*((s^2+(1.21*lambdabar_x^2))/(s*(s+1)));
covering pressure-induced plastic stabilisation
alpha_xp=min(alpha_xpe,alpha_xpp);
alpha_x=alpha_xp;
end

A factor

beta_x=0.6; % The plastic range factor

eta_x=1;
% The interaction exponent
lambdabar_x0=0.2;
% The meridional squash limit slenderness
lambdabar_xp=sqrt(alpha_x/(1-beta_x));
% Plastic limit relative
slenderness
%
Buckling reduction factor
if (lambdabar_x<=lambdabar_x0)
Chi_x=1;
elseif (lambdabar_x0<lambdabar_x && lambdabar_x<lambdabar_xp)
Chi_x=1-(beta_x*((lambdabar_x-lambdabar_x0)/(lambdabar_xplambdabar_x0))^eta_x);
elseif (lambdabar_xp<=lambdabar_x)
Chi_x=alpha_x/(lambdabar_x)^2;
end
sigma_xRk=Chi_x*f_yk;

% The characteristic buckling stress

sigma_xRd=sigma_xRk/gamma_M1;

% The design buckling resistance

fprintf('\nThe meridional design buckling resistance = %.2f N/mm^2

\n',sigma_xRd)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%
Circumferential Local Panel Buckling
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Circumferential buckling satisfaction test
% Cylinders need not be checked against circumferential shell buckling if
they satisfy:
omega2=l/sqrt(r*t);
if (r/t)<=0.21*(sqrt(E/f_yk))
circcheck='No';
else
circcheck='Yes';
end
fprintf('\nCircumferential shell buckling check required: %s \n',circcheck)
% C_theta
if Case==1
C_theta=1.5;
elseif Case==2
C_theta=1.25;
elseif Case==3
C_theta=1;
elseif Case==4
C_theta=0.6;
elseif Case==5
C_theta=0;

elseif Case==6
C_theta=0;
end
% Short Cylinder
if (omega2/C_theta)<20
if Case==1
C_thetas=1.5+(10/omega2^2)-(5/omega2^3);
elseif Case==2
C_thetas=1.25+(8/omega2^2)-(4/omega2^3);
elseif Case==3
C_thetas=1+(3/omega2^1.35);
elseif Case==4
C_thetas=0.6+(1/omega2^2)-(0.3/omega2^3);
end
% Critical circumferential buckling stress
sigma_thetaRc=0.92*E*(C_thetas/omega2)*(t/r);
% Medium length cylinder
elseif (20<=(omega2/C_theta) && (omega2/C_theta)<=1.63*(r/t))
if Case==1
C_theta=1.5;
elseif Case==2
C_theta=1.25;
elseif Case==3
C_theta=1;
elseif Case==4
C_theta=0.6;
elseif Case==5
C_theta=0;
elseif Case==6
C_theta=0;
end
% Critical circumferential buckling stress
sigma_thetaRc=0.92*E*(C_theta/omega2)*(t/r);
% Long cylinder
elseif (omega2/C_theta)>1.63*(r/t)
% Critical circumferential buckling stress
sigma_thetaRc=E*(t/r)^2*(0.275+(2.03*((C_theta/omega2)*(r/t))^4));
end
beta_theta=0.6; % The plastic range factor
eta_theta=1;
% The interaction exponent
lambdabar_theta=sqrt(f_yk/sigma_thetaRc); % Relative shell slenderness in
circumferential direction
lambdabar_theta0=0.4;
% The circumferential squash limit slenderness
lambdabar_thetap=sqrt(alpha_theta/(1-beta_theta));
% Plastic limit
relative slenderness
if (lambdabar_theta<=lambdabar_theta0)

Chi_theta=1;
elseif (lambdabar_theta0<lambdabar_theta && lambdabar_theta<lambdabar_thetap)
Chi_theta=1-(beta_theta*((lambdabar_thetalambdabar_theta0)/(lambdabar_thetap-lambdabar_theta0))^eta_theta);
elseif (lambdabar_thetap<=lambdabar_theta)
Chi_theta=alpha_theta/(lambdabar_theta)^2;
end
sigma_thetaRk=Chi_theta*f_yk;

% The characteristic buckling stress

sigma_thetaRd=sigma_thetaRk/gamma_M1;

% The design buckling resistance

%
The following variables are defined in Page 57 1993-4-1 - Silos
%
NOTE 1: The above properties for the stiffeners (A, I, It etc.) relate to
the stiffener section alone: no
%
allowance can be made for an effective section including parts of the
shell wall.

% According to Eurocode: The wall should be designed for the same external
pressure buckling criteria as the unstiffened
% wall unless a more rigorous calculation is necessary.
G=E/(2*(1+nu)); %
Shearing Property
% For caluclation of D, the following is assumed.
l1=1000;
l_i=l;
%
is the half wavelength of the potential buckle in the
vertical direction
A_r=A_R;
%22.51; %ABS=A_R
%
is the cross-sectional area of a
ring stiffener
I_rs=I_rs;
%13.4418;
%ABS=I_r
%
is the second moment of area of
a ring stiffener about the vertical axis (Changed from I_r to match ABS)
d_r=l; %180;
%ABS=l
%
is the separation between ring stiffeners
e_r=y_rs;
%+(t/2); %9.0916;
%ABS=y_rs+(t/2)%
is the outward
eccentricity from the shell middle surface of a ring stiffener
y_st=(((d_st+(t_fst/2))*(t_fst*b_st))+((d_st/2)*(t_st*d_st)))/(A_s);
e_s=z_st;
%6.7;
%ABS=z_st
%
is the outward eccentricity from
the shell middle surface of a stringer stiffener
%
Distance from inner surface of shell to centroid of stringer stiffener
y_st=(((d_st+(t_fst/2))*(t_fst*b_st))+((d_st/2)*(t_st*d_st)))/(A_s);
A_s=(d_st*t_st)+(b_st*t_fst);
z_st=y_st;
C_phi=(E*t);
%
is the sheeting stretching stiffness in the axial
direction
C_theta=E*t;
%
is the sheeting stretching stiffness in the
circumferential direction
C_phitheta=0.38*E*t;
%
is the sheeting stretching stiffness in membrane
shear
D_phi=(1/12)*E*t^3/((1-nu^2));
%(E*Ixx)/(2*pi*r);
%(1/12)*E*t^3/((1-nu^2)); %
*(1+(1/4)*pi^2*t^2/l1^2));
sheeting flexural rigidity in the axial direction

is the

D_theta=(1/12)*E*t^3/((1-nu^2));
%0.13*E*t^3;
%
(1/12)*E*t^3/((1-nu^2));
%
0.13*E*t^3;
%
is the sheeting
flexural rigidity in the circumferential direction
D_phitheta=2*D_theta;
%(G*t^3)/12; %2*dphi %
(1/12)*E*t^3/((1nu^2)*(1+(1/4)*pi^2*t^2/l1^2));
%
is the sheeting twisting flexural
rigidity in twisting
vec_l=1:d_r;
C11=C_phi+(E*A_s/d_s);
C12=nu*sqrt(C_phi*C_theta);
C14=(e_s*E*A_s)/(r*d_s);
C22=C_theta+((E*A_r)/(d_r));
C25=(e_r*E*A_r)/(r*d_r);
C33=C_phitheta;
C44=(D_phi+((E*I_s)/(d_s))+((E*A_s*e_s^2)/(d_s)))/r^2;
C45=0; %(nu*sqrt(D_phi*D_theta))/r^2;
C55=(D_theta+((E*I_rs)/d_r)+((E*A_r*e_r^2)/d_r))/r^2;
C66=(D_phitheta+(0.5*(((G*I_ts)/d_s)+((G*I_tr)/d_r))))/r^2;
% 5.3.4.5 Buckling under external pressure, partial vacuum or wind
for j=1:20;
n(j)=0+j;
omega(j)=(pi*r)/(n(j)*l_i);
A1(j)=n(j)^4*(omega(j)^4*C44 + 2*omega(j)^2*(C45+C66) + C55)+ C22 +
2*n(j)^2*C25;
A2(j)=((2*omega(j)^2)*
(C12+C33)*(C22+n(j)^2*C25)*(C12+n(j)^2*omega(j)^2*C14))(((omega(j)^2*C11)+C33)*(C22+n(j)^2*C25)^2 )-(omega(j)^2*(C22
+omega(j)^2*C33)*(C12+n(j)^2*omega(j)^2*C14)^2);
A3(j)=((omega(j)^2*C11 + C33)*(C22 + C25 + omega(j)^2*C33))-omega(j)^2*(C12 +
C33)^2;
P_nRcrumin(j)=(1/(r*n(j)^2))*(A1(j)+(A2(j)/A3(j)));
n_wav=find(P_nRcrumin==min(P_nRcrumin));
%
min(P_nRcrumin(P_nRcrumin>0));
%
end
n=n_wav;

circ=2*pi*r;
omega=(pi*r)/(n*l_i);
A1=n^4*(omega^4*C44 + 2*omega^2*(C45+C66) + C55)+ C22 + 2*n^2*C25;
A2=((2*omega^2)* (C12+C33)*(C22+n^2*C25)*(C12+n^2*omega^2*C14))(((omega^2*C11)+C33)*(C22+n^2*C25)^2 )-(omega^2*(C22
+omega^2*C33)*(C12+n^2*omega^2*C14)^2);

A3=((omega^2*C11 + C33)*(C22 + C25 + omega^2*C33))-omega^2*(C12 + C33)^2;

P_nRcru=(1/(r*n^2))*(A1+(A2/A3));
P_nRd=alpha_n*P_nRcru/gamma_M1;
% The critical buckling stress resultant (Meridional Loading)
for k=1:20;
nb(k)=0+k;
omegab(k)=(pi*r)/(nb(k)*l_i);
A1b(k)=nb(k)^4*(omegab(k)^4*C44 + 2*omegab(k)^2*(C45+C66) + C55)+ C22 +
2*nb(k)^2*C25;
A2b(k)=((2*omegab(k)^2)*
(C12+C33)*(C22+nb(k)^2*C25)*(C12+nb(k)^2*omegab(k)^2*C14))(((omegab(k)^2*C11)+C33)*(C22+nb(k)^2*C25)^2 )-(omegab(k)^2*(C22
+omegab(k)^2*C33)*(C12+nb(k)^2*omegab(k)^2*C14)^2);
A3b(k)=((omegab(k)^2*C11 + C33)*(C22 + C25 + omegab(k)^2*C33))omegab(k)^2*(C12 + C33)^2;
n_xRcrmin(k)=(1/(nb(k)^2*omegab(k)^2))*(A1b(k)+(A2b(k)/A3b(k)));
n_wavb=find(n_xRcrmin==min(n_xRcrmin));
end
nb=n_wavb;
circ=2*pi*r;
omegab=(pi*r)/(nb*l_i);
A1b=nb^4*(omegab^4*C44 + 2*omegab^2*(C45+C66) + C55)+ C22 + 2*nb^2*C25;
A2b=((2*omegab^2)* (C12+C33)*(C22+nb^2*C25)*(C12+nb^2*omegab^2*C14))(((omegab^2*C11)+C33)*(C22+nb^2*C25)^2 )-(omegab^2*(C22
+omegab^2*C33)*(C12+nb^2*omegab^2*C14)^2);
A3b=((omegab^2*C11 + C33)*(C22 + C25 + omegab^2*C33))-omegab^2*(C12 + C33)^2;
n_xRcr=(1/(nb^2*omegab^2))*(A1b+(A2b/A3b));
tm=t+(A_s/s);
lambdaglob=sqrt((tm*sigma_0)/n_xRcr);
n_xRk=lambdaglob*tm*sigma_0;
N_xRk=n_xRk/t;
n_xRd1=alpha_x*n_xRcr/gamma_M1;
n_xRd2=(A_s*sigma_0)/gamma_M1;
n_xRd=min(n_xRd1,n_xRd2);

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
ECCS - Simplified
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
phi_eccs=1/(1+(A_s/s*t));
Qeccs=25;
deltawkeccs=(1/Qeccs)*sqrt(r/tm)*tm;

alpha_xeccs=0.62/(1+(1.91*(deltawkeccs/tm)^1.44));
n_xRcreccs=((pi^2*E*I_se)/(l^2*s))+phi_eccs*tm*alpha_xeccs*sigma_xRc;
lambdaglobeccs=sqrt((tm*sigma_0)/n_xRcreccs);
n_xRkeccs=lambdaglobeccs*tm*sigma_0;
N_xRkeccs=n_xRkeccs/t;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
fprintf('\nFor Excel Spreadsheet: Annex D\n')
fprintf('Knockdown Factor: %.2f \n',Chi_x)
fprintf('Critical elastic buckling stress for meridional loading: %.2f
\n',sigma_xRc)
fprintf('Characteristic buckling stress for meridional loading: %.2f
\n',sigma_xRk)
fprintf('Design buckling resistance for meridional loading: %.2f
\n',sigma_xRd)
fprintf('\nThe characteristic buckling stress for uniform external
pressure:%.2f N/mm^2',sigma_thetaRk)
fprintf('\nThe design buckling resistance for uniform external pressure:%.2f
N/mm^2\n',sigma_thetaRd)

fprintf('\nFor Excel Spreadsheet: Rigorous method')

fprintf('\nThe partial safety factor: %.2f \n',gamma_M1)
fprintf('Imperfection reduction factor: %.2f \n',alpha_n)
fprintf('The critical buckling stress resultant for meridional loading: %.2f
(N/mm)\n',n_xRcr)
fprintf('The characterstic buckling stress resultant for meridional loading:
%.2f (N/mm)\n',n_xRk)
fprintf('The characterstic buckling stress for meridional loading: %.2f
(N/mm^2)\n',N_xRk)
fprintf('The design maximum meridional loading: %.2f (N/mm)\n',n_xRd)
fprintf('\nThe critical buckling stress for uniform external pressure: %.2f
(N/mm^2)\n',P_nRcru)
fprintf('The design maximum external pressure: %.2f (N/mm^2)\n',P_nRd)
fprintf('\nFor Excel Spreadsheet: ECCS Simplified Method')
fprintf('\nThe ECCS characterstic buckling stress for meridional loading:
%.2f (N/mm^2)\n',N_xRkeccs)
% Excel
filename1='output1.xlsx';
outA=[A1, A2, A3, A_r, A_s, C11, C12, C14, C22, C25, C33, C44, C45, C55, C66,
C_phi, C_phitheta, C_theta, D_phi, D_phitheta, D_theta, E, G, I_rs, I_s,
I_tr, I_ts, P_nRcru, P_nRcrumin, d_r, d_s, e_r, e_s, j, l1, l_i, n, n_wav,
nu, omega, r, t]';
% xlswrite(filename1,outA)
%fprintf('\nUnity Check 1: %.2f \n', UC1)
%fprintf('\nUnity Check: %s \n',UC1check)

Appendix D

Ansys Element Types

The f ollowing elements were used i n t he nite element analyses, t he given i nformation i s
taken from the Ansys Element Library (Ansys 13.0 Help System, SAS IP Inc., 2010), for
further information readers are advised to consult this document.

BEAM188 Element Description

BEAM188 is suitable for analysing slender to moderately stubby/thick beam structures.
The element is based on Timoshenko beam theory which includes shear-deformation eects.
The element provides options for unrestrained warping and restrained warping of crosssections. The element is a linear, quadratic, or cubic two-node beam element in 3-D.
BEAM188 has six or seven degrees of freedom at each node. These include translations in
the x, y, and z directions and rotations about the x, y, and z directions. A seventh degree
of freedom (warping magnitude) is optional. This element is well-suited for linear, large
rotation, and/or large strain nonlinear applications. The element includes stress stiness
terms, by default, in any analysis with large deection. The provided stress-stiness terms
enable the elements to analyse exural, lateral, and torsional stability problems (using
eigenvalue buckling, or collapse studies with arc length methods or nonlinear stabilization).
Elasticity, plasticity, creep and other nonlinear material models are supported. A crosssection associated with this element type can be a built-up section referencing more than
one material.

SURF156 Element Description

SURF156 may be used for applying line pressure loads on structures. It may be overlaid
onto the edge of any 3-D element. The element is applicable to 3-D structural analyses.
Various loads and surface eects may exist simultaneously.

Figure 1: SURF156 Geometry

SHELL181 Element Description

SHELL181 is suitable for analysing thin to moderately-thick shell structures. It is a fournode element with six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the x,y, and z
directions, and rotations about the x, y, and z-axes. (If the membrane option is used, the
element has translational degrees of freedom only). The degenerate triangular option should
only be used as ller elements in mesh generation. SHELL181 is well-suited for linear, large
rotation, and/or large strain nonlinear applications. Change in shell thickness is accounted
for in nonlinear analyses. In the element domain, both full and reduced integration schemes
are supported. SHELL181 accounts for follower (load stiness) eects of distributed pressures. SHELL181 may be used for layered applications for modelling composite shells or
sandwich construction. The accuracy in modelling composite shells is governed bythe rstorder shear-deformation theory (usually referred to as Mindlin-Reissner shell theory).The
element formulation is based on logarithmic strain and true stress measures. The element
kinematics allow for nite membrane strains (stretching). However, the curvature changes
within a time increment are assumed to be small.

Figure 2: SHELL181 Geometry

Appendix E

Project

Page 1 of 18

Project
First Saved Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Last Saved
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Product Version
13.0 Release

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 2 of 18

Contents
z

Units

Model (E4)
{ Geometry
Surface Body
{ Coordinate Systems
{ Connections
Contacts
{ Mesh
{ Static Structural (E5)
Analysis Settings
Loads
Solution (E6)
Solution Information
Newton-Raphson Residual Force
Results
Force Reaction

Material Data
{ Structural Steel

Report Not Finalized

Not all objects described below are in a finalized state. As a result, data may be incomplete, obsolete or in
error. View first state problem. To finalize this report, edit objects as needed and solve the analyses.

Units
TABLE 1
Unit System Metric (mm, kg, N, s, mV, mA) Degrees rad/s Celsius
Angle
Degrees
Rotational Velocity
rad/s
Temperature
Celsius

Model (E4)
Geometry

Object Name
State
Source
Type
Length Unit
Element Control
Display Style
Length X

TABLE 2
Model (E4) > Geometry
Geometry
Fully Defined
Definition
C:\Masters\Thesis\Matlab\Verification of Code\2-1C\Non-Linear\Non-Linear
(Perfect)_files\dp0\SYS-2\DM\SYS-2.agdb
DesignModeler
Millimeters
Program Controlled
Part Color
Bounding Box
1142.8 mm

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 3 of 18

Length Y
Length Z
Volume
Mass
Surface Area(approx.)
Scale Factor Value
Bodies
Active Bodies
Nodes
Elements
Mesh Metric
Parameter Processing
Personal Parameter Key
CAD Attribute Transfer
CAD Attribute Prefixes
Named Selection
Processing
Material Properties
Transfer
CAD Associativity
Import Coordinate
Systems
Reader Save Part File
Import Using Instances
Do Smart Update
Attach File Via Temp File
Temporary Directory
Analysis Type
Enclosure and Symmetry
Processing

9910. mm
1142.8 mm
Properties
6.9733e+007 mm
547.4 kg
3.5578e+007 mm
1.
Statistics
1
1
41760
41640
None
Preferences
Yes
DS
Yes
SDFEA;DDM
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
C:\Users\Eoin\AppData\Local\Temp
3-D
Yes
TABLE 3
Model (E4) > Geometry > Parts
Object Name
Surface Body
State
Meshed
Graphics Properties
Visible
Yes
Glow
0
Shininess
1
Transparency
1
Specularity
1
Definition
Suppressed
No
Stiffness Behavior
Flexible
Coordinate System Default Coordinate System
Reference Temperature
By Environment
Thickness
1.96 mm
Thickness Mode
Refresh on Update
Offset Type
Middle(Membrane)
Material
Assignment
Structural Steel
Nonlinear Effects
Yes
Thermal Strain Effects
Yes
Bounding Box

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 4 of 18

Length X
1142.8 mm
Length Y
9910. mm
Length Z
1142.8 mm
Properties
Volume
6.9733e+007 mm
Mass
547.4 kg
Centroid X
-3.908e-004 mm
Centroid Y
4955. mm
Centroid Z
1.1803e-002 mm
Moment of Inertia Ip1
4.5639e+009 kgmm
Moment of Inertia Ip2
1.7774e+008 kgmm
Moment of Inertia Ip3
4.5639e+009 kgmm
Surface Area(approx.)
3.5578e+007 mm
Statistics
Nodes
41760
Elements
41640
Mesh Metric
None

Coordinate Systems
TABLE 4
Model (E4) > Coordinate Systems > Coordinate System
Object Name Global Coordinate System
State
Fully Defined
Definition
Type
Cartesian
Coordinate System ID
0.
Origin
Origin X
0. mm
Origin Y
0. mm
Origin Z
0. mm
Directional Vectors
X Axis Data
[ 1. 0. 0. ]
Y Axis Data
[ 0. 1. 0. ]
Z Axis Data
[ 0. 0. 1. ]

Connections
TABLE 5
Model (E4) > Connections
Object Name Connections
State Fully Defined
Auto Detection
Generate Automatic Connection On Refresh
Yes
Transparency
Enabled
Yes
TABLE 6
Model (E4) > Connections > Contacts
Object Name
Contacts
State
Fully Defined
Definition
Connection Type
Contact
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry
All Bodies

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 5 of 18

Auto Detection
Tolerance Type
Slider
Tolerance Slider
0.
Tolerance Value
25.102 mm
Face/Face
Yes
Face/Edge
Yes
Edge/Edge
Yes
Priority
Include All
Group By
Bodies
Search Across
Bodies

Mesh
TABLE 7
Model (E4) > Mesh
Object Name
Mesh
State
Solved
Defaults
Physics Preference
Mechanical
Relevance
0
Sizing
Use Advanced Size Function
On: Curvature
Relevance Center
Coarse
Initial Size Seed
Active Assembly
Smoothing
Medium
Span Angle Center
Coarse
Curvature Normal Angle
Default (30.0 )
Min Size
10.0 mm
Max Face Size
30.0 mm
Growth Rate
Default
Minimum Edge Length
80.170 mm
Inflation
Use Automatic Inflation
None
Inflation Option
Smooth Transition
Transition Ratio
0.272
Maximum Layers
2
Growth Rate
1.2
Inflation Algorithm
Pre
View Advanced Options
No
Advanced
Shape Checking Standard Mechanical
Element Midside Nodes Program Controlled
Number of Retries
Default (4)
Extra Retries For Assembly
Yes
Rigid Body Behavior Dimensionally Reduced
Mesh Morphing
Disabled
Defeaturing
Use Sheet Thickness for Pinch
No
Pinch Tolerance
Default (9.0 mm)
Generate Pinch on Refresh
No
Sheet Loop Removal
No
Automatic Mesh Based Defeaturing
On
Defeaturing Tolerance
Default (7.50 mm)
Statistics
Nodes
41760
Elements
41640

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 6 of 18

Mesh Metric

None

Static Structural (E5)

TABLE 8
Model (E4) > Analysis
Object Name Static Structural (E5)
State
Not Solved
Definition
Physics Type
Structural
Analysis Type
Static Structural
Solver Target Mechanical APDL
Options
Environment Temperature
22. C
Generate Input Only
No
TABLE 9
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Analysis Settings
Object Name
Analysis Settings
State
Fully Defined
Restart Analysis
Restart Type
Program Controlled
Load Step
1
Substep
38
Time
0.76 s
Step Controls
Number Of Steps
1.
Current Step Number
1.
Step End Time
1. s
Auto Time Stepping
On
Define By
Substeps
Initial Substeps
50.
Minimum Substeps
50.
Maximum Substeps
50.
Solver Controls
Solver Type
Program Controlled
Weak Springs
Program Controlled
Large Deflection
On
Inertia Relief
Off
Restart Controls
Generate Restart Points
Program Controlled
Retain Files After Full
No
Solve
Nonlinear Controls
Force Convergence
Program Controlled
Moment Convergence
Program Controlled
Displacement
Program Controlled
Convergence
Rotation Convergence
Program Controlled
Line Search
Program Controlled
Stabilization
Off
Output Controls
Calculate Stress
Yes
Calculate Strain
Yes
Calculate Contact
No
Calculate Results At
All Time Points

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 7 of 18

Cache Results in
Memory (Beta)
Solver Files Directory
Future Analysis
Scratch Solver Files
Directory
Save MAPDL db
Delete Unneeded Files
Nonlinear Solution
Solver Units
Solver Unit System

Object Name
State
Scoping Method
Geometry
ID (Beta)
Type
Define By
Coordinate System
X Component
Y Component
Z Component
Suppressed

Never
Analysis Data Management
C:\Masters\Thesis\Matlab\Verification of Code\2-1C\Non-Linear\Non-Linear
(Perfect)_files\dp0\SYS-2\MECH\
None

No
Yes
Yes
Active System
nmm
TABLE 10
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Loads
Displacement
Simply Supported
Displacement 2
Fully Defined
Scope
Geometry Selection
1 Edge
Definition
646
648
650
Displacement
Simply Supported
Displacement
Components
Components
Global Coordinate System
Global Coordinate System
0. mm (ramped)
Free
Free
-15. mm (ramped)
0. mm (ramped)
Free
No
FIGURE 1
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Displacement

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 8 of 18

FIGURE 2
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Displacement 2

TABLE 11
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Command Snippet
Object Name Commands (APDL)
State
Fully Defined
File
File Name
File Status
File not found
Definition
Suppressed
No
Target Mechanical APDL
Input Arguments
ARG1
ARG2
ARG3
ARG4
ARG5
ARG6
ARG7
ARG8
ARG9
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Commands (APDL)
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,-7.5,7.5
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UY,UZ,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,221.1,236.1
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,449.7,464.7

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 9 of 18

D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,678.3,693.3
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,906.9,921.9
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,1135.5,1150.5
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,1364.1,1379.1
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,1592.7,1607.7
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,1821.3,1836.3
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,2049.9,2064.9
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,2278.5,2293.5
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,2507.1,2522.1
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,2735.7,2750.7
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,2964.3,2979.3
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,3192.9,3207.9
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,3421.5,3436.5
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,3650.1,3665.1
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,3878.7,3893.7
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,4107.3,4122.3
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,4335.9,4350.9
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,4564.5,4579.5
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,4793.1,4808.1
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,1
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,5021.7,5036.7

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 10 of 18

D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,1
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,5250.3,5265.3
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,1
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,5478.9,5493.9
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,5707.5,5722.5
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,5936.1,5951.1
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,6164.7,6179.7
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,6393.3,6408.3
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,6621.9,6636.9
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,6850.5,6865.5
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,7079.1,7094.1
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,7307.7,7322.7
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,7536.3,7551.3
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,7764.90000000001,7779.90000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,7993.50000000001,8008.50000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,8222.10000000001,8237.10000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,8450.70000000001,8465.70000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,8679.30000000001,8694.30000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,8907.90000000001,8922.90000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,9136.50000000001,9151.50000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,9365.10000000001,9380.10000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,9593.70000000001,9608.70000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,50

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 11 of 18

NSEL,S,LOC,Y,9822.30000000001,9837.30000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,10
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,9902.50000000001,9917.50000000001
D,ALL,,0,,,,UX,UZ,,,,
CPINTF,UY,10
NSEL,ALL

Solution (E6)
TABLE 12
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution
Object Name
Solution (E6)
State
Solve Failed
Adaptive Mesh Refinement
Max Refinement Loops
1.
Refinement Depth
2.
Information
Status Solve Required, Restart Available
TABLE 13
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Solution Information
Object Name Solution Information
State
Solve Failed
Solution Information
Solution Output Force Convergence
Newton-Raphson Residuals
1
Update Interval
2.5 s
Display Points
All
FIGURE 3
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Solution Information

FIGURE 4

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 12 of 18

Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Solution Information

TABLE 14
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Solution Information > Results
Object Name Newton-Raphson Residual Force
State
Solved
Definition
Type Newton-Raphson Residual Force
Results
Minimum
1.1156e-030 N
Maximum
33338 N
Convergence
Criterion
1920. N
Value
4.036e+005 N
Information
Time
0.78 s
Load Step
1
Substep
39
Iteration Number
10
TABLE 15
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Results
Object Name Total Deformation Directional Deformation
State
Solved
Scope
Scoping Method
Geometry Selection
Geometry
All Bodies
Definition
Type Total Deformation Directional Deformation
By
Time
Display Time
0.76 s
Calculate Time History
Yes
Identifier

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 13 of 18

Orientation
Coordinate System

X Axis
Global Coordinate System

Results
Minimum
0. mm
-0.40042 mm
Maximum
11.4 mm
0.40062 mm
Minimum Value Over Time
Minimum
0. mm
-211.71 mm
Maximum
0. mm
-5.904e-003 mm
Maximum Value Over Time
Minimum
0.3 mm
5.9053e-003 mm
Maximum
446.43 mm
291.71 mm
Information
Time
0.76 s
Load Step
1
Substep
38
Iteration Number
48
FIGURE 5
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Total Deformation

TABLE 16
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Total Deformation
Time [s] Minimum [mm] Maximum [mm]
2.e-002
0.3
4.e-002
0.6
6.e-002
0.9
8.e-002
1.2
0.1
1.5
0.12
1.8
0.14
2.1
0.16
2.4
0.18
2.7
0.2
3.

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 14 of 18

0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.3
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.7
0.72
0.74
0.76
1.

0.

3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.7
6.
6.3
6.6
6.9
7.2
7.5
7.8
8.1
8.4
8.7
9.
9.3
9.6
9.9
10.2
10.5
10.8
11.1
11.4
446.43

FIGURE 6
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Directional Deformation

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 15 of 18

TABLE 17
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Directional Deformation
Time [s] Minimum [mm] Maximum [mm]
2.e-002 -5.904e-003
5.9053e-003
4.e-002 -1.1881e-002 1.1883e-002
6.e-002 -1.7883e-002 1.7887e-002
8.e-002 -2.3928e-002 2.3933e-002
0.1
-3.0016e-002 3.0022e-002
0.12
-3.6148e-002 3.6156e-002
0.14
-4.2326e-002 4.2336e-002
0.16
-4.8551e-002 4.8562e-002
0.18
-5.4823e-002 5.4836e-002
0.2
-6.1144e-002 6.1159e-002
0.22
-6.7516e-002 6.7532e-002
0.24
-7.3939e-002 7.3957e-002
0.26
-8.0416e-002 8.0435e-002
0.28
-8.6947e-002 8.6968e-002
0.3
-9.3534e-002 9.3557e-002
0.32
-0.10018
0.1002
0.34
-0.10688
0.10691
0.36
-0.11365
0.11368
0.38
-0.12048
0.12051
0.4
-0.12737
0.12741
0.42
-0.13434
0.13437
0.44
-0.14137
0.14141
0.46
-0.14847
0.14852
0.48
-0.15565
0.1557
0.5
-0.16291
0.16296
0.52
-0.17025
0.1703
0.54
-0.17768
0.17773
0.56
-0.18519
0.18524
0.58
-0.19279
0.19285
0.6
-0.20049
0.20055
0.62
-0.20829
0.20835
0.64
-0.21619
0.21626
0.66
-0.2242
0.22427
0.68
-0.23232
0.2324
0.7
-0.24056
0.24064
0.72
-0.24888
0.24897
0.74
-0.27482
0.27483
0.76
-0.40042
0.40062
1.
-211.71
291.71
TABLE 18
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Probes
Object Name
Force Reaction
State
Solved
Definition
Type
Force Reaction
Location Method
Boundary Condition
Boundary Condition
Simply Supported
Orientation Global Coordinate System
Options
Result Selection
All
Display Time
0.76 s
Results
X Axis
0.23244 N

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 16 of 18

Y Axis
1.7692e+006 N
Z Axis
11.413 N
Total
1.7692e+006 N
Maximum Value Over Time
X Axis
0.23244 N
Y Axis
1.7692e+006 N
Z Axis
11.413 N
Total
1.7692e+006 N
Minimum Value Over Time
X Axis
-5.1868e-002 N
Y Axis
0. N
Z Axis
-8.8598e-002 N
Total
0. N
Information
Time
0.76 s
Load Step
1
Substep
38
Iteration Number
48
FIGURE 7
Model (E4) > Static Structural (E5) > Solution (E6) > Force Reaction

Material Data
Structural Steel
TABLE 19
Structural Steel > Constants
Density
7.85e-006 kg mm^-3
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
1.2e-005 C^-1
Specific Heat 4.34e+005 mJ kg^-1 C^-1
Thermal Conductivity 6.05e-002 W mm^-1 C^-1

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 17 of 18

Resistivity

1.7e-004 ohm mm

TABLE 20
Structural Steel > Compressive Ultimate Strength
Compressive Ultimate Strength MPa
0
TABLE 21
Structural Steel > Compressive Yield Strength
Compressive Yield Strength MPa
293.2
TABLE 22
Structural Steel > Tensile Yield Strength
Tensile Yield Strength MPa
293.2
TABLE 23
Structural Steel > Tensile Ultimate Strength
Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa
460
TABLE 24
Structural Steel > Isotropic Secant Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Reference Temperature C
22
TABLE 25
Structural Steel > Alternating Stress Mean Stress
Alternating Stress MPa Cycles Mean Stress MPa
3999
10
0
2827
20
0
1896
50
0
1413
100
0
1069
200
0
441
2000
0
262
10000
0
214
20000
0
138
1.e+005
0
114
2.e+005
0
86.2
1.e+006
0

Strength
Coefficient MPa
920

TABLE 26
Structural Steel > Strain-Life Parameters
Strength
Ductility
Ductility
Cyclic Strength
Cyclic Strain
Exponent
Coefficient
Exponent
Coefficient MPa Hardening Exponent
-0.106
0.213
-0.47
1000
0.2

TABLE 27
Structural Steel > Isotropic Elasticity
Temperature C Young's Modulus MPa Poisson's Ratio Bulk Modulus MPa Shear Modulus MPa
2.16e+005
0.3
1.8e+005
83077
TABLE 28
Structural Steel > Isotropic Relative Permeability
Relative Permeability
10000

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013

Project

Page 18 of 18

TABLE 29
Structural Steel > Bilinear Isotropic Hardening
Yield Strength MPa Tangent Modulus MPa Temperature C
293.2
145

file:///C:/Users/Eoin/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v130/Mechanical_Report/Mechanical_... 17/01/2013