Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Tall cylindrical shells under wind pressure 199

mer 2: 10
which is common for cylinders under uniform external pressure' see DIN 18800
(1990). '
An appli.cation range that has already been comprehensively investigated is the
range of thin-walled cylinders with moderate length, that is, cylinders of 'stocky'
storage tanks or short silos, etc. For these cases also experimental
evidence IS available,
. The range of slender cylinders, like tall silos, has been basically inves-
tigated for a specific parameter range only. However, a number of new effects
which particularly concern the cases of highly slender cylin-
ders, like chimneys, etc. For these cases, this chapter will give an overview on the
state-of-the-art rather than agreed design recommendations.
.A. cou:prehensive o.nthe subject of wind-loaded cylinders is given by
Greiner the bo?k Silos, edited by Brown and Nielsen (1998). There, further
information on wind distributions - supplementary to that given in the
chapter above - pro:'lded as well as information on the distribution of the
membrane forces 111 unstiffened or stiffened cylinders. The following contribution
deals With the buckling phenomenon alone.
(0.46 +0.017mer ) 046 (I 0 I )
. + .lyCBc (r/l)y'(r/t)
This formula is valid in the range
I :'S qw :'S 1.6
which covers cylinders with circumferential buckling wave numbers (under
uniform external pressure) of
Short and stocky cylinders
The b.uckling b,:haviour of thin-walled cylinders of the type of storage tanks was
expenmental.ly by Resinger and Greiner (1981, 1982) in wind-tunnel
tests. Following the Idea of relating the wind buckling pressure, that is, the maxi-
mum pressure qw, which causes budding failure, to the buckling load
qll under uniform external pressure leads to an increase of b kli . t
" ' c ne Ing reSlS "ance
due to the non-uniformity of the pressure distribution. It may be described b tl
formula: y le
. The above formula (Eq. I) was derived for an elastic imperfection reduction
of IX = 0.7, which was confirmed by an additional series of test results for
uniform external pressure.
are in good accordance with the analytically derived values for
the. pressure of Chapter 6 by P. Ansourian - as long as the range of
validity IS considered (Eqs 2 and 3).
Non-uniformly distributed external surface loadings - as wind pressure in
particular - may bring about two additional effects compared to the standard case
of budding under uniform external pressure. The first one of these effects is related
to the fact, that only a localized part of the circumference - the so-called stagna-
tion zone - is under circumferential compression while the rest is under suction, so
that buckles due to circumferential stresses occur only within a localized width in
circumferential direction. The second effect is related to the overall load-carrying
behaviour of the structure, which - particularly for cylinders of large length -
creates additional membrane forces like axial compression and shear and by that
may impair the budding behaviour of the shell significantly, in a quantitative as
well as in a qualitative sense.
The first effect of this non-uniformity was dealt with in Chapter 6. It is related
to segments of cylindrical shells or to short or 'stocky' cylindrical shells, which
do not produce considerable membrane forces due to the meridional load transfer
to the ends. The second effect, in particular, is investigated in this chapter and
it is related to the case of vertical cylinders supported at the lower end only. The
practical applications are silos, tanks, cylinders or similar structures, which extend
vertically like 'cantilevers' and are uniformly supported around the circumference
at the lower edge and which are restrained by roofs or end-rings at the upper edge.
Investigated structures
The investigations, both analytically and experimentally, are much more complex
than those of uniformly pressurised shells. While the buckling loads of the latter
ones may be derived analytically or also numerically by linear buckling analyses,
the former ones need nonlinear calculations on a high standard. Consequently,
only limited numerical results on wind-loaded cylinders are available up to now.
The same holds true for the experimental part, which requires tests in the wind-
tunnel. All detailed investigations concern cylinders with constant wall thickness.
Stepped walls may then approximately be treated in analogy to the procedure
R. Greiner and W. Guggenberger
Chapter 7
Tall cylindrical shells under wind
':1 1 ,
~ I
Tall cylindrical shells under wind pressure 20 i
(b) (a)
Figure 7.2 (a) Short, (b) long and (c) very iong (=slender) wind-loaded cylindrical
shell structures.
structure (GNIA). These results indicate that this type of buclding is highly influ-
enced by the flattening (or ovalisation) of the cylindrical cross-sectionin the middle
height of the shell, mainly produced by the effect of the suction forces perpendicu-
lar to the wind direction. Figure 7.3 gives a view of different buckling deformations
as obtained by geometrically nonlinear analyses (GNA) of the perfect elastic struc-
ture. The lowest classical buckling eigenmode is also shown for comparison. This
mode does not reflect the features of the nonlinear behaviour due to the lack of
consideration of prebuckling deformations. In Fig. 7.4 the related nonlinear load
displacement diagrams are plotted. Figure 7.5 shows the comparison between
numerical results and the wind-tunnel tests.
Numerical investigations of cylinders with higher slenderness were performed
by Schneider and Thiele (1998), who revealed that additional buckling modes may
occur, both at the leeward side of the cylinder. One mode is located at the base
area and it fails in the shape of the so-called 'elephant-foot' pattern. The other one
occurs in the lower half of the shell, mainly initiated by the ovalisation of the shell
combined with axial compression due to overall hending.
The windward buckling failure may be accounted for in design by combination
of the non-uniform wind pressure with the axial membrane stress including oval-
ization. Also the buckling failure in the base area may be checked due to given
design rules. The leeward buckling in the lower half of the shell, however, requires
further studies for deriving design specifications.
Leeward side Wind-ward side
Stagnation zone
Equivalent uniform
pressure qu
Figure 7./ Wind pressure distribution.
200 R. Greiner and W. Guggenberger
long and slender cylinders
As shown in Figs 2-5, the buckling behaviour of wind-loaded cylinders changes
significantly in that range of geometrical parameters, which is related to circum-
ferential buclding wave numbers less than about 10. In this range of geometry
the circumferential compression is not the only dominating physical effect, but
there are also additional increasing membrane forces due to the overall load-
carrying behaviour of cylinders with greater length, that is, greater slenderness.
These cause a steep drop of the curve of the buckling resistance with increasing
A report on numerical studies of this problem is given by Greiner and Derler
(1995). It shows that buckling occurs in the mid-height region of the shell in the
stagnation zone, initiated by the axial compression stresses acting there. Realis-
tic results require the use of geometrically non-linear analyses of the imperfect
This behaviour is illustrated in Fig. 7.5, where the ratio qwI quis plotted over the
parameter p = mcr' It shows that in the range of longer or more slender cylinders,
that is, mcr < 10, wind buclding is influenced by effects that are not covered by
the investigations discussed earlier.
In code regulations, as given in DIN 8 8 ~ (1990) or Eurocode 3-1.6 (1999),
the actual wind pressure amplitide qwis formally replaced by an 'equivalent uni-
form external pressure' qu, which is calculated by using the reciprocal value of
Eq. (1) as load reduction factor (Fig. 7.1). Therefore, wind pressure may be directly
combined with additional uniform negative pressure created by internal suction
effects, frequently to be taken into account in tank design. Further on, this con-
cept was also adopted for cylinders with stepped wall thickness by replacing m
in Eq. (1) by the appropriate value of the shell with stepped wall thickness as
specified in code regulations.
60 50 40
GNA load
maximum; LlR = 10
GNA load maximum; LIR 7
Reslnger and Grelner (1982)
o Uernatsu and Uchiyama (1985)
[] Johns (1983)
Maximum radial displacement (cm) ..
DIN 18800, part 4
__ bUCki,n7re

DIN 18800, part 4
I characteristic buckling pressure
ILlR;:: (70% imperfection reduction)
Buckling pressures of Wind-loaded cylinders; numerical results and test
data. (GNA = geometrically nonlinear elastic analysis; GNIA = with
Figure 7.5
Figure 7.4 Pressure - displacement diagram (R/t=500; L/R=7 and 10; R=600 cm;

1\111111111111111\1\111\,1\ i,i 1
\\\\"I,'"I1I1I11IIII,I,\!:: I
iI /1111111111111
'1\\',',11111 11 11 11 1I11
!1\::, '
I1 11111111111111
'Ill' 11111111111 'I',
Ii,WII 11II 1I 1\11I1\t
::;'111'1'111111 Jlllliii
:", J/llIlIIlIIllI,;;
11/111111111111 ",
/;, :111/11111111\11 ill:
/1 111111\1 111 i1!:,
l'li;r1//111111 1\111
1'11111,1/111111111 11'1' 'I'i
'1111 //1111111111 .:,

:Ill /1111111111111
111111111111111/ f111l1,',I'I' t
'Ill 111111111111 ':
'/II!/',I,/l1 1111111 11 1,'1'1
il/J 1111111111':
11111/111,11" 11 1111111
,' 1::;' ,
11/ 1111111111 ',-,
I ,.
111111111111111 'I'"
11/1111111111111111111:,,; !i.
!1I111111111111111/ IIIi[ ;:,1
,111111111111111/111 11,
'1', 1, 1, "1111 11 11 11 11111'1111111 r: jl,
11111111/1/11 ,.;
(a) (c)
0.8 a.


0.4 0


-10 0
Figure 73 Finite element buckling modes of a long cylindrical shell with
R/t =500 and L/R = 10. (a) First classical buckling eigenmode. (b) GNA
load maximum state. (c) GNA postbuckling state.
Ring stiffeners
202 R. Greiner and W. Guggenberger
Existing design formulae
Open top cylinders, in practice, need a restraint of the free edge of the shell by a
ring stiffener, called upper end-ring or primary wind girder. Many present codes
(6) J
* = lOJ
= 0.48t
Ansourian, P. (1992), On the buckling analysis and design of silos and tanks. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 23, 273-284.
Blackler, MJ. (1986). Stability of silos and tanks under internal and external pressure.
PhDThesis, University of Sydney, October.
Brown, C.J. andNielsen, J. (1998). Silos - Fundamentals ofTheory, Behaviour and Design.
Chapter 17, E & FNSpon, London, pp. 378-399.
DIN 18800(1990). Part 4: Stability of Steel Shells.
Eurocode 3 (1999), Part 1.6, ENV 1993-1-6, Supplementary rules for the strength and
stability of shell structures, September.
Greiner, R. andDerler,P. (1995). Effectof imperfections on wind-loaded cylindrical shells.
Thin- Walled Structures 23, 271-281.
Johns, D.J. (1983). Wind-induced static instability of cylindrical shells. Journals of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 13, 261-270.
Resinger, F. andGreiner, R (1981). Kreiszylinderschalen unter Winddruck - Anwendung
auf die Beulberechnung oberirdischer Tankbauwerke. Stahlbau 50, 65-72.
Resinger, F. andGreiner, R. (1982). Bucklingof windloadedcylindrical shells- application
to unstiffened andring-stiffened tanks. Proceedings of the State of the Art Colloquium,
University of Stuttgart, Germany, 6-7 May.
Schmidt, H., Binder, B. and Lunge, H. (1998a), Postbuckling strength designof openthin
walledcylindrical tanks underwindload. Thin- Walled Structures 31, 203-220.
Tall cylindrical shells under wind pressure 205
J1I (Eq. 5) were able to raise the buckling resistance in the tests to the level of cylin-
drical shells with radially fixed boundaries at both ends, which means that the aim
of stiffening has been achieved in this sense. However, test results showed also that
this lightly stiffened shell has a tendency to secondary snap-through into a global
postbuckling mode similar to that of the unstiffened shell. Since good engineering
practice may want to avoid such global buckling modes even in the postbuckling
range, it is reccommended to increase the practical ring stiffness to a value of
* of about 5-10 times of J
(Eq. 6). This raises no economical problem at all,
because even these increased stiffness values in general lead to extremely small
ring dimensions.
If strategy 1 is applied to cylindrical shells with simply supported lower boundary
conditions (i.e, without any axial restraints which constitutes a statically deter-
minate membrane support), this requires upper end-rings which are able to carry
the whole external pressure on the upper half of the cylinder, because the isolated
unsupported shell, without edge-rings, forms a highly unstable structure. In this
latter case, the design according to Eq. (4) may be recommended, since it proved
well applicable in the statically analogous case of cylinders designed for strategy 2.
(4) Z = 0.058 X 10-
J1I = 0.048t
This formula is based on the assumption of clamped boundary of the shell at the
bottom edge, which is - in a rigorous sense - usually not the case with practical
tanks. The resulting ring section of this formula is very much smaller than that
due to Eq. (4). However, this comparison does not allow clear conclusions, since
for the API formula the technical background cannot reliably be identified since
the magnitude and distribution of the wind pressure and the boundary conditions
at the bottom end are not explicitly defined.
More advanced recent studies
204 R. Greiner and W. Guggenberger
Further studies - both experimentally and numerically - were carried out by
Schmidt et al. (1998a,b), which made clear that the design of the primary wind
girder is closely connected with the underlying concept of the shell design. The
authors distinguish between 'design strategy 1', where the shell is designed in
the usual way according to Eurocode 3, part 1.6 (1999) or DIN 18800, part 4
(1990), and 'design strategy 2', which makes use of the higher postcritica1 buck-
ling resistance of very thin-walled shells in the elastic range. In the second case,
the upper end-rings are of essential importance providing the statically necessary
upper boundary of the locally buckled shell. In the first case, the upper end-ring
may be regarded as stiffening ring just raising the buckling resistance onto the
required level of safety.
If very thin walled cylindrical shells are designed to carry in the postcritical
range (strategy 2), sufficiently strong upper end-rings are necessary to take over
the wind load of approximately the upper half portion of the cylindrical shell
wall in the deformed buckled configuration. To this end, edge-rings according to
Eq. (4) were found sufficient in case of simply supported lower edges (with no
axial restraint). For axially fixed lower edges, such rings are of course somewhat
on the conservative side, because the boundary condition now provides a higher
buckling resistance of the shell.
If the cylindrical shell with axially fixed lower edges is designed in accor-
dance with strategy 1 - thus leading to higher wall thickness than in the previous
case - upper end-rings according to the 'bifurcation-optimizcd' minimum stiffness
provide a design formula, given originally by the API-Standard, which specifies
the required section modulus of the ring for in-plane bending by
Anotherformula was developed by Blackler (1986) and Ansourian (1992), which
results from the requirement of minimum stiffness under uniformexternal pressure
on the basis of classical buckling eigenvalue analyses, but was recommended also
for wind buckling by these authors:
I, ,
T = ~ c
. t
Theoretical torsional buckling loads are much more difficult to calculate ana-
lytically than in the case of axial compression or external pressure, because no
simple trigonometric shape functions can be used. First approximate solutions
were obtained by Schwerin (1925) and Donnell (1933); more accurate solutions
can be found, for example, in Timoshenko (1936), Kromm (1942), Batdorf (1947)
and Fliigge (1973). A detailed overview is given by Yamaki (1984); Fig. 8.2 is
taken from his book (for the definition of boundary conditions see 'Notation'
at the end of this chapter). According to Fig. 8.2, axially restrained cylinders
Cylindrical shells under pure torsion
Theoretical investigations
In a tube with uniform wall thickness, torsion only induces uniform shear stresses,
which can be calculated according to Eq. (1) ('Bredt's formula'). These shear
stresses are equivalent to inclined principal tensile and compressive stresses
(Fig. 8.1). Because of the latter stresses, thin-walled cylinders can suddenly lose
structural stability when loaded in torsion.
Thin-walled cylindrical shells in civil engineering applications are often subjected
to membrane shear stresses, mostly in connection with a transverse loading and
overall bending. The most widely adopted approach for the design of such struc-
tures against loss of structural stability (shell buckling) is to check the maximum
values of shear stresses against design values which are deduced from investi-
gations on cylinders loaded by pure torsion. This is one of the three thinkable
'fundamental shell buckling cases' including axial compression, external pressure
and torsion, which cover all buckling-relevant membrane stresses in a cylindrical
shell. Buckling under torsion therefore was subject to numerous experimental and
theoretical investigations.
Cylindrical shells under torsional
and transverse shear
H. Schmidt and Th.A. Winterstetter
Chapter 8
206 R. Greiner and W. Guggenberger
Schmidt, H., Binder, B. and Lange, H. (1998b). Design of thin-walled open top cylindrical
tanks under wind load considering the postbuckling load-carrying reserves. Bauingenieur
73(5),241-246 (in German).
Schneider, W. and Thiele, R. (1998). An unexpected failure mode of slender wind-loaded
cylindrical shells. Stahlbau 67,870-875 (in German).
Uematsu, Y. and Uchiyama, K. (1985). Deflection and buckling behaviour of thin cir-
cular cylindrical shells under wind loads. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 18, 245-261.