On elasticplastic buckling of cones

J. B"achut
The University of Liverpool, Mechanical Engineering, Liverpool L69 3GH, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 June 2010
Accepted 13 August 2010
Keywords:
Conical shells
External pressure
Axial compression
Buckling
Combined stability
a b s t r a c t
The paper considers the buckling of short, and relatively thick, mild steel conical shells subjected to the
combined action of external pressure and axial compression. Past results on axially compressed cones
and on cones subjected to hydrostatic external pressure are compared with fresh test results on
equivalent, axially compressed cylinder and with the equivalent cylinder subjected to external
hydrostatic pressure.
The paper contains both numerical and experimental results. Details about experiments, numerical
modelling and computed estimates of the load carrying capacity of analyzed shells are given. Results of
this study suggest that the concept of equivalent cylinders is not applicable to short master-cones.
Combined stability plots have also been derived for the master-cone and equivalent cylinders. They
provide not only the failure envelopes but also the yield envelopes and spread of plastic zones.
The paper also brings into the light a useful design tool proposed by Esslinger and van Impe [8], and
applicable to elasticplastic buckling of cones subjected to external hydrostatic pressure.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Conical shells are frequently used as transition elements
joining cylinders of different diameters. As such they might be
subjected to a variety of loading conditions, including axial
compression and/or external pressure. Under these loads, the
buckling strength of steel cones found in the offshore oil and
chemical industries, becomes one of important design considera-
tions. However, test results on this subject are scarce, and this is
especially true for the case of elasticplastic buckling. A recent
literature review shows that there have been more than 600
experimental buckling tests on truncated, and non-reinforced,
conical shells since 1960. Most of them were within the elastic
regime. It appears that experimental test results on elasticplastic
buckling were on cones being subjected to a single type of loading
[1,2]. Ref. [3] reports on six buckling tests on 451 unstiffened
conical sections between cylinders of different diameters. The
main objective was to ascertain the effect of stiffeners at
the juncture on the load carrying capacity. All models were
subjected to external pressure. Three models were tested without
ring reinforcement at the cylindercone juncture, and the
remaining cone had a substantial ring reinforcements. As
expected, the reinforced models failed at pressures which were
26%, 37% and 66% above the corresponding failure pressures of
unstiffened models. In accompanying study [4], further six models
were collapsed by external hydrostatic pressure. Three models
were reinforced at both ends of the cone, two were not reinforced
at all, and one model had a reinforcing ring at the smaller radius
end of the cone. As the models had different material properties,
different wall thicknesses, and different semi-apex anglesit was
difcult to make like-for-like comparisons. But the experimental
data can be used for benchmarking numerical predictions of
collapse loads. Results of a recent study into plastic buckling of
unstiffened conical shells under axial compression or external
hydrostatic pressure are reported in Refs. [57]. The models were
from aluminium and mild steel. On the theoretical side, Ref. [8]
provides a convenient formula for the elasticplastic buckling
pressures of conical shells subjected to external hydrostatic
pressure. It has been derived through parametric computations
using proprietary software, and the formula is valid for cones with
the apex semi-angle, b, within the range 0501. The method is
based on the elasticperfectly plastic modelling of material, and
the shells are assumed to be geometrically perfect.
Design of conical shells subjected to axial compression has been
linked to the design of cylindrical shells, or more precisely to the
design of equivalent cylindrical shells, [9,10]. There exists a wide
body of theoretical and experimental data on the design of
cylindrical shells under the static stability constraints. In addition
to this there is a lot of accumulated practical data which has been
obtained from years of service of such shells. As cones and cylinders
exhibit a similar structural response when subjected to static axial
compression it has been tempted to transfer the acquired know-how
from cylinders to cones. A central issue within the concept of
equivalent cylinder is related to the radius of the equivalent
cylindrical shell [916]. The concept of equivalent cylinder has been
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws
Thin-Walled Structures
0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2010.08.005
E-mail address: em20@liverpool.ac.uk
Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 4552
researched for axially compressed cones, both for plain and for
reinforced cones, but within the elastic behaviour.
The current paper re-examines the concept of the equivalent
cylinder for: (i) elasticplastic buckling of axially compressed
cones and (ii) elasticplastic buckling of externally pressurized
cones.
Elasticplastic buckling performance of cones subjected to
simultaneous action of external pressure and axial compression
is addressed next. The case of cones subjected to external
hydrostatic pressure is considered rst. Predictions of buckling
pressure given by Ref. [8] are compared with predictions based on
BOSOR5 estimates [17]. Available experimental test data is then
collected and used to benchmark both approaches. Next, results of
a parametric study into combined stability domain of plain,
truncated metallic cones and equivalent cylinders are provided. In
this context, the paper examines the spread of plastic strains
through the wall, mechanisms of failure (asymmetric bifurcation
and axisymmetric collapse).
Finally, the paper details experimental testing of cones and the
corresponding equivalent cylinders for the case of axial compression.
2. Backgroundgeometry of conical and equivalent
cylindrical shells
Consider an unstiffened conical shell of uniform wall thickness,
t, subjected to axial load, F, as shown in Fig. 1a. The elastic
buckling load for the cone is related to that of cylinder in the
following way [11]:
F
crit

2pEt
2
cos
2
b

31n
2

_ F
cyl
cos
2
b 1
Hence the critical stress at any given parallel of the cone is
given by the critical stress of the equivalent cylinder having radius
equal to the corresponding radius of curvature, r(x), i.e.
s
crit

F
crit
2pRxt cosb

E

31n
2

_
t
rx
2
The past work shows there has been no agreement on the
choice of the radius of curvature, r(x), for the equivalent cylinder.
Instead, several possibilities have been proposed [1216], and
they include (see Fig. 1):
rx
r
1
r
2
2
3
r
1
cosb
rrxr
r
2
cosb
4
rx
r
1
r
2
2cosb
5
Another possibility is suggested in Ref. [13] where it is
proposed to check the stress level at a distance 2

r
1
t
p
and 2

r
2
t
p
from the small and large radius ends of the cone, respectively, i.e.,
r
1
r
1
2

r
1
t
_
sinb
_ _

r
1
2

r
1
t
p
sinb
cosb
6
or
r
2
r
2

r
2
t
_
sinb
_ _

r
2
2

r
2
t
p
sinb
cosb
7
Buckling strength of equivalent cylinders, i.e., with different
radii, r(x), listed above is computed next and related to the
buckling strength of the master cone.
3. Buckling of conical and equivalent cylindrical shells
3.1. Modelling details
The next two sections assess buckling of cones and cylinders of
uniform wall thickness and being subjected to the following loads:
(i) axial compression, (ii) external pressure, and (iii) simultaneous
action of both. Both loads are to be quasi-static. Assume that a cone
is clamped at the bottom, and its top is allowed to move freely in
axial direction, only (with all other variables being set to zerosee
Fig. 1. Geometry and notation for: cone (a), small radius equivalent cylinder (b), and large radius equivalent cylinder (c).
Fig. 2. Geometry of truncated and unstiffened cone subjected to external pressure,
p, and to an independent axial force, F (a). Cone subjected to external hydrostatic
pressure (b).
J. B!achut / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 4552 46
Fig. 2b). Let the equivalent cylinders have the same boundary
conditions at the bottom and top ends as the cone has.
Shells are assumed to be from mild steel with the material
being characterized by: E210.49 GPa, the yield point s
yp
230.6
MPa, and Poissons ratio, n0.281. Both types of shells can fail by
asymmetric bifurcation buckling or axisymmetric collapse. The
corresponding magnitudes of both modes of failure are computed
using BOSOR5 code [17], and some of numerical results are
compared with predictions given by the FE code ABAQUS [18].
Elasticperfectly plastic modelling of the material based
on engineering stressstrain, follower nature of loading and
nonlinear geometry are used throughout. A brief assessment of
the effect of the true stresstrue strain on buckling of cones can be
found in Ref. [1].
3.2. Cones subjected to axial compression, external pressure or
combined action of both
Consider the conical shell sketched in Fig. 2. Parameters of this
geometry are assumed as follows: the ratio of bigger radius, r
2
, to
smaller radius, r
1
, is (r
2
/r
1
)2.02, and the cone semi-angle is
b26.561, whilst the axial height-to-radius ratio is, (h/r
2
)1.01.
Numerical estimates of magnitudes of asymmetric bifurcation
buckling loads and collapse loads are given in Table 1 for a
range of the (r
2
/t)-ratio. Results have been calculated for axial
force acting alone and for external pressure being the only load
(i.e., radial pressure without the axial component). A typical load-
deection curve for, r
2
/t34.3, is depicted in Fig. 3. Calculations
show that the rst yielding appears at the bottom of the cone, on
the inner side of the wall. The corresponding rst yield pressure,
p
yp
, is about 56% below the asymmetric bifurcation buckling
pressure, p
bif
8.44 MPa with n6 hoop waves in the eigenshape.
The magnitude of bifurcation pressure nearly coincides with the
collapse pressure, p
coll
8.46 MPa. A signicant spread of plastic
straining takes place as the external pressure increases above the
rst yield pressure. Fig. 4 depicts the spread of plastic straining at
the axial collapse force (Fig. 4a) and at the collapse pressure
(Fig. 4b). It is seen that the plastic hinge forms at the collapse
pressure. But, there is no plastic hinge at collapse caused by axial
compression. Further details can be found in Ref. [1].
When both loads are applied simultaneously the response
takes the form of combined stability plot. A typical combined
stability plot is shown in Fig. 5 for r
2
/t75.0. It is seen here that
the cone loses its load carrying capacity through the axisymmetric
collapse. This is a typical plot and all other which were computed
remained convex [1,2]. The spread of plastic strains has also been
monitored during the combined stability calculations. The rst
yielding has been recorded for all computed congurations. The
resulting rst yield envelope has been added in Fig. 5. Two
distinct regions have been identied here, i.e., A and B. In the
region A the plastic straining is dominated by the axial force
whilst in the region B the external pressure controls the plastic
straining. Both curves A and B meet at a sharp corner at
F=F
coli
o
E0.90. A similar shape of the rst yield envelope was
obtained for other (r
2
/t)-ratio (see Ref. [2] for further details).
3.2.1. Buckling of cones subjected to external hydrostatic pressure
When a cone is subjected to uniform external pressure acting
over the whole surface, as illustrated in Fig. 2b, it represents a case of
combined stability. Typical application would be an under-water
pressure hull in which two cylindrical shells are connected by a
Table 1
Computed values of bifurcation buckling and collapse loads for cones subjected to either external pressure or axial compression.
r
2
/t 34.3 50 75 100 500 750 1000
External pressure p
bif
(MPa) 8.44(6) 5.56(8) 3.52(10) 2.54(10) 0.060(11) 0.0218(12) 0.0106(13)
p
coll
(MPa) 8.48 5.60 3.60 2.64 0.437 0.280 0.190
Axial force F
bif
(kN) 0.543(17)
F
coll
(kN) 208.19 138.8 91.27 68.64 12.37 7.69 5.58
F
Abaqus
coll
kN
211.97 142.7 93.95 68.97 12.67 7.99 5.55
Fig. 3. Typical load-deection curve for externally pressurized cone.
Fig. 4. Spread of plastic strains at collapse caused by axial force (a) and by radial
pressure (b).
J. B!achut / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 4552 47
conical segment. The literature survey shows that a small number of
elasto-plastic buckling tests have been carried out on metallic cones
subjected to external hydrostatic pressure. A very useful piece of
theoretical work in this area has been reported by Esslinger and van
Impe [8]. Ref. [8], provides approximate formulae for buckling of
cones subjected to: (i) axial load, (ii) axial load and internal pressure,
and (iii) external hydrostatic pressure. The formula related to the
latter case is to be examined next. It appears that no comparisons
have been made between predictions of buckling given by the
proposed formula, with values obtained from experiments, and
other numerical estimates. Hence comparisons with available
experimental data on steel and aluminium cones seem appropriate
and they are discussed next. In addition predictions of buckling
loads given by BOSOR5 code are added.
Consider a conical shell with its geometrical parameters and
boundary conditions sketched in Fig. 2b. Assume that the shell is
geometrically perfect and that it is subjected to uniform external
pressure, p. The following procedure has been proposed in Ref. [8]
in order to evaluate the elasticplastic buckling pressure, p
ee
.
Since the reference [8] is not available in a retrieval form it seems
appropriate to provide the procedure in its entirety here.
Firstly, two dimensionless parameters, i.e., the dimensionless
meridional length, L, and the effective radius, r
e
, are introduced as
follows:
the dimensionless meridional length, L, dened as
L

31n
2

4
_
L

r
c
t
p 8
where
r
c

r
1
r
2
2cosb
9
the effective radius, r
e
, given as
r
e
r
c
k
e
r
2
r
1

cosb
_ 1
3:925
Lcosb
_ _
10
with
k
e
0:051

L
r
1
4

if Lr6r
1
or k
e
0:125

r
1
L
4
_
if LZ6r
1
11
The approximate dimensionless expression for the hydrostatic
buckling pressure, p, is given as
p
1
L
1:9
1

35:5188

L
_
_
58:2547
_
_
_
_
_
_ 12
with the elastic hydrostatic buckling pressure, p
ee
, of a perfect conical
shell being:
p
ee
p
E

31n
2

_
t
r
e
_ _
2
13
Finally, the elasto-plastic buckling pressure, p
ep
, is evaluated
using the reduction factor K
p
, i.e.,
p
ep
K
e
p
ee
14
where
K
e
sin
s
yp
s
eff
_ _
0:2566sin
s
yp
s
ef
_ _
sin 2
s
yp
s
eff
_ _ _ _
2
if
s
yp
s
eff
r
p
2
15
or
K
p
1 if
s
yp
s
eff
4
p
2
16
where s
eff
is the effective stress evaluated at a distance of
0.16L from the end with the large radius, r
2
, and given by the
HuberMises criterion as
s
eff
0:87
p
ee
r
1
0:84l sinb
t cosb
17
Eq. (17) is valid for 01rbr501, arbitrary values of: radius r
1
,
wall thickness t, and the yield point of material s
yp
. Fig. 6 depicts
results given by Eq. (17) for the case specied by: E200.0 GPa,
s
yp
240.0 MPa, and Poissons ratio n0.3. The geometry of the
cone was dened by: r
1
100, L400, and t4 mm. Results
plotted in Fig. 6 are for b101, 301, and 501. Buckling pressures
Fig. 5. Combined stability plot for r
2
/t75.0. Note the rst yield load and the
collapse envelopes.
Fig. 6. Comparison of buckling pressures based on Eq. (17) with predictions given
by BOSOR5.
J. B!achut / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 4552 48
obtained from BOSOR5 are plotted in Fig. 6 by broken lines. It is
seen that buckling pressures predicted by BOSOR5 are higher than
those given by Eq. (17). The discrepancies become larger for
increasing ratio of (r
2
/t). In most cases the cones lose stability by
bifurcation buckling with the number of hoop waves indicated in
Fig. 6. The collapse remains the controlling mode of failure for the
case of b50
0
and for t46 mm.
The literature contains data on 17 buckling tests carried out on
metallic shells, steel and aluminium, which were subjected to
external hydrostatic pressure. The relevant data is assembled in
Table 2. The last two columns of that table contain buckling
pressures obtained from Eq. (17) and estimates given by BOSOR5
(with elasticperfectly plastic modelling of material).
The following two observations can be made regarding
predictions of buckling by Eq. (17) and by BOSOR5 for the
experimental data collected in Table 2. Firstly, all predictions
given by BOSOR5 are higher than those given by Eq. (17). The
differences vary between 0.4% and 30% except for thin-walled
cone T01 with r
2
/t394 where the difference amounts to 37%.
The ratio p
exptl
=p
Eq17
is indicative how safe the theoretical
predictions are. For experimental results given in Table 2 this ratio
varies between 1.08 and 1.41 except for all thin-walled cones
(i.e., for 2, 3, 5, and T01 for which r
2
/t is 75, 143, 126, and 394).
For these cones the ratio varies between 0.57 and 0.91. This
means that predictions given by Eq. (17) for thin-walled shells
remain on the unsafe side.
3.3. Buckling of equivalent cylinders subjected to axial compression
or external pressure
In the next phase of calculations, radii of equivalent cylinders are
obtained from Eqs. (3)(7) and they are given in Table 3. The length
of all equivalent cylinders is the same and it equals to the length of
slant, L (see Fig. 1). Assume that these shells are loaded either by
axial compression or by external pressure, with all the other
properties being the same as for the cone from which they were
derived. Hence it is assumed that the wall thickness of the master
cone and the equivalent cylinders is the same, i.e., t3 mm.
Buckling loads of the cylinders have been computed using BOSOR5
code and the corresponding values are given in Table 4. Several
observations on buckling strength of equivalent cylinders can be
made here. Firstly, the larger radius cylinder, as given by Eq. (4),
r
2
110.68 mm, fails at p
bif
6.48 MPa. This value is below the
bifurcation pressure of the master cone, p
bif
8.44 MPa. The same
applies to the large radius cylinder, (r
2
93.45 mm, Eq. (7)), for
which p
bif
7.60 MPa. Hence both predictions of failure of equivalent
cylinders remain on the safe side. The remaining radii lead to unsafe
estimates of buckling loads, i.e., all of the estimated failure pressures
are greater than p
cone
bif
8:44MPa.
The situation for axially compressed equivalent cylinders is
entirely different. The magnitudes of collapse force for all equivalent
cylinders are much higher than the collapse force of the cone. The
ratio of p
cyl
coll
=p
cone
coll
varies here from 1.15 to 2.31. Hence all of the
equivalent cylinders are on the unsafe side (i.e., they are much
stronger than the cone they meant to represent).
3.4. Buckling of cones and equivalent cylinders
Further computations of buckling loads for small radius, r
1
,
and large radius, r
2
, equivalent cylinders subjected to simulta-
neous action of axial compression and external pressure were
carried out. Assume that geometry of the master cone is given by:
r
2
/t34.3, r
2
/r
1
2.02, h/r
2
1.01, and b26.561. The radii,
r
1
54.78 mm and r
2
110.68 mm were obtained from Eq. (4).
The results which were obtained from BOSOR5 are plotted in
Fig. 7. All three plots remain convex, and for low magnitudes of
axial compression all three shells fail by bifurcation. It is also seen
that cylinders can support larger axial loads in the presence of
external pressure than without it (about 10% increase, see Ref. [1]
for other examples).
4. Experimentsaxial compression and external hydrostatic
pressure
Four cones and two cylinders have been tested in order
to benchmark the numerical predictions discussed above. The
tests were carried out on laboratory scale models. Shells were
Table 2
Geometry, material properties, and comparison of experimental buckling pressures with theoretical predictions (external hydrostatic pressure).
Ref. Cone r
1
(mm) r
2
(mm) t (mm) b (deg) E (GPa) s
yp
(MPa) n p
eptl
(MPa) Eq. (17) (MPa) BOSOR5 (MPa)
[3] 2 461.65 717.55 9.525 45.0 206.9 284.83 0.3 2.828 3.205 3.531(8)
[3] 4 461.65 717.55 12.7 45.0 206.9 256.55 0.3 4.414 3.891 4.952(8)
[3] 6 461.65 717.55 15.875 45.0 206.9 268.97 0.3 6.138 5.115 6.179(c)
[4] 3 202.01 340.85 2.388 30.0 206.9 448.97 0.3 0.828 1.154 1.489(9)
[4] 5 201.85 340.81 2.692 45.0 206.9 455.17 0.3 0.931 1.621 1.628(10)
[5] TICC1 14.25 52.375 3.0 14.53 190.0 250.0 0.3 22.41 17.56 18.6(5)
[5] TICC2 14.51 52.633 3.5 14.53 190.0 250.0 0.3 27.24 20.40 22.1(c)
[5] TICC3 14.71 52.891 4.0 14.53 190.0 250.0 0.3 32.76 23.20 25.4(c)
[5] D 41.250 48.465 1.25 13.0 190.0 250.0 0.3 8.83 7.36 8.04(c)
[5] E 42.693 48.465 1.25 13.0 190.0 250.0 0.3 8.83 7.33 8.22(c)
[5] F 44.136 48.465 1.25 13.0 190.0 250.0 0.3 8.83 7.31 8.80(6)
[6] TICC4 14.5 52.5 3.0 20.81 61.9 250.0 0.3 22.21 17.14 18.4(c)
[6] TICC5 14.75 52.75 3.5 20.81 61.9 250.0 0.3 27.59 19.96 21.6(0)
[6] TICC5 15.0 53.0 4.0 20.81 61.9 250.0 0.3 31.66 22.74 25.6(0)
[6] T01 50.0 250.0 0.635 20.0 210.0 165.0 0.3 0.0571 0.0628 0.086(8)
[1] C1 50.523 100.62 2.89 26.37 210.49 230.6 0.28 8.0(4) 7.41 8.1(7)
[1] C2 50.533 100.53 2.90 26.37 210.49 230.6 0.28 8.0(4) 7.41 8.2(7)
Table 3
Geometry of equivalent cylinders. Radii, r
1
and r
2
, are derived from Eqs. (3)(7).
Eq. (3) (4) (5) (6)/(7)
r
1
(mm) 74.0 54.78 82.73 66.90
r
2
(mm) 74.0 110.68 82.73 93.45
L (mm) 111.80 111.80 111.80 111.80
t (mm) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
J. B!achut / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 4552 49
CNC-machined from 252 mm diameter solid mild steel billet.
They had heavy integral anges at both ends and models were not
stress relieved prior to testing.
4.1. Cones
Nominal dimensions of four cones denoted as C1, y, C4, and of
two cylinders, CYL1 and CYL2, are given in Table 5. Cones C1 and
C2 were collapsed by external pressure, and C3 and C4 were
subjected to axial compression as detailed in Ref. [1]. Table 6
contains experimental buckling loads together with numerical
predictions of failure loads obtained from BOSOR5. The latter are
based on axisymmetric modelling of cones using the averaged
geometry, average wall thickness, and on the elasticperfectly
plastic modelling of material.
4.2. Equivalent cylinders
Two cylinders, CYL1 and CYL2, were CNC-machined from the
same piece of steel billet in order to benchmark numerical
predictions of the buckling load of the equivalent cylinder
(see Fig. 8 for dimensions of CYL1 and CYL2), and also to test
the concept of the equivalent cylinder itself. The equivalent
cylinders had the radius, r, given by Eq. (5) and nominal geometry
is also added in Table 5. After CNC-machining of CYL1 and CYL2,
both the wall thickness and shape were measured using a grid of
12 (axial) 16 (hoop) points. The method of measurement
remained the same as previously used for conessee Ref. [1].
Table 7 provides summary of average data which was used for
preliminary estimates of buckling loads. In addition to the above
measurements top and bottom anges were lapped in order to
secure atness of anges. Subsequently, both cylinders were
collapsed by the application of quasi-static loading. CYL1 was
collapsed by external hydrostatic pressure and CYL2 was
subjected to axial compression. The test procedure was similar
to that adopted for cones. There were no difculties in identifying
the failure load (pressure or axial force). The resulting experi-
mental buckling loads and their numerical predictions are given
in Table 6. The latter are based on BOSOR5 code. Fig. 9 depicts two
Table 5
Comparison of nominal dimensions of cones and equivalent cylinders. The semi-
angle, b, was 26.561.
Nominal dimensions of cones C1, C2,
C3, and C4 (mm)
Nominal dimensions of cylinders CYL1
and CYL2 (mm)
r
1
r
2
h t r L t
49.0 99.0 100.0 3.0 84.61 111.8 3.0
Note: Data for C1, y, C4 taken from Ref. [1].
Table 4
Comparison of failure loads of a cone with those of equivalent cylinders. The wall thickness is the same for all cases, t3 mm.
Cone Equivalent cylinders
r (mm) r
1
(mm) r
2
(mm)
74.0 82.73 54.78 66.90 110.68 93.45
p
bif
(MPa) 8.44(6) 9.52(6) 8.56(7) 12.8(5) 10.55(6) 6.48(8) 7.60(7)
p
coll
(MPa) 8.48 9.64 8.64 12.9 10.60 6.56 7.64
F
bif
(kN)
F
coll
(kN) 208.19 323.1 358.7 239.46 292.15 479.84 403.85
Fig. 7. Combined stability plots for cone having r
2
/t34.3 and for two equivalent
cylinders.
Table 6
Comparison of experimental collapse loads with numerical estimates given by
BOSOR5 and Eq. (17) for cones and equivalent cylinders.
Collapse load (hydrostatic
pressure) (MPa)
Collapse load (axial
compression) (kN)
Cones Equivalent
cylinder, CYL1
Cones Equivalent
cylinder, CYL2
C1 C2 C3 C4
Exptl 8.0(4) 8.0(4) 8.07(4) 238.98 279.80 430.0
Numerical 8.1(7) 8.2(7) 9.12(7) 210.46 215.7 359.46
Ref. [8] 7.41
(*)
7.41
(*)
9.15
(*)
199.55 205.03 380.68
Note: * is based on Eq. (17).
Fig. 8. Section through the equivalent cylinder with nominal dimensions in mm
(r r
1
r
2
=2cosb).
J. B!achut / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 4552 50
cones after failure. Fig. 9a shows the cone C1 after removal from
the test chamber. Four lobes developed during the experiment
whilst n7 waves were predicted by BOSOR5. Fig. 9b shows failed
cone C3. It is seen here that the failure is associated with large
plastic straining at the top end. Photographs of equivalent
cylinders after the test are shown in Fig. 10. CYL1, seen in
Fig. 10a, has n4 well developed lobes. The undeformed surface,
not seen in Fig. 10a, could easily accommodate further two lobes.
This means that the perfect experimental eigenshape could have
n6 lobes. If so, this would agree well with the predicted number
of circumferential waves, n7, by BOSOR5. However, the ratio of
(p
num
/p
expt
) equals 1.13. This discrepancy appears to be too large
for a CNC-machined model and for a careful laboratory test,
especially when one compares it with results of two tests, S1 and
S1a, reported in Ref. [19]. The (p
num
/p
expt
)-ratio for S1 and S1a
varied between 0.98 and 0.99, and these cylinders had a
comparable geometry, i.e., L/R1.0 and R/t33.3. Table 8 com-
pares the scatter of the wall thickness in all three cylinders (with
CYL2 collapsed by axial compression). The standard deviations for
S1 and S1a and for the current models differ by one order of
magnitude. The other difference between both sets is related to
the manufacturing process. Material for S1 and S1a was stress-
relieved after the rough machining whilst the current models did
not undergo any heat treatment. Also, S1 and S1a were
manufactured from a thick pipe whilst CYL1 and CYL2 were cut
from a solid billet.
The experiment has shown that the equivalent cylinder was
much stronger than the cone when it was loaded by axial
compression (Table 6). It is noticed here that the (p
num
/p
expt
)-ratio
equals 0.84. This is somewhat unusual since the buckling strength
of axially compressed cylinders hardly reaches the numerical
estimate of the critical stress due to embedded geometrical
imperfections. In view of results given in Table 6 the use of
equivalent cylinders at the design stage, as substitutes for master-
cones, appears to be inappropriate. This observation is based on a
specic geometry of the master cone, r
2
/t33.0, r
2
/r
1
2.02,
h/r
2
1.01, and b26.561, i.e., on relatively short and thick shell.
The above observations are also based on axisymmetric
modelling of experiments. It would be interesting to see what
effect the true geometry is to have on the estimates of collapse
loads (and this is to be reported separately).
Finally, the last row in Table 6 provides estimates of buckling
pressures for cones C1 and C2 as well as for the equivalent
cylinder CYL1 subjected to hydrostatic pressure. These values are
based on Eq. (17) quoted here from Ref. [8]. It is seen that Eq. (17)
underestimates the experimental values for C1 and C2 by about
9.0% . The same equation overestimates the experimental collapse
pressure of the equivalent cylinder by about 13%.
Ref. [8], also provides a formula for buckling loads of axially
compressed cones. In the current case the formula given in Ref. [8]
underestimates the experimental values by 20%, 36%, and 13% for
C3, C4, and CYL2, respectively (as seen in Table 6).
Table 7
Experimental average values for geometry of equivalent cylinders (r
(*)
mid-
surface radius).
r(*) (mm) L (mm) t (mm)
CYL1 84.565 111.807 2.94
CYL2 84.564 111.836 2.90
Fig. 9. Photographs of two collapsed cones: (a) shows cone C1 (collapsed by external hydrostatic pressure) and (b) shows cone C3 (collapsed by axial compression).
Fig. 10. Photographs of equivalent cylinders after testing: (a) shows CYL1 collapsed by external pressure and (b) shows CYL2 collapsed by axial force.
Table 8
Comparison of wall thickness for four cylindrical shells which were subjected to
axial compression. Data for S1 and S1a is taken from Ref. [19].
Model t
nom
(mm) t
av
(mm) t
min
(mm) t
max
(mm) Dt (mm)
S1 3.0 3.023 2.96 3.07 0.0019
S1a 3.0 3.052 2.99 3.09 0.0017
CYL1 3.0 2.94 2.91 2.96 0.0110
CYL2 3.0 2.90 2.88 2.94 0.0133
J. B!achut / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 4552 51
5. Conclusions
Comparisons of experimental data with numerical predictions
are not as good as one would expect from laboratory tests. These
comparisons are based on axisymmetric modelling of geometry
(average values of radii, length and wall thickness).
Additionally the elasticperfectly plastic modelling of mild
steel has been adopted. In the past, such modelling was more than
adequate. But, as the data exists, it would be interesting to see
what effect its full use will have on estimates of the load carrying
capacity of tested cylinders (and cones).
This study also concludes that the design of relatively thick
and short conical shells cannot be replaced by the concept of an
equivalent cylinder. As the concept is being used for slender
cones with primarily elastic behaviourit would be interesting to
establish the range of its applicability.
The simplied design equation proposed by Esslinger and van
Impe [8], proved to be a useful and quick tool for an initial
estimate of the elasticplastic buckling strength of relatively thick
metallic cones subjected to external hydrostatic pressure.
References
[1] B"achut J, Ifayefunmi O. Plastic buckling of conical shells. Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Transactions of the ASME 2010;132(4):
112, in press, doi:10.1115/1.4001437.
[2] B"achut J, Ifayefunmi O. Buckling of unstiffened steel cones subjected to axial
compression and external pressure. In: Proceedings of the 29th international
conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering OMAE2010-20518, June
611, 2010, Shanghai, China, OMAE2010. New York: ASME, 2010. p. 114
[ISBN978-0-7918-3873-0].
[3] Krenzke MA. Hydrostatic test of conical reducers between cylinder with or
without stiffeners at the conecylinder junctures. David Taylor Model Basin,
USA, Report 1187, February 1959. p. 120.
[4] Raetz RV. An experimental investigation of the strength of small-scale conical
reducer sections between cylindrical shells under external hydrostatic
pressure. David Taylor Model Basin, USA, Report 1397, March 1960. p. 126.
[5] Ross CTF, Sawkins D, Thomas J, Little APF. Plastic collapse of circular conical
shells under uniform external pressure. Advances in Engineering Software
1999;30(911):63147.
[6] Ross CTF, Sawkins D, Johns T. Inelastic buckling of thick-walled circular
conical shells under external hydrostatic pressure. Ocean Engineering
1999;26(12):1297310.
[7] Barkey ME, Turgeon MC, Nare TV. Buckling of stiffened thin-walled truncated
cones subjected to external pressure. Experimental Mechanics
2008;48(3):28191.
[8] Esslinger M, van Impe R. Theoretical buckling loads of conical shells. In:
Dubas P, Vandepite D, editors. Proceedings of ECCS colloquium on stability of
plate and shell structures. Ghent University; 1987. p. 38795.
[9] Esslinger M, Ciprian J. In: Ramm E, editor. Buckling of thin conical
shells under axial loads with and without internal pressure. Buckling
of shells: state-of-the-art colloquium. Berlin: Springer; 1982. p. 397404.
[10] Spagnoli A, Chryssanthopoulos MK. Buckling strength of conical shells in
compression. Journal of Structural Engineering 1999;125(1):408.
[11] Seide P. Axisymmetric buckling of circular cones under axial compression.
Journal of Applied Mechanics 1956;23:6258.
[12] DIN 18 800, Structural steelwork: analysis of safety against buckling of shells,
Deutsche Norm, Berlin, 1990.
[13] Samuelson LA, Eggwertz S. Shell stability handbook. London: Elsevier; 1992.
[14] ECCS TWG 8.4. Buckling of steel shells, 4th Edition, European convention for
constructional steelwork, Brussels, 1988.
[15] DnV CN 30.1. Buckling strength analysis, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, 1992.
[16] Schmidt H, Krysik R. Static strength of transition cones in tubular members
under axial compression and internal pressure. In: Proceedings of the
6th international symposium on tubular structures. Rotterdam: Balkema;
1994.
[17] Bushnell D. BOSOR5: program for buckling of elasticplastic complex shells
of revolution including large deections and creep. Computers and Structures
1976;6(3):22139.
[18] Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen, ABAQUStheory and standard users manual,
version 6.4, Pawtucket, RI, USA, 2006.
[19] B"achut J. Buckling of externally pressurized barrelled shells: a comparison of
experiment and theory. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
2002;79(7):50717.
J. B!achut / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 4552 52