Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Received 7 May 2007; received in revised form 18 October 2007; accepted 18 October 2007
Available online 20 February 2008
Abstract
Shells are for the most part the deep-seated structures in manufacturing submarines, missiles, tanks and their roofs, and uid
reservoirs; therefore it is a matter of concern to bring about some basic regulations associated with the existing codes. Above all,
truncated conical shells (frusta) and shallow conical caps (SCC) subjected to external uniform pressure when discharging liquids or wind
loads are discussed closely in this paper concerning and thrashing out their empirical nonlinear responses along with envisaging
numerical methods in contrast. The buckling aptitude of shells is contingent upon two leading geometric ratios of slant-length to
radius (L/R) and radius to thickness (R/t). In this paper, developing six frusta and four shallow cap specimens and their relevant FE
models, use is made of laboratory modus operandi to enumerate buckling elastic and plastic responses and asymmetric imperfection
sensitivity, whose adequacy has been reckoned through comparisons with arithmetical and numerical data correspondingly. These
obtained upshots were aimed at validating and generalizing the data for unstiffened truncated cones and SCC in full scale.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Truncated conical shells (frusta); Shallow conical caps (SCC); Buckling; Sole-sh buckling; Postbuckling; Nonlinear response; External
uniform pressure
1. Introduction
Performing test on manufactured specimens is the most
steadfast method in engineering researches. Buckling of a
general conical shell depends on scores of variables, for
instance, the geometric properties of the shell (the cone
semi-vertex angle, the base radius, the slant length of the
shell and the thickness), the material properties (isotropic,
composite, laminated, etc.), and the type of the applied
load (axial compression, hydrostatic or uniform pressure,
torsion and combined load). The various parameters
change the buckling behavior of the shell, making it
difcult to achieve a general depiction. Due to the
relatively high slenderness of the specimens, the failure is
in all cases signicantly inuenced by plasticity effects. The
elastic buckling behavior of unstiffened cones under
compression has been the subject of early analytical studies
based on linear theory, in which axisymmetric elastic
buckling was investigated.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 914 141 1065; fax: +98 441 277 7022.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
2. Experimental syllabus
2.1. Model size
In deciding on the model size for testing, a number of
issues were considered. Firstly, the models should not be
too large, to avoid any undesirable inconveniences
associated with laboratory testing. Secondly, the models
should not be too small, so as to cause difculties in their
fabrication. Thirdly, the radius-to-thickness ratios (R/t) of
the models should be analogous to those used in realistic
structures, since the effect of interaction between yielding
and buckling needs to be appropriately captured in the
tests. Typical real values for the R/t ratio are within the
range of 3001000. As thin steel sheets of 0.5 mm and
above can be easily obtained, welded or soldered effortlessly to produce high quality models with special welding
machine or soldering apparatus, it was decided that the
models ought to be of 600 mm in diameter. Consequently,
517
Table 1
Dimensions and aspect ratios of the specimens
Specimen code
Thickness t
(mm)
Top radius
(mm)
Bottom radius
(mm)
Height h
(mm)
Semi-vertex
angle (a)
R/t
R/r
L/R L slant
length
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SCC1
SCC2
SCC3
SCC4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.8
100
100
100
50
50
50
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
250
300
223.6
403.2
565.7
165.8
374.2
545.4
60
60
62.5
75
41.81
26.36
19.47
56.44
33.75
24.62
78.69
78.69
75.96
75.96
500
500
500
500
500
500
600
375
500
375
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1.5
2
1
1.5
2
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.03
ARTICLE IN PRESS
518
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
519
placed exactly over the top edge of the frusta in which the
simply supported boundary conditions were geared up at
both trimmings. The modication nuts could foil any axial
load to be applied to the specimens. On the top plate, three
holes were drilled for the purpose of air suction,
manometer installation and air release valve assembly to
control the rate of loading and unloading on shell
specimens. The produced pressure was measured by the
above-mentioned monometer. Fig. 3 shows a total view of
test provision.
Supporting ring
Fig. 3. View of the frusta test rig and chamfered ring to support the lateral
luxating of edges.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
520
342
324
0
300
18
250
36
200
306
54
150
288
100
72
50
270
90
252
108
234
126
216
144
198
180
162
SCC4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
Table 2
Buckling pressure and mode of the specimens
Specimens
Buckling
load
obtained by
experiments
(KPa)
Buckling
load
obtained by
FEA (KPa)
Buckling
load
obtained by
Jawad
equation
(KPa)
Mode
numbers by
experiments
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SCC1
SCC2
SCC3
SCC4
25
20
14
20
25
21
5.7
8
7.5
10
28
25
22
27
40
35
6.2
14.5
13
25
35.4
32.3
24.68
24.1
31.35
27.27
3.83
20.3
4.02
16.2
7 (skirt mode)
7 (skirt mode)
6 (skirt mode)
6 (skirt mode)
6 (skirt mode)
6 (skirt mode)
Sole-sh mode
Sole-sh mode
Sole-sh mode
Sole-sh mode
521
Table 3
Layout of strain gauges and transducers on all specimens
Strain gauges
Transducers
SH1 horizontal
gauge
SV2 vertical
gauge
SC1
3061, 140 mm
SC2
SH3 horizontal
gauge
SV4 vertical
gauge
SH5 horizontal
gauge
SV6 vertical
gauge
T1
T2
T3
T4
1221, 60 mm
541, 50 mm
181, 80 mm
771, 30 mm
961, 350 mm
3421, 170 mm
SC3
1901, 230 mm
81, 210 mm
691, 60 mm
1251, 310 mm
SC4
1751, 120 mm
481, 220 mm
3481, 50 mm
2641, 70 mm
SC5
91, 120 mm
991, 320 mm
SC6
8.51, 70 mm
261, 170 mm
2911, 220 mm
3121,
90 mm
181,
150 mm
1501,
310 mm
2051,
70 mm
3421,
70 mm
3511,
120 mm
3421,
120 mm
3151,
80 mm
3471,
70 mm
1441,
30 mm
1441,
190 mm
431,
100 mm
1501,
160 mm
601,
220 mm
2881,
220 mm
171,
170 mm
2341,
30 mm
2251,
20 mm
2571,
30 mm
721,
220 mm
841,
90 mm
2311,
130 mm
2701,
360 mm
3481,
70 mm
1981,
170 mm
1201,
270 mm
901,
70 mm
1691,
80 mm
Apex
3481,
90 mm
3021,
50 mm
3451,
210 mm
2641,
120 mm
1261,
120 mm
2491,
220 mm
1261,
280 mm
301,
230 mm
1031,
120 mm
1441,
150 mm
1341, 120 mm
941, 270 mm
SCC1 3421, 30 mm
541, 280 mm
SCC2 3261, 80 mm
3401, 30 mm
2751, 10 mm
1231, 230 mm
771, 120 mm
SCC4 1081, 30 mm
1891, 70 mm
1851, 130 mm
All distances are measured from the bigger base on the slant length.
701, 20 mm
3061,
285 mm
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
pressure(kpa)
4
3
t1
B
pressure(kpa)
522
4
3
t2
2
sh1
t3
sh3
t4
0
-22
sh5
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
-0.002
-0.001
0.001
(i)
total deformation(mm)
0.002
strain
14
0
0.004
0.003
12
12
pressure(kpa)
8
6
pressure(kpa)
10
10
8
6
4
t1
t2
sv2
t3
sv4
t4
sv6
0
-21
-19
-17
-15
-13
-11
-9
-7
-5
-3
-1
(ii)
total deformation(mm)
-0.0023
-0.0018
-0.0013
-0.0008
-0.0003
strain
10
6
5
4
pressure(kpa)
pressure(kpa)
5
4
3
3
t1
t2
t3
t4
2
sh1
sh3
1
0
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
(iii)
total deformation(mm)
pressure(kpa)
-0.002
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0
0.006
0.005
strain
20
20
18
18
16
16
14
14
12
10
8
6
t1
t2
t3
t4
pressure(kpa)
-22
12
10
8
6
4
sv2
sv4
sv6
2
0
-19
-17
-15
-13
-11
-9
-7
total deformation(mm)
-5
-3
sh5
-1
(iv)
-0.0035
-0.003
-0.0025
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
strain
Fig. 5. (a) SCC total deformation and strain values vs. pressure. (i) SSC1, (ii) SSC2, (iii) SSC3, (iv) SSC4 (b) loaddeformation and loadstrain graph for
specimens SC1 and SC3 in different coordinates.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
Fig. 5. (Continued)
Digital transducer
Digital strain gauge
Failure area
523
ARTICLE IN PRESS
524
Fig. 7. General layout of failure by formation of plastic displacements in the circumference and supports.
(1)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
525
125
pcr p
120
115
110
105
100
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 0.6
1-r/R
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0
342
(2)
324
306
288
270
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
18
36
54
72
90
252
108
234
126
216
144
198
162
180
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
526
204
201
198
Radius (mm)
195
192
189
186
183
180
177
174
buckled form
171
168
initial imperfection
18
36
54
72
90 108 126 144 162 180 198 216 234 252 270 288 306 324 342 360
Degree
radius
Fig. 11. Initial and ultimate radial deformations in SC5 at the height of 141.4 mm.
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Initial imperfection
Buckled layout
0
20
40
60
80
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
degree
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
527
70
65
SC1
60
55
45
40
35
30
Pressure (KPa)
50
25
20
15
10
FEA
Expev
5
0
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
SC4
55
50
40
35
30
25
Pressure (KPa)
45
20
15
10
FEA
Exper.
0
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
528
Acknowledgments
The work depicted herein outlined part of a scheme on
Stability and Strength of Conical Cones subsidized by
the Ministry of Science, Technology and Research in
the I.R. Iran and carried out in collaboration with the
Structural Research Center at Urmia University. We would
like to put across gratitude to the technicians in the
Structures Laboratory of Urmia University, in particular
Mr. Jafar Azim Zadeh and our best friend Mr. Emad
Jahangiri for their enthusiasm and professionalism in
conducting the probes. The authors are so appreciative to
Prof. J.G. Teng, for his great favors in providing
commentaries and presenting his constitutive remarks
regarding this research.
References
[1] Teng JG, Zhao Y, Lam L. Techniques for buckling experiments on
steel silo transition junction. Thin-Walled Struct 2001;39:685707.
[2] Ross CTF, Little APF, Adeniyi KA. Plastic buckling of ring-stiffened
conical shells under external hydrostatic pressure. Ocean Eng
2005;32:2136.
[3] Wintersetter ThA, Schmit H. Stability of circular cylindrical steel
shells under combined loading. Thin-Walled Struct 2001;40:893909.
[4] Popov AA. Parametric resonance in cylindrical shells: a case study in
nonlinear vibration of structural shell. Eng Struct 2003;25:78999.
[5] Ansourian P. On the buckling analysis and design of silos and tanks.
J Construct Steel Res 1992;23(13):27394.
[6] Holst FG, Rotter JM, Calladine ChR. Imperfection in cylindrical
shells resulting from fabrication mists. J Eng Mech 1999;125(4):
4108.
[7] Shen HS, Chen TY. Buckling and post buckling behavior of
cylindrical shells under combined external pressure and axial
compression. Thin-Walled Struct 1991;12:32134.
[8] Yamaki N. Elastic stability of circular cylindrical shells. Amsterdam:
North-Holland; 1984.
[9] Golzan SB. Investigation of the buckling and postbuckling behavior
of conical and truncated conical shells under uniform external
pressure. MEng thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Urmia
University, Urmia, Iran; 2006.
[10] Babcock CD. Experiments in shell buckling. In: Fung YC, Sechler
EE, editors. Thin-shell structures: theory, experiment and design.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1974. p. 34569.
[11] Singer J. Buckling experiments on shellsa review of recent
developments. Solid Mech Arch 1982;7:213313.
[12] Dowling PJ, Harding JE. Experimental behavior of ring and stringer
stiffened shells. In: Harding JE, Dowling PJ, Agelidis N, editors.
Buckling of shells in offshore structures. London: Granada; 1982.
p. 73107.
[13] Walker AC, Andronicou A, Shridharan S. Experimental investigation of the buckling of stiffened shells using small scale models. In:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S. Golzan, H. Showkati / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 516529
Harding JE, Dowling PJ, Agelidis N, editors. Buckling of shells in
offshore structures. London: Granada; 1982. p. 2543.
[14] Scott ND, Harding JE, Dowling PJ. Fabrication of small scale
stiffened cylindrical shells. J Strain Anal 1987;22(2):97106.
[15] Knoedel P, Ummenhofer T, Schulz U. On the modeling of different
types of imperfections in silo shells. Thin-Walled Struct 1995;23:
28393;
Berry PA, Bridge RQ, Rotter JM. Imperfection measurement of
cylinders using automated scanning with a laser displacement meter.
Strain 1996; 32: 37.
[16] Schmidt H, Swadlo P. Strength and stability design of unstiffened
cylinder/cone/cylinder and cone/cone shell assemblies under axial
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
529