C - Efficient and Robust Shell Design of Space Launcher Vehicle Structures - FRIEDRICH RUESS SCHRÖDER

AIAA SciTech Forum 10.2514/6.
2016-1973
4-8 January 2016, San Diego, California, USA
57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
Efficient and robust shell design of space launcher

vehicle structures
Linus Friedrich∗
Institute of Structural Mechanics and Lightweight Design, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Martin Ruess‡
School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
Kai-Uwe Schröder§
Downloaded by I.S.A.E Inst Superieur de L'aero. Et on July 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-1973
Institute of Structural Mechanics and Lightweight Design, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Space launcher vehicles consist of thin-walled shell structures which are prone to buck-
ling and often are sensitive towards geometrical imperfections. Even small deviations of
the shell from the perfect structure which still are within manufacturing tolerances, result
in a tremendous decrease of load carrying capacity. To account for geometrical imper-
fections in an early design phase, empirical knock-down factors or theoretical approaches
can be applied. In this paper, it is shown that the design of imperfection sensitive shell
structures with unknown geometric imperfections may not lead to robust designs for the
existing empirical and theoretical design methods. In contrast to unstiffened structures
and grid stiffened shell structures, which are imperfection sensitive, it is known that the
influence of imperfections during an early design phase of ring frame stringer stiffened shells
is negligible when the post-buckling regime of the skin fields is exploited. Frame stringer
stiffened structures can be designed in a robust manner, using efficient analysis methods,
as imperfection tolerant structures; but, existing methods to size ring frame stiffeners of
space launcher vehicles shell structures do not mandatorily lead to reliable and light de-
signs. In this contribution a novel method for the efficient design of ring frame stringer
stiffened shells is presented. The suggested approach is based on the explicit description
of the mechanical behavior of the ring frame stiffeners at the onset of panel instability.
Together with existing sizing methods for stringer stiffened shell panels the suggested ap-
proach allows for robust designs of ring frame stringer stiffened shells. The application of
the novel method to size ring frames reveals that the minimum stiffness requirements are
satisfied likewise with regard to existing methods; whereby, the lightweight potential is not
mandatorily exploited using existing methods.
I. Introduction
According to the NASA space vehicle design guideline - Qualication Testing SP-8044,1 the structural
design of space launcher vehicles can be divided into (i) a conceptual design phase, (ii) a preliminary design
phase and (iii) a final design phase. During the conceptual design phase the design freedom is high and the
structures principal architecture is derived. Despite a typically very limited time frame this phase is used
to fix about 90% of the final design.2 Consequently, there is an indispensable need for efficient and simple
design concepts to allow for suitable structural designs.3
In this paper a robust shell structure design is understood as a reliable design, where the influence of
the type of load introduction and the influence of boundary conditions on the structural response is little.
Furthermore, the shell structure design should not be driven by the manufacturing process, which in general
is not finalized at this design stage and which has influence on the degree of geometric imperfections and even
on the imperfection pattern.4 The latter is of particular relevance for imperfection sensitive shell structures
∗ Research Assistant, linus.friedrich@sla.rwth-aachen.de, Wüllnerstr. 7, 52062 Aachen, Germany
‡ Senior Lecturer, martin.ruess@glasgow.ac.uk, Oakfield Avenue, Glasgow G12 8LT, United Kingdom
§ Professor, kai-uwe.schroeder@sla.rwth-aachen.de, Wüllnerstr. 7, 52062 Aachen, Germany
1 of 18
Copyright © 2016 by Institute of Structural Mechanics and LightweightAmerican

Design, RWTH Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Aachen University.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
with significant consequences for a robust design concept. An efficient design process is further driven by
short computation times and little modeling effort. For this purpose, analytical and semi-analytical methods
are often favored which allow a rapid assessment of the structural response of different configurations. In
combination with numerical optimization methods, the initial design and structural architecture can be
derived and optimized within a short period of time.
pay load I 10-2
pay load II SYLDA

isotropic
h/R
upper stage
JAVE+ISS
isogrid
corrugated shell
rings inside
10-3 rings outside
main stage:
cryogenic &
sandwich
solid boosters
4 10-3 Nx
10-6 10-5
R E
Figure 1. Schematic section view of the Ariane 5 Figure 2. Weight strength curves derived by Öry5
Midlife Evolution (ME)
To allow for rapid sizing of shell structures of space launcher vehicles, as shown in Figure 1, and to allow
for a quick design decision of a structural concept, Öry5 derived weight strength curves mainly based on
his broad engineering experience for different structural concepts, see Figure 2. To this end, the structural
mass of the shell is represented by the ratio of a smeared thickness to radius, h̄/R, and is plotted against
a normalized load carrying capacity. The weight strength curves shown in Figure 2 are derived for metallic
shell structures and reveal that in terms of pure lightweight design purposes, stiffened shell structures such
as corrugated shells with ring stiffeners perform best. It is seen that for a certain design load, Nx , unstiffened
shells have higher structural mass than stiffened and sandwich shell structures. In contrast to this relation,
the production costs will show an opposed behaviour, since in general the manufacturing costs of unstiffened
shells are lower than fabrication costs of stiffened shell structures.
Consequently, the decision for or against a certain design is a trade-off between manufacturing costs and
structural performance. In particular, it must be ensured that the increase of manufacturing costs for the
stiffened shell remain below the costs earned additionally due to an increasing payload because of saving
structural mass of the unstiffened counterpart. The evaluation criterion for this decision are the costs to
launch one kilogram: for example launching one kilogram payload to the Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit
(GTO) using the European space launcher system Ariane 5 is 15 ke per kilogram.6
To account for the development of lighter shell structures of space launcher vehicles, improving design
methods for imperfection sensitive shell structures, such as unstiffened and grid stiffened shells, and imper-
fection tolerant frame stringer stiffened shell structure are addressed within ongoing and completed research
projects.
The design of unstiffened and grid stiffened shells is mainly influenced by their imperfection sensitivity.
In particular, geometric imperfections have been in the focus for many decades and were currently addressed
in the EU project New Robust DESIgn Guideline for Imperfection Sensitive COmposite Launcher Structures
2 of 18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(DESICOS)7 and within the ongoing NASA Shell Buckling Knock-Down Factor (SBKF) project.8 The buck-
ling behaviour of imperfection tolerant frame stringer stiffened shells, as used for aircraft fuselage structures,
were for example investigated in the EU-projects COCOMAT9 and MAAXIMUS10 where both the numerical
predictions of accurate collapse loads and the development of efficient analysis methods for stringer stiffened
shell panels and stringer stiffened circular cylindrical shell structures had been in the focus.
In this paper, it is shown that a robust design within the conceptual design phase cannot be achieved by
applying efficient methods for imperfection sensitive shell structures with unknown geometrical imperfections.
Furthermore, it is shown that the application of the empirical knock-down factors might not be as conservative
as frequently assumed. To allow a robust design of primary structures of space launcher vehicles, imperfection
tolerant frame stringer stiffened shell structures can be applied. Efficient structural methods are mandatory
in the conceptual design phase due to the great number of design variables involved. In the framework of the
aforementioned MAAXIMUS project, great effort was spent on the development of efficient methods to size
stringer stiffened shell panels; but, there is a lack of methods to size ring frame stiffeners of a frame stringer
stiffened shell of space launcher vehicles as identified in Quatmann11 and Beerhorst.12 Existing methods,
are based on empirical relations or smeared shell models, which do not necessarily result in reliable and light
designs.13 Herein, an efficient design method is suggested, which is based on the description of the actual
structural response of the the ring frames at the onset of column buckling, or panel instability, respectively,
to provide a reliable and efficient sizing of ring frame stiffeners.
The paper is structured as follows. In the second section, the discrepancies between full-scale built-in
structures and sub-scale experimental shell structures are examined and the current design methodologies
for imperfection sensitive shell structures are reviewed. In the third section, the structural design concepts
of imperfection sensitive structures are studied and various attempts to design this kind of shell structure
in an efficient and robust manner are presented and assessed. In the fourth section, the structural design of
imperfection tolerant frame stringer stiffened shell structures is discussed. Furthermore, this section provides
a novel approach to size frame stringer stiffened shells in a robust and efficient manner. Within section
five we derive the design of a frame stringer stiffened benchmark structure which is used for comparison
with imperfection sensitive shell structures. The benchmark problem will reveal the beneficial structural
performance of the frame stringer stiffened shell design following the suggested design approach. The paper
closes with conclusions comparing the two design philosophies discussed in this paper and an outlook to
future work.
II. Review of current design methodologies for imperfection sensitive shell

structures
The axial compressive forces applied to primary structures of space launcher vehicles result from, both the
acceleration of the pay load and the structural mass situated above the structure. The boundary conditions
of the considered shell structures are defined by the adjacent structures and the connecting stiffening rings,
see Figure 1. For example, the built-in conditions of the two structures marked red in Figure 1 can be
idealized as follows: the connection between the upper conical shell and the cylindrical shell of the SYLDA
structure is realized using a stiffener having high radial stiffness; but, only little stiffness in the shell’s axial
direction. For this reason, warping displacements of the upper shell edge of the cylindrical shell of the
SYLDA structure can not be considered to be restrained. To idealize this type of boundary conditions,
SS3-SS4 type of boundary conditions can be used14 according to the terminology introduced by Singer15
where the loaded shell edge is free to warp. In contrast to the built-in condition of the SYLDA structure, the
JAVE-ISS structure is surrounded by two Y-rings featuring high stiffness in the shell’s axial direction. The
boundary conditions for this structure can thus be defined as SS4-SS4 type of boundary conditions where
the shell edges warping displacements are restrained.
Although, these idealized boundary conditions are very contrary, most of the shell buckling experiments
on a sub-scale level are conducted in a displacement controlled manner using very stiff load introduction
rings, see Figure 3, which restrain any warping displacement of the shell edges. The experimental results are
commonly used to derive empirical knock-down factors in the structural design of space launcher vehicles
and thus being of particular interest with regard to the choice of boundary conditions. To study the origin
of empirical knock-down factors, the references Lundquist,16 Kanemitsu,17 Norris,18 Lo,19 Tsai,20 Milligan21
and Singer,22 which were used to derive Almroth’s empirical knock-down factor23 were assessed with the
following findings:
3 of 18

- the diversity of shells is high and ranges from plywood cylinders to stiffened metallic cylinders
- the boundary conditions are mostly realized using stiff bulkheads and rings
- the experiments are mostly performed using a hydraulic test rig and in a displacement controlled man-
ner
Regarding the origin of Takano’s recently derived empirical knock-down factor,24 the references by Bis-
agni,25, 26 Degenhardt,27 Hilburger28 and Meyer Piening29 were studied leading to the following findings:
- laminated composite shells were studied
- the load introduction was realized using potted or tab reinforced shell edges
- the experiments were performed using a hydraulic test rig in a displacement controlled manner
Similar findings were made for most of the analyses reported in literature: to study the nonlinear response
of shell structures numerically, the analyses are performed in a displacement controlled manner where the
warping displacements of the shell edge were restrained. Thus, the numerical and experimental results can
be compared in a more convenient manner. Nonlinear static displacement controlled analyses to determine
the structural response of shells were performed by Castro,30, 31 Degenhardt27 and Friedrich.32 Dynamic
explicit displacement controlled analyses to determine non-linear shell buckling loads were performed by
Bisagni,33 Degenhardt,34 Hilburger,35 Hühne36 and Orifici.37
To summarize this short review about current design methodologies for imperfection sensitive shell struc-
tures, a significant discrepancy between full-scale built-in conditions and conditions realized experimentally
on a sub-scale level and numerically using the finite element method were identified, which is discussed
further in this section.
Full-scale structure Sub-scale structure
Scale: approx. 1:10
Nx
Load Introduction ring

structure
adjacent
Uaxial
t t
considered
Stiffening
structure
rings
y,v
z,w x,u
structure
adjacent
Load Introduction ring
Nx
Figure 3. Discrepancy between real full-scale structures and experimental sub-scale structures14
The importance of mimicking built-in conditions of shell structures is reflected by the fact that for
qualification issues, adjacent structures are always taken into account within the corresponding experimental
set up, as described by Turzo38 and in the space engineering handbook: buckling of structures.39 In contrast
to this demand, there is only a limited number of buckling experiments reported in literature where adjacent
shell structures are taken into account. Within the NASA SBKF project, buckling experiments are performed
on a sub-scale level40 and on a full-scale level41 where the stiffness of adjacent structures is taken into account
using load introduction shells or rings.
4 of 18

10
Axial load [kN]

6
2 DC
DC - local snap through
LC
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Perturbation load [N]
Figure 4. Single perturbation load approach - comparison of load controlled (LC) analyses using SS3-SS4
boundary condiitions and displacement controlled (DC) analyses using SS4-SS4 boundary conditions
In Friedrich,14 the influence of boundary conditions and the load introduction for circular cylindrical
shell structures was studied numerically with regard to the collapse load considering two extrema: one,
the load was applied in a displacement controlled manner and warping displacements at the loaded edge
were restrained. This type of boundary condition represents the typical experimental set-up as described in
Figure 3 and can be found in a similar manner for the JAVE-ISS structure of Ariane 5. Two, the load was
applied in a load controlled manner and the shell edge was free to warp. This type of boundary condition,
can be found in a similar manner for the cylindrical part of the SYLDA structure of an Ariane 5.42
The structure studied in Friedrich14 was an aluminium shell with a radius of 80 mm, a free length of
160 mm and a shell wall thickness of 0.2 mm. The linear buckling load of this structure was 10.6 kN and the
design load, determined using Almroth’s empirical knock-down factor ρ90% was 3.79 kN. For the numerical
studies, a localized perturbation due to a single perturbation load acting in radial direction was chosen.
This approach is denoted single perturbation load approach (SPLA) and was introduced by the German
Aerospace Center.36 With increasing perturbation loads, a local snap-through effect was observed in the
numerical studies and in buckling experiments,43 which were both performed in a displacement controlled
(DC) manner. The effect of the local snap-through was discussed in detail in Castro30 and Friedrich.32
The results shown in Figure 4 indicated the following:
- in the case of a displacement controlled analyses - SS4-SS4 boundary conditions - and for perturbation
loads being higher than 1.5 N, a local snap-through effect in radial direction at the point of the
perturbation load was observed
- in the case of a load controlled analyses - SS3-SS4 boundary conditions - and for perturbation loads
being higher than 1.5 N, the shell collapsed in a global mode at the same load, which corresponded to
the local snap-through effect
It is important to highlight that for perturbation loads higher than 3 N, the difference between the two
considered configuration were very high and the displacement controlled analysis using SS4-SS4 boundary
conditions led to buckling loads being about 80% higher than the collapse loads determined in a load
controlled manner.
Similar studies were performed for the two composite shell structures denoted Z17 and FL5 according to
Zimmermann44 and Friedrich.45 In Table 1, the results of the displacement controlled and load controlled
analyses with different boundary conditions are summarized. The results revealed that the application of
displacement controlled analyses in presence of a localized perturbations led to buckling loads which were
higher than the classical buckling load which were determined with empirical knock-down factors. In contrast
to this finding, the buckling loads which result from a load controlled analysis and SS3-SS4 type of boundary
conditions were lower compared to the buckling load predictions which were derived from the application of
empirical knock-down factors. Consequently, a change from warping restrained shell edges to unrestrained
5 of 18

edges revealed that the empirically derived knock-down factor ρ90% no longer led to a conservative prediction
of the buckling load when single perturbation loads were applied.
The studied examples illustrated an overall non-conservative buckling load prediction with the methods
currently used to derive design guidelines for space launcher structures. The results summarized in Figure 4
and Table 1, revealed the importance of the influence of warping restrained shell edges on the structural
response of shells subjected to axial compression and localized geometrical perturbations. Depending on
the actual built-in condition of the considered shell structure, the application of the empirical knock-down
factor thus may lead to conservative predictions and eventually the design loads may be too optimistic. The
application of empirical knock-down factors hence does not necessarily lead to reliable results. More reliable
knock-down factors can be derived by mimicking built-in conditions of full-scale shell structures already on
a sub-scale level to further improve the current design approach.
Table 1. Comparison of buckling loads - classical design load vs. critical load using LC and DC analyses
Iso.14 [kN] Z1745 [kN] FL545 [kN] type of loading

Fcr,ρ90% 3.65 139.59 111.87 DC

FSPLA,SS4−SS4 6.48 154.49 138.10 DC
FSPLA,SS3−SS4 3.62 91.07 77.07 LC
In the foregoing paragraphs, two discrepancies between full-scale built-in conditions and the way of
performing shell buckling experiments on a sub-scale level, namely the way of load introduction and the
boundary conditions, were discussed. In terms of completeness, the accuracy of manufacturing, which differs
between industrial made and laboratory made shells, needs to be considered additionally as emphasized by
Hoff 46 and shown in Figure 5.
1
expertly
0.8
made shells
Knock down factor
0.6
0.4
0.2 Seide (1964)

Takano (2012)
NASA SP-8007 (1968) well made shells
Hoff (1969)
0
100 200 300 400 500 750 1000 1500
Radius to thickness ratio - R/t
Figure 5. Empirical knock-down factors according to NASA-SP 800713 and Hoff 46 compared to empirical data
according to Seide47 and Takano24
Due to the higher quality of laboratory shells, that is less imperfections, compared to industrially manu-
factured shells, it might be questionable if the evaluation of buckling loads of laboratory shells can directly
be used to derive valid knock-down factors for full-scale shells. To study this issue further, the imperfection
pattern of industry shells need to be measured and related to the imperfection pattern of their corresponding
sub-scale structures. Thus, it may become possible to adapt results obtained on a laboratory sub-scale level
to structural design methodologies of full-scale industry shell structures.
6 of 18

III. Structural design of imperfection sensitive shell structures
The design of imperfection sensitive shells can be subdivided into two major tasks. One is the derivation
of the initial design and two takes various imperfections into account. The absence of the actual geometric
imperfections and built-in boundary conditions during the early design phase requires simplified model
assumptions and even neglects the influence of adjacent structures.
The number of design variables differs for isotropic unstiffened and anisotropic shell structures. The
buckling load of the unstiffened geometrically perfect shell is only influenced by the wall thickness which
limits the design freedom. A major focus of the unstiffened shell design is on the influence of geometric
imperfections. We summarize different approaches for the consideration of geometric imperfections in sub-
section A. In contrast, for anisotropic shells, additional design variables are commonly taken into account.
In particular, the design of laminate composite shell structures is mainly influenced by the laminate’s stack-
ing sequence with major effect on the mechanical properties. In subsection B we summarize results for the
design of geometric imperfect composite shells.
A. Theoretical approaches to account for geometrical imperfections

Different design approaches exist for the consideration of geometrical imperfections. Beside the “classical”
approaches which consider rotational and non-rotational symmetric imperfections, deterministic methods
such as the single-perturbation-load-approach43 (SPLA) have been used. The investigation of the SPLA’s
applicability to various shell structures was recently addressed in the DESICOS7 and some questions remained
open. For example, it was shown that the empirical behaviour of the knock-down factor with regard to the
R/t-ratio was not reflected when applying the SPLA to shell structures of varying R/t-ratios.32, 48 The
empirical relation reveal decreasing knock-down factors with increasing R/t-ratios; but, the application of
the SPLA led to almost constant knock-down factors.32 In contrast to this behavior when applying the SPLA,
the characteristics of the empirical knock-down factors can be mimicked when using rotational symmetric
or non-rotational symmetric imperfections. To this end, the imperfection magnitude needs to be expressed
as a function of the R/t-ratio revealing increasing imperfection magnitudes with increasing R/t-ratios,32
cf. Figure 6. When applying this relation to shell structures with rotational symmetric imperfections, the
same buckling load is obtained than due to the application of the empirical knock-down factor. The relation
between the w/t- and R/t-ratio shown in Figure 6 can be explained by a decreasing imperfection sensitivity
with increasing shell wall thickness due to an easier controlling of the shell’s quality that is the shell’s
imperfections, during the fabrication process.49
1.2
1
Imperfection magnitude - w/t
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Radius to thickness ratio - R/t
Figure 6. Knock-down factor equivalent imperfection magnitude according to Friedrich32
To summarize this topic, it is worth to note that the idea of a deterministic design approach is desirable;
but, its applicability to a broad range of shell structures should be verified or its applicability should be
falsified to a set of shell configurations. Furthermore, we conclude that the prospective structural design
7 of 18

of imperfection sensitive shell structures will still be based on simplified imperfection patterns. To define
suitable imperfection magnitudes, the knock-down factor equivalent imperfection magnitude, cf. Figure 6,
can be applied for the structural design of space launcher vehicles.
B. Stacking sequence influence on the imperfection sensitivity of composite shells

Laminate composite shells are attractive structures for space launcher vehicles due to their beneficial lightweight
performance, which is significantly influenced by the laminate stacking sequence. The buckling load of the
geometrically perfect shell structure and its imperfection sensitivity are both influenced by the laminate
stacking sequence.50–53 To maximize the buckling load of the real shell, geometrical imperfections need to
be taken into account when deriving the laminate stacking sequence. In Friedrich et. al.,45 the laminate
stacking sequence of shell structures having rotational symmetric imperfections was optimized using an an-
alytical closed form solution according to Koiter54, 55 and Tennyson.56 The results presented in Friedrich45
revealed that the laminate stacking sequences maximizing the buckling load of the geometrically imper-
fect shell were fundamentally different to those derived when maximizing the buckling load of the perfect
shell in Zimmermann.44 To exemplify this finding, the results for shell structures having a two angle ply
laminate are provided in Figures 7 and 8. In these figures, the buckling load of the geometrically perfect
shell structure and the buckling load of the shell structure having rotational symmetric imperfections were
plotted against the fibre orientations of the inner and outer angle ply laminates. The maximum buckling
load of the geometrically perfect shell structure was 29.86 kN for the stacking sequence [±15◦ /±26◦ ]. The
maximum buckling load of the shell structure with a rotational symmetric imperfection and an imperfection
magnitude of 0.2 was 17.56 kN for the stacking sequence [±34◦ /±49◦ ]. The corresponding laminate stacking
sequences are both marked using red dashed lines in Figures 7 and 8. Furthermore, it is worth to note that
there were several laminate stacking sequences for the geometrically perfect shell structures, which led to
buckling loads being close to the highest buckling load of 29.86 kN, cf. Figure 7. In contrast to this finding,
there was only one distinct maximum for the shell structures with rotational symmetric imperfections, cf.
Figure 8. Similar findings are made for additional number of angle plies, np = 2...5, and further imperfection
magnitudes, w0 /t = 0.1...0.5, see Friedrich45 for details.
np2, wContour
0/t=0
lines:
27.5
7500 np2, Contour
w0/t=0.2 lines:
25.0
25000 17500
17.5
22.5
22500 15000
15.0
20000
20.0 12.5
12500
Buckling Load [kN]
20
20000
Buckling Load [kN]
30
30000 17500
17.5 10.0
10000
15
15000
20
20000
10000
10
°
[]
° 90
[]
10000
10 90 50005
ply
ply
67.5
er
67.5 0
er
0
out
out
45
45
ti on
ti on
22.5
nt a
0
nt a
0 22.5 22.5
orie
22.5 45
orie
45 Fibre orientatio 67.5 0

90
67.5 90 0
re
Fibre orientatio n inner ply [ ]

re
n inner ply [ ] °
Fi b
°
Fi b
Figure 7. Buckling load of the perfect shell structure Figure 8. Buckling load of the imperfect shell struc-
- np = 2 according to Friedrich45 ture - w0 /t = 0.2 - np = 2 according to Friedrich45
Rotational symmetric imperfections represent simplified imperfection patterns, which do not generally
represent realistic imperfection patterns that feature both imperfections in circumferential and axial direc-
tion. To assess the np = 5-shells performance in the presence of non-rotational symmetric imperfections
and localized imperfections, the corresponding shell structures identified by Friedrich45 and Zimmermann,44
denoted FL5- and Z17-shell, respectively are studied further. The results of these studies revealed that
the beneficial performance of the FL5-shell identified for rotational symmetric imperfections could not com-
pletely be confirmed. Furthermore, it was found that the FL-shells may show less sensitivity towards slight
changes of the laminate stacking sequence than the Z-shells identified by Zimmermann44 and might thus be
more robust towards deviations of the laminate’s orientation due to the fabrication of the shell. This finding
needs to be studied further by performing stochastic analyses as done in Kepple57 where non-rotational
symmetric, load imperfections, deviations of the laminate stacking sequence and their combination are taken
8 of 18

into account for both the FL5 and Z17 shell.
From these studies, we conclude that it is not sufficient to take only rotational symmetric imperfections
and simplified boundary conditions into account when designing composite shell structures. Moreover, the
actual imperfection pattern of the shell, the type of boundary conditions or even the influence of adjacent
structures and boundary or loading imperfections should be taken into account. Since these information
are unknown and since closed form analytical structural model cannot be used to incorporate all these
imperfections, these studies cannot be done during an early design phase. High-fidelity type of analyses need
to be performed for this purpose, in conjunction with the application of numerical optimization algorithms
or stochastic analyses, which results in high numerical effort. Especially the demand to take adjacent
structures into account contributes to a more complicated design process, since very often in engineering
design praxis, parts of the primary structure of space launcher vehicles are designed by different groups, such
that interacting effects between adjacent structures can only hardly be covered.
C. Summary of results
In this section we emphasized that the application of “classical” approaches such as taking rotational and
non-rotational symmetric initial imperfections into account should recently be preferred. Laminate stacking
sequences of composite shells that maximize the buckling load of imperfect shells were derived for which
rotational symmetric imperfections were taken into account. Due to a further evaluation of the FL- and
Z-shells structural performance, we concluded that the optimization of laminate stacking sequences of real
shell structures is a broad topic, which can only be hardly realized during early design phases when the
knowledge about the structure is little.
To overcome these drawbacks highlighted in this and foregoing sections and to allow for designing robust
shell structures, imperfection tolerant frame stringer stiffened shells should replace imperfection sensitive
shell structure as primary structures of space launcher vehicles.
IV. Structural design of imperfection tolerant shell structures

Unstiffened imperfection sensitive shell structures fail catastrophically. The collapse mechanism of the
shell structures differ depending on the type of load introduction: in the case of a displacement controlled
analyses or experiment, the shell loses its load carrying capacity, which results in a drop of forces in the load
displacement curve. In the case of a load controlled analysis or experiment, the load cannot decrease after
the initiation of buckling that is the load remains constant which results in a dynamic deformation process
with high axial displacements causing the shell’s failure. In contrast to this behaviour, the failure mechanism
of a frame stringer stiffened shell is different and thus, the challenges for the design process also differ. In
this section, the design process of frame stringer stiffened shells is summarized in a concise manner, a novel
approach to size ring frames is introduced and verified for a benchmark structure.
A. Remarks on the design process of frame stringer stiffened shells

Frame stringer stiffened shells are designed for the following failure mechanism: after buckling of a skin field
framed by stringers and ring frame stiffeners, the applied load can be increased further until the stringers fail
due to a panel instability mode as illustrated in Figure 9. The nonlinear response of stiffened shell structures
determined using numerical methods is often found to be in good agreement with the experimental results
as shown in Linde58 and Degenhardt34 for stiffened shell panels; although, geometrical imperfections are
not considered for these analyses. Thus, frame stringer stiffened shell structures, designed such that the
post-buckling regime of the skin fields is exploited, can be considered as imperfection tolerant structures.
Consequently, designing these shell structures can be realized in a robust manner according to the definition
provided in the first section of this paper.
For a frame stringer stiffened shell, the design process is schematically illustrated in Figure 10. Basically,
the design process can be subdivided into two major steps. One, deriving a suitable design for the shell
section between two ring frame stiffeners, postulating that the ring frame stiffeners are stiff enough to avoid
a general instability mode. Two, deriving the dimensions of the ring frame stiffener, such that a general
instability failure can be excluded. As a global variable of this process, the number of ring frame stiffeners,
nR , is chosen and for each number of ring frame stiffeners considered an optimization of the shell section
between two ring frames is performed and the ring frame stiffeners are sized accordingly. Based on the overall
9 of 18

structural weight, which is expressed as a function of the number of ring frames, the configuration leading
to the lightest design is chosen. Within the design process shown in Figure 10, it has to be ensured that
neither the first number of ring frames nor the last number of ring frames considered leads to the minimum
structural mass. In this case, the number of ring frame considered has to be adapted accordingly.
requirements,
assumptions
F
Fr i=0 designing the shell-
Fcol nR=nR,in+i
general sections betw. two frames
panel instability
Fskin instability
buckling of sizing ring frames
skin field
determining the total If ms,i<mmin

structural weight, ms,i=f(nR) then ms,i=mmin
u1 u2 u3 u
i=imax?
i+1 no yes
Figure 9. Load displacement curve and Figure 10. Design procedure of a frame stringer stiffened shell
failure mechanism of a frame stringer
stiffened shell
The restricted time frame of the conceptual design phase requires computationally efficient design meth-
ods and models. This issue was covered in recent research and it is distinguished between closed-form
analytical solutions,12, 59–61 semi-analytical solutions62, 63 and the combination of numerical methods and
analytical methods.11, 64, 65 Generally, it can be said that the degree of simplification made is most pro-
nounced for the closed form analytical method and it is difficult and sometimes even impossible to take
perturbations such as openings into account with these methods. Apparently, due to these simplifications,
closed form analytical methods are very convenient to implement and provide an immediate result. The
choice for one of the methods mentioned above, depends on several factors and needs to be done based on
actual requirements and needs.
To size ring frame stiffeners, three state of the art methods are presented briefly: one, the method
derived by Shanely,66 which is an empirical method based on the evaluation of experimental data of frame
stringer stiffened shells subjected to bending loads. In Öry,5 Shanely’s method was modified such that it
can be applied to derive a minimum stiffness, E Iy,min , of the circumferential frame stiffeners of a stiffened
shell structure subjected to axial compression. According to the NASA SP-8007 space vehicle guideline,13
Shanely’s method can lead to conservative designs; but, in some cases also to optimistic designs. Two,
Thielemann67 introduced a method based on the description of the nonlinear response of stiffened shell
structures using smeared models. By adapting the smeared stiffness properties, the shell structures can be
forced to buckle into a desired ring-buckling mode. Subsequently, the smeared properties are used to derive
dimensions of the ring frame stiffeners. Three, Wiedemann68 suggested an approach based on the description
of a flat plate, which also can be applied to size ring frame stiffeners of stiffened circular cylindrical shells.
It is important to note that none of these methods is based on the explicit description of the structural
behaviour of the ring frame stiffeners; but, is rather based on empirical relations or on smeared models.
B. Novel approach to size ring frame stiffeners

Recently, Friedrich69 suggested a method, which describes the explicit structural behaviour of the ring
frames at the onset of column buckling or panel instability, respectively. To introduce this method, the
failure mechanism of a frame stringer stiffened shell as illustrated in Figure 9 is considered. The frame
stringer stiffened shell is designed such that the stringers have sufficiently high stiffness to allow the skin
field, which is surrounded by two stringers and two ring frames, see Figure 11, to buckle locally. When
10 of 18

the skin buckles, the load can be increased further and due to the corresponding change of the stiffness
distribution, the stresses within the skin redistribute in the direction of the stringers. This redistribution is
taken into account by means of the effective width, which describes the load carrying part of a buckled skin
section. When a certain stress level in the stringers and the effective width is exceeded, the stiffened shell
structure buckles, which is idealized as a column buckling mode of a stringer and the corresponding effective
width. In the case of panel instability, the ring frame stiffeners have to be sized such that the ring frame
stiffeners withstand the resulting loads.
rotational springs represent the

ring frame torsion stiffness
about the circ. diresction
krot,o krot krot krot,o
P P
klin,o klin klin klin,o
Section of frames
and stringer,
discretized with beams represent stiffness of translational springs represent the
substitute model stringer and effective width ring frame stiffness in radial diresction
Figure 11. Frame stringer stiffened shell Figure 12. Mechanical substitute model of the section
panel59 of a circular cylindrical shell of stringers and frames highlighted in Figure 11
The physical behavior of the ring frame stiffener is determined with the following analysis model: the
mechanical construct of stringer and effective width is chosen to represent a substitute model which is
discretized with beam elements. The ring frames stiffness in radial direction and around the rotational
axis are discretized with translational and rotational springs, respectively, cf Figure 12. The stiffness of
the stringer and effective width results from the design of the shell segment between two ring frames as
illustrated in Figure 11. The spring stiffness klin and krot need to be tuned such that a global buckling mode,
which is representing a general instability of the frame stringer stiffened shell, is avoided. The buckling
mode representing general instability and two buckling modes representing panel instability for both open
and closed ring frame profiles where krot = 0 and krot 6= 0 is depicted in Figure 13. The efficient description
of the substitute model, cf. Figure 12, allows a rapid computation of klin and krot based on a Ritz method
or a finite element formulation.
Subsequently, the values of klin and krot need to be transferred to cross section properties of the ring
frame stiffeners using straightforward substitute models for a circular ring either subjected to concentrated
radial forces or concentrated bending moments about the circumferential direction, see Figures 14 and 15.
For this purpose, the structural models according to Roark70 is chosen. Applying these structural models,
klin is transferred to the cross section, A, of the ring frame and the moment of inertia, Iyr , about the ring
frame’s yr -axis, cf. Figure 16. The rotational stiffness of the ring frames krot is transferred to the moment
of inertia, Izr , about the ring frame’s zr -axis, and the torsion moment of inertia, IT . Thus, all dimensions of
the ring frames can be determined.
C. Verification of the approach using a benchmark structure

The approach presented in the foregoing section is verified using several benchmark structures as shown
in Friedrich.69 In this section, a benchmark problem is considered to demonstrate the design benefits
of the proposed approach compared to existing methods. A model of the chosen benchmark problem is
depicted in Figure 17. The frame stringer stiffened shell has closed omega stringers and open I profile ring
frames, cf. Figure 18. For the I-profile ring frame stiffener, the height of the flange was defined to be 1.5
times the width of the flange, b. The geometrical and material properties were chosen as follows according
to Quatmann:71 radius of the shell, R = 2075 mm, length of the shell, L = 2329.6 mm, material Young’s
modulus, E = 70000 MPa, Poisson’s ratio, ν = 0.30 and material density, ρalu = 2.70 · 10−6 kg/mm3 .
11 of 18

5*'*")%+&',$)-&%&$.+/#0*4
!"#$6# !"#$ !"#$ !"#$6#

( (
!%&'6# !%&' !%&' !%&'6#
()'*%+&',$)-&%&$.+/#0*+1+!"#$234
!"#$6# !"#$ !"#$ !"#$6#

( (
!%&'6# !%&' !%&' !%&'6#
()'*%+&',$)-&%&$.+/#0*+1+!"#$234
!"#$6# !"#$ !"#$ !"#$6#

( (
!%&'6# !%&' !%&' !%&'6#
)
%
Figure 13. Overview of buckling modes of the substitute model introdcued in Figure 12
w FR
MR
R R
Figure 14. Circular ring subjected to concen- Figure 15. Circular ring subjected to concen-
trated radial forces - substitute model to transfer trated moments - substitute model to transfer krot
klin to A, Iy to IT , Iz , Ct
In the following we show detailed results for a model configuration with 90 stringers. The dimensions
of this shell structure were defined as follows: the wall thickness of the skin, the stringer sections and
the ring frame sections was chosen 2 mm. The geometrical properties of the stringer stiffened shell were
b1 = 108.6 mm, b2 = 36.2 mm and b3 = 26.9 mm. Using these geometrical properties and taking an effective
width of half of the stringer spacing into account, the ring frame stiffeners were sized using Shanley’s method66
and the novel approach suggested in Friedrich.69 The resulting geometrical properties of the ring frames are
summarized in Table 2.
12 of 18

yr
xr
zr
Figure 16. Ring frame’s coordinate system

b3
b3 b3
tstr
tskin
b1 b2
Figure 17. Frame stringer stiffened shell - nstr = 72, Figure 18. Notation of geometrical properties of frame
nr = 3 stringer stiffened study structure
To verify the approach, geometrically nonlinear static finite element analyses were performed. The
stringer and the skin were discretized using linear shell elements and the ring frame stiffeners were idealized
using beam elements. The analyses were performed in a displacement controlled manner and the translational
nodes at the shell edges were restrained. The load displacement curves and the radial displacement plots of
the deformed structure were both evaluated in order to assess if the minimum stiffness of the ring frame was
satisfied, see Figure 19.
The crosses in Figure 19 indicate the occurrence of panel instability. The corresponding buckling loads
were additionally listed in Table 2 for all four configurations studied. The load displacement curves shown
in Figure 19 revealed that the ring frames were sized suitably and that the minimum stiffness criteria was
satisfied for both ring frame sizing approaches: after the occurrence of panel instability, the load could be
increased further until a general instability occurred, which was indicated by a drop of applied loads in the
load displacement curve shown in Figure 19.
Table 2. Ring frame stringer stiffened shell - evaluation of results - nStr = 90

mtot,F
nR bS mtot,S Fpanel,S bF mtot,F Fpanel,F
mtot,S
3 52.32 mm 293.99 kg 11 087.9 kN 31.16 mm 278.34 kg 10 959.4 kN 0.947

4 65.41 mm 303.67 kg 14 782.9 kN 61.37 mm 300.68 kg 14 725.9 kN 0.990
13 of 18

16000
14000
12000
Axial load [kN]

10000
8000
6000
Shanley - nR=3
4000 Friedrich - nR=3
Shanley - nR=4
2000 Friedrich - nR=4
panel instability
0
0 5 10 15 20
Axial displacement [mm]
Figure 19. Load displacement curves for frame stringer stiffened shells nstr = 90, nR = 3, 4
Additionally, the structural mass of the resulting frame stringer stiffened shells is provided in Table 2.
It could be seen that the structures where the ring frames were sized using the novel approach according to
Friedrich69 led to lighter designs than the structures where the ring frame was sized using Shanley’s approach.
For the structure having three ring frames, nr = 3, the structure sized using the novel approach was five
percent lighter than the configuration sized using Shanley’s approach, which is a significant improvement
and shows the potential of the minimum stiffness criteria suggested to size ring frame stiffeners within an
early design stage.
D. Summary of results
It was shown that the novel sizing approach for ring frame stiffeners is suitable to derive light imperfection
tolerant frame stringer stiffened shells. The combination of this method with the efficient analysis method
developed by Quatmann11 where numerical and analytical solutions are combined such that the structural
response of stringer stiffened shell structures within the post buckling regime can be determined efficiently,
is a promising set of methods to derive frame stringer stiffened shell structures for space launcher vehicles.
To exploit the lightweight potential of frame stringer stiffened shell structures further, the use of composite
materials may result in a decrease of structural weight of about 20 to 30% according to Öry.5 The corre-
sponding modifications for the approach suggested to size ring frame stiffeners can be done using effective
stiffness properties of beams when replacing metallic ring frame stiffeners with composite ring frame stiffen-
ers. For this purpose the ring frame is treated as a composite beam and the stiffness properties of the webs
and flanges are derived from the effective laminate stiffness properties of the corresponding beam webs and
flanges.
V. Towards a robust design of shell structures

The imperfection tolerant design of frame stiffened shells allows to exploit the post-buckling regime of
the skin fields which leads to an overall beneficial structural performance, that is the ratio of buckling load
to structural mass, compared to imperfection sensitive shell concepts.
To exemplify the beneficial performance of frame stringer stiffened shells, which were sized using the novel
approach, structural designs of a benchmark structure are derived for imperfection sensitive and imperfection
tolerant shells. To this end, an unstiffened shell, an orthogrid stiffened shell and a frame stringer stiffened shell
are taken into account. The results of this study are summarized in Table 3. In the following the configuration
with 90 stringers and three ring frames was chosen as reference structure. The load corresponding to an
instability of the shell section was about 11000 kN, which may represent a suitable load case for space
launcher structures where the load per unit length was 850 N/mm, which is in the range of Öry’s example
studies5 with a load per unit length of 1000 N/mm.
14 of 18

For the design of the unstiffened isotropic shell imperfections were taken into account according to the
empirical knock-down factor ρ99% of Almroth.23 The orthogrid stiffened shell structure was sized using the
sizing strategy suggested in Friedrich72 based on closed form analytical relations. There, the first buckling
mode is defined as a global buckling mode. Thus, the structure is considered to be imperfection sensitive
and imperfections were taken into account according to Almroth’s ρ99% empirical knock-down factor and an
equivalent shell wall thickness, teq , see Almroth.23 The geometric properties of the unstiffened isotropic and
Table 3. Comparison of the performance of different structural concepts - ρAlu = 2.70 · 10−6 kg/mm3
geometrical structural buckling

structural concept
properties mass load
ρ99% = 0.334
unstiffened tskin = 11.53mm 865 kg
Fimp = 11070 kN
tskin = tstr = tr = 2.70 mm ρ99% = 0.68

orthogrid stiffened hstr = hr = 34.62 mm 379 kg Fimp = 11019 kN
nstr = 134, nr = 24
frame stringer stiffened mF = 278 kg Fpanel,F = 10959 kN
see Table 2
- nstr = 90, nr = 3 mS = 294 kg Fpanel,S = 11070 kN
the orthogrid stiffened shell structures were summarized in Table 3. The design loads of these structures were
very similar; but, the structural mass between the structural concepts considered, differed significantly. The
structural mass of the orthogrid shell was about 36% higher than the imperfection tolerant frame stringer
stiffened shell structure and the structural mass of the unstiffened isotropic shell was about three times
higher than the structural mass of the frame stringer stiffened reference structure where the ring frame was
sized using the novel approach presented in the foregoing section.
The presented results impressively demonstrate the beneficial performance of the frame stringer stiffened
shell structures where the post buckling regime is exploited and ring frames are sized using the present
approach. Within the framework of this discussion, it is worth to note that the geometric dimensions of
the frame stringer stiffened shell were not yet derived using structural optimization. Neither the number of
stringer nor the number of ring frames was optimized and thus, the lightweight design potential of the frame
stringer stiffened shell can be exploited further.
VI. Conclusions and outlook

In this paper, we compared the design process of imperfection sensitive shell structures, such as unstiffened
isotropic, unstiffened composite and grid stiffened shells, with the design process of imperfection tolerant
structures, such as frame stringer stiffened shells, where the post-buckling regime is exploited. The pros and
cons of both structural concepts discussed in this paper and their design process are summarized in Table 4.
The discrepancy between full-scale built-in and sub-scale experimental set ups was discussed and we
emphasized that the empirical knock-down factors might not be as conservative as frequently assumed.
Furthermore, we showed that for imperfection sensitive structures, an efficient and robust design cannot
be derived reliably with traditional methods which can be mainly attributed to the influence of unknown
imperfections and built-in boundary conditions as present in an early design phase. To overcome heavy
and unreliable designs, frame stringer stiffened shells where the post buckling regime is exploited should be
applied as primary structures of space launcher vehicles. We think that the proposed sizing method for ring
frame stringer stiffened shells is another important contribution to an existing set of efficient sizing methods
for stiffened lightweight structures of space launcher vehicles. This set of methods will allow for optimal
design decisions already in the conceptual design phase.
An important aspect which should be further addressed in future research includes the influence of adja-
cent structures on the buckling behavior of unstiffened imperfection sensitive shell structures. In particular,
experimental testing of sub-scale structures should take adjacent structures into account to provide a basis
for the modeling and validation of corresponding numerical models that have the potential to provide further
15 of 18

Table 4. Comparison between imperfection sensitive and imperfection tolerant shell structure designs
Pros Cons
- unknown imperfections do
not allow for designing these
structures in a robust manner
Imperfection (c.f. Section III)
sensitive structures - low manufacturing costs es-
pecially for unstiffened shell - type of boundary conditions,
(unstiff. iso. & comp. structures in conjunction with the type
shells, grid stiff. shells) of load introduction, do
significantly influence the
load carrying capacity (c.f.
Section II)
- robust design using efficient

methods by combining the
Imperfection analysis methods such as
tolerant structures those outlined in this paper - comparably high manufactur-
(frame stringer with numerical optimization ing costs
stiffened shells) algorithms (c.f. Section IV)
- frame stiffened shells lead to
the lightest designs
and more detailed insight to the principal effects of adjacent structures on the load carrying behavior and
capacity. Furthermore, the suggested approach to size ring frame stiffeners seems to have further potential
in the design phase of aircraft fuselage structures. For this purpose, additional load cases subjected to the
ring frames stiffeners such as due to bending moments caused by the cross beams need to be considered and
the approach has to be adapted accordingly.
References
1 NASA, NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria - Qualification Testing, nasa sp-8044 ed.
2 Rittweger, A., “Keynote Lecture: Pre-Dimensioning of Launch Vehicles due to Booster Load Introduction based on
Pre-Dimensioning of Launch Vehicles due to Booster Load Introduction based on Semi-Analytical Methods,” 3rd International
Conference on Buckling and Postbuckling Behaviour of Composite Laminated Shell Structures with DESICOS Workshop,
March 2015.
3 Rittweger, A., Öry, H., and Christianson, S., “Dimensioning of orthotropically stiffened CFRP shells of large launch
vehicles for load introduction and stability,” International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2010,
pp. 601–621.
4 Öry, H. and Hüßler, W., “Overview about actual buckling calculation methods for space vehicle structures,” International
Conference on Spacecraft Structures and mechanical testing, October 1988.

5 Öry, H., Structural Design of Aerospace Vehicles III , 1991.
6 Koelle, D. and Janovsky, R., “Development and transportation costs of spcae launch systems,” DGLR/CEAS European
Air and Space Conference, 2007.

7 “DESICOS Project,” .
8 Hilburger, M. W., “Developing the Next Generation Shell Buckling Design Factors and Technologies,” 53rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference; Honolulu, 2012.

9 “COCOMAT Project,” .
10 “MAAXIMUS Project,” .
11 Quatmann, M., Entwicklung einer Methode zur strukturellen Vorauslegung von Flugzeugrümpfen aus Faserverbundwerk-
stoffen, Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen University, 2015.

12 Beerhorst, M., Entwicklung von hocheffizienten Berechnungsmethoden zur Beschreibung des Beul- und Nachbeulverhal-
tens von versteiften und unversteiften Flächentragwerken aus Faserverbundwerkstoffen, Ph.D. thesis, TU Berlin, 2014.
13 NASA SP-8007, Buckling of Thin-Walled circular Cylinders, NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria,, 1968.
14 Friedrich, L. and Schröder, K.-U., “Discrepancy between boundary conditions and load introduction of full-scale built-in
and sub-scale experimental shell structures of space launcher vehicles,” Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 98, Part B, 2016, pp. 403
– 415.
16 of 18

15 Singer, J., “The Influence of Boundary Conditions on the Buckling of Stiffened Cylindrical Shells,” Tech. Rep. AD/A-005
697, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, 1974.

16 Lundquist, E. E., “Strength Tests of Thin Walled Duralumin Cylinders in Compressin,” Tech. rep., National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics Report No. 473, 1933.

17 Kanemitsu, S. and Nojima, N. M., Axial Compression Test of thin circular cylinders, Master’s thesis, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, California, 1939.

18 Norris, C. B. and Kuenzi, E. W., “Buckling of long, thin, plywood cylinders in axial compression,” Tech. rep., Forest
Products Lab., 1943.

19 H. Lo, H. Crate, E. B. S., “Buckling of thin walled cylinders under axial compression and internal pressure,” Tech. Rep.
Report 1027, NASA CR 266, Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, Va, 1948.
20 Tsai, J., Feldmann, A., and Stang, D., “The Buckling Strength of Filament Wound Cylinders Under Axial Compression,”
Tech. Rep. CR 266, NASA, 1965.

21 Gerard, G., Lakshmikantham, C., and Milligan, R., “General instability of orthotropically stiffened cylinders under axial
compression.” AIAA Journal, Vol. 4, No. 11, 1966, pp. 1906–1913.

22 Singer, J., “The Influence of Stiffener Geometry and Spacing on the Buckling of Axially Compressed Cylindrical and
Conical Shells,” IUTAM Symposium on the Theory of Thin Shells, Copenhagen, September 8, 1967 .
23 Almroth, B., Burns, A., and Pittner, E., “Design Criteria for Axially Loaded Cylindrical Shells,” Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, Vol. 7, No. 6, 1970, pp. 714–720.

24 Takano, A., “Statistical Knockdown Factors Statistical Knockdown Factors of Buckling Anisotropic Cylinders Under
Axial Compression,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 79, No. 5, 2012, pp. 051004–051004.
25 Bisagni, C., “Experimental Buckling of Thin Composite Cylinders in Compression,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2,
2015/01/07 1999, pp. 276–278.

26 Bisagni, C. and Cordisco, P., “An experimental investigation into the buckling and post buckling of {CFRP} shells under
combined axial and torsion loading,” Composite Structures, Vol. 60, No. 4, 2003, pp. 391 – 402.
27 Degenhardt, R., Kling, A., Bethge, A., Orf, J., Kärger, L., Zimmermann, R., Rohwer, K., and Calvi, A., “Investigations
on imperfection sensitivity and deduction of improved knock-down factors for unstiffened {CFRP} cylindrical shells,” Composite
Structures, Vol. 92, No. 8, 2010, pp. 1939 – 1946.
28 Hilburger, M. W., Nemeth, M. P., and Starnes, J. H., “Shell Buckling Design Criteria Based on Manufacturing Imper-
fection Signatures,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2015/10/20 2006, pp. 654–663.
29 Meyer-Piening, H.-R., Farshad, M., Geier, B., and Zimmermann, R., “Buckling loads of {CFRP} composite cylinders
under combined axial and torsion loading - experiments and computations,” Composite Structures, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2001, pp. 427
– 435.
30 Castro, S., Zimmermann, R., Arbelo, M., and Degenhardt, R., “Exploring the constancy of the global buckling load after
a critical geometric imperfection level in thin-walled cylindrical shells for less conservative knock-down factors,” Thin-Walled
Structures, Vol. 72, November 2013, pp. 76–87.
31 Castro, S., Zimmermann, R., Arbelo, M., Khakimova, R., Hilburger, M. W., and Degenhardt, R., “Geometric imper-
fections and lower-bound methods used to calculate knock-down factors for axially compressed composite cylindrical shells,”
Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 74, No. 0, 2014, pp. 118 – 132.
32 Friedrich, L., Schmid-Fuertes, T.-A., and Schröder, K.-U., “Comparison of theoretical approaches to account for geo-
metrical imperfections of unstiffened isotropic thin walled cylindrical shell structures under axial compression,” Thin-Walled
Structures, Vol. 92, No. 0, 2015, pp. 1 – 9.
33 Bisagni, C., “Experimental Buckling of Thin Composite Cylinders in Compression,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2,
2015/01/07 1999, pp. 276–278.

34 Degenhardt, R., Rohwer, K., Sun, X., Wagner, W., Wang, H., and Bueschel, A. P., “An empirical formula for the critical
perturbation load,” Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conference on Buckling and Postbuckling Behaviour of Composite Laminated
Shell Structures, 2008.
35 Hilburger, M. W. and Starnes, J. H., “Effects of imperfections on the buckling response of compression-loaded composite
shells,” International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, Vol. 37, No. 4–5, 2002, pp. 623 – 643.
36 Hühne, C., Rolfes, R., Breitbach, E., and Teßmer, J., “Robust design of composite cylindrical shells under axial compres-
sion Simulation and validation,” Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 46, No. 7-9, 2008, pp. 947–962.
37 Orifici, A. C. and Bisagni, C., “Perturbation-based imperfection analysis for composite cylindrical shells buckling in
compression,” Composite Structures, Vol. 106, 2013, pp. 520 – 528.

38 Turzo, G. and Jacquesson, M., “Static Qualification Logic for Ariane 5 Structure,” International Conference on Spacecraft
Structures, Materials and Mechanical testing, European Space Agency, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 10-12 May 2005 2005.
39 Arbocz, J., Bisgani, C., Calvi, A., Carrera, E., Cuntze, R., Degenhardt, R., Gualtieri, N., Haller, H., Impollonia, N.,
Jacquesson, M., Jansen, E. Meyer-Piening, H.-R., Oery, H., Rittweger, A., Rofles, R., G., S., Turzo, G., Weller, T., and Wijker,
J., Buckling of Structures, ESA Requirements and Standards Division.
40 Hilburger, M., Lovejoy, A., Thornburgh, R., and Rankin, C., “Design and Analysis of Subscale and Full-Scale Buckling-
Critical Cylinders for Launch Vehicle Technology Development,” 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2015/04/14 2012.
41 Hilburger, M., Haynie, W., Lovejoy, A., Roberts, M., Norris, J., Waters, W., and Herring, H., “Sub-Scale and Full-Scale
Testing of Buckling-Critical Launch Vehicle Shell Structures,” 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2015/04/14 2012.
42 Arianespace, Arinae 5 User’s Manual, issue 5 revision 1 ed., July 2011.
43 Hühne, C., Robuster Entwurf beulgefährdeter, unversteifter Kreiszylinderschalen aus Faserverbundwerkstoff , Ph.D. the-
sis, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, 2008.
17 of 18

44 Zimmermann, R., Optimierung axial gedrückter CFK-Zylinderschalen, Ph.D. thesis, Universität-Gesamthochschule
Siegen, 1991.
45 Friedrich, L., Loosen, S., Liang, K., Ruess, M., Bisagni, C., and Schröder, K.-U., “Stacking sequence influence on
imperfection sensitivity of cylindrical composite shells under axial compression,” Composite Structures, Vol. 134, 2015, pp. 750
– 761.
46 Hoff, N. J., “Some Recent Studies of the Buckling of Thin Shells,” The Aeronautical Journal of the Royal Aeoronautical
Society, Vol. 73, 1969, pp. 1057–1070.

47 Seide, P., Morgan, E. J., and Weingarten, V. I., “Elastic Stability of thin-walled cylindrical and conical shells under axial
compression,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1964, pp. 500–505.

48 Friedrich, L. and Reimerdes, H.-G., “Imperfection Sensitivity of Circular Cylindrical Shells of Varying length Subjected
to Axial Compression,” 54th AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2013.
49 Bushnell, D., “Buckling of Shells-Pitfall for Designers,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 19, No. 9, 1981.
50 Khot, N. S. and Venkayya, V. B., “Effect of fiber orientation on initial postbuckling behaviour and imperfection sensitivity
of composite cylindrical shells,” Tech. Rep. Technical Report AFFDL-TR-70-125, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, 1970.
51 Bushnell, D., “Computerized Buckling Analysis of Shells,” Final Report AFWAL TR 81-3049, Flight Lockheed Palo Alto
Research Laboratory, 1981.

52 Zimmermann, R., “Buckling Research for imperfection Tolerant Fiber Composite Structures,” Spacecraft Structures,
Materials and Mechanical Engineering, Proceedings of the Conference held by ESA, CNES and DARA in Noordwijk, 27-29
March 1996 .
53 Tennyson, R. C. and Hansen, J. S., “Optimum design for buckling of laminated cylinders,” Collapse: The Buckling of
Structures in Theory and Practice ; Symposium, University College, London, 31 Aug. to 3 Sept. 1982 , pp. 409–427.
54 Koiter, W. T., “On the Stability of elastic equlibrium,” Tech. Rep. NASA-TT-F-10833, N67-25033, NASA, 1960.
55 Koiter, W. T., “The effect of axis-symmetric imperfections on the buckling of cylindrical shells under axial compression,”
Proc. Kon. Ned. Ak. Wet., Vol. B66, 1963, pp. 265–279.
56 Tennyson, R. C. and Muggeridge, D. B., “The Effect of Axisymmetric Shape Imperfections on the Buckling of Laminated
Anisotropic Circular Cylinders,” Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute transactions. Canadian Aeronautics and Space
Institute transactions. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute transactions, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1971, pp. 131–139.
57 Kepple, J., Herath, M. T., Pearce, G., Prusty, B. G., Thomson, R., and Degenhardt, R., “Stochastic analysis of imper-
fection sensitive unstiffened composite cylinders using realistic imperfection models,” Composite Structures, Vol. 126, No. 0,
2015, pp. 159 – 173.
58 Linde, P., Schulz, A., and Rust, W., “Influence of modelling and solution methods on the FE-simulation of the post-
buckling behaviour of stiffened aircraft fuselage panels,” Composite Structures, Vol. 73, No. 2, 2006, pp. 229 – 236, International
Conference on Buckling and Postbuckling Behavior of Composite Laminated Shell Structures International Conference on
Buckling and Postbuckling Behavior of Composite Laminated Shell Structures.
59 Mittelstedt, C., Buckling and Postbuckling of Thin-Walled Stiffened Composite Panels - Efficient Analysis Methods for
Lighweight Engineering, Habilitationsschrift, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2012.

60 Bisagni, C. and Vescovini, R., “Fast Tool for Buckling Analysis and Optimization of Stiffened Panels,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 46, No. 6, 2015/04/14 2009, pp. 2041–2053.

61 Vescovini, R. and Bisagni, C., “Buckling Analysis and Optimization of Stiffened Composite Flat and Curved Panels,”
AIAA Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2015/04/14 2012, pp. 904–915.

62 Buermann, P., Rolfes, R., Tessmer, J., and Schagerl, M., “A semi-analytical model for local post-buckling analysis of
stringer- and frame-stiffened cylindrical panels,” Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2006, pp. 102 – 114.
63 Bürmann, P., A semi-analytical model for the post-buckling analysis of stiffened cylindrical panels, Ph.D. thesis, Tech-
nische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, November 2005.

64 Quatmann, M. and Reimerdes, H. G., “Preliminary design of composite fuselage structures using analytical rapid sizing
methods,” Vol. 2, No. 1-4, 2011, pp. 231–241.

65 Quatmann, M., Aswini, N., Reimerdes, H. G., and Gupta, N. K., “Superelements for a computationally efficient structural
analysis of elliptical fuselage sections,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 27, No. 1, 6 2013, pp. 76–83.
66 Shanley, F. R., “Simplified Analysis of General Instability of Stiffened Shells in Pure Bending,” Journal of the Aeronautical
Science, Vol. 16, 1949, pp. 590–592.

67 Thielemann, W., “On the Postbuckling Behaviour of Thin Cylindrical Shells,” Tech. Rep. DFL Bericht Nr. 212, Deutsche
Forschungsanstalt für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V., 1963.

68 Wiedemann, J., Leichtbau - Band 1: Elemente, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Tokyo, 1986.
69 Friedrich, L. and Schröder, K.-U., “Preliminary Design of Circumferential Frame Stiffeners of Space Launcher Vehicles
subjected to Axial Compression,” Deutsche Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, September 2015, (accepted talk).
70 Young, W. C. and Budynas, R. G., Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain, Vol. Seventh Edition, MacGraw-Hill, 2002.
71 Quatmann, M. and Reimerdes, H.-G., “Computationally efficient analysis of the postbuckling behaviour of stiffened
fuselage sections,” 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.
72 Friedrich, L., Reimerdes, H.-G., and Schröder, K.-U., “Advanced Sizing Strategies for Preliminary Design of Orthotropic
Grid Stiffened Shell Structures,” 3rd International Conference on Buckling and Postbuckling Behaviour of Composite Laminated
Shell Structures with DESICOS Workshop, March 2015.
18 of 18

This article has been cited by:
1. Linus Friedrich, Kai-Uwe Schröder. 2016. Minimum stiffness criteria for ring frame stiffeners of space launch vehicles. CEAS
Space Journal . [Crossref]

C - Efficient and Robust Shell Design of Space Launcher Vehicle Structures - FRIEDRICH RUESS SCHRÖDER

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C - Efficient and Robust Shell Design of Space Launcher Vehicle Structures - FRIEDRICH RUESS SCHRÖDER

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA SciTech Forum 10.2514/6.

Efficient and robust shell design of space launcher

Copyright © 2016 by Institute of Structural Mechanics and LightweightAmerican

pay load I 10-2

pay load II SYLDA

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

II. Review of current design methodologies for imperfection sensitive shell

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Load Introduction ring

Load Introduction ring

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Axial load [kN]

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Iso.14 [kN] Z1745 [kN] FL545 [kN] type of loading

Fcr,ρ90% 3.65 139.59 111.87 DC

0.2 Seide (1964)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

A. Theoretical approaches to account for geometrical imperfections

Figure 6. Knock-down factor equivalent imperfection magnitude according to Friedrich32

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

B. Stacking sequence influence on the imperfection sensitivity of composite shells

45 Fibre orientatio 67.5 0

Fibre orientatio n inner ply [ ]

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

IV. Structural design of imperfection tolerant shell structures

A. Remarks on the design process of frame stringer stiffened shells

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

determining the total If ms,i<mmin

B. Novel approach to size ring frame stiffeners

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

rotational springs represent the

krot,o krot krot krot,o

klin,o klin klin klin,o

C. Verification of the approach using a benchmark structure

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

!"#$6# !"#$ !"#$ !"#$6#

!"#$6# !"#$ !"#$ !"#$6#

!"#$6# !"#$ !"#$ !"#$6#

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 16. Ring frame’s coordinate system

Table 2. Ring frame stringer stiffened shell - evaluation of results - nStr = 90

3 52.32 mm 293.99 kg 11 087.9 kN 31.16 mm 278.34 kg 10 959.4 kN 0.947

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Axial load [kN]

V. Towards a robust design of shell structures

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

geometrical structural buckling

tskin = tstr = tr = 2.70 mm ρ99% = 0.68

VI. Conclusions and outlook

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

- robust design using efficient

Conference on Spacecraft Structures and mechanical testing, October 1988.

Air and Space Conference, 2007.

AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference; Honolulu, 2012.

stoffen, Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen University, 2015.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

697, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, 1974.

Committee for Aeronautics Report No. 473, 1933.

of Technology, Pasadena, California, 1939.

Products Lab., 1943.

Tech. Rep. CR 266, NASA, 1965.

compression.” AIAA Journal, Vol. 4, No. 11, 1966, pp. 1906–1913.