Struct Multidisc Optim

DOI 10.1007/s00158-007-0188-1

RESEARCH PAPER

Introducing a discrete modelling technique for buckling

of panels under combined loading
H. A. Kim & C. A. Featherston & J. Ussel & P. A. Williams

Received: 29 November 2006 / Revised: 25 July 2007 / Accepted: 31 July 2007

# Springer-Verlag 2007

Abstract The paper introduces a discrete model to describe

the buckling of a stiffened panel beam under a complex
loading environment. The study begins by examining the
existing load interaction equation for a continuous panel.
Experimental and finite element investigations establish the
validity of considering the critical panel of a more complex
structure in isolation. The paper then devises a discrete
model for this critical panel, which was validated for a
range of boundary conditions using anti-optimisation. The
numerical results show that the discrete model exhibits the
buckling behaviour of a continuous panel under combined
loading. Recent studies established that the truss-lattice
configuration has stable post-buckling behaviour and
derived fast analysis technique for such a structure. It is
therefore concluded that the truss-lattice model introduced
in the present paper can offer a fast analysis formulation for
buckling (and potentially post-buckling) of multiple-panel
beams suitable for optimisation.

Presented at the 7th World Congress on Computational Mechanics,

LA, USA, July 2006.
H. A. Kim (*) : P. A. Williams
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK
e-mail: H.A.Kim@bath.ac.uk
C. A. Featherston
Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University,
Queens Buildings,
Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK
J. Ussel
Airbus UK,
Filton,
Bristol, UK

Keywords Stiffened panel . Buckling . Discrete model .

Fast analysis model . Combined loading

1 Introduction
Stiffened panel beams are used extensively in aerospace
structures, forming components such as the spars, ribs and
skin of an aircraft. These structures are deep beams
comprised of thin panels with vertical and horizontal
stiffeners. Such structures are advantageous owing to their
stable post-buckling behaviour under shear loading, allowing them to carry ultimate loads in excess of the critical
buckling load (Kuhn et al. 1952; Wagner 1931). In practice,
however, the load-carrying ability reserved in a tension
field is not fully utilised. One reason for this is the complex
loading environment. The stiffened panel beams in aerospace structures are subjected to numerous load cases with
combined shear, bending and axial loads. Buckling and
post-buckling behaviour under such a complex loading
environment is not well understood. Nonlinear finite
element analysis (FEA) techniques are considered difficult
to apply and the computational cost is prohibitive for
design iterations.
To understand the post-buckling behaviour of a stiffened
panel beam under a combined loading environment and
optimise the structure to utilise post-buckling reserve, we
begin by studying its buckling behaviour.
Analytical solutions for the buckling of a single shear
panel with different boundary conditions are summarised
conveniently in Gerard and Becker (1957) and have been
implemented in widely used design guides (ESDU 1971).
Gerard and Becker (1957) also reviewed analytical solutions for the buckling of a panel under combined loading
conditions in which panels were modelled with varying

Kim et al.

boundary conditions and in most cases were considered to

be infinitely long. One such solution is presented in (1),
which is the interaction equation for a single panel given by
Stowell and Schwartz (1943). This equation describes the
interaction surfaces that relate two or more of the
component stresses at critical buckling.
Rc R2b R2s 1

where
Rc c =c ;

Rb b =b ;

Rs s =s

in which c, b and s are the compression, bending and

shear stresses, respectively, at critical buckling under
combined loading, and c , b and s are the critical buckling
stresses under pure compression, pure bending and pure
shear, respectively. Empirical rules such as these have been
successfully used to design individual panels (Featherston
et al. 2004; Plank and Williams 1974; Ueda et al. 1995).
There are limited existing methods for modelling the
buckling behaviour of stiffened panels under combined
loading. Of the semi-empirical methods that are available,
the effective width method is used for a single panel under
pure compression loads (Von Karman et al. 1932), and the
incomplete diagonal tension theory can be applied for pure
shear loads (Kuhn et al. 1952). Stein (1985) applied
Karmans nonlinear partial differential plate equations to a
long plate under combined shear and transverse compression
loading and established the shear stiffness of the plate in
post-buckling. Diaconu and Weaver (2005) developed an
approximate analytical method for the post-buckling stiffness
of long anisotropic composite plates under compression
loads, based on the application of von Karmans nonlinear
plate equations to Timoshenkos approximate closed form
solution for the buckling of a panel under shear load.
However, these analytical or semi-analytical approaches are
not easily extendable to a stiffened multiple-panel beam
under combined loading conditions. For the post-buckling
behaviour of stiffened panels with finite length under
combined load conditions, analysis has thus been restricted
to using nonlinear FEA, which can be time consuming and
imperfection sensitive. In addition, the reliable convergence
cannot be guaranteed because of the development of shortwavelength modes in advanced post-buckling. Therefore,
nonlinear finite element (FE) is not considered suitable for
repetitive applications necessary in optimisation.
For discrete frameworks, an exact initial mode method has
been developed for the buckling loads and modes, where the
general mode shape is described by nonlinear implicit
transcendental functions. The WittrickWilliams algorithm
has been shown to find the solution efficiently with a high
degree of accuracy (Wittrick and Williams 1973). A recent
development successfully extends this to post-buckling of a

truss-lattice configuration (Williams et al. 2007). The

computational strategy for finding a solution is formulated
thereby maintaining the advantages of the exact solution
approach, which are the fast solution time, lack of imperfection requirement, reliable convergence and accuracy.
This paper proposes that the truss-lattice can provide a
potential building block for the construction of more
complex multi-panel geometries, thus introducing an
alternative computational modelling technique for examining the buckling of multiple-panel beams under combined
loading. An experimental investigation is carried out to
understand the buckling behaviour of a panel in a complex
loading environment, which is verified using nonlinear
FEA to establish the application of the empirical load
interaction relationship (1) within a multiple-panel beam.
Upon identifying the necessary boundary conditions that
allow the critical panel to be considered in isolation, a
discrete truss-lattice model for a continuous panel is
formulated. We consider the panel in pure shear to derive
the truss-lattice geometry, which exhibits the equivalent
buckling behaviour. This model is then extended to the
combined loading conditions to compare with the buckling
load interaction relationship for a continuous panel.

2 Buckling of a multiple-panel beam under combined

loading
2.1 Multiple-panel beam geometry
The multiple-panel beam investigated was designed to
represent a section of a simplified wing spar 600 mm long
by 400 mm high, divided by a series of stiffeners into six
panels 200200 mm, as shown in Fig. 1a. Five of these
panels had a thickness of 0.9 mm with the remaining panel
(shaded in Fig. 1a) having a reduced thickness of 0.5 mm.
The aim of this design was to encourage buckling in the
panel of interestthe central lower panel, whilst ensuring
boundary effects introduced by the supports and the loading
arrangement to this panel were minimised. The panel beam
was stiffened on both sides using a combination of angle
(around the outer perimeter, Fig. 1b) and T-section
stiffeners (for the internal stiffeners, Fig. 1c). It was then
clamped at one end and loaded at the other as shown
thereby introducing a varying combination of shear and inplane bending.
2.2 Experimental setup
2.2.1 Specimen
The test specimen was constructed from aircraft-grade
duraluminium (BS1470 6082T6) in the form of a

Discrete modelling technique for buckling of panels

Fig. 1 ac Stiffened panel beam
geometry

19mm

600mm
300mm

400mm

19mm

Direction
of loading

c
38mm

200mm

Clamped
end

3.2mm

200mm

0.9-mm-thick sheet with a 0.5-mm sheet inset as described

(Fig. 1a). This was stiffened using 3.2-mm-thick extruded
duraluminium sections, with a web height and individual
flange width of 19 mm (Fig. 1b and c), which were attached
using a combination of adhesive (Loctite Multibond 330
with 7387 activator) and 3.2-mm pop rivets (spaced 25 mm
apart, Fig. 2). Each end of the specimen was extended past
the stiffeners to facilitate attachment of the loading arms
and the clamping brackets as detailed in the next section.
2.2.2 Test rig
The specimen was tested using an adaptable test frame
consisting of a floor, a number of moveable I-beam
columns drilled through their flanges at regular intervals
to allow additional sections/brackets etc. to be bolted on
and a series of moveable cross pieces also drilled to allow
the attachment of actuators or further supports. This frame
can be set up relatively easily to test a wide range of
different shapes and sizes of structures (maximum capacity
approximately 3312 m), subject to a variety of single or
combination loads depending on the actuators selected.
The test panel beam was attached to one of the columns
using a pair of specially designed brackets bolted through

the specimen using a total of 30 6-mm-diameter bolts,

arranged in two vertical lines (Fig. 2). The aim of this setup
was to provide built-in end conditions, ensuring no sliding
or rotation of the specimen relative to the frame occurred
during the test. At the other end of the beam, two load
applicators were again bolted through its thickness, using a
further series of 6-mm-diameter bolts (Fig. 3). In addition
to ensuring an even load application with minimal localised
effects, these load applicators provided a number of loading
attachment points, thereby allowing several different combinations of shear and compressive load to be introduced
into the specimen by changing the moment arm and thus
increasing or decreasing in-plane bending whilst maintaining the same degree of shear. For the purposes of this test,
however, only one loading point was utilizedthat giving
the greatest in-plane bending to shear ratio possible.
Loading was applied using a 250-kN Dartec actuator fitted
with a 5-kN load cell, operated under displacement control.
The actuator was driven at a rate of 0.001 mm/s until the
load reached 5 kN. Finally, to provide the simply supported
edge conditions along the vertical edge of the beam closest
to the point of loading, the structure and the loading arms
were constrained to move between a pair of guides, which
were in turn bolted to the floor of the test frame. These

Fig. 2 Test specimen

0.9mm
plate

0.5mm plate

Kim et al.

Actuator

Column
(Built in end)

Loading
arm
Direction of load
application

2.3 Finite element model of multiple-panel beam

Specimen
0.5mm
plate

Available
loading
points

Guides (Simply
supported end)

Fig. 3 Experimental setup

allowed translation in the vertical and horizontal directions

but no movement out of plane.
2.2.3 Instrumentation
Load, displacement and strain were monitored at a series of
points across the specimen throughout the testing process.
Load was measured using the load cell and recorded using a
Schlumberger SI 3531D data acquisition system. Both inplane displacement at the point of loading and out-of-plane
displacement in the centre of the reduced thickness panel
were also monitored using 0 to 10 mm linear variable
differential transformers and the data recorded using the
same system as for the load. Full-field in- and out-of-plane
displacement and in-plane strain measurements were made
using the VIC 3D digital image correlation system (Fig. 4).
This uses white light to illuminate the surface of a
specimen onto which is painted a speckle pattern. During
deformation, the grey-scale pattern in each of a series of
small areas covering the specimen is tracked to establish
its motion. This allows the position and, through further
processing, the surface strain at a number of points on the
specimen to be established. Finally, strain in the centre of
Speckled
specimen

the thinner panel on both sides of the specimen was also

monitored using Vishay CEA-06-120CZ-120 rectangular
rosette strain gauges again connected to the data acquisition system.

After mesh convergence tests, the panel beam was

modelled using elements with an average edge length of
5 mm. The panels and stiffeners were modelled using thinshell quadrilateral elements S8R5 (shell with eight nodes,
using reduced integration and having five degrees of
freedom per node), and the loading arms were modelled
using ten noded tetrahedral elements for compatibility with
the shell elements at the interface (Fig. 5). The FEA
software ABAQUS/Standard (2004) was employed for the
FE modelling.
At the built-in end of the structure, five degrees of
freedom were restricted, with rotation about the vertical
axis enabled. At the simply supported end, the panel was
prevented from moving or rotating out of plane along a line
corresponding to the vertical supports. Load was applied
across a number of nodes in the loading eyelet to prevent
stress concentration effects.
Fully nonlinear material models were used throughout,
with material properties based on the results of earlier
experimental work (Featherston and Ruiz 1998).
An initial eigenvalue analysis was performed using a
linear perturbation procedure incorporating sub-space iteration. A nonlinear analysis was then performed on a
specimen with an imperfection in the form of the first
mode shape using the Riks method.
2.4 Results and discussion
2.4.1 Interaction equation
The use of the interaction (1) to determine the initial
buckling load of the structure corresponding to local

0.5mm
panel

Light
source

Cameras

Fig. 4 Full-field image correlation

Fig. 5 FE mesh

Discrete modelling technique for buckling of panels

buckling in the central lower panel requires a number of

assumptions to be made regarding in particular the loading
and boundary conditions to which the panel is subject. If
the panel is assumed to be subject to shear and compression
(because of the compressive component of the in-plane
bending load), the bending moment from which the
compressive load is calculated is equal to that halfway
along the panel of interest (in reality, this clearly varies
from one side of the panel to the other as the moment arm
increases), and the compressive load is assumed to be the
average load, i.e. half the maximum compressive load,
which obviously is found in the lower flange, then the
buckling load can be calculated as having a value of
1,187 N. This is based on the additional assumption that the
panel is clamped along all four edges, which is reasonable
because of the geometry of the stiffeners.
2.4.2 Experimental results
The overall buckling behaviour can be seen in Fig. 6, where
the out-of-plane displacement of the midpoint of the central
lower panel, w, is plotted against load (also illustrated by
experimentally determined full-field out-of-plane displacement plots). Initial buckling can be seen to occur in the
panel at 960 N (calculated by taking the intersection of
tangents to the pre- and post-buckling gradients).

2.4.3 Finite element analysis

Nonlinear FE results based on a model with the maximum
imperfection amplitude scaled to 0.05 mm (corresponding
to the maximum defect measured using the image correlation system before testing) are presented in Fig. 8 where
they are compared with those found experimentally.
The results of the FEA indicate an initial buckling load
of 990 N (again by taking tangents to the pre- and postbuckling gradients), which is in good agreement with the
experimental results, and the correlation between the
experimental and FEA load displacement paths can be seen
to be excellent up to loads in excess of twice the initial
buckling load. Thus, the use of the FEA model developed,
to predict the initial buckling load and early behaviour of
the structure, is validated.
Figure 8 also presents the results of the analysis when
the size of the geometric imperfection introduced is reduced
substantially to have the maximum amplitude of
0.0001 mm, thus giving an indication of the behaviour of
a perfect structure. This analysis predicts an initial buckling
load of 1,150 N, which compares favourably with the

a 1147N

-0.13597

b 1747N

w(mm)

0.431239

-0.26462

w(mm)

0.630669

6
5
4
Load (kN)

Fig. 6 Load vs out-of-plane

displacement (full field)

This buckling load is confirmed by Fig. 7, which

presents the results obtained from a strain gauge positioned
at the midpoint of the panel.

3
2
1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
Displacement (mm)

1.2

Kim et al.
Fig. 7 Load vs strain at the
centre of the test panel

5
4.5
4
3.5
Load (kN)

3
2.5
2
e1
e2
g
e1
e2
G

1.5
1
0.5

Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
FEA
FEA
FEA

0
-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Microstrain

results obtained using the combined loading equation

(which give a buckling load of 1,187 N).
Thus, the initial buckling behaviour of a multi-panel
beam (i.e. that involving local buckling of constituent
panels) can be described by studying the isolated behaviour
of key panels within the structure, providing the load and
boundary conditions are representative of those provided by
being a part of a much more complex structure.

3 Discrete model of a single panel

We now consider a fast analysis model for a single panel.
Recent studies have revealed that a truss-lattice configuration has a similar buckling and postbuckling behaviour to a
continuous panel under shear (Williams et al. 2007). These
studies subsequently derived an analytical formulation for
the buckling and post-buckling behaviour offering a fast
and accurate analysis model.

Fig. 8 Comparison of experimental and FE analysis

It has been proposed that a discrete truss-lattice model

can represent the buckling behaviour of a continuous panel
under shear (Kim et al. 2004). In the following section, the
equivalent truss-lattice model for a continuous panel is
formulated. The applicability of this model for buckling
under combined loading is then demonstrated.
3.1 Buckling of continuous panel in pure shear
To develop a discrete model for a continuous panel for
buckling, we consider the critical shear flow of a
continuous panel first. From ESDU (1971) 71005, the
critical shear stress for buckling is given as (3),

t 2
KE
3
B
where t=thickness of the web and K=the elastic buckling
stress coefficient, the empirical constant dependent upon
the aspect ratio and boundary condition.

5
4.5
4

Load (kN)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Experimental Results

Imperfection 0.05mm
0.5

Imperfection 0.0001mm

0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Out of Plane Displacement (mm)

1.2

1.4

Discrete modelling technique for buckling of panels

buckling load of an n2-cell truss-lattice relative to

pEuler

the
load of an individual strut of length 1 B n 2 can
then be derived from the force equilibrium,
(5) and (6),

where qCcell critical shear flow, PC PE critical non

dimensional buckling load and PE =Euler buckling load of a
diagonal strut.
. p
P qB n 2
5

Fig. 9 Example of a truss-lattice configuration representing a

stiffened panel

qCcell

.
p
2nPE B

3.3 Finite element model of truss-lattice

Thus, critical shear flow
be expressed as (4).
qCweb

qCweb

of a continuous panel can

KEt 3
B2

3.2 Discrete truss-lattice configuration

A discrete truss-lattice configuration is constructed in place
of the continuous panels, as shown in Fig. 9. The vertical
and horizontal members (thick solid lines) carry compression and bending in a similar way to stiffeners in a
continuous stiffened panel. The diagonal struts (thin solid
lines) represent a continuous panel, intersecting at 45,
where one set is in tension and the other in compression.
Figure 9a shows two diagonal struts, which constitute one
unit of the truss-lattice, henceforth referred to as a cell.
We define the cell dimension n where the number of
cells is n2. Figure 10b depicts the four-cell or n=2 model.
The diagonal struts of each square cell resist the applied
shear flow q by axial loads P. An expression for the

a
Fig. 10 Truss-lattice configuration. a n=1, b n=2

Cellular truss-lattices with varying cell dimensions were

modelled in using FE to determine the critical nondimensional buckling load, . After mesh convergence
tests, each diagonal strut of a cell was modelled with 16
three-dimensional beam elements. To model the critical outof-plane mode, a significantly larger value (e.g. an order of
magnitude) was specified for the strut in-plane second
moment of area relative to the out-of-plane value. The
torsional rigidity of the strut was related to the out-of-plane
second moment of area by (7).

GJ 2EIyy 1
7
The shear load was applied by tensile and compressive
unit loads along the diagonals, as shown in Fig. 10. The
struts were fixed together at all intersecting nodes and the
rotation about the z-axis was prevented at all intersecting
and perimeter nodes (dotted lines in Fig. 10). The critical
buckling loads were computed using the linear eigenvalue
analysis in FE code, ABAQUS/Standard (2004).

Kim et al.

Figure 11 show the first mode shapes computed from the

linear eigenvalue analysis for n=4 truss-lattice panels with
simply supported (Fig. 11a) and clamped (Fig. 11b) edges.
The compressive strut exhibits a small negative out-ofplane displacement near the supports. The mode shapes for
the simply supported and clamped edges are similar, with a
reduced curvature near the perimeters for the clamped
condition as might be expected. This is reflected in the
buckling load values where the clamped truss-lattice has a
higher critical buckling load relative to the simply
supported lattice. It is observed that the diagonally skewed
mode shape of shear buckling compares reasonably well
with the continuous panel mode shape under shear of
Fig. 12. Figure 13 presents the critical loads of the trusslattices for varying cell dimensions with both boundary
conditions, where =0.289 for simply supported and
=0.462 for clamped boundary conditions.
3.4 Equivalent truss-lattice model for shear
To establish the equivalence between a truss-lattice and a
continuous panel, we equate the critical shear flows for
continuous panel of (4) and the n-cell model, (6).
p
2nPE KEt 3
2
8
B
B
where the standard Euler strut buckling expression for a
truss-lattice cell with strut length is,
PE

2n2 2 EI
B2

Substituting the Euler strut buckling expression of (9) into

the critical shear flow equivalence equation of (8) gives (10),
which relates the out-of-plane second moment of area of a
strut to the thickness of the equivalent continuous panel.
KBt3
I p
8 2 n3

10

Fig. 12 Critical buckling mode for continuous thin panels under

shear. a Simply supported, b clamped

For a square continuous panel and the choice of the cell

dimension for the truss-lattice representation, the out-ofplane second moment of area of a strut for the equivalent
truss-lattice model can be determined using (10). The inplane second moment of area is specified as a value
significant larger than the out-of-plane second moment of
area, and the torsional rigidity is given by (7).
3.5 Validation of the truss-lattice model using
anti-optimisation
An examination of the equivalent truss-lattice model, (10),
reveals that the cross-sectional property, I, is dependent on
K
, which in turn is a function of the boundary conditions.
We note that K of (3) for the simply supported edges is
approximately 8.4 (ESDU 1971) and =0.289. For
clamped edges, K=13.4 (ESDU 1971) and =0.462, as
discussed in Section 3.3. Therefore, K 29:0 for both
boundary conditions.
However, in practice, the boundary conditions of a
panel in a multiple-panel beam are neither simply
supported nor clamped. Thus, the validity of the equiva-

Non-dimensional buckling load,

Simply supported

1.5

Clamped
1

0.5

0
1

Cell dimension, n

Fig. 11 3D and side views of critical buckling mode under shear for
truss-lattice panels, n=4. a Simply supported, b clamped

Fig. 13 Non-dimensional buckling load for truss-lattice panels with

varying n

Discrete modelling technique for buckling of panels

simulate the combined loading environment. This is

depicted in Fig. 14 where appropriate loads along ab and
cd are shown using the n=2 configuration. The linear
buckling analyses were conducted using ANSYS (2003).
A series of varying load magnitudes were applied to
truss-lattice models of a range of cell dimensions, and the
non-dimensional load interaction curves for buckling were
plotted against the continuum analytical expression of (1).
Figure 15 presents the compression and shear (a and b) and
bending and shear (c and d) load interactions of the trusslattices with cell dimensions 2n5 for both simply
supported (a and c) and clamped (b and d) conditions.
It is observed that the non-dimensional load interaction
for bending and shear compare very closely to the
analytical expression for a single continuous panel of (1)
and perhaps less so for compression and shear interaction.
However, the trust-lattice configuration, which has been
formulated to model shear buckling of a continuum, is also
able to closely represent buckling load interaction under the
combined compression and shear loads and bending and
shear loads of a continuum when n3 is used.

lent truss-lattice model of (10) is further investigated for a

continuous range of boundary conditions, using antioptimisation (Gangandharan et al. 1999).
A continuous panel is modelled in the FE environment
again but with a set of 3D beam elements around the edges,
which are rigidly linked to the panel. The torsional rigidity,
GJ, of the beam elements therefore represents the continuous boundary condition from simply supported (GJ=104)
and clamped (GJ=105), where the two extreme GJ are
obtained through numerical investigations. The equivalent
truss-lattice panel of n=4 is also modelled with the 3D
beam elements with varying torsional rigidity values and
K
29:0. Buckling loads of the continuous and truss-lattice
panels are denoted Pcont and Pdisc, respectively.
We apply anti-optimisation to find the torsional rigidity
that maximise the difference in buckling loads between the
continuous and discrete panels (11).
q
Maximise Pcont
Pdisc 2

11

Numerical experimentations show that the problem is

convex. As this is a univariate problem, a simple fourthorder polynomial response surface function with memory is
generated (Gantovnik et al. 2002). The maximum error is
hence obtained when the torsional rigidity of the edge
beams, GJ=7.0. The critical buckling loads of continuous
and truss-lattice panels are Pcont =79,950 and Pdisc =82,435,
respectively, giving the discrepancy of 3.01%. The equivalent truss-lattice model can therefore be considered to
represent the shear buckling behaviour of a continuous
panel reasonably well for the range of boundary conditions.

4 Concluding remarks
Recognising that typical nonlinear FEA of a post-buckled
stiffened panel beam is often slow and non-convergent in
advance post-buckling, the aim of the project is to develop
an alternative fast modelling technique suitable for iterative
applications in optimisation. As the initial step to achieving
this aim, this paper introduces a truss-lattice configuration
to represent the buckling behaviour of a continuous panel.
The buckling response of a single continuous panel under
a combined loading condition is well known. Thus, the paper
begins by investigating the applicability of this load
interaction relationship to a multiple-panel beam through
experimentation. The experiment is designed using a sixpanel beam with appropriate boundary conditions, where a
single vertical load is applied under displacement control.
The out-of-plane displacement of a panel is monitored (using
digital image correlation) to identify the point of buckling

3.6 Buckling of truss-lattice model under combined loading

The geometry of the truss-lattice model has been developed
to represent the buckling of a continuous panel under shear.
We now apply the combined loading of shear/compression
and shear/bending using FE. The compression and bending
loads are applied to the truss-lattice model by additional
axial loads appropriately distributed along the perimeter to
Fig. 14 Additional compression
and bending load applications
for truss-lattice model. a Compression, b bending

PC

PM

b
Neutral
Axis

d
a

d
b

0.75

0.75

0.5

Stowell & Schwartz

n=2
n=3
n=4
n=5

0.25
0
0

0.25

0.5
RS

RB

RC

Kim et al.

0.5

Stowell & Schwartz

n=2
n=3
n=4
n=5

0.25
0
0.75

0.25

0.5

0.75

0.75

Stowell & Schwartz

n=2
n=3
n=4
n=5

0.25
0
0

0.25

0.5

Stowell & Schwartz

n=2
n=3
n=4
n=5

0.25
0

0.5
RS

RB

RC

0.5

0.75

RS

0.75

0.25

0.5
RS

0.75

Fig. 15 Load interaction curves for truss-lattice and continuum by Stowell and Schwartz (1943). a Compression/shear, simply supported. b
Compression/shear, clamped. c Bending/shear, simply supported. d Bending/shear, clamped

and hence the buckling load. A complimentary nonlinear

FEA of the multiple-panel beam is validated using the
experimental results and then compared with the results
obtained from the interaction equation. It is thus established
that the analytical load interaction expression for buckling
under compression and the shear of a single panel can be
applied to understand a panel buckling in a multiple-panel
beam, when the following conditions are met:
1. The panel size is defined as the distance between the
centre lines of the stiffeners.
2. The stiffeners are assumed to provide a clamped
condition to the panel.
3. The applied compression load is assumed to be equivalent to the load at the centre of the panel of interest.
Following on from this understanding, an alternative
discrete model for a single continuous panel is introduced.
The truss-lattice configuration is formulated under the pure
shear condition by equating the critical buckling shear

flows of the truss-lattice and continuous panels. The

buckling loads of the truss-lattice configuration under pure
shear are obtained for various cell dimensions. The discrete
model was then validated for a complete range of boundary
conditions using anti-optimisation with the maximum error
of 3.01%.
The truss-lattice is then subjected to the combined
compression/shear and bending/shear loading conditions.
Applying FE eigenvalue analysis for a range of load
magnitudes, the non-dimensional load interaction for
buckling is established. When compared with the analytical
expression for a continuous panel, it is found that they
compare very closely. A cell dimension analysis revealed
that the truss-lattice model of n=3 is sufficient to represent
the buckling load interaction of a continuous panel.
Further investigation is currently underway to extend the
truss-lattice formulation to model the post-buckling of a
multiple-panel beam via both experimental and numerical
studies.

Discrete modelling technique for buckling of panels

Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the reviewers
and the review editor for their constructive and helpful suggestions.

References
ABAQUS/Standard (2004) ABAQUS6.5 users manual. ABAQUS,
USA
ANSYS (2003) ANSYS 7.1 online documentation. ANSYS,
Canonsburg, PA
Diaconu CG, Weaver PM (2005) Approximate solution and optimum
design for postbuckling of axially compressed laminated
composite plates. AIAA J 43:906914
ESDU (1971) Flat panels in shear. Buckling of long panels with
transverse stiffeners. ESDU International, London, UK
Featherston CA, Ruiz C (1998) Buckling of curved panels under
combined shear and bending. J Mech Eng Sci Proc Part C
212:183196
Featherston CA, Kennedy D, Weston DJ, Koffi K (2004) Design rules
for panel buckling under combined shear, compression and
bending. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Thin-Walled Structures, Loughborough University, pp 153160
Gangandharan SN, Nikolaidis E, Lee K, Haftka RT, Burdisso R
(1999) Antioptimization for comparison of alternative structural
models and damage detection. AIAA J 37:857864
Gantovnik VB, Grdal Z, Watson LT (2002) A genetic algorithm with
memory for optimal design of laminated sandwich composite
panels. Proceedings of the 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC

Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,

AIAA Paper no. 2002-1221, Denver, CO
Gerard G, Becker H (1957) Handbook of structural stability: part
1buckling of flat plates. NACA TN-3781
Kuhn P, Peterson JP, Levin LR (1952) A summary of diagonal
tension: part Imethods of analysis. NACA TN 2661
Kim H, Butler R, Williams PA (2004) Buckling and post-buckling
analysis of shear panels for optimisation. Proceedings of the 6th
World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Beijing, China
Plank RJ, Williams FW (1974) Critical buckling of some stiffened
panels in compression, shear and bending. Aeronaut Q 25:165179
Stein M (1985) Postbuckling of long orthotropic plates under
combined loading. AIAA J 23:12671272
Stowell EZ, Schwartz EB (1943) Critical stress for an infinitely long
flat plate with elastically restrained edges under combined shear
and direct stress. NACA Advance Restricted Report 3K13
Ueda Y, Rashed SMH, Paik JR (1995) Buckling and ultimate strength
interaction in plates and stiffened panels under combined inplane
biaxial and shearing forces. Mar Struct 8:136
Von Karman T, Sechler EE, Donnell LH (1932) The strength of thin plates
in compression. ASME Applied Mechanics Transactions 54:5357
Wagner H (1931) Flat sheet metal girders with very thin metal web:
part IIIsheet metal girders with spars resistant to bending. The
stress in uprightsdiagonal tension fields. NACA TM 606
Wittrick WH, Williams F (1973) Algorith for computing critical
buckling loads of elastic structures. J Struct Mech 1:497518
Williams PA, Butler R, Kim HA, Hunt GW (2007) Complementary
post-buckling analyses of truss-lattice shear panels. Proceedings
of the 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Honolulu, HI, AIAA