Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Buckling and ultimate strength criteria of

stiffened shells under combined loading for
reliability analysis
P.K. Das a,, A. Thavalingam a, Y. Bai b
a

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde,
Glasgow G4 0LZ, UK
b
Offshore Technology Department, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX 77066-6008, USA
Received 20 December 2001; received in revised form 21 October 2002; accepted 4 November 2002

Abstract
The work presented in this paper forms part of a broader task in establishing a guide to
serve as technical documentation for buckling and ultimate strength assessment of various
types of marine structural components using the best state-of-the-art knowledge for extreme
environmental loading. This paper concentrates on buckling and ultimate strength assessment
of ring stiffened shells and ring and stringer stiffened shells involving various modes of buckling and under various loading like axial compression, radial pressure and combined loading.
Comparisons are made with screened test data, which have realistic imperfections and various
radius to thickness ratio values in the range generally used in offshore structures. The statistical
data of model uncertainty factors in terms of bias and coefficient of variation (COV) are
calculated and may be used in a further reliability study. Comparisons are also made with the
codified rules, API BUL 2U and DNV buckling strength of shells.
2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Stiffened shells; Structural reliability; Offshore structure; Ultimate strength; Buckling

1. Introduction
Stiffened cylindrical shells are common structural components of various types of
floating offshore structures and their rational design is desirable in order to achieve

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: p.k.das@na-me.ac.uk (P.K. Das).

0263-8231/03/$ - see front matter 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

doi:10.1016/S0263-8231(02)00093-9

70

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

not excessive but adequate levels of safety. The basic consideration for the establishment of strength criteria for stiffened shells in offshore applications differs considerably from those of other engineering disciplines primarily due to the greater stockiness in configuration. In general the formulation must provide the means to account
for the yield (collapse) mode and the buckling mode and any possible post-buckling
reserve strength. A unified treatment is required in order to couple these failure
modes and all likely failure modes need to be considered. In addition to these, effects
of imperfection, common to all shell-type structures, and residual stresses, especially
pronounced in fabricated steel structures, should also be included. While non-linear
finite element methods can cater to satisfy most of these considerations, they are
time-consuming and expensive and therefore not suitable for initial design. The
numerical simplifications in the analytical formulations need checking/calibrated with
test results, before they can be used with confidence. A measure of closeness can
only be obtained by comparing its model uncertainty values with experimental or
numerical test data.
The main objective of the work is to establish a set of design equations for buckling strength assessment of ring and stringer stiffened shells related to marine structures such as TLPs and Spars. The ABS rules for building and classing offshore
installations [1], mobile offshore drilling units [2], and steel vessels [3] together with
the ABS guide for floating production, storage and offloading systems [4], require
that buckling strength be provided for the structure as a whole and for each structural
member. For some design cases, however, the rules only provide limited information
on how to perform the buckling strength assessment and supplementary codes/guides
issued by, for example, API [5] and other recognised codes [68] has been used by
designers. In the early 1980s, a joint industry project (JIP) was conducted by ABS,
Conoco and the University of Glasgow on buckling and ultimate strength of stiffened
shells, in order to develop a model code for design of TLPs. The JIP consists of
full-scale laboratory tests and theoretical work to derive ultimate strength formulation, called RCC formulation [9]. The JIP results were then adopted by API BUL
2U [5]. In the early 1990s, a JIP was conducted by the University of Glasgow
resulting in updating of the RCC formulation [10].
2. Modelling criteria
The importance of good strength models has been illustrated in a number of earlier
papers [1113] in which it has been shown that one of the most convenient ways
to deal with model uncertainty is to compare experimental values as in the theoretical
predictions. This model uncertainty may be associated with both the load and the
strength model and, when calculated from a reasonable number of population representing a broad range, will enable this parameter to be treated as a random variable
like other design parameters in the structural reliability analyses. The modelling parameters are incorporated in the failure surface equation of each structural component
as follows:
Z Xm1RXm2Q

(1)

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

71

in which
Xm1 Xm2

experimental value
,
predicted value

(2)

Xm1 and Xm2 are associated respectively with the strength effect R and load effect
Q. Z is usually referred as g1(.) function in the First Order Second Moment reliability
analysis and represents the safety margin in the structural component. R and Q are
again a function of many design variables and the mean and coefficient of variation
(COV) of these can be calculated using linear strip theory. Given a large population
of test data, Xm1 and Xm2 can be treated statistically and its mean and COV can be
calculated. For a good strength model, bias for mean should tend to unity and the
COV should be as small as possible. Also Xm should show correlation with any basic
variables, i.e. no skewness should be inherent in the model.

3. Buckling of stiffened shells

The ring-stringer stiffened cylinder also known as orthogonally stiffened cylinder
is a typical component of marine structures. It is widely used in offshore platforms
as main structural elements especially in the legs of buoyant offshore platforms such
as semi-submersibles and tension leg platforms. This component consists of a fabricated cylinder with a stiffening system composed of longitudinal stringer stiffeners
supported laterally by more widely spaced ring frames. This type of component is
particularly suited to resist high axial loads and bending moments in combination
with external pressure. These components have large dimensions (over 10 m in
diameter) due to their application in the legs of the semi-submersible and TLPs.
Because of that they are produced by butt welding cold or hot-formed plates. The
stiffeners are also welded to the cylinder in such a way that the structural continuity
of the stringers is guaranteed. This type of fabrication introduces geometrical imperfections as well as residual stresses. There are basically two ways in which a structure
may lose its stability, snap-through buckling and the other one is known as classical
or bifurcation buckling. Some possible failure modes are shown in Fig. 1.
Two types of formulations can be considered lower bound and mean value.
The first category can be characterised by the under prediction of the strength for a
specific percentile over all the test specimens representative of the modelled phenomena. The DNV formulations, the ECCS formulations and the API orthotropic formulations fall in this category. The mean value formulation is characterised by the
average prediction of the strength for al test specimens, in this category we can find
the Rule Case Committee formulations and the API-discrete formulations. The mean
value formulations are used to predict the strength while the lower bound formulations are intended for the design of the cylinders. Behind these formulations, several
series of experiments were conducted everywhere, especially in the UK under the
Department of Energy sponsorship and in the USA, sponsored mainly by Conoco
Inc and ABS.

72

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Fig. 1.

Modes of failure.

4. Strength modelling of ring stiffened shells

The design strength criteria for ring stiffened shells under axial compression external hydrostatic pressure and radial pressure is as follows. The paper deals with shell
failure [14] and for the stiffener design, separate consideration should be given
against general stability or torsional instability modes.
4.1. Axial compression
The expected elastic buckling stress of an imperfect ring-stiffened cylinder subject
to axial compression is assumed to be,
se

BrnCscr

(3)

where cr 0.605Et / R is the classical buckling stress for a perfect thin cylinder;

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

C (length dependent coefficient) 1.0,

73

if z2.85

1.425 / z 0.175z, if z 2.85

n

(nominal or lower bound knock-down factor to allow for shape imperfections)

0.75 0.003z(1R / 300t)

for z 1

0.750.142 (z1)0.4 0.003z (1R / 300t), for 1z 20

0.350.0002 R / t,

if z20

B (a mean bias factor assessed from elastic test data which compensates for the
lower bound nature of n
1.2,

ln1

1 0.2ln ,

ln 1

ln sy / (snCscrnominal slenderness parameter

z

0.954L2 / Rt, the Batsdorf parameter.

For inelastic collapse several approaches are being examined. One such approach
provides the collapse stress from a quadratic interaction of y and e:
sc fsy

(4)

where f 1 / (1 l ) and le sy / se, slenderness parameter.

This formulation tends to be slightly non-conservative for the stocky range and
conservative for elastic collapse. These expressions for the knock-down factor are a
little more pessimistic than that resulting from the mathematical solution of an
initially imperfect cylinder and they are regarded as approximately a 95% confidence
lower bound for knock-down calibrated from test data.
4
e

4.2. Hydrostatic pressure

For ring-framed cylinders subject to external hydrostatic pressure, formulation [14]
is essentially identical with the approach in BS5500 [15]. It is noted that about 700
model tests, with geometries in the range of 6R / t250 and 0.04L / R50, lie
above the so-called guaranteed shell collapse pressure predicted by this formulation.
The bias of the mean strength for this lower bound curve is estimated to be 1.17
and in the usual design range the COV is estimated to be 5% [16]. The guaranteed
hydrostatic collapse pressure may be estimated by,
phc

0.5pm

, if py pm

py(10.5 py / pm) , if py pm

(5)

where pm denotes the Von Mises buckling pressure (hydrostatic) and py denotes the
pressure at which the maximum circumferential mean stresses reaches the yield
stress. The best known solution for elastic buckling of the unsupported cylinder is
that due to Von Mises [17] which is given by,

74

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Et
R
pm
1 pR
n21
2 L

pR
L

2 2

L
n
pR
2

t2
n21
12R2(1m2)

(6)

minimised with respect to n (circumferential mode number). Windenburg [18] minimised the expression with respect to n, the number of complete circumferential waves
or lobes. By making further approximations, he obtained the following expression
for the minimum buckling pressure,
pm

0.919 E(t / R)2

2.6E(t / 2R)5/2

L / (Rt)1/20.636 L / 2R0.45(t / 2R)1/2

(7)

In the present study, pm is calculated using Eq. (7). This equation is invalid for
very small or very large values of L / (Rt)1 / 2, but in the design range its accuracy is
good. The analysis assumes the cylinder is pinned at non-deflecting cylindrical supports. More refined analyses are now available which, for example, consider the
influence of the ring frames on the deformations before and during buckling. These
shows that pm becomes inaccurate for closely spaced frames. Nevertheless, the Von
Mises expression is still widely used because it can be represented in a relatively
simple form and it is in most cases only slightly conservative. Moreover, great accuracy is in any case not required since pm is used mainly as a parameter of low
influence which helps in the prediction of inelastic collapse pressures. Eq. (7) is
therefore quite accurate for most design purposes and uniform framing. For mixed
framing and/or uneven spacing a major buckling program such as BOSOR 4 could
be used, but these require expert use. Von Sanden and Gunther carried out the first
complete analysis for elastic deformations of perfect uniformly framed cylinders [19].
However, slightly more accurate formulae have been derived by Wilson [20] from
which relatively simple linear equations for the more important stresses have been
derived. The shell parameter py may be written as,
py

syt / R
1gG

(8)

where
g

A(1m / 2)
, A Ar(R / Rs)2 and aL 1.285L / Rt
A twt 2Nt / a

Here Ar is the cross-sectional area of ring frame, R is the mean radius, Rs is the

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

75

radius to centroid of stiffener, tw is the stiffener web thickness, m is the Poissons

ratio and L is the unsupported length of shell. G and N are transcendental functions
of aL and are calculated as follows:

aL aL
aL aL
2 sinh cos cosh sin
2
2
2
2
coshaLcosaL
and G
N
sinhaL sinaL
sinhaL sinaL

(9)

4.3. Radial pressure, shell collapse

An acceptable approximation for the radial pressure which would cause elastic
instability of the shell can be obtained by assuming that the axial stress and radial
pressure interact linearly. It can then be shown that the elastic collapse radial pressure
is given by:
prm pm / (1 0.5 pm (R / t) / se)

(10)

in which e is obtained from Eq. (3) and pm is the Von Mises hydrostatic collapse
pressure. Treatment of inelastic collapse of the shell may follow the same approach
as in the case of hydrostatic pressure by replacing the Von Mises pressure, pm, in
Eq. (5) with its counterpart prm in Eq. (10); i.e:
prc {0.5prm
0.5 py / prm)

, if py prmpy (1

(11)

, if py prm

where py is the hydrostatic yield pressure for the shell as before. It is thought that
the additional assumptions implied in this approach are somewhat conservative since
the shell subject to radial pressure would experience less beam-column effect than
one under hydrostatic pressure.
4.4. Combined axial compression and pressure
As in the case of most design codes, the problem of shell collapse under the
combined action of axial compression and pressure is treated in this paper using an
interaction approach. The interaction relation is generally expressed in the form of
a polynomial:
(s / sc)m (p / prc)n 1

(12)

or segments of polynomial curves. Recommendations by various codes are found

differing widely, ranging from the linear interaction (m n 1) recommended by
ECCS [7] to a circular one (m n 2) required by DNV [6,10]. The ASME Code
Case N-284 suggests a combination of straight lines and parabolas which appears
to agree quite well with test data. It is suggested that the parabola (m 1, n 2)
offers the best fit to available data and is very close to the ASME recommendations.
The Xm is defined as follows:
Xm {(s / sc) (p / prc)2}

(13)

76

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

The bending compressive stress can be treated in a similar way to the axial compression. The stress in Eq.(12) is the sum of bending stress and the stress due to
pure compression.

5. Test results and comparison

Before validating any theoretical formulation or codified rules with experimental
results, it is important to critically examine these data before incorporating into the
data bank. Only by following a systematic procedure can bogus test data be eliminated to leave reliable data. As the buckling collapse load depends on many parameters
and is sensitive to residual stresses and initial imperfections, it is important that these
values, if available, should be recorded correctly. In general, a systematic classification can be based on the following:
Geometric properties, i.e. the length, internal radius, thickness, ring stiffener
dimensions and spacing, stringer dimensions and spacing, number of bays.
Material properties, i.e. yield and tensile stress, whether tensile or compressive,
and the rate of loading, etc.
Method of production.
Geometric imperfection, contour of initial imperfections and maximum initial
imperfections.
Test conditions, i.e. boundary conditions, experimental collapse loads starting
from local failure, if any.
The formulation considers is generally applicable to shells with parameters of the
following ranges.

The
The
The
The
The
The

radius upon thickness ratio, R/t (100500).

stringer spacing upon thickness ratio, s/t (25130).
Batdorf width parameter, Zs (460).
Batdorf length parameter, Zl (10700).
ring spacing upon radius ratio, L/R (0.21.6).
ratio between the stiffeners and shell areas (0.10.6).

5.1. Ring stiffened shells

The test data considered in this study are taken from various references [e.g 21
25] for axial compression, hydrostatic pressure and combined axial and radial pressure. Finite element models have been developed for non-linear analysis for stiffened
cylinders under various loading conditions and these can be seen in Refs. [26,27].
The statistical results under axial, hydrostatic and combined loading using different
strength models are given in Table 1. For axial loading of tests models made of high
strength materials, the model did not behave well and hence data for these models
are not considered in the statistical analysis. Figs. 24 illustrate the strength analysis

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

77

Table 1
Statistical results of theoretical models for ring-stiffened shells

Axial compression

Mean
COV
Hydrostatic pressure Mean
COV
Combined loading Mean
COV

DNV

API Bul 2U

Recommended model

1.18
10.11%
1.11
12.32%
1.54
17.11

0.97
12.47%
1.20
15.56%
0.80
18.67%

1.06
7.22%
1.09
12.06%
1.21
17.03%

Fig. 2.

Strength analysis for DnV model under axial compression (ring-stiffened shells).

Fig. 3.

Strength analysis for API model under axial compression (ring-stiffened shells).

78

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Fig. 4.

Strength analysis for proposed model under axial compression (ring-stiffened shells).

of test vs. theory under axial loading (population 21 models) and Figs. 57 illustrate
the strength analysis of test vs theory under hydrostatic loading (population 49
models) for the DNV and API and recommended models, respectively. The test vs.
theory diagrams under combined loading (population 23 models) are shown in Figs.
810 for the DNV, API and recommended models, respectively. The theoretical and
interaction curve for the proposed model under combined loading along with experiment results are illustrated in Fig. 11.
5.2. Ring and stringer stiffened shells
There is a large number of available experimental results from the mid-1960s
which are the outcome of an extensive aerospace research programme. These tests

Fig. 5.

Strength analysis for DNV under hydrostatic pressure (ring-stiffened shells).

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Fig. 6.

79

Strength analysis for API model under hydrostatic pressure (ring-stiffened shells).

Fig. 7. Strength analysis for proposed model under hydrostatic pressure (ring-stiffened shells).

were mainly conducted in the elastic range and the majority of them used high
strength aluminium alloy models. The stringers in these models were large in number
and are thus closely spaced. These results are useful for providing information on
elastic buckling strength. Also they are machine finished which means that the imperfections and residual stresses are minimal. In the context of offshore design, the
material to be used is steel and, due to the method of fabrication, they have considerable inherent initial imperfections and residual stresses. These structures also generally fail in the elasto-plastic range. In the 1970s there was a large test programme
carried out by UK universities and elsewhere in Europe and in the early 1980s
additional tests was conducted by Conoco/ABS. The test data were reviewed and
the tests passing the screening are incorporated here. The various test data that have
been adopted have originated from various sources and represents both small-scale

80

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Fig. 8.

Strength analysis for DNV model under combined loading (ring-stiffened shells).

Fig. 9.

Strength analysis for API model under combined loading (ring-stiffened shells).

model and large-scale cylinders. Their method of manufacture is also different and
hence the amount of residual stress and initial imperfections vary from model to
model but was reported to be within tolerable limits. However, these strength formulations do not take into account specific value of residual stress or initial imperfections but allow for an average value depending on their method of fabrication, etc.
5.2.1. Axial compression
The results of model uncertainty factor Xm for 48 steel models under axial loading
have been calculated. API Bul 2U (discrete analysis) and proposed formulation are
based on a similar approach except that the knockdown factor associated with shell
term is different. The statistical analyses were carried out using offshore data for all
the formulations. The statistical results using DNV, API and recommended models
are as illustrated in Table 2. The strength analysis of test vs. theory under axial

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Fig. 10.

81

Strength analysis for proposed model under combined loading (ring-stiffened shells).

Fig. 11. Theoretical interaction curve along with experimental values for proposed model under combined loading (ring-stiffened shells).

Table 2
Statistical results of theoretical models for ring and stringer stiffened shells under axial compression

Mean
COV

DNV

API Bul 2U

Recommended model

0.967
21.26%

1.025
13.68%

1.008
13.7%

82

Fig. 12.

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Strength analysis for DNV model under axial compression (ring and stringer stiffened shells).

loading for the DNV, API and recommended models are shown in Figs. 1214.
While, for the DNV model, the bias is good, the spread of the model uncertainty
factor is wide and this reflects in the COV values. The assumption of unstiffened
shell behaviour for modelling stringer stiffened shell, while it may hold for broad
panelled cylinder, is surely conservative while modelling narrow panelled cylinder.
This was reflected in large COVs in DNVs model.
5.2.2. Radial pressure
The model uncertainty values Xm under radial pressure for 11 models are calculated
for different strength formulations. It is to be noted that the statistical results for 11
of the population is to be used in reliability analysis. One model from the population

Fig. 13.

Strength analysis for API model under axial compression (ring and stringer stiffened shells).

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Fig. 14.
shells).

83

Strength analysis for proposed model under axial compression (ring and stringer stiffened

of 12 is discarded because the geometry of the model is not consistent with other
models used in the population. The strength analysis of test vs. theory for the DNV,
API and recommended models are shown in Figs. 1517 and the statistical results
using DNV, API and recommended models are given in Table 3.
5.2.3. Combined loading
In this calculation, among the stiffener sizes, the size of stringer is the only input.
In the absence of proper ring frame sizes, it is assumed the area of ring frame is
twice that of stringer area. The model uncertainty values Xm are calculated for 35
population and the statistical results are shown below. In assessing the statistics of

Fig. 15.

Strength analysis for DNV model under radial pressure (ring and stringer stiffened shells).

84

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Fig. 16. Strength analysis for API model under radial pressure (ring and stringer stiffened shells).

Fig. 17.

Strength analysis for proposed model radial pressure (ring and stringer stiffened shells).

Table 3
Statistical results of theoretical models for ring and stringer stiffened shells under radial pressure

Mean
COV

DNV

API Bul 2U

Recommended model

1.39
39%

1.21
14.53%

1.14
13.4%

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Fig. 18.

85

Strength analysis for DNV model under combined loading (ring and stringer stiffened shells).

the modelling parameter, both hydrostatic and general combined loading test results
were used. Axial compression and radial pressure results were not used, as this would
produce results identical to single load action models. The model predictions use
the experimental values of the load components at failure and thus calculates the
proportions in which the load approaches the failure surface. The parameters in the
combined equation are calculated using the single load action of the appropriate
strength model. The strength analysis of test vs. theory for the DNV, API and recommended models are shown in Figs. 1820 and the statistics of the modelling
parameter for various models are shown in Table 4.

Fig. 19.

Strength analysis for API model under combined loading (ring and stringer stiffened shells).

86

Fig. 20.

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

Strength analysis for DNV model under combined loading (ring and stringer stiffened shells).

Table 4
Statistical results of theoretical models for ring and stringer stiffened shells under combined loading

Mean
COV

DNV

API Bul 2U

Recommended model

1.705
25.1%

1.137
14.94%

1.109
19.79%

6. Conclusions
A set of design equations and its application for the assessment of buckling
strength of ring and stringer stiffened shells related to marine structures such as TLP
and SPARS are described. Comparisons are also made with screened test data. The
statistical data of model uncertainty factors in terms of bias and coefficient of variation are calculated and may be used in a further reliability study. Comparisons are
also made with the codified rules, API BUL 2U and DNV buckling strength of shells.
The equations and model uncertainties derived from this paper will then be very
useful to define (partial) safety factors. It may be noted that the population on test
data, under pressure loading of ring-stiffened shells, are not many and some further
tests are required to obtain realistic statistics of these theoretical models. This work
may be continued to develop strength criteria in both WSD and LRFD formats and
to calibrate the new criteria against each other. Structural reliability methods will be
applied to calibrate design criteria. The equations and model uncertainties derived
from this paper will then be very useful to define (partial) safety factors. The new
criteria shall also be compared with current industry practice.

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

87

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the American Bureau of Shipping for supporting
this project.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

[14]

[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]

[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]

ABS Rules for Building and Classing Offshore Installations, 1997.

ABS Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 1998.
ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, January 2000.
ABS Guide for Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Systems, March 1996.
API Bulletin 2U. Bulletin on Stability Design of Cylindrical Shells, 1st ed. May 1997,
(ANSI/API/Bull 2U-1992).
Det Norske Veritas (DNV-CN), Buckling Strength Analysis, Classification Note No. 30.1, July 1995.
European Convention on Construction Steelwork (ECCS), European Recommendations for Steel
Construction, Section 4.6, Buckling of Shells, Publication 29, 1998.
ISO TC 67/SC7, Materials, Equipment and Offshore Structures for Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries/Offshore Structures/Floating Systems/Part 4, ISO/WD/13819/4.
Model Code for Structural Design of Tension Leg Platforms, Conoco/ABS TLP Rule Case Committee (RCC), ABS, February 1984.
Recommended Practice RP-C202. Buckling Strength of Shells 2000, Det Norske Veritas.
Morandi AC, Faulkner D, Das PK. Frame tripping in ring stiffened externally pressurised cylinders.
Marine Structures 1996;9:585608.
Faulkner D, Guedes Soares C, Warwick DM. Modelling requirements for structural design and
assessment. Integrity of Offshore Structures-3, IOS-87, Elsevier Applied Science, 1988.
Frieze PA, Das PK, Faulkner D. Partial safety factors for stringer stiffened cylinders under extreme
compressive loads, PRADS 83, The 2nd International Symposium on Practical Design in Ship Building, Tokyo and Seoul, 1983: 475482.
Faulkner D, Chen YN, De Oliveira JG. Limit state design criteria for stiffened cylinders of offshore
structures. American Society of Mechanical Engineers of the National Congress of Pressure Vessels
and Piping Technology, Portland, Oregon, June 1983.
British Standard Institution, Specification for Unfired Fusion Welded Pressure Vessels, BS 5500,
B.S.I., Section 3, 1976.
Kendrick S. Chapter 9. In: Gott SS, editor. The stress analysis of pressure vessel and pressure vessel
components. Pergamon Press, 1970: 405511.
Von Mises R. Stodola Festschrift. Zurich, 1929, p 418.
Windenburg DF, Trilling C. Collapse of instability of thin cylindrical shells under external pressure.
Trans ASME Vol. 56, 1934, p 819.
Von Sanden K, Gunther K. Uber das Festigkeits problem quersteifter Hohlzylinder unter allseitig
gleichmassigen Aussendruck, Werft and Reederei, vol. 1, nos. 8, 9, 10 (1920) and vol. 2, no. 17
(1921). Also DTMB translation no. 38, March 1952.
Wilson LB The elastic deformation of a circular cylindrical shell supported by equally spaced ring
frames under uniform external pressure. Trans RINA, vol. 108, 1966.
Miller CD. Summary of buckling tests on fabricat steel cylindrical shells in USA. In: Harding JE,
editor. Buckling of shells Offshore Structures. London: Granada; 1982. p. 42971.
Sridharan P, Walker AC. Experimental investigation of the buckling behaviour of stiffened cylindrical shells. UK Department of Energy Report OT-R7835, February, 1980.
Kendrick SB. Analysis of results of static pressure tests of Chatham submarine models. Naval Construction Research Est. (now ARE), Dumfermline, Ref No. R218, March 1955.
Miller CD. Buckling of axially compressed cylinders. J Struct Div Trans ASCE, vol 103, no, ST3,
1977:695721, March 1977.

88

P.K. Das et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 6988

[25] Odland J. An experimental investigation of the buckling strength of ring-stiffened cylindrical shells
under axial compression. Norwegian Maritime Research, No.4, p 2239, Feb. 1981.
[26] Lennon RF, Das PK. Torsional buckling behaviour of stiffened cylinders under combined loading.
Thin-Walled Structures 2000;38:22945.
[27] Morandi AC, Das PK, Faulkner D. Finite element analysis and reliability based design of externally
pressurised ring stiffened cylinders. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects
(RINA), Part B, vol. 138, 1996.