Composite Structures 73 (2006) 179185

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Buckling analysis of composite panels

a,*
E. Gal , R. Levy b, H. Abramovich c, P. Pavsner c

a
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
b
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion-I.I.T., Haifa 32000, Israel
c
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Technion-I.I.T., Haifa 32000, Israel

Available online 19 January 2006

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present the buckling analysis of a laboratory tested composite panel under axial compression by means of a
simple shell nite element that is developed and presented herein. The tests were performed in the Aircraft Structure Laboratory of the
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at the Technion. Buckling is achieved via incremental geometrically nonlinear analysis and monitoring
of the tangent stiness matrix at each increment. The performance of the nite element is further validated by solving a complex multi-
snap example from the literature.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Geometrically nonlinear analysis; Shell nite element; Composite laminated panel; Post buckling experiment

1. Introduction
One of the key issues for the success of geometrically
nonlinear analysis is the derivation of the geometric
stiness matrix. In the literature, several methods exist
for the derivation of the geometric stiness matrix of shells.
These are based on: classical nonlinear shell theory repre-
sented as a 2D Cosserat surface [13], 3D elasticity degen-
erate shells [48] and perturbation methods that fall within
the realm of the co-rotational approach [912]. The excel-
lent review by Ibrahimbegovic [13], addresses the various
approaches for nite rotations element formulation and
the related complex issues involved while focusing on the
stress resultant geometrically exact shell theory. Yang
et al. [14] present a comprehensive survey of shell elements
that have emerged during the period 19852000.
Among the many papers dealing with the geometrically
nonlinear analysis of composite structures are the works
described in Refs. [1517]. Mohan and Kapania [15] used
a at triangular nite element that combines the DKT
[18] plate nite element and a membrane element similar
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 8 6479671; fax: +972 8 6479670.
E-mail address: erezgal@bgu.ac.il (E. Gal).
to the Allman [19] element but derived from the linear
strain triangular element while treating the shell as an
equivalent single layer. Argyris et al. [16] introduced their
TRIC, at triangular shell element with six rigid body
modes and 12 straining modes which is based on the natu-
ral mode method [20]. Brank et al. [17] included through-
thickness variable material properties making their model
suitable for analysis of multi-layered composite shells.
The present approach is based on gradient methods
which are equivalent to perturbation methods (e.g. [21]),
where rst order perturbation analysis corresponds to rst
order Taylor series linearization. This approach is based on
a load perturbation to the linear discrete equilibrium equa-
tions of an element in its local coordinate system. This geo-
metrical stiness matrix together with the elastic stiness
matrix, enable a nite element, which was originally formu-
lated for linear analysis, to be used for geometrically non-
linear analysis. This approach has been successfully applied
for nonlinear analysis of plane and space trusses, plane and
space frames and membranes by Levy and Spillers [22] as
well as for thin shell isotropic structures by Levy and Gal
[12].
Here the constant strain triangle (CST) membrane nite
element [23] was chosen to serve for the in-plane behavior
of the shell and the discrete Kirchho theory (DKT) plate

0263-8223/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.11.052
180 E. Gal et al. / Composite Structures 73 (2006) 179185

nite element [18] for the bending behavior of the shell. vm

Both elements are three-noded at triangular elements that
(xm,ym) um
have been proven to be ecient in linear analysis.
y
Beyond the derivation of the stiness matrix, an analysis z
program of the NewtonRaphson type that converges at
zero unbalanced load at each load step was coded. It recog- vi vj
nizes buckling by monitoring the tangent stiness matrix (xj,yj) x
and follows the equilibrium path beyond bifurcation or (xi,yi)
ui j uj
snap points. The cylindrical arc length method [24] or the
Fig. 2. The CST membrane element.
generalized displacement control method [25] was adapted
for that purpose.
Stresses were calculated using linear constitutive rela- wm
tionships while strains were evaluated using linear kinemat- my
ics. It is justied to use linear relations since the rigid body mx
displacements and rotations are removed from the total z
y m
displacements with resulting pure deformations that are
considered as small.
In addition an experiment on an epoxygraphite com-
wi iy wj jy
posite panel is presented too. It was performed at the x
Aircraft Structure Laboratory, Faculty of Aerospace ix j jx
Engineering, Technion, I.I.T., Israel, to study the buckling
Fig. 3. The plate element DKT.
behavior of the stiened graphiteepoxy panels subjected
to uniform axial compression. The experimental results
were compared to those of the nite element analysis. each node. Therefore, the geometrically nonlinear mem-
The element showed an overall good performance in pre- brane nite element has nine DOFs locally.
dicting the buckling load and buckling mode of the exper- The basic plate nite element (Fig. 3) contains nine
imental results. DOFs at the element level, two in-plane rotations and
one normal displacement at each node. The geometrical
2. The geometrically nonlinear composite shell eects add a rotational stiness component normal to the
nite element elements plane and two in-plane displacements at each
node. Therefore, geometrically nonlinear plate nite ele-
The geometrically nonlinear shell nite element has 18 ment has 18 DOFs locally.
degrees of freedom (DOFs) at the element level. These It is proposed to derive the geometric stiness matrix by
DOFs are three displacements and three rotations at each adopting a simple presentation of the geometrical contribu-
node. Fig. 1 shows the three coordinate systems that are tions that comprise the the tangential stiness matrix in the
required for the analysis. One is at the material level, where local coordinate system:
its axes are marked as 1, 2 and 3. This coordinate system is
dened for each layer and is used to describe the material Kshell e mem
TOTAL KE KG IP KG plate
IP KG OP 1
mem
properties of each layer. Another is a coordinate system where KeE shell elastic stiffness matrix; KG IP
at the element level (xlocal, ylocal, zlocal) where the stiness membrane in-plane contribution to the geometrical stiffness
matrices, strains and stress resultants are evaluated and matrix; KG plate
IP plate in-plane contribution to the geomet-
the third is the global coordinate system (X, Y, Z) where rical stiness matrix; (KG)OP = the out-of-plane contribution
the nodal displacements and rotations are calculated. to the geometrical stiness matrix.
The basic linear membrane nite element (Fig. 2) has
two in-plane displacements at each node for a total of six 2.1. The membrane resultant in-plane contribution to the
DOFs at the element level. Geometrical eects add a sti- shell geometric stiness matrix
ness component perpendicular to the elements plane at
The membrane in-plane geometric stiness matrix is
m
derived from the gradient of the nodal force vector, Fmem
zlocal when stresses are kept xed:
ylocal
3
2
Z
1 KG
mem
IP rF mem r BTmem N dA 2
i A
Z
Y T
where Fmem f F ix F iy F jx F jy F mx F my g is the
X j
xlocal
membrane part of the nodal force vector, N contains the
distributed membrane forces and Bmem is the straindis-
Fig. 1. The material, the local and the global coordinate systems. placement matrix [23].
 E. Gal et al. / Composite Structures 73 (2006) 179185 181
Z
The nodal force vector, Fmem is rst evaluated from the
KG
plate
IP rFplate r BTplate M dA 8
following integral A
Z
Fmem BTmem Nn; g dA where
A
Z 1
Z 1g  T
Fplate f F iz M ix M iy F jz M jx M jy F mz M mx M my g
2A BTmem Nn; g dn dg 3
0 0 9
where n and g are the usual area coordinates (Fig. 4). Eq. is the bending part of the internal local joint force vector,
(2) is then evaluated explicitly from M contain the distributed plate moments and Bplate is

 explicitly given in Ref. [18]. Chain rule dierentiation will
oFmem oFmem
dFmem dxr dy r ; r i; j; m 4 yield the gradient:
oxr oy r

Z 
Z 
where dxr = ur and dyr = vr are the local DOFs of the e o T o T
dFplate Bplate M dA dxr Bplate M dA dy r
membrane element. Eq. (4) yields the following explicit oxr A oy r A
18 18 in-plane geometric stiness matrix: 10
2 3
0 Amem
IP AmemIP where dxr = ur and dyr = vr are the local DOFs of the
KeG
IP rFemem 4 Amem 5
mem
IP 0 Amem
IP 5 membrane element. Eq. (10) yields the following explicit
mem mem
AIP AIP 0 18 18 in-plane geometric stiness matrix:
where 2 3
plate plate plate
2 3 Aii IP Aij IP Aim IP
c3 c1 0 0 0 0 6 7
rFeplate 6 7
plate plate plate plate
KG
IP 4 Aji IP Ajj IP Ajm IP 5
6 c2 c3 0 0 0 07
6 7 plate plate plate
6 0 0 0 0 0 07 Ami IP Amj IP Amm IP
Amem 6
6 0
7 6
IP
6 0 0 0 0 077 11
4 0 0 0 0 0 05
where
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 3
and 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 7
1 6 0 0 0 0 0 07
6 oF 7
c1 N ixx N jxx N mxx ; 6 rz oF rz 7
6 6 0 0 0 07
1 6 oxs oy s 7
c2 N iyy N jyy N myy ; 6 7
6 7
plate
6 Ars IP 6 oM rx oM rx
0 0 0 07
12
1 6 ox oy s 7
c3 N ixy N jxy N mxy 7 6 s 7
6 6 7
6 oM ry oM ry 7
6 0 0 0 07
where N ixx is the membrane resultant at the local x axis 4 oxs oy s 5
direction at node i, etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2. The moment resultant in-plane contribution
to the shell geometric stiness matrix
The plate in-plane geometric stiness matrix is again
derived from the gradient of the nodal force vector, Fplate:
The expressions for the individual terms of the geometric
stiness matrix were obtained in closed form using sym-
bolic algebra and are too long to be presented here.
2.3. The out-of-plane contribution to the shell geometric
stiness matrix

The out-of-plane stiness is physically interpreted and

mathematically derived as the change in the nodal force
m (0,1) vector due to small rigid out-of-plane rotations. Note that
this matrix is given in the local coordinate system of the ele-
ment. It is an 18 18 matrix of the form:
2 e3
Fi
shell 6 7
KG
OP 4 Fej 5 Ai Aj Am
13
i j Fem
(0,0) (1,0)
where Fer ; Ar ; r i; j; m are described in Levy and Gal [12]
Fig. 4. Area coordinates n and g. and will not repeated here.
182 E. Gal et al. / Composite Structures 73 (2006) 179185

3. Stresses retrieval

Stress retrieval is performed using the full presentation

that includes both the membrane and moment resultants
for a lamina:
    
N A B e0
14
M B D j
where e0 is the pure strains vector and j is the pure curva-
ture vector. Here we obtain e0 directly from the membrane
element exact geometric size in its initial and current con-
gurations without the need for interpolation functions.
Isolation of the pure rotations by removing the rigid body
rotations involves a new complex procedure that is de- Fig. 6. The front side of the investigated panel.
scribed in Levy and Gal [12] and will not repeated here.
Using these pure rotations it is simple to evaluate the pure
curvature vector, j from the usual discrete FE presentation
of the curvatures.

4. The panel buckling experiment

Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) has designed and manu-

factured nine Hexcel IM7 (12K)/8552(33%) graphite
epoxy blade stiened composite panels, using a co-curing
process. Figs. 5 and 6 show the front and rear side of
one of the tested panels respectively.
The FE investigation was performed on the following
nominal data for the tested composite stiened panels:
panel radius R = 938 mm; panel length l = 660 mm; arc
length la = 680 mm; number of stringers n = 5; lay-up of
skin [0; 45; 45; 90]s; lay-up of stringers [45; 45; 0; 0]s; ply
thickness t = 0.125 mm; stringer height h = 20 mm. The
panel geometry and boundary condition is shown in Fig. 7.
The material data (Hexcel IM7(12K)/8552 (33%)) is as Fig. 7. Flattened geometry and boundary conditions of the panel.
follows: modulus of elasticity in longitudinal direction
E11 = 1.473 1011 Pa; modulus of elasticity in transverse was to study the buckling behavior of the stiened graph-
direction E22 = 1.18 1010 Pa; shear modulus G12 = 6.0 iteepoxy panels subjected to uniform axial compression.
109 Pa; Poissons ratio m12 = 0.3. The loads were gradually increased up to failure of the
The tests were performed at the Aircraft Structures Lab- specimens. The tests were performed at room temperature.
oratory of the Technion. The panels were tested using a The buckling load (of skin) was circa 13.0 ton.
50 ton MTS servo-hydraulic testing machine. The aim
5. Finite element verication and the panel
buckling analysis

5.1. Laminated cylindrical shell

The example considers the large displacement of a cylin-

Fig. 5. The rear side of the investigated panel.
drical panel under a concentrated lateral load. This shallow
shell which is shown in Fig. 8 with a thickness t = 6.35 mm/
12.7 mm is considered with two dierent laminations. The
curve edge nodes of the panel are assumed to be free in
all directions while the nodes along the sides are hinged.
The two laminations include 14 layers of total thickness
of 6.35 mm and 12.7 mm that are arranged as follows: (04/
904/04) and (904/04/904). The material properties of each
layer are: E1 = 3.3 kN/mm2; E2 = E31.1 kN/mm2; G12 =
G13 = G23 = 0.66 kN/mm2; g12 = 0.25. The nite element
 E. Gal et al. / Composite Structures 73 (2006) 179185 183

2l A P

B
h

L L

Fig. 8. Longitudinally simply supported shallow cylindrical shell.

model uses the panel biaxial symmetry conditions, thus 0.45

Brank et al.
only one quarter of the panel is considered and discretized Current Study point A
with 10 10 mesh. The central loaddisplacement curve of 0.3 Current Study point B

the (04/904/04) panel with t = 6.35 mm is shown in Fig. 9.

The central loaddisplacement curve of the (904/04/904)
Load (kN)

0.15
panel with t = 6.35 mm is shown in Fig. 10. The central
loaddisplacement curve of the (04/904/04) panel with 0
t = 12.7 mm is shown in Fig. 11. The central loaddisplace-
ment curve of the (904/04/904) panel with t = 12.7 mm is -0.15
shown in Fig. 12. The intricate multi-snap points that are
picked by the program with relative ease are a worthy note -0.3
since the program is rather coarse in its single numeric pre- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
cision, very simple solver that use Gaussian elimination Displacement (mm)

with no pivoting, and coarse mesh used. Fig. 10. Hinge (904/04/904) composite shell: central loaddisplacement
curve t = 6.35 mm.

1.2 2.5
Brank et al. Brank et al.
Current Study Point B Current Study Point B
0.9 Current Study Point A 2 Current Study Point A
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

0.6 1.5

0.3 1

0 0.5

-0.3 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 9. Hinge (04/904/04) composite shell: central loaddisplacement curve Fig. 11. Hinge (04/904/04) composite shell: central loaddisplacement
t = 6.35 mm. curve t = 12.7 mm.
184 E. Gal et al. / Composite Structures 73 (2006) 179185

2
Brank et al.

O u t of p la n e d is p la ce m e n t
Current Study Point A
1.5 Current Study Point B
Load (kN)

0.5

-0.5 Skin tangential coordinate

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement (mm) Fig. 14. The skin pattern at buckling at section 11.

Fig. 12. Hinge (904/04/904) composite shell: central loaddisplacement

curve t = 12.7 mm.

5.2. The panel buckling

Using symmetry, one half of the shell was analyzed with

a 34 25 grid. The grid size was chosen to meet the thick-
ness changes of the panel. The axial load was distributed
along the upper edge of the panel to yield initial equal axial
displacements and incremented to yield a buckling load of
11.9 ton. This is in good agreement with the experimental
value of 13.0 ton since the computer model is actually more
exible due to support conditions. Especially assuring is
the comparison to two commercial software packages that
Fig. 15. Moire signature at buckling.
yielded rather conservative results of 9.0 ton and 10.0 ton.
Fig. 13 displays the z-component displacement of the
middle surface predicting well the mode of behavior
(amplied for section 11 in Fig. 14) that is described in 12000
Experiment
Fig. 15 by the experimental Moire eld. Another rather Current Study
successful comparison that is shown in Fig. 16 is that of
radial displacement at point A of Fig. 7 where out-of-plane 8000
Axial Load [kg]

displacement rst started. As expected, the test is stier

4000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Out of Plane Displacement [mm]

Fig. 16. Out-of-plane displacement at point A.

than its simulation, yet snap at point A seems to have

occurred for both at the load of 10.9 ton (Fig. 16).

6. Conclusions

A new simple at triangular composite shell nite ele-

ment has been presented. Whereas the presented approach
depends on an a priori chosen linear elastic nite element it
is independent of large strain formulations that are essen-
Fig. 13. Displacement eld using presented nite element. tial otherwise and utilizes linear relationships throughout.
 E. Gal et al. / Composite Structures 73 (2006) 179185
The formulation is rst order complete and truly a large
rotations small strains one.
The element reproduces results from the literature very
well, and shows overall good performance in predicting
the experimentally attained skin buckling load of a com-
posite panel under axial compression.
References
[1] Ericksen JL, Truesdell C. Exact theory of stress and strain in rods and
shells. Arch Ration Mech Anal 1958;1(4):295323.
[2] Simo JC, Fox DD, Rifai MS. On a stress resultant geometrically exact
shell modelpart III: computational aspects of the nonlinear theory.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Engng 1990;79:2170.
[3] Ibrahimbegovic A, Frey F. Stress resultant geometrically non-linear
shell theory with drilling rotationspart III: linearized kinematics.
Int J Numer Methods Engng 1994;37:365983.
[4] Ahmad S, Irons BM, Zienkiewicz OC. Analysis of thick and thin shell
structures by curved nite elements. Int J Numer Methods Engng
1970;2:41951.
[5] Hughes TJR, Lui WK. Nonlinear nite element analysis of shells:
part 1. Three-dimensional shells. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Engng 1981;26:33162.
[6] Dvorkin EN, Bathe KJ. A continuum mechanics based four-node
shell element for general non-linear analysis. Engng Comput
1984;1:7788.
[7] Belytschko T, Wong Bl, Stolarski H. Assumed strain stabilization
procedure for the 9-node Lagrangian shell element. Int J Numer
Methods Engng 1989;28:385414.
[8] Buechter N, Ramm E. Shell theory versus degenerationa compar-
ison in large rotation nite element analysis. Int J Numer Methods
Engng 1992;34:3959.
[9] Bathe KJ, Ho LW. A simple and eective element for analysis of
general shell structures. Comput Struct 1980;13:67381.
[10] Peng X, Criseld MA. A consistent CO-rotational formulation for
shell using the constant stress/constant moment triangle. Int J Numer
Methods Engng 1992;35:182947.
185
[11] Yang YB, Chang JT. Derivation of a geometric nonlinear triangular
plate element by rigid-body concept. Bull Int Assoc Shell Spatial
Struct 1998;39(127):7784.
[12] Levy R, Gal E. Triangular shell element for large rotations analysis.
AIAA J 2003;41(12):25058.
[13] Ibrahimbegovic A. Stress resultant geometrically exact shell theory
for nite rotations and its nite element implementation. Appl Mech
Rev 1997;50(4):199226.
[14] Yang HTY, Saigal S, Masud A, Kapania RK. A survey of recent shell
nite elements. Appl Mech Rev 2000;47:10127.
[15] Mohan P, Kapania RK. Geometrically nonlinear analysis of
composite plates and shells using a at triangular shell element. In:
38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynam-
ics and Materials Conference. Kissimmee, FL, Paper 97-1233, 1997.
p. 234761.
[16] Argyris J, Tenek LT, Papadrakakis M, Apostolopoulou C. Post-
buckling performance of the TRIC natural mode triangular element
for isotropic and laminated composite shells. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Engng 1998;166(2):11231.
[17] Brank B, Peric D, Damjanic FB. On implementation of a nonlinear
four node shell nite element for thin multilayered shells. Comput
Mech 1995;16:34159.
[18] Batoz JL, Bathe KJ, Ho LW. A study of three noded triangular plate
bending elements. Int J Numer Methods Engng 1980;15:1771812.
[19] Allman DJ. A compatible triangular element including vertex
rotations for plane elasticity analysis. Comput Struct 1984;19:18.
[20] Argyris JH, Haase M, Mlejnek HP. On an unconventional but
natural formation of a stiness matrix. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Engng 1980;22:122.
[21] Green AE, Knops RJ, Laws N. Large deformations, superimposed
small deformations, and stability of elastic rods. Int J Solids Struct
1968;4:5557.
[22] Levy R, Spillers WR. Analysis of geometrically nonlinear structures.
2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2003.
[23] Zienkiewicz OC. The nite element method. third ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1977.
[24] Criseld MA. A fast incremental/iterative solution procedure that
handles snap-through. Comput Sturuct 1981;13:5562.
[25] Yang YB, Kuo SR. Theory and analysis of nonlinear frame
structures. Singapore: Prentice-Hall; 1994.