Buckling of thin cylindrical shells: an attempt to resolve a paradox

The classical theory of buckling of axially loaded thin cylindrical shells predicts that the buckling stress is directly proportional to the thickness t, other things being equal. But empirical data show clearly that the buckling stress is actually proportional to t1.5, other things being equal. As is well known, there is wide scatter in the buckling-stress data, going from one half to twice the mean value for a given ratio R/t. Current theories of shell buckling explain the low buckling stress—in comparison with the classical—and the experimental scatter in terms of “imperfection-sensitive”, non-linear behaviour. But those theories always take the classical analysis of an ideal, perfect shell as their point of reference. esent principal aim is to explain the observed t1.5 law. So far as we know, no previous attack has been made on this particular aspect of thin-shell buckling. Our work is thus breaking new ground, and we shall deliberately avoid taking the classical analysis as our starting point. st point out that experiments on self-weight buckling of open-topped cylindrical shells agree well with the mean experimental data mentioned above; and then we associate those results with a well-defined post-buckling “plateau” in load/deflection space, that is revealed by finite-element studies. This plateau is linked with the appearance of a characteristic “dimple” of a mainly inextensional character in the deformed shell wall. A somewhat similar post-buckling dimple is also found by quite separate finite-element studies when a thin cylindrical shell is loaded axially at an edge by a localised force; and it turns out that such a dimple grows under a more-or-less constant force that is proportional to t2.5, other things being equal. .5-power law can be explained by analogy with the inversion of a thin spherical shell by an inward-directed force. Thus, the deformation of such a shell is generally inextensional except for a narrow “knuckle” or boundary layer in which the combined local elastic energy of bending and stretching is proportional to t2.5, other things being equal. Similarly, the modes of deformation in the post-buckling dimples in a cylindrical shell are practically independent of thickness, except in the highly deformed boundary-layer regions which separate the inextensionally distorted portions of the shell. These ideas lead in turn to an explanation of the t1.5 law for the post-buckling stress of open-topped cylindrical shells loaded by their own weight. ribute the absence of experimental scatter in the self-weight buckling of open-topped cylindrical shells to the statical determinacy of the situation, which allows a post-buckling dimple to grow at a well-defined “plateau load”. Conversely, the large experimental scatter in tests on cylinders with closed ends may be attributed to the lack of statical determinacy there. per contains several arguments that are not mathematically water-tight, in contrast to many reports in the field of mechanics of structures. We plead that the problem which we have tackled is so difficult that the only way forward is one of “over-simplification”. We hope that our work will be judged not with respect to its absence of mathematical precision, but by the light which it sheds upon the problem under investigation.