SEC18: Proceedings of the 11th Structural Engineering Convention - 2018

Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India, December 19 - 21, 2018

Paper No. 2018102

COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS OF TYPICAL RC INTERMEDIATE

CYLINDRICAL SHELL ROOF USING D-K-J & SCHORER'S THEORY

Ankhiparna Guha1*, Anik Kumar Mal2*, Bimalendu Ghosh3

1
Student of M.Tech, Structural Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, INDIA
E-mail: Ankhiparna1995@gmail.com
2
Graduate Trainee, Bentley Systems, Kolkata, INDIA
E-mail: Aniklawrencian@gmail.com
3
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Meghnad Saha Institute of technology, Kolkata, INDIA,
E-mail: Bimolendu.ghosh@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Thin shell structures can sustain large strength through its form. Cylindrical shell roof is one such
example. In bending theory of cylindrical shell analysis, D-K-J's theory is used for short shells whose
L:a ≤ 1.6(L= shell length, a=radius) and Schorer’s theory for shells whose L:a ≥ ∏ i.e. for long shells.
But information on analysis of shells of L:a between 1.6 and ∏ is insufficient. In this paper,
intermediate simply supported RC cylindrical shells of various L:a (1.8<L:a<3.2) ratios are analysed
using the above mentioned theories. To have good comparison between two theories, transverse stress
profiles of stress resultants, Mθ, Nθ, Nx, Nxθ are plotted. For quick and accurate calculation, computer
programs are developed for both theories using Python programming language. It is observed that
Schorer's theory gives higher absolute maximum value of stress resultants than D-K-J's theory. This
study helps in concluding the suitability of the two theories intermediate cylindrical shell.

Keywords: Intermediate cylindrical shell, D-K-J's theory, Schorer's theory, L:a ratio, Transverse
stress profile, Computer program

NOMENCLATURE classification table is provided in IS 2210-1988

a=radius of cylindrical shell(m)
d=thickness of cylindrical shell(m)
L=span of cylindrical shell(m)
Mθ =transverse moment(kN-m/m)
Nθ =axial force in θ-direction(kN/m)
Nx=axial force in x-direction(kN/m)
Nxθ=shear force in x-direction(kN/m)
Nθ=axial force in θ-direction(kN/m)
θ=semi-circular angle in degree
1. INTRODUCTION
Shells structures are the element that sustain
load by virtue of its curved geometry than
through its mass. This makes shell a very
special structure as it can sustain considerable
amount of load without any intermediate
support. Thus, shell type roof become specially
advantageous where continuous floor space is
required without any interruption. Based on the
curvature, a shell can be of different types. A
(Appendix A)[1].
One of the very common type of shell roof is
cylindrical shell roof or sometimes known as
barrel vault roof. The existence of barrel vault
shell is there since as early as 1928 and one of
early example will be the factory at Lydney, in
Gloucestershire.[2]
The analysis of shell can be done with
different approach. First, there is membrane
theory approach. Membrane theory is useful for
understanding general behaviour of shell and for
preliminary design of shell to determine overall
thickness and dimensions. In this theory, it is
assumed that the shell transmit load by direct
stresses. However, this is always not the case,
sometimes physical boundary conditions give
rise to some more form of stresses. To include
this effect, a bending theory approach is needed.
In this approach, the exact relation that governs
the general behaviour of shell are based upon
the mathematical theory of elasticity. The
expressions and equations obtained are

SH1 | P a g e

extremely complex. In order to solve them
different investigators have approximated or
simplified it in various ways that lead to
different theories, namely Finsterwalder Theory,
Schorer Theory, Dischinger Theory, Flugge
Theory, D-K-J Theory.
Two such popular theories are D-K-J’s
theory and Schorer’s Theory. These two
theories are used or cited in some of the most
widely accepted books of shell[3][4][5].
Generally, D-K-J’s theory is very accurate for
short shell and Schorer’s theory for long shell.
Ramaswamy[3] have suggested to use D-K-J’s
theory for short shell upto L:a ≤ 1.6. This L:a
ratio is also the division point of short shell and
long shell classification as per ASCE Manual
31[6]. Schorer’s theory is applicable for L:a ≥
∏. This limit is sometimes also considered as
starting of long shell. In this paper, the shell of
range 1.6≤ L:a≤∏ is terminalised as
“intermediate”. There have been very few
attempt to investigate the shell falling in this
range. As a result, there is not a very clear idea
about the theories to be used for analysis of
“intermediate” shell.
Focusing on the above mentioned L:a ratio
range, simply supported intermediate reinforced
concrete shell without edge beam are analysed
by above mentioned two theories. The analysis
result obtained by both theories are compared so
that the suitability of both theories in the range
of 1.6≤ L:a<∏ can be suggested.
Moe[7] compared the accuracy of different
theories based on solution of their characteristic
equation. Similar discussion on comparisons of
theories can be found in text by Billington[5]. In
this paper, the comparison is done is based on
the final stress resultants obtained rather than
just depending on the solution of the
characteristic equations. This type of
comparison gives a better overview from design
perspective of shell.
The analysis of shell roof using one of the
bending theories is quite complicated and
tedious. It is suggested to take a computation aid
while solving such problems[8]. In this paper,
computer programs developed for both D-K-J’s
theory and Schorer’s theory using Python, an
opensource programming language. Lately,
Python have gained lots of popularity in science
and engineering community due to its high
code-readability and plenty of open standard
libraries.
Ghebrelasie and Situ[8] concluded that these
analytical solutions can be used safely and
SH2 | P a g e
SEC18: Paper No. 2018102
independently for assessing the accuracy of
result obtained by Finite Element Analysis.
Engineering community can use these programs
for both long shell and short shell analysis. As
design industry is getting more dependent on the
software packages, designers can gain further
confidence on their calculation by verifying the
results with these programs. The comparison
between two theories presented in this paper
will also help to choose the right theory for
corresponding shell parameters.
2. ANALYSIS
2.1 Mathematical Background of The
Theories
An infinitesimal cylindrical shell element as per
bending theory approach have following stress
resultants as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
A detailed derivation of the theories will not
be discussed here. The formulation and the
method of solution of the theories can be found
in many standard texts[3][4][5].
Both D-K-J’s Theory and Schorer’s Theory
involve a 8th order partial differential equation
which have respective 8th degree algebraic
characteristic equations. Deduction of final
stress resultants are based on these
solution(roots) of the characteristic equations.
The characteristic equations of the theories are
as follow:
m2 4
( 2 −κ ) +4=0
ρ (1)
m2 4
( 2 ) +4=0
ρ (2)
1 and 2 are the characteristic equations of D-K-
J’s theory and Schorer’s theory respectively.
Where, ρ and κ are Aas-Jacobson’s parameter.
√
8 12 π a
6 4
ρ=
l4 d 2 (3)
πa 2
κ =( )
ρl (4)
 SEC18: Paper No. 2018102

2.2 Python Program constant and radius(a) is varied as per the L:a
ratio chosen. Analysis is done for L:a ratios1.8,
Python is opensource, high-level programming 2….3.2.
language is which is becoming very popular Span(L) = 25m
among science and engineer community. Thickness(d) = 0.08m
The program developed for both theories, are Semi-circular angle(θ) = 40◦
capable of calculating stress resultants Mθ, Nθ, Dead load = 25 x 0.08=2 kN/m2
Nx, Nxθ and produce the transverse stress profile Live load = 1.25 kN/m2
for a simply supported cylindrical shell without Young’s Modulus of concrete = 25 x 106 kN/m2
edge beam under axis-symmetric uniform load
type for user defined span, radius, thickness,
semicircular angle and load. The results 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
obtained from the programs have been verified
with examples solved in standard texts[3][4]. 4.1. Graphs
The programs are aimed to eliminate the
complicated and tedious process involved with 4.1.1 Stress Resultant Variation For
analysis of shell by bending theories and to Different L:a Ratio
obtain results as accurate as possible.

Fig.1 Fig.3

Fig.2

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Simply supported cylindrical shell without Fig.4

edge-beam is analysed under uniform load is
analysed by both theories for various L:a ratios
in range 1.8≤ L:a<3.2. The variation of stress
resultants in longitudinal direction have the
nature of sine or cosine. The stress-resultants
are calculated at those cross-sections where they
attain maximum value. The span(L) is kept
SH3 | P a g e
 SEC18: Paper No. 2018102

Fig.5
Fig.8

Fig.6

4.1.2 Transverse Stress Profiles

Fig.9

Fig. 7

Fig. 10

SH4 | P a g e
 SEC18: Paper No. 2018102

Fig.11 Fig. 14

4.2. Discussion

In case of Nx, Nθ and Nxθ it has been observed

that the rate of change of these stress resultants
with respect to L:a is higher for Schorer’s
theory than D-K-J’s Theory. Though the values
obtained in both the theories shows good
convergence towards each other at higher L:a
ratios.(Fig:4,5,6)
The only difference between the
characteristic equations(1,2) of two theories is
the absence of ‘κ’(4) in Schorer’s theory. The
value of 'κ' tend to decrease with increase in L:a
ratios. As a result, the value of ‘k’ tends to be
Fig. 12 zero for higher L:a ratio. This behaviour of ‘k’
can be one explanation for the convergence of
two theories with increase in L:a.
For Mθ, the value generated is very low
compared to other stress resultants as there is no
edge beam. Due to which the values near edge
region is close to zero. The pattern of values
obtained is bit irregular compared to other stress
resultants.(Fig.3,4,5,6)
The results obtained by both the theories for
lower L:a ratios are little inconsistent with each
other. The transverse stress profile diagrams of
L:a ratio 1.8 also suggests the same(Fig.
10,11,12,14). As ‘L’ is kept constant, with
decrease in L:a ratio the radius, ‘a’ increases,
thus the curvature of the shell decreases. As a
Fig. 13 result of which, the plate action will become
more dominant than the membrane action which
may be a reason for this difference in values of
two theories at lower L:a ratio.
However, with increase in L:a ratios it is
observed that the difference between values of
the stress resultants obtained by both the
theories reduces significantly. The transverse
SH5 | P a g e
 SEC18: Paper No. 2018102

stress profiles obtained at L:a ratio 3.2 also [6] ASCE Manual of Engineering Practice No.
shows a very good close resemblance with each 31, “Thin Shell Concrete Structures”,
other(see Fig. 7,8.9,10). ASCE, New-york, 1952

5. CONCLUSION [7] Moe, Johannes., "On the theory of

cylindrical shells: explicit solution of the
From the forgoing analysis it can be concluded characteristic equation, and discussion of
that both the D-K-J’s theory and Schorer’s the accuracy of various shell theories",
theory are acceptable for L:a ratios having range Mémoires de l'Association Internationale
of 1.6 to 3.2, as the difference between the des Ponts et Charpentes, Vol. 13, 1953
results obtained in both the theories are quite
small and at higher L:a ratios the values are
[8] Ghebreselasie, Hanibal Muruts; Situ,
Yuting, “Structural Analysis of Thin
almost similar. However, for lower L:a ratio,
Concrete Shells”, Mater thesis, Norwegian
specially below L:a=2.6, Schorer’s theory gives University of Science and Technology,
a bit conservative value. Lower L:a ratio with L Trondheim, Norway, 2015
constant means more of a plate action which
may be a reason for more difference in the
values of some stress resultants. Hence, for safer
design approach Schorer’s theory can be a better
choice.
The python programs for the analytical
analysis of cylindrical shell roof, based on some
well-established theories can be used for quick,
easy and accurate calculation of stress resultants
for a wide range of L:a ratios. Designers can
also verify their results obtained in other
software packages with the values obtained in
the Python program to gain further confidence
in their calculation.

REFERENCES

[1] IS: 2210-1988, “Criteria for the Design of

Reinforced Concrete Shell Structures and
Folded Plates, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.

[2] Blumfield, Cyril Vernon. "The

Development And Use Of Barrel Vault
Shell Concrete. Structural & Building
Engineering Division." The Institution of
Civil Engineers Engineering Division
Papers, Vol 6, no. 6 ,1948, pp. 1-26.

[3] Ramaswamy, G. S., Design and

Construction of Concrete Shell Roofs .
New Delhi: CBS Publisher & Distributor.
1986, pp. 89-186.

[4] Gibson, J. E., Thin Shells: Computing and

Theory, First Edition, Pergamon Press,
1980, pp. 75-105

[5] Billington, D. P., Thin shell concrete

structures, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, pp.184-217

SH6 | P a g e