A Study on Effects of Initial Deflection on Ultimate Strength of Ring-stiffened

Cylindrical Structure under External Hydrostatic Pressure

Kukbin Kim, Ulnyeon Kim and Jinsoo Park
Structure Research Dept., Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
Ulsan, Korea







ABSTRACT

In this paper, design formulae of local and global mode ultimate
strength currently available are reviewed and evaluated based on the
results of finite element analysis, considering their capabilities of
accounting for effects of initial hull deflection and variation of hull
thickness. As initial hull imperfection data, actual imperfections
measured from two small-sized and a mid-sized test models are used.
Strain data measured from the test model are discussed and compared
with the results of the finite element analysis. Collapse pressures
calculated from FEA are compared with those estimated from the
ultimate strength design formulae for cylindrical shells. Effects of the
initial imperfection on the collapse pressure of stiffened cylindrical
shells are also investigated.

KEY WORDS: ring-stiffened cylindrical shell; hydrostatic external
pressure; ultimate strength; finite element analysis; test model; strain
measurement; global buckling; local buckling; collapse load; initial
deflection

INTRODUCTION

Submersible pressure hulls usually consist of stiffened cylindrical
shells with conical or hemispherical ends. They are mainly designed
based on the concept of ultimate limit state. In order to evaluate
ultimate strength of submersible pressure hull structures, several
approaches are generally conducted which are model test under high
pressure, finite element analysis, and estimation of ultimate strength
using design formulae available, etc. Especially, reliable prediction
using the formulae is needed in the initial design stage.

The concept of using ring stiffeners to increase the strength of
cylindrical shells for external pressure was confirmed when von Mises
(1933) discovered that the buckling strength of cylinders varied with
unsupported length. If stiffened cylinders are sufficiently long, all the
rings buckle simultaneously in a general instability mode: the strength
is determined by isolating one typical stiffener and applying the well-
known ring-buckling analysis of Levy (1884), using radial loads given
by von Sanden and Gnther (1952) and Salerno and Pulos (1951). This
method to predict the general instability pressure for an infinite
stiffened cylinder has been used to approximate ring strength, although
experimental verification is lacking. For relatively short stiffened
cylinders, Tokugawa (1929) first recognized the significance of finite
cylinder length. Salerno and Levine (1951) attempted a more rational
analysis with Rayleigh-Rits methods, involving buckling formula
similar to those used by von Mises for shell instability. Kendrick
(1953) and Nash (1957) independently discovered errors in that
derivation and subsequently published correct solutions: Kaminsky
(1954) also extended Kendricks work for different end conditions. It
should be noted that the solutions were confined to the range of small
deflection and to perfectly circular structures. Despite these many
contributions to the theory, the experiment appears to have been
neglected. Tokugawas models were machined, made of brass with
non-elastic properties and Trillings models (Trilling, 1935) were
welded and so short that the influence of end conditions was
undesirably large. To correct this deficiency, Galletly and Slankard
(1957) tested a series of carefully machined models and obtained the
results over a range of stiffener size, stiffener spacing, cylinder length,
and ratios of cylindrical thickness to diameter. They also compared the
results with predictions from theories of Kendrick and Nash discussed
the effects of imperfect circularity. Homma (1987) performed
experimental and analytical investigation of shell buckling of ring-
stiffened circular cylindrical shells under hydrostatic pressure for fifty-
three steel cylinders with five bays in order to clarify the effects of the
initial deflection and the size of rings to the buckling pressure.
Imperfections in the boundary conditions were also studied, to a far
lesser extent (Calladine, 1995; Lancaster, 1996).

This paper provides a brief summary of design formulae for local and
global ultimate strength of ring-stiffened cylindrical shell and
evaluation results for the formulae based on the results of finite element
analysis, considering their capabilities of accounting for effects of
initial hull deflections measured from two small-sized and a mid-sized
test models and variation of shell thickness was investigated. Strain
data measured from the test model are compared with the results of the
finite element analysis.

FORMULAE FOR PRESSURE HULL STRUCTURE

Submersible pressure hulls under external hydrostatic pressure may fail
in one of four main types of buckling modes: general instability, ring
Proceedings of The Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 2530, 2003
Copyright 2003 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1880653-605 (Set); ISSN 10986189 (Set)
415
frame tripping, shell buckling and axis-symmetric shell yielding.
General instability occurs when the size of the frames is critical for a
given frame spacing, resulting in collapse of the frames together with
the shell. It may occur over the entire length of compartments, such as
deep frame or bulkheads of pressure hull. Ring frame can buckle
laterally if the flange is not sufficiently stabilized by the web. This
theory was explained by Kennard (1959) considering the frame
pretilting. Shell buckling occurs when frame size is sufficient to
prevent general instability, but the frame spacing is critical. In this type
of shell failure, a series of asymmetric lobes appear in the shell between
frames. Axis-symmetric shell yielding occurs when the frame spacing-
diameter ratio is relatively small, preventing shell buckling.

General Instability

General instability is one of the important collapse modes of cylindrical
shells reinforced by ring stiffener under external pressure. General
instability has been studied continually since the early work of
Tokugawa, Bryant, Lunchick and Shimamoto, etc.

Bryant Equation (Bryant, 1954)

Bryant proposed a two-term approximation to the overall buckling
pressure, which has gained wide acceptance, doubtless because of its
simplicity. A simple expression for the buckling pressure neglecting
inter-frame deformation can be obtained by the addition of buckling
pressure for unstiffened cylinder to buckling pressure for combined
section of one ring frame plus one frame space length of plating. The
buckling pressure for unstiffened cylinder is given approximately by

4 2 2 2
cp 2 2 2 2 2 2
Eh (n )
P [ k ]
R (n / 2 1)(n ) (1 )
+
= +
+ +
(1)

which is the same as that given in Timoshenko and Gere (1992). The
buckling pressure for one frame is given as follows.

2
e
cf 2
f 0 1
EI (n 1)
P
L R R

= (2)

Adding the two pressures and eliminating the term k which is small
give the following expression (Bryant, 1954).

4 2
e
E 2 2 2 2 2 2
f 0 1
Eh EI (n 1)
P [ ]
R (n / 2 1)(n ) L R R

= +
+ +
(3)

The above equation relates only to purely elastic buckling of perfect
cylinders with no residual stresses. We need to assume the value of n,
the number of circumferential lobes, to determine which gives the
minimum collapse pressure. n=2 or 3 will usually result in minimum
pressure. Since Eq. 3 describes the elastic buckling pressure, there is a
need to consider the inelastic behavior. A well-established,
approximate approach that seems to work well is to apply a plasticity
reduction factor to the previously defined buckling pressure. In general,
the inelastic collapse pressure can be approximated by

s t
I E
E E
P P
E
= (4)

where

P
E
= elastic collapse pressure
P
I
= inelastic collapse pressure
E = Youngs modulus
E
s
= secant modulus of the material
E
t
= tangent modulus of the material
h = thickness of the shell
n = circumferential wave number
L
B
= distance between rigid ends (bulkhead or deep frames)
L
f
= ring frame

spacing
I
e
= moment of inertia of frame section comprised of a typical frame
and effective breadth of shell,
e
L
L
e
=
w
1.57 Rh t + or
w
L t + whichever is less
t
w
= thickness of web
R
0
= radius to the outer surface of the shell
R
1
= radius to the neutral axis of the frame and effective shell
R = average radius of the cylinder
B
R
L

=

If stress level is beyond the proportional limit (
p
), we have to consider
stress-strain curve to calculate tangent modulus (E
t
) and secant
modulus (E
s
). For example, stress-strain relation for HY-80 steel in
DIN 4114 is given as the following formulae.

x p 2
t
0.2 p
E E {1 ( ) }

=

for
x p

t
E E = for
x p
< (5)
x
s
y
E ( )

(6)
p 0.2 p x p
y
0.2 p
arctan h
E E

= +



Therefore, designers can use above simple formulae to determine
tangent modulus (E
t
) and secant modulus (E
s
).

Lunchick Equation (Lunchick, 1959)

Lunchick proposed a design formula to extend the modified Bryant
equation (Brayant 1954) to the inelastic collapse pressure considering
tangent and secant modulus from material test and Shanleys column
buckling theory (Shanley, 1947). The following Lunchick equation is
conservative for the inelastic general instability.

4
s
I 4
2 2 2 2 2 s
2 2 2
t
E h
P [ ]
3 E R
(n / 2 1)(n ) [1 (1 ) ]
4 E (n )

+ +
+

+
t
2 e
3
e
E I
(n 1)
R L

(7)

Lunchick equation is based on the relationship between stress and
strain curve from material test and Tokugawa equation (Tokugawa,
1929) but they are not available always because of the limitation to
elasto-plastic behavior and boundary condition. Studies have only been
carried out for the small ratio of the frame area and the cylinder area, so
the problems may be great if we use the equations for large ratio model.

Shimamoto Equation (Shimamoto, 1960)

Based on experimental data and the early Tokugawas equation,
416
Shimamoto studied on the purpose of obtaining overall collapse
pressure without the circumferential wave number considering
Windenburgs mean pressure factor and bodily factor (Windenburg,
1931). The following Shimamoto equation is developed for elastic
buckling pressure, but still available for inelastic collapse pressure in
the range of 0.00313 h /(2R) 0.00584 .

3
2.5 e 4
I 3
f f
h 2R 12I
P 2.4E( ) ( )( )
2R L L h
=

(for =0.3)
(8)

Local Instability

Local instability is an interaction phenomenon between elasto-plastic
shell buckling and axisymmetric shell yielding at mid-bay between ring
frames. It may occur in one or more ring spacings. Elasto-plastic shell
buckling between ring frames is characterized by the formation of
inward and outward lobes. This mode of failure indicates that the rings
have greater resistance to buckling than the shell between them.
Axisymmetric shell yielding is characterized by the longitudinal
compressive strains at both the outer surface of the shell between ring
frames and the inner surface of the shell at the stiffeners. The hoop
membrane strains of the shell at the ring frames are partially
constrained by the stiffeners rigidity. However, the longitudinal
bending strains of the extreme fibbers at this region, tensioned at the
outer surface and compressed at the inner, when added to membrane
strains due to the axial load, may lead to premature yielding of the shell.
The region of the shell at mid-bay is particularly critical because of the
maximum hoop strain. In this case, the compressive bending strains of
the outer shell surface are added to compressive membrane strains in
longitudinal direction.

Characteristic pressure based on the BS5500

BS 5500 code covers collapse tests of 700 uniformly stiffened cylinders
in the range of 5.9 < R/t < 250 and 0.04 < L/t < 50 (Faulkner, 1977)
where R, L and t are radius of shell, ring spacing and shell thickness,
respectively. And the out-of-roundness has been kept within 0.005R.
The best solution for elastic buckling of the unsupported cylinder is
that due to von Mises and Windenburg (1934) minimized the
expression with respect to n, the number of complete circumferential
lobes. The following expression for the minimum buckling pressure is
obtained by making further approximations.

2.5 s
m 2 3/ 4 0.5
s s
t
2.42E( )
D
P
(1 ) [L / D 0.45(t / D) ]
=

(9)

von Sanden and Gnther (1952) carried out the first complete analysis
for elastic deformations of perfect uniformly framed cylinders. But
Wilson (1966) derived more accurate and relatively simple linear
equations as follows:

y
y
t / R
P
1 G

=

(10)

w s s
s s
1/ 4 2 1/ 4
s
A(1 / 2)
A t t 2Nt /
A A (R/ R )
3 (1 )
Rt

=
+ +
=

=

L L L L
2(sinh cos cosh sin )
2 2 2 2
G
sinh L sin L
cosh L cos L
N
sinh L sin L

+
=
+

=
+


where

y
= yield strength
t
s
= shell thickness
t
w
= web thickness
= Poissons ratio
A
s
= cross sectional area of frame
R = average radius of the cylinder
R
s
= radius to centroid of frame
L = ring spacing

A following simplified equation to indicate lower bound to the collapse
curve shown in Fig. 1, which was proposed by Kendrick (1983) using
Eqs. 9 and 10, based on a large amount of experimental data.

y
ck
m y
y m
P
P
(1 ) for P / P 1
P 2P
=
m
m y
y
P
for P / P 1
2P
= (11)



Fig. 1 Plot of interframe shell collapse results (Faulkner, 1977)

Experimental results in this paper are obtained from the mean value
curve in Fig. 1 when they are compared with FEA and theoretical
solutions.

Reynolds Equation (Reynolds, 1960)

A solution to Gerards differential equations for plastic buckling of
cylindrical shells was found for the case of lobar buckling under
hydrostatic pressure. An approximate formula based on this solution
was then obtained for buckling in the inelastic region. According to this
formula, the buckling pressure is a function of the cylinder geometry
and secant and tangent moduli as determined from a stress-strain
417
intensity diagram for the shell material. Experimental data from ring-
stiffened cylinders were used to evaluate the formula. Agreement with
experiments on ring-stiffened cylinder was found to be within 4 percent.

2
2
2 e
e 2
e e
Rt
( )
2 Ef t
L
P ( )
3 (1 ) E 3 2 (1 f )

=

(12)
2
e t s
c e 2
1 E 3 3 E
P P ( )[ (1 ) ]
1 E 4 4 E

= +

(13)

where

P
e
= elastic collapse pressure
P
c
= inelastic collapse pressure
e
= elastic value of Poissons ratio
s
e
1 E 1
( )
2 E 2
= : Poissons ratio
b = faying width of frame
E = Youngs modulus
E
s
= secant modulus of the material
E
t
= tangent modulus of the material
t = thickness of the shell
L

= ring

spacing
R = average radius of the cylinder
A
f
= cross sectional area of frame
B
R
L

=
Rt
1.23
L
=
e
e f
e e
f
e
0.5
f
A 1
(1 ) ( ' )
2 Lt 2
1
1 A bt
( ) 1
2 Lt
=

+
+
: stress ratio
e e
e e
e e
sinh sin
( )
cosh cos
+
=


e e
e
e
e e
sinh sin
2 2
' ( )
2
cosh cos
2 2

+

1
2
4
e e
L
[3(1 )]
Rt
=

The subscript e designates that the functions are based on the elastic
value of Poissons ratio.

MODEL TESTS

Test Model Dimensions

Two external flat ring-stiffened cylinders and one internal T-bar ring-
stiffened cylinder were considered in this study, naming RS-1, RS-2
and RS-3, respectively. Geometry, dimensions and material properties
of the models are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1. Thicknesses of the shell
and stiffener web for RS-3 are 16 mm and 6 mm, respectively.
Materials for RS-1 and RS-2 are general structural steel and titanium
alloy steel for RS-3.

Measuring Initial Imperfections

Measurements of radial deviation from the unified center for the test
models were carried out using rotary table and angle gauges. Table 2
shows the summary of initial deflection measurements.


Model RS-1 Model RS-2

Model RS-3

Fig. 2 Geometry and dimension of test models (unit : mm)

Table 1. Material properties (unit: N/mm
2
)

Shell Ring-stiffener
Model
Yield stress
Youngs
modulus
Yield
stress
Youngs
modulus
RS-1 284 210,000 297 205,000
RS-2 278 204,000 267 197,000
RS-3 588 113,000 735 113,000

Table 2. Summary of initial deflection measurements

Max. out-of-roundness
Model
Stiffener spacing
(mid-bay, mm)
w/R (%) Location
RS-1 120 0.75 150
o
(3
rd
bay)
RS-2 60 0.78 210
o
(16
th
bay)
RS-3 80 0.82 150
o
(18
th
bay)

The measured maximum initial imperfection values were used for finite
element analysis as a form of Fourier series. For example, Fig. 3 shows
the measured initial imperfection shapes for RS-3 model, in which
solid lined circles are initial deflection approximated by Fourier series.
418

Test Facilities

High-pressure test facility used for the collapse test of RS-1 and RS-2
model consists of 1.5 meter long by 0.6 meter diameter tank capable of
hydrostatic pressure up to 120 bar. Pressure is increased by pumping
water into the tank and controlled by shutting the pump on and off. A
pressure gauge was used to monitor pressure in the tank. The pressure
was increased by 0.1 MPa and held for about 5 minutes in every
increment to measure the deformation. The pressure was reduced as the
collapse pressure was reached. For RS-3 model, pressure test facility
consists of 9.5 meter deep by 3.2 meter diameter tank capable of
pressure up to 100 MPa.


RS-3 model

Fig. 3 Measured initial deflection shapes for RS-3

Collapse Test Results

RS-1 and RS-2 models were tested up to post-collapse but for RS-3
model the pressure test was stopped at 70 % of collapse pressure. The
failure pressures for RS-1 and RS-2 were 1.82 N/mm
2
and 2.53 N/mm
2
,
respectively. The collapse test results are given in Table 3 and
photographs of the collapsed models are shown in Fig. 4. RS-1 showed
a local mode collapse, but RS-2 collapsed to an overall mode.

Table 3. Collapse test results

Model
Collapse pressure
(N/mm
2
)
Collapse mode
RS-1 1.82 Local
RS-2 2.53 Overall

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

Comparison of Linear Response

In the beginning part of the test for RS-3 model, at low-pressure levels
(12 N/mm
2
), the response of the model is linear with respect to the load.
Three-dimensional finite element analysis was compared with the
experimental circumferential and longitudinal stress. Structural analysis
program used for pre-post processor is MSC/PATRAN and for analysis
is ABAQUS. The material properties of the manufactured models used
for analysis are shown in Table 1. The mesh size of FE model including
stiffeners for RS-3 is about 4 times of the shell thickness in the
longitudinal and circumferential direction. Its shape is rectangular. Fig.
5 shows the three-dimensional finite element model for RS-3.

Of primary interest are the maximum longitudinal and circumferential
stresses which occurs at the mid-bay and adjacent to the frame, at the
inside and outside surfaces. Fig. 6 shows the stress recovery position in
this analysis.

Model RS-1 Model RS-2

Fig. 4 Photographs of collapsed models



Fig. 5 Finite element model of RS-3 (full model)



Fig. 6 Stress position for stiffened cylindrical shell

Tables 4 and 5 give the comparison results between 3-D finite element
analysis and model test at pressure load of 12 N/mm
2
.

Table 4. Comparison of circumferential stresses (unit: N/mm
2
)

Circumferential stress (

)
Position Salerno &
Pulos eq.
Numerical
analysis
Experiment
Position
1
245.7 246.8 246.2
Position
2
-253.6 -253.0 -253.4

Table 5. Comparison of longitudinal stresses (unit: N/mm
2
)

Position Longitudinal stress (
x
)
419
Salerno &
Pulos eq.
Numerical
analysis
Experiment
Position
1
143.5 144.4 143.6
Position
2
-169.3 -170.7 -169.6
Collapse analysis

Collapse analyses were carried out for RS-1, RS-2 and RS-3. RS-1 and
RS-2 finite element models are shown in Fig. 7. And RS-3 finite
element model is the same as for the linear static analysis in Fig. 5. The
measured initial deflections were incorporated in the numerical model
using the PATRAN PCL program of Fourier series for initial
imperfections modeling as shown in Fig. 3. The finite element mesh
size is about two times to the shell thickness for each model. The four
nodes square shell element (S4R) with six degree of freedom per node
was used in the numerical analysis. Nonlinear capabilities such as large
displacements and plasticity were included in the numerical model. The
1-axis tensile tests of the test material provided the necessary data for
the nonlinear analysis. Stress-strain curve was applied based on a
multi-linear approximation. The arc-length control method (Riks, 1979)
was used to overcome the limit load points as well as to configure the
post-collapse load history.



RS-1 model RS-2 model

Fig. 7 Finite element models for RS-1 and RS-2

The initial buckling strength of the stiffened cylindrical shell was
evaluated by using the linear perturbation analysis of the buckling. The
resulting buckling pressure was taken as an upper bound pressure for
the next step of incremental load. The collapse pressures were then
determined by means of non-linear incremental analyses. The mode
shapes corresponding to the collapse pressure are shown in Figs. 8 to
10 for each model.

RESULTS

Design formulae of local and global collapse mode ultimate strengths
were evaluated based on the test and FEA results of the three models in
which 1 asymmetric (lobar) failure and 2 overall failures were observed.
Stress-strain curves obtained from one-axial tension tests for each
model were used for the determination of yield strength and of the
secant and tangent moduli.

As shown in Table 6, the experimental collapse pressures are compared
with the elastic and inelastic buckling pressures calculated from the
formulae (Eqs. 1~13) and FE analysis. Elastic buckling pressures are
calculated from finite element elastic buckling analysis, Bryant
equation (Eq. 3), shimamoto (Eq. 8) and Reynolds elastic equation (Eq.
10). Inelastic buckling pressures were also calculated from FE
nonlinear analysis, modified Bryant equation (Eq. 4), Lunchick
equation (Eq. 7) and Reynolds inelastic equation (Eq. 13).

From Table 6, it can be seen that Eq. 9, which considered the initial
deflection, are in very good agreement with experimental collapse
pressures for RS-1 and RS-2 cylinders. It is also that for RS-2 cylinder
the pressures according to Eq. 5 and Eq. 11 are higher than
experimental points since such models are weakened by residual
stresses and geometrical imperfections introduced during fabrication,
which were not accounted for in the theory. As shown in the
comparison of inelastic collapse pressures between FEA and formulae
in Table 6, the finite element analysis predictions of the collapse
pressure resulted in larger difference than those predicted pressures by
the formulae.



Fig. 8 Inter-frame buckling mode (RS-1)



Fig. 9 Overall buckling mode (RS-2)



Fig. 10 Overall buckling mode (RS-3)


Table 6. Comparison of FEA, formulae and test pressures

Model RS-1 RS-2
Test collapse pressure (N/mm
2
) 1.82 2.53
FEA 3.37 7.63
Bryant (Eq. 3) 6.02 6.34
Elastic
pressure
(N/mm
2
)
Reynolds (Eq. 10) 3.93 7.14
FEA 2.00 2.37
Lunchick (Eq. 5) 1.84 2.90
Reynolds (Eq. 11) 1.83 2.68
Inelastic
pressure
(N/mm
2
)
BS5500 (Eq. 9) 1.84 2.53
420

Fig. 11 shows the relationship between end displacement and pressure
for RS-1, which is obtained from the finite element analysis according
to the variation of initial deflection. The comparison of the pressure
behavior between the analysis and test shows the good agreement in the
case of
0
/t=0.9086. Fig. 12 shows collapse pressure reduction
according to increase of initial deflection. If ratio of initial deflection to
shell thickness,
0
/t is 1, the collapse pressure will reduce to about 50 %
of that without initial deflection. It is therefore found in Fig. 12 that the
effect of the initial deflection on collapse pressure is significant.

0 1 2 3 4
End displacement (mm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
N
/
m
m
2
)
Experiment curve
FEM analysis curve
0/t=0.9086
0/t=0.5
0/t=0.2
0 : initial deflection
t : shell thickness


Fig. 11 Relation between end displacement and pressure (RS-1)



Fig. 12 Effect of initial deflection on collapse pressure (RS-1)

Figs. 13 and 14 including the experiment data show that collapse
pressures of the stiffened shell with the imperfections are evaluated
according to the variation of the shell thickness. FE analysis results are
compared with those of the design formulae for RS-1 and RS-3.

As shown in Figs. 13 and 14, it can be seen that there is shape turn in
the curves obtained from elastic buckling analyses. The turning points
in the elastic range divide the curve into local and global modes. The
experimental data included in Figs. 13 and 14 have good agreement
with analysis and formulae values in local and global mode area,
respectively. It can be found in the elastic range that Reynolds formula
has the same pattern with FEA results in the local mode range. Bryant
and Shimamoto formulae are in a good agreement with FEA results in
the global mode range. Theoretical design formulae such as BS 5500,
Reynolds and Lunchick are good agreement with FEA results. It can be
also found that the curve of elastic FEA results is met with the inelastic
curve at
Rt / L
=0.17, as shown in Fig. 13. It can be assumed that
collapse happened as type of local buckling because shell thickness of
RS-1 is relatively thin (t/D*100=0.4). On the other hand, general
instability happened as shell thickness of RS-3 is relatively thick
(t/D*100=2.0).



Rt
L


Fig. 13 Comparison of calculated collapse pressures between FE
analyses and design formulae for RS-1



Rt
L


Fig. 14 Comparison of calculated collapse pressures between FE
analyses and design formulae for RS-3
421
CONCLUSIONS

In the present paper, strain data measured from RS-3 are in very good
agreement with the results of the finite element analysis and theoretical
solution by Salerno & Pulos. Design formulae of local and global mode
ultimate strength have been evaluated based on the hydrostatic pressure
tests and finite element analysis, considering measured initial
deflection. As a result, it is found in the elastic range that Reynolds
formula has the same pattern with FEA results in the local mode range.
Bryant and Shimamoto formulae are in a good agreement with FEA
results in the global mode range. Theoretical design formulae such as
BS 5500, Reynolds and Lunchick in inelastic range are good agreement
with FEA results. The boundary between global and local mode was
observed.

Further improvements of the numerical analysis considering residual
stress will be studied for more reliable prediction of the collapse
behavior of the ring-stiffened cylindrical shells.

REFERENCES

British Standards Institution (1976). "Specification for Unfired Fusion
Welded Pressure Vessels," BS5500, HMSO.
Bryant, AR (1954). "Hydrostatic Pressure Buckling of a Ring-Stiffened
Tube," NCRE Report R306.
Calladine, CR (1995). "Understanding Imperfection-Sensitivity in the
Buckling of Thin-Walled Shells," Thin Walled Structures, Vol 23,
Issues 1-4, pp 215-235.
Cho, SR (2001). "Experimental Investigations on the Ultimate Strength
of Submarine Structures," Internal Report of Joint Research between
Ulsan University and Hyundai Heavy Industries Co.
Faulkner, D (1977). "Effects of Residual Stresses on the Ductile Strength
of Plane Welded Grillages and of Ring-Stiffened Cylinders," J of
Strain Analysis and Engineering Design.
Galletly, GD, Slankard, RC, and Wenk, E (1957). "General Instability of
Ring-Stiffened Cylindrical Shells Subjected to External Hydrostatic
Pressure-A Comparison of Theory and Experiment," J Applied
Mechanics.
Gerard, G (1961). "Plastic Stability Theory of Stiffened Cylinders Under
Hydrostatic Pressure," New York University Technical Report SM 61-
13.
Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc(2000). ABAQUS Users Manual.
Homma, Y (1987). "Elastic-Plastic Deformation of Circular Cylindrical
Shells under Hydrostatic Pressure," J SNAJ, Vol 160, pp 232-248.
Kaminsky, EL (1954). "General Instability of Ring Stiffened Cylinders
with Clamped Ends under External Pressure by Kendricks Methods,"
DTMB Report 855, David Taylor Model Basin, Bethesda, Md.
Kendrick, S (1953). "The Buckling under External Pressure of circular
Cylindrical Shells with Evenly Spaced, Equal Strength, Circular Ring
Frames," NCRE Reports R211, R243, and R244.
Kendrick, SB (1965). "The Buckling under External Pressure of Ring
Stiffened Circular Cylinders," Trans. RINA, Vol 107, No 1.
Kendrick, SB (1970). "The Stress Analysis of Pressure Vessels and
Pressure Vessel Component," Pergamon, Oxford, Ch 9, pp 405-511.
Kendrick, SB (1979). "The Influence of Shape Imperfections and
Residual Stresses on the Collapse of Cylinders," ImechE, Paper
C10/79.
Kennard, EH (1959). "Tripping of T-Shaped Stiffening Rings on
Cylinders under External Pressure, DTMB-Report 1079.
Lancaster, ER (1996). "Experimental Observations of the Buckling of
Thin Cylindrical Shells Subjected to Axial Compression," Technical
Report D-Struct/TR1/162, University of Cambridge.
Lvy, M (1884). "Memoire sur un nouveau cas intgrable du probleme de
llastique et lune de ses applications," J Math, series 3 to 10, pp 5-42.
Lunchick, ME (1959). "Yield Failure of Stiffened Cylinders Under
Hydrostatic Pressure," David Taylor Model Basin Report 1291.
Lunchick, ME (1961). "Plastic Axisymmetric Buckling of Ring-Stiffened
Cylindrical Shells Fabricated from Strain-Hardening Materials and
Subjected to External Hydrostatic Pressure," David Taylor Model
Basin Report 1393.
Nash, WA (1957). "Buckling of Thin Cylindrical Shell Subjected to
Hydrostatic Pressure," J of Aeronautical Science 21.
Pulos, JG, and Salerno, VL (1961). "Axisymmetric Elastic Deformations
and Stresses in a Ring-Stiffened, Perfectly Circular Cylindrical Shell
Under External Hydrostatic Pressure," David Taylor Model Basin
Report 1497.
Reynolds, TE (1960). "Inelastic Lobar Buckling of Cylindrical Shells
under External Hydrostatic Pressure," David Taylor Model Basin
Report 1392, Bethesda, Md.
Riks, E (1979). "An Incremental Approach to the Solution of Snapping
and Buckling Problems," J of Solids and Structures.
Salerno, VL, and Pulos, JG (1951). "Stress Distribution in a Circular
Cylindrical Shell under Hydrostatic Pressure Supported by Equally
Spaced Circular Ring Frames," Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn,
Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
Report 171-A.
Salerno, VL, and Levine, B (1951). "General Instability of Reinforced
Shells under Hydrostatic Pressure," Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn,
Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
Report 189.
Shanley, FR (1947). "Inelastic Column Theory," J Aeronautical Science,
Vol 14, No 5.
Terada, A, and Shimamoto, S (1960). "Collapse of Ring-Stiffened Thin
Cylindrical Shells under Uniform Pressure," J SNAJ, Vol 123, pp 218-
232.
Timoshenko, SP, and Gere, JM (1992). Theory of Elastic Stability,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tokugawa, VT (1929). "Model Experiments on the Elastic Stability of
Closed and Cross-Stiffened Circular Cylinders under Uniform External
Pressure," J SNAJ, Vol 92, pp 302-328.
Trilling, C (1935). "The Influence of Stiffening Rings on the Strength of
Thin Cylindrical Shells under External Pressure," United States
Experimental Model Basin, Navy Yard, Washington, Report No.396.
Von Mises, R (1933). "The Critical External Pressure of Cylindrical
Tubes Under Uniform Radial and Axial Load," Experimental Model
Basin, Translation No. 6 (Windenburg, DF), EMB Report 366.
Von Sanden, K and Tlke, F (1949). "On Stability Problems in Thin
Cylindrical Shells," David Taylor Model Basin Translation No. 33.
Von Sanden, K and Gnther, K (1952). "The Strength of Cilindrical
Shells, Stiffened by Frames and Bulkheads, under Uniform External
Pressure on All Sides," David Taylor Model Basin Translation No. 38.
Wilson, LB (1966). "The Elastic Deformation of a Circular Cylindrical
Shell Supported by Equally Spaced Ring Frames under Uniform
External Pressure," Trans. RINA, Vol 108.
Windenburg, DF, and Trilling, C (1934). "Collapse by Instability of Thin
Cylindrical Shells under External Pressure," EMB Report No. 385.
Yamamoto, Y, Homma, Y, and Oshima, K (1989). "General Instability of
Ring-Stiffened Cylindrical Shells under External Pressure," J Marine
Structures, Vol 2, pp 133-149.
422