Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132

Buckling analysis of cylindrical shells with

random geometric imperfections
C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu+eller ∗
Institute of Engineering Mechanics, Leopold-Franzens University, Technikerstr. 13, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria

Abstract
In this paper the e,ect of random geometric imperfections on the limit loads of isotropic, thin-walled, cylindrical shells
under deterministic axial compression is presented. Therefore, a concept for the numerical prediction of the large scatter in
the limit load observed in experiments using direct Monte Carlo simulation technique in context with the Finite Element
method is introduced. Geometric imperfections are modeled as a two dimensional, Gaussian stochastic process with prescribed
second moment characteristics based on a data bank of measured imperfections. (The initial imperfection data bank at the
Delft University of Technology, Part 1. Technical Report LR-290, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University
of Technology). In order to generate realizations of geometric imperfections, the estimated covariance kernel is decomposed
into an orthogonal series in terms of eigenfunctions with corresponding uncorrelated Gaussian random variables, known as
the Karhunen–Lo:eve expansion. For the determination of the limit load a geometrically non-linear static analysis is carried
out using the general purpose code STAGS (STructural Analysis of General Shells, user manual, LMSC P032594, version
3.0, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). As a result of the direct Monte Carlo simulation,
second moment characteristics of the limit load are presented. The numerically predicted statistics of the limit load coincide
reasonably well with the actual observations, particularly in view of the limited data available, which is re=ected in the
statistical estimators. ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Non-linear >nite element analysis; Buckling of cylindrical shells; Random geometric imperfections; Axial compression

1. Introduction observed in experimentally determined limit loads [1].

The problem of buckling of thin cylindrical shells
under axial compression has received worldwide
attention among researchers, mainly due to a ma-
jor discrepancy between experiments and classical
prediction. The combined e,ects of non-linearity
and imperfections, respectively, are the cause for
this discrepancy and, moreover, for the large scatter
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +43-512-507-6841; fax: +43-
512-507-2905.
E-mail address: mechanik@uibk.ac.at (G.I. Schu+eller).
URL: http://mechanik.uibk.ac.at
So far, the majority of the research carried out in
this >eld concentrates on the e,ects of traditional, i.e.
geometric imperfections on the buckling behavior of
cylindrical shells. However, also other sources of im-
perfections may have a strong e,ect on the limit load,
such as thickness imperfections, non-perfect boundary
conditions, misalignment in the loading, =uctuations
in material properties, etc. In this context—and already
at an early stage—measurements of geometric imper-
fections revealed that even shells from the same man-
ufacturing process do di,er in shape and magnitude.
It is this inherent randomness in geometric and also
other imperfections, introduced during the production

0020-7462/03/$ - see front matter ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 4 6 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 7 - 4
1120 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132
and construction process, that reduces the evidence of
deterministic predictions of the limit load of cylindri-
cal shells considerably. Therefore, the design of thin
shell structures at present based on either determin-
istic classical, asymptotic or non-linear analysis, re-
spectively, still needs to be corrected on the basis of
experimental data by using empirical, so called ‘knock
down’ factors, leading to potentially overly conser-
vative designs. This ‘lower bound concept’ may be
justi>ed in cases where the total weight of the shell
structure as well as the cost of the material do not
play a signi>cant role in the design process. In all
other cases a more general buckling analysis should
be applied taking into account the stochastic nature
of the buckling analysis of shells. Nowadays highly
sophisticated numerical methods are available, which
are capable to incorporate several sources of imperfec-
tions into the analysis. However, these imperfections
are described by means of deterministic parameters,
and do not allow to predict the aforementioned scatter
in the limit load observed in experiments. Under this
point of view it seems to be a natural way to intro-
duce a concept for a buckling analysis, which allows
to take into account the uncertainties in order to be
able to predict the complex buckling behavior of thin
shell structures. It should be noted, that such an anal-
ysis should rest on the same sophisticated mechanical
and mathematical formulations in structural stability
as its purely deterministic counterpart (e.g. in terms of
worst case studies) and thus leading to more realistic
results.
A probabilistic approach in structural stability for
imperfection sensitive structures goes already back to
the late >fties (see e.g. [2]), followed by several other
investigators, e.g. [3– 6]. However, due to the lack
of experimental evidence about the type of imperfec-
tions that may occur in practice, the aforementioned
investigators had to work with some form of ideal-
ized, i.e assumed, distributions of imperfections. [7]
e.g. provides a numerical measure for the signi>cance
of the various possible shapes of imperfections on the
buckling strength of a structure in terms of reliability
analysis. Elishako, and Arbocz [8] treated the Fourier
coeNcients of measured imperfections as random
variables, whereby the histogram of the limit loads
has been obtained either by Monte Carlo simulation or
approximate methods. Common to these approaches
is the determination of the limit load by means of
analytical or semi-analytical procedures. This may
also be the reason for the stochastic representation
of geometric imperfections by means of a two-dimen-
sional Fourier series with random Fourier coeNcients,
since an analytical buckling analysis of cylindrical
shells yields a two-dimensional Fourier series repre-
sentation of the critical modes. However, it is well
known that severe shortcomings of analytical or
semi-analytical approaches, respectively, for predict-
ing buckling, are on one hand their limited capability
in modeling more complex shell structures and on the
other hand the implementation of a more general type
of imperfections. Hence the >nite element method
has been chosen here for the determination of the
limit load. For example, many practical applications
of cylindrical shells do require the presence of either
reinforced or unreinforced large cutouts, which are
in most cases not amenable for analytical solutions
(see e.g. [9,10]). In addition, the application of the
Finite Element (FE) method simpli>es considerably
the incorporation of imperfections into the analysis,
which is a,ecting also the stochastic representation
used for random imperfections. In this context, a rep-
resentation of the geometric imperfections in terms of
the Karhunen—Lo:eve expansion proves to be most
instrumental for replacing the traditional Fourier se-
ries representation, whereby the latter is based on the
concept of random trigonometric polynomials [11].
For a more detailed description of the advantages of
using e.g. the Karhunen–Lo:eve expansion instead, it
is referred to Schenk [12].
A buckling analysis which takes into account uncer-
tainties >nally leads to second moment characteristics
of the limit load, which can be used to form a sound
basis for a reliable shell analysis, providing the analyst
with valuable information for the theoretical veri>ca-
tion of the empirical ‘knock-down’ factors and hence
with a more rational basis for making design decisions.
2. Method of analysis
2.1. Stochastic modeling of geometric imperfections
by the theory of random 7elds
2.1.1. Representation by the Karhunen–Lo8eve
expansion
The theory of stochastic processes, in particular
the theory of random >elds, can be applied most
advantageously in order to capture the inherent
 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132
randomness of geometric imperfections of cylindrical
shells and other types of shell structures. In particu-
lar, the Karhunen–Lo:eve expansion of the covariance
matrix (see Appendix C) is applied for representing
these imperfections suNciently well by only a small
number of uncorrelated Gaussian, i.e. independent
random variables. Based on second moment char-
acteristics estimated from a data bank of measured
imperfections (see Appendix A), geometric imperfec-
tions are modeled as a non-homogeneous, Gaussian
random >eld.
2.1.2. Correlation structure
As mentioned before, the measured geometric im-
perfections do form a non-homogeneous random >eld,
implying that the correlation of two di,erent locations
on the surface of the cylinder is not only a function
of the relative distance, but also depends on the ab-
solute position of the locations under consideration.
The covariance matrix is capable to describe such a
shift variant correlation structure without any simpli-
>cations or assumptions, respectively. However, in
applied stochastic mechanics the frequently used, so
called correlation length describes in a concise way
the correlation structure of a homogeneous random
>eld. It is the purpose of this section—by introducing
only for a moment the assumption of homogeneity—
to determine the correlation length for the A-shells
(see Appendix A).
The correlation length Lc determines the decay of
the mutual in=uence of two di,erent random >eld lo-
cations, e.g. f(x1 ) and f(x2 ), and is a measure for
the number of uncorrelated random variables which
are required to describe the random >eld with a given
quality. The correlation length Lc is de>ned hereby
when the auto correlation function r(x ; y ) takes on
the value r = 2 =e, where e denotes the Euler number
and 2 the variance, respectively. According to this
de>nition, a correlation length tending towards in>n-
ity describes a fully correlated random >eld, which
means that all random variables representing the ran-
dom >eld are linearly dependent. A correlation length
equal to zero describes an uncorrelated random >eld.
For a discussion of the relative importance of the var-
ious parameters it is referred to e.g. Schu+eller and
Brenner [13]. From Fig. 14 (see Appendix A) it can be
assumed that the variation of the imperfections along
1121
the axis x and y is independent. This has been sub-
stantiated by the data, so it is consistent to imply a
fully separable correlation structure of f(x). Under
the assumption of zero mean and homogeneity the au-
tocorrelation function can then be expressed as follows
(see e.g. [14]):
r(x ; y ) = 2 %x (x )%y (y ); (1)
x = x2 − x1 ; y = y2 − y1 ; (2)
where %x , %y are the correlation coeNcient functions
along the x, y axis, respectively. This implies that the
correlation structure of the geometric imperfections
can be split into two one-dimensional problems. In
Fig. 1 the di,erent correlation coeNcients functions
for the axial and circumferential direction are shown.
The shape of the correlation coeNcient function %y
can be explained as follows. Its symmetry is due to
the fact, that the maximum lag y is the half of the
circumference, while the extremes are due to the low
frequencies ruling the imperfections in the circumfer-
ential direction.
Because of the fully separable correlation structure
of the imperfections, the correlation length can now
be de>ned for the axial and the circumferential direc-
tion individually. According to the de>nition of the
correlation length mentioned before, one obtains for
the initial imperfections
Lcx ≈ 0:6L; Lcy ≈ 0:06(2R); (3)
where Lcx and Lcy denote the correlation lengths in
axial and circumferential direction, respectively. The
two-dimensional autocorrelation function r(x ; y ) of
the imperfections according to (1) is shown in Fig. 2.
A separable correlation structure assures a so-called
quadrant symmetry, i.e. the autocorrelation function
de>ned for positive lags x and y fully represents the
correlation structure of the imperfections f(x) [14].
2.2. Non-linear static analysis
2.2.1. General remarks
According to Bushnell [16], the state of the art in
the capability to predicting buckling failure refers to
areas such as asymptotic analysis [17] and general
non-linear analysis (see e.g. [18,19]), respectively.
While the asymptotic analysis has contributed signif-
icant physical insight into the buckling process for a
1122 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132

1.2 1.2

1 1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6 0.4
ρx

ρy
0.4 0.2
0
0.2 _ 0.2
0 _ 0.4
_ 0.2 _ 0.6
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
(a) ξx (b) ξy

Fig. 1. Correlation coeNcients of the A-shells [15] under the assumption of homogeneity and a fully separated correlation structure:
(a) axial direction (%x (x ); x = [0; L]), (b) circumferential direction (%y (y ); y = [0; 2R]). L and R denote the length and the radius
of the shell, respectively.

0.6

0.3
r(ξx,ξy)

_ 0.3
1
0.75 1
0.5 0.75
0.5
0.25 0.25
L 0 0 2R π

Fig. 2. Two-dimensional autocorrelation function r(x ; y ) of the A-shells under the assumption of homogeneity and a fully separated
correlation structure.

certain class of perfect as well as for imperfect shell
structures by expanding the solution into a power
series (being asymptotically exact at the bifurcation
point) of the bifurcation modal amplitude, the general
non-linear analysis allows to determine the equilib-
rium path of arbitrary structures. However, it should
be mentioned that a non-linear static FE analysis of
an isotropic cylindrical shell—despite of its simple
geometry—is from the computational point of view
quite demanding.
For the determination of the collapse load of
the imperfect cylindrical shell a non-linear static
FE analysis using STAGS, is carried out. The
analysis takes into account non-linearities due to large
displacements and large rotations, but is restricted to
small strains. The stress–strain relation is assumed
to be linear. STAGS is designed for general purpose
analysis of shell structures of arbitrary shape and
complexity and proves to be most instrumental for
involved, non-linear shell problems. It is particularly
suited for the use in context with automatized Monte
Carlo simulation (see Appendix D).
The non-linear equilibrium equations describing the
behavior of the structure can be written as, see e.g.
Riks [20], Cris>eld [21],
g(d; ) = qi (d) − qe = 0; (4)
 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132 1123

where g is a non-linear vector function of the nodal t

displacement d and the scalar , which denotes the R
load level parameter. Vector qi represents the internal 1
forces, whereas qe is the external load vector. In the y rv
v
STAGS code, solution control is achieved by the Riks x
arc-length control technique [22]. Thereby the equa-

L
2 4
w
tion system (4) is extended by
u rw
h(d; ) −  = 0; (5)
ru
where h(·) is some scalar function and  is the path
parameter, replacing the incrementally applied load- 3
ing parameter by an arc-length along the solution path.
The Riks arc-length control technique allows traver- Fig. 3. FE model: Boundaries 1– 4; surface coordinates x; y; dis-
placement components u; v and w; rotation components ru; rv
sal of limit points as de>ned in (6), which e.g. for
and rw; t; L and R denote the thickness, length and radius of the
applying Monte Carlo simulation is signi>cant. shell, respectively.
d
=0 (6)
d
In general, the critical condition (collapse or buckling)
for conservative systems can be de>ned by the load
level , where the determinant of the tangent sti,ness
matrix Kt vanishes,
det(Kt ) = 0: (7)

2.2.2. Finite Element model

The FE Model is established by the assumed natural
strain (ANS) 9-node quadrilateral shell element [23]
with 5 degrees of freedom per node—as referred to
in Rankin et al. [24] as ‘480’ element—with 9 Gauss
integration points has been used. This element does
not show so-called ‘hourglass modes’ and performs
very well with regard to an accelerated convergence
[25].
In general, geometrical imperfections are of-
ten modeled as ‘ideal’ or ‘modal’ shapes, i.e. as
a two-dimensional, truncated Fourier series. Using
this type of imperfections provides the possibility to
model a subsection of the complete shell. Having
such symmetry planes in the imperfect shell model,
the computational e,ort can be reduced considerably.
However, in case of more realistic imperfections, no
symmetry planes do exist, implying that one is forced
to model the complete shell (see Fig. 3).
In this paper, geometric imperfections are de>ned
as nodal displacements in the w-direction representing
perturbations of the idealized shell geometry, whereby
higher-order strains, as e.g. used in Riks et al. [26], are
Fig. 4. FE model by STAGS, mesh 101 × 193 (∼ 100,000 dofs)
with simulated geometric imperfections using the Karhunen–Lo:eve
expansion.
not considered here. Fig. 4 shows a FE model as used
in this study with simulated geometric imperfections.
On both edges ‘1’ and ‘3’ of the shell the classical
SS-3 boundary condition is employed, i.e. Nx = v =
w = Mx = 0. Dimensions and material properties of the
FE model are given in Table 3 obtained by averaging
the corresponding parameters available in Arbocz and
Abramovich [15] and included in Table 2.
2.2.3. Buckling load of the perfect shell
In the following, all load levels are normalized by
the classical buckling load of an axially compressed
1124 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132

Fig. 5. Axial trace of prebuckling deformation of the perfect shell by SDAS.

isotropic shell with SS-3 boundary condition on both according to Table 3, are
edges after Lorenz [27] and Timoshenko [28], ANILISA
sym = 0:844343 (n = 24);
2 −0:5 2 −1
Ncl = E(3(1 −  )) t R : (8) ANILISA
asym = 0:844343 (n = 24); (9)
Isotropic shells under axial compression do have the
where n denotes the number of circumferential
peculiarity that the non-uniformity and non-linearity
full-waves. The lowest buckling loads occur at a rela-
of the prebuckling state near the edges reduces the
tively high wave number (n = 24) in the circumferen-
predicted critical load considerably, moreover the
tial direction and do involve very short wave patterns
asymmetric bifurcation buckling is very close to
in the axial direction, close to the edges of the shell.
the symmetric buckling load (see, e.g. Bushnell [16]).
In Fig. 5 the characteristic prebuckling deformation of
Keeping this in mind, the two lowest eigenvalues ob-
the perfect shell as obtained by ANILISA is shown.
tained by a non-linear bifurcation analysis carried out
The symmetric buckling mode with respect to L=2 is
by STAGS together with their corresponding buck-
shown in Fig. 6. It is quite obvious, that the FE mesh
ling modes have been compared with semi-analytical
has to be rather >ne in order to be able to predict
results available.
the correct buckling behavior of the perfect shell. In
For this purpose the batch tool ANILISA [29] as
this regard, at least two elements or >ve grid points
part of SDAS [30], proves to be most instrumental.
should represent a half wave, yielding 193 grid points
ANILISA is based on Donnell type equations, where
for the circumferential direction.
>rst the symmetric non-linear prebuckling path of the
A convergence study (see Fig. 7), where the number
perfect shell is calculated. After a range of circum-
of nodes in both circumferential and axial direction
ferential wave numbers has been selected, load levels
is varied, revealed that the mesh 101 × 193 predicts
at which bifurcation occurs are calculated. This is
the correct behavior of the perfect shell with a rather
achieved by solving numerically the resulting eigen-
small discretization error (∼ 3%), i.e.
value problem, whereby the user selected boundary
STAGS
conditions, in this case SS-3, are satis>ed rigor- sym = 0:873822 (n = 24);
ously. The two lowest bifurcation loads as obtained STAGS
by ANILISA for a cylindrical shell with dimensions asym = 0:873825 (n = 24): (10)
 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132 1125

Fig. 6. Axial trace of symmetric buckling mode of the perfect shell by SDAS.

0.94 STAGS 0.94 STAGS

51 × 241 ANILISA ANILISA
0.92 0.92

0.9 71 × 241 0.9 221 × 161

101 × 241 221 × 193
λ

0.88 221 × 241 0.88 221 × 241

0.86 0.86

0.84 0.84

0.82 0.82
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Two-dimensional convergence study using STAGS, labels denote FE mesh (axial grid points × circumferential grid points):
(a) axial direction, (b) circumferential direction.

The prebuckling deformation as obtained by STAGS
is shown in Fig. 8, the symmetric buckling mode is
shown in Fig. 9. As can be seen, these plots do agree
very well with the corresponding ANILISA plots. It
seems to be justi>ed to assume that the response of the
imperfect shell is also computed accurately by using
this mesh.
It should be noted that the mesh 101 × 193 yields a
FE model of approximately 100,000 dofs. Even nowa-
days, this is—particularly in context with direct Monte
Carlo simulation—computationally quite demanding.
Therefore, in order to reduce the number of dofs of the
FE model, also non-uniformly meshes in axial direc-
tion, as proposed in Bushnell [31], were tested. Con-
trary to Bushnell [31], the size of an element has been
continuously increased, with very small elements near
the edges of the shell and a rather coarse mesh around
L=2. However, while for the perfect shell the com-
putational e,ort can indeed be reduced considerably,
for imperfect shells this approach leads to rather in-
accurate results. One of the reasons for this might be,
that for imperfect shells an isolated buckle may occur,
governed by the shape of geometric imperfections, not
only close to the edges of the shell but also in the
1126 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132

x 10
_5
2.3.2. Direct Monte Carlo simulation
4
As already mentioned above, a non-linear static FE
analysis with 100,000 dofs is a quite demanding task.
w [m]

2 In order to determine reliable second order charac-

teristics of the limit load by means of direct Monte
0 Carlo simulation, several FE analyses are necessary—
0 20 40 60 80 100
grid points _ axial the resulting computational e,orts are—no doubt—
enormous. It is clear that the feasibility of such an un-
Fig. 8. Axial trace of prebuckling deformation of the perfect shell dertaking depends on a number of factors, such as an
by STAGS. optimized solution control for the non-linear analysis,
an eNcient simulation procedure for generating re-
alizations of geometric imperfections, an appropriate
1 computer hardware and a fully automatized simulation
procedure allowing to connect the di,erent software
w (norm.)

0.5
packages needed without user interaction. In this con-
0
text, besides STAGS, also the codes STAR (STAGS
0 20 40 60 80 100 Acces Routines) [32], MATLAB [33] and PERL [34],
grid points _ axial
respectively, have been used for Monte Carlo simula-
1 tion. For a more detailed description it is referred to
Appendix D.
w (norm.)

_1
0 5 10 15 20 3. Numerical results
grid points _ circumferential

Fig. 9. Symmetric buckling mode of the perfect shell by STAGS:
◦
axial trace and circumferential trace (45 shell-segment), respec-
tively.
region where the mesh is rather coarse. Thus the ac-
tual buckling mode can obviously not be represented
with such a coarse mesh.
2.3. Response assessment
2.3.1. General remarks
Due to the highly non-linear buckling behavior of
imperfect, axially compressed cylindrical shells, direct
Monte Carlo simulation seems to be the only possible
approach in order to obtain reliable statistical charac-
teristics of the limit load. This is particularly true when
several sources of imperfections are considered, since
their interaction is rather involved. Thus it is clear,
that variance reduction methods, e.g. importance sam-
pling, which themselves require information on the
region where failure is most likely to occur, cannot be
applied in an e,ective way.
3.1. Non-linear static analysis
It has been pointed out that a mesh of 101 × 193
for the FE model is required in order to reproduce
the critical buckling modes. The geometric imperfec-
tions have been measured with a mesh in the range of
15 × 49 and 31 × 49, which is considerably coarser
than the FE model. However, the mesh 15 × 49 of
simulated imperfections, has been mapped into the
FE mesh 101 × 193 by bicubic interpolation. In the
presence of imperfections, the bifurcation point of a
perfect cylindrical shell may be replaced by the limit
point, i.e. failure occurs as a ‘snap-through’ when the
load level  reaches the limit load. This limit load, also
often referred as collapse load, has been identi>ed in
the non-linear static analysis by (6).
The starting load factor and starting load factor in-
crement for all non-linear static analyses carried out
was 0:05Ncl and 0:1Ncl , respectively. After the >rst
two load steps the solution control was switched from
load control to arc-length control. For the solution of
the non-linear equation system the modi>ed Newton–
Raphson scheme has been applied. A non-linear anal-
ysis was aborted when the maximum load level in
 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132 1127

Fig. 10. Prebuckling deformation for shell A-8 by STAGS.

Fig. 11. Deformation at the limit load for shell A-8 by STAGS.

the load-de=ection curve, i.e. the limit point, has been

reached. As mentioned in Rankin et al. [24], it is pos-
sible to gain some information about the size of the
margin of safety against collapse through the execu-
tion of an analysis of bifurcation from the non-linear
stress state corresponding to the limit load, in partic-
ular if diNculties in convergence do occur. The so
obtained eigenvalue represents an estimate of the lo-
cation of the limit point, the corresponding eigenmode
represents physically an estimate of the increment of
the deformations at the limit load.
Vicarious for all non-linear static analyses carried
out, the deformation of a shell with geometric imper-
fections according to shell A-8 [15] is shown. While
Fig. 10 represents the deformation of the shell in
the prebuckling state, Fig. 11 shows the deformation
pattern at the limit load. Fig. 12 represents the >rst
eigenmode mode belonging to the lowest eigen-
Fig. 12. First eigenmode for shell A-8 by STAGS at the limit load,
value obtained by a bifurcation analysis based on the representing the growth of the deformations at the limit load.
non-linear stress state at the limit load.

3.2. Monte Carlo simulation

Monte Carlo simulation has been carried out for
250 realizations of geometric imperfections generated
by the simulation procedure described in Appendix
C. One analysis, i.e. a non-linear and a bifurcation
analysis, respectively, took about 7000 CPU seconds.
The overall processing time (at least two analyses run
simultaneously) for these 250 non-linear and bifurca-
tion analyses, respectively, was about 2 weeks. As a
>nal result the histogram of the calculated limit loads
is presented in Fig. 13a, together with the histogram
of the experimentally determined limit loads.
1128 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132

class frequency
40

20

0
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
(a)
λ
class frequency

3
2
1
0
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
(b) λ

Fig. 13. Histograms of the limit load: (a) STAGS (250 simulations), (b) experimental results (7 specimen).

4. Discussion of results 5. Concluding remarks

By comparing Fig. 13a with Fig. 13b it can be ob-
served, that the experimentally determined scatter in
the limit load can be predicted numerically. It should
be noted that this was the major concern of this paper.
The coeNcient of variation of the limit load calcu-
lated by STAGS is VSTAGS = 0:0820, whereby for the
A-shells the corresponding value is Vexp = 0:0867 (see
Table 1). The calculated mean value STAGS = 0:7793
of the limit load is considerably higher when com-
pared with the experimentally determined counterpart
exp = 0:6430 (Table 1). This can be explained by
the fact, that the test specimen of course do have in
addition to geometric imperfections also thickness
imperfections, varying material properties (Young’s
modulus), non-perfect boundary conditions and
misalignments in the loading. However, in this in-
vestigation only geometric imperfections have been
considered, nevertheless, as shown, they do have
strong e,ects on the limit load of cylindrical shells.
Table 1
Mean  and coeNcient of variation V = =: (a) STAGS (250
simulations), (b) experimental results (7 specimen)

Fig. 13(a) 0.7793
Fig. 13(b) 0.6433
In this investigation the Monte Carlo simulation
technique has been successfully applied in order to
predict the scatter in the limit load observed in ex-
periments. Due to the use of the theory of random
>elds, no idealization in terms of ‘modal’ imper-
fections has to be made, i.e. the imperfections are
modeled in a more realistic way. In this context, the
Karhunen–Lo:eve expansion, which is capable to gen-
erate non-homogeneous imperfections, seems to be
an appropriate tool in context with Monte Carlo sim-
ulation. Due to the extensive modeling capabilities of
the Finite Element method, which has been applied
for the determination of the limit load, this concept
can be extended to a more complex buckling analysis,
e.g. including additional sources of non-linearities
as well as complex shell structures. A minor draw-
back in this approach is that the FE mesh for thin
cylindrical shells has to be rather >ne in order to re-
produce the shell response acceptably well, i.e. this
approach is computationally expensive. However, it
is the authors’ belief, that the fast continued evolution
of digital computers will compensate this drawback
already in the immediate future.
Finally, this concept still needs improvement by in-
V corporating all uncertainties contributing to the buck-
0.0820 ling behavior of cylindrical shells, e.g. thickness and
0.0867 boundary imperfections, etc. This, however, is subject
 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132 1129

Table 2
Dimensions, material properties and experimentally determined limit loads, respectively, of the seven A-shells [15]. Radius R, thickness
t, length L, Young’s modulus E, limit load P and normalized load level 

Shell R (m) t (m) L (m) E (N=m2 ) P (N) 

A-7 0:1016 0:000114 0:20320 1:0411 5145:18 0:5901
A-8 0:1016 0:000118 0:20320 1:0480 5539:72 0:6632
A-9 0:1016 0:000115 0:20320 1:0135 5123:67 0:7270
A-10 0:1016 0:000120 0:20320 1:0273 5663:03 0:5645
A-12 0:1016 0:000120 0:20955 1:0480 5777:14 0:6669
A-13 0:1016 0:000113 0:19685 1:0411 5037:43 0:6171
A-14 0:1016 0:000111 0:19685 1:0894 5104:25 0:6745

0
t

_2

1
0.75 1
0.5 0.75
0.25 0.5
L 0.25
0 0 2R π

Fig. 14. Typical initial imperfections of electro-plated cylindrical shells, not to scale (shell A-8; [15]); radius R, length L and thickness t.

of further research. The approach as presented here
represents a step towards the quantitative safety as-
sessment of thin shell structures in terms of reliability
based optimization.
Acknowledgements
The numerical results presented in this paper could
not have been obtained without the most excellent and
friendly cooperation of ir. J.M.A.M. Hol, member of
the Department of Aerospace of Delft University of
Technology and Dr. C. Rankin, Senior Sta, Scientist
at Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space. Their help is
deeply appreciated. The authors are also indebted to
Prof. J. Arbocz and Prof. E. Riks for in-depth dis-
cussions. However, opinions, results, conclusions,
etc., are those of the authors. Finally thanks are due
Prof. J. Arbocz for providing the experimental data as
well as the computational facilities.
Appendix A. Imperfection data bank
In this paper a data bank [15] forms the ba-
sis of analysis. It includes measured geometric
imperfections of di,erent cylindrical shells, measured
geometric and material properties, respectively, as
well as experimentally determined limit loads. Seven
copper electro-plated, isotropic cylindrical shells, re-
ferred in Arbocz and Abramovich [15] as A-shells,
are statistically analyzed. Dimensions, material prop-
erties and experimentally determined limit loads, re-
spectively, of these laboratory scaled shells are given
in Table 2. In Fig. 14 the initial imperfections are
unwound from the so-called ‘perfect cylinder’.
Appendix B. Dimensions and material properties of
the FE model
The FE model used in this paper is based on the
dimensions and material properties given in Table 3.
1130 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132

Table 3 along the axial direction was utilized. The estimated

Averaged shell dimensions second moment characteristics do not show a shift in-
Radius R 0:1016 m variant structure, implying that the measured geomet-
Thickness t 0:00011597 m ric imperfections do form a non-stationary stochastic
Length L 0:2023 m process (non-homogeneous random >eld). Among
Young’s modulus E 1:0441 × 1011 N=m2 various decomposition methods of the covariance ker-
Poisson’s ratio  0.3
nel, the Karhunen–Lo:eve expansion [36] is de>ned by
∞ 

Appendix C. Karhunen–Lo+eve expansion f(x) = (x) + i !i (x)i ; (C.5)
i=1
The theory of stochastic processes can be ap-
plied most advantageously in order to capture the where !i (x) are orthonormal functions, satisfying the
inherent randomness of geometric imperfections. relation


Geometric imperfections of a cylindrical shell are 1: i = j;
representing a two-dimensional, univariate stochastic !i (x)!j (x) dx = (C.6)
process f(x), whose >eld parameter is related to the D 0: i = j;
deviation of the real shell to the so-called perfect √
cylinder, i are real numbers and i are uncorrelated random

 coeNcients, respectively, satisfying
2 x

f(x); x ∈ D ⊆ R ; x = : (C.1) 1: i = j;
y
E[i j ] = (C.7)
0: i = j:
The domain D de>ned in R2 is represented by the
surface of the shell. Under the viewpoint of generating The i ’s and !i (x)’s are representing the eigenvalues
samples of the stochastic process f(x), a parametric and eigenfunctions of the covariance kernel c(x1 ; x1 ).
representation in the form That is, they are the solution to the integral equation
f(x) = !(x; 1 ; 2 ; : : :); (C.2) 
c(x1 ; x2 )!i (x1 ) dx1 = i !i (x2 ): (C.8)
appears to be useful. Here, ! is a speci>ed determinis- D
tic function of x and {1 ; 2 ; : : :} is a countable set of
random variables. The probability law of f(x) is fully Measured imperfections represent a discretized
de>ned by the joint probability distribution of these stochastic process, i.e. (C.8) is replaced by the al-
random variables together with the functional form of gebraic eigenvalue decomposition of the covariance
! (see e.g. [35]). In case that f(x) is Gaussian, this matrix. The Karhunen–Lo:eve expansion provides the
process is fully de>ned by its second moment charac- basis for a powerful simulation procedure and leads
teristics, i.e. the mean function (x) and the autoco- to the smallest error in the approximation of (C.5),
variance function c(x1 ; x2 ), respectively, see e.g. [37]. In case that f(x) is Gaussian, the ran-
dom coeNcients i are independent Gaussian random
(x) = E[f(x)]; (C.3) variables with zero mean and unit variance.
After the generation of imperfections using (C.5),
c(x1 ; x2 )=E[(f(x1 )−(x1 ))(f(x2 )−(x2 ))]; (C.4)
the arbitrarily de>ned origin has to be randomly dis-
where E[ : : : ] denotes the expectation operator. For tributed within a reasonable range. This can be done
the estimation of the mean function (x) and the by introducing two random variables U and V ,
autocovariance function c(x1 ; x2 ), the origin of the

coordinate system has to be de>ned. For this purpose, 1 upper edge;
U : p(U ) = u= (C.9)
the position of the largest imperfection of each shell 2 lower edge;
has been chosen to de>ne the origin of the shell in cir-
cumferential direction. To de>ne the upper edge of an 1
V: p(V ) = 0 6 v 6 2: (C.10)
individual shell the notably varying mean square value 2
 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132
It is obvious that the introduction of the random vari-
ables U and V is only necessary if there are asymmet-
ric boundary or loading conditions, respectively.
Appendix D. Computational aspects
The simulation procedure introduced in Section
2.1.1 has been written in MATLAB and performed
on a PC Pentium III, 450 MHz at the L.-F. Univer-
sity. One MATLAB run took a few seconds only and
hence can be neglected when compared with the over-
all processing time. The computationally demanding
non-linear static analysis by STAGS has been per-
formed on a SUN Solaris ULTRA 2=400 at the Delft
University of Technology. As solution control in
STAGS is quite sophisticated, several parameters can
be adjusted in order to accelerate convergence, thus
minimizing the CPU time required for one run. The
non-linear static analysis was terminated when pass-
ing the limit load level. In a subsequent run a bifurca-
tion analysis based on that non-linear prestress state
has been carried out. Therefore, the input >les of the
bifurcation analysis had to be modi>ed in accordance
to the results of the foregoing static analysis with-
out user interaction. For postprocessing purposes the
postprocessor STAPL as part of the STAGS standard
distribution has been used as well as MATLAB, for
which an interface to STAGS using STAR has been
developed. Since the complete simulation procedure
has been distributed over geographically di,erent
locations, PERL has been chosen for the necessary
network administration tasks, e.g. for data transfer
and synchronization of the codes STAGS, STAR and
MATLAB.
References
[1] Z.P. Bazant, L. Cedolin, Stability of Structures, 1st
Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford,
1991.
[2] V.V. Bolotin, Statistical methods in the nonlinear theory of
elastic shells, Izvestiya AN SSSR, Otdeleniye Teknicheskikh
Nauk, Vol. 3, Technical Report, English translation: NASA
TTF-85, 1958 1962, pp. 1–16 (in Russian).
[3] W.B. Fraser, B. Budiansky, The buckling of a column with
random initial de=ections, J. Appl. Mech. 36 (2) (1969)
233–240.
1131
[4] J.C. Amazigo, Buckling under axial compression of long
cylindrical shells with random axisymmetric imperfections,
Quart. J. Appl. Math. 26 (4) (1969) 537–566.
[5] J. Roorda, Some statistical aspects of the buckling of
imperfection-sensitive structures, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 17
(1) (1969) 111–123.
[6] J.S. Hansen, General random imperfections in the buckling
of axially loaded cylindrical shells, AIAA 15 (9) (1977)
1250–12564.
[7] G.V. Palassopoulos, Buckling analysis and design of
imperfection-sensitive structures, in: A. Haldar, A. Guran,
B.M. Ayyub (Eds.), Uncertaintiy Modeling in Finite
Element, Fatigue and Stability of Systems, Vol. 9,
World Scienti>c Publishing Company, Singapore, Series on
Stability, Vibration and Control of Systems Series B, 1997,
pp. 311–356.
[8] I. Elishako,, J. Arbocz, Reliability of axially compressed
cylindrical shells with general nonsymmetric imperfections,
J. Appl. Mech. 52 (1985) 122–128.
[9] B. Almroth, M. Holmes, Buckling of shells with cutouts,
experiment and analysis, Internat. J. Solids Struct. 8 (1972)
1057–1071.
[10] J. Starnes, The e,ects of cutouts on the buckling of thin shells,
in: Y.C. Fung, E.E. Sechler (Eds.), Thin-Shell Structures:
Theory, Experiment and Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cli,s, NJ, 1974, pp. 289–304.
[11] M. Grigoriu, Simulation of nonstationary Gaussian processes
by random trigonometric polynomials, J. Eng. Mech. 119 (2)
(1993) 328–343.
[12] C.A. Schenk, Some aspects of simulation of stochastic
processes and >elds, Institute of Engineering Mechanics,
Leopold-Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria, EU,
International Working Report No. 42-01, 2001.
[13] G.I. Schu+eller, CE. Brenner, Advances in building materials
science, in: A. Gerdes (Ed.), Stochastic Finite Elements—
A Challenge for Material Science, Aedi>catio Publications,
1996, pp. 259 –281.
[14] E.H. Vanmarcke, Random Fields: Analysis and Synthesis,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England, 1983.
[15] J. Arbocz, H. Abramovich, The initial imperfection data bank
at the Delft University of Technology, Part 1. Technical
Report LR-290, Delft University of Technology, Department
of Aerospace Engineering, December 1979.
[16] D. Bushnell, Computerized Analysis of Shells (Mechanics of
Elastic Stability), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
Boston, London, 1989.
[17] W. Koiter, On the stability of elastic equilibrium, Ph.D.
Thesis, Polytechnic Institute Delft, English Translation:
NASA TT F-10, 1945 (1967) 833.
[18] K.J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in
Engineering Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli,s, NJ,
1982.
[19] T. Belytschko, W.K. Liu, B. Moran, Nonlinear Finite
Elements for Continua and Structures, Wiley, Chichester,
New York, 2000.
[20] E. Riks, Some computational aspects of the stability analysis
of nonlinear structures, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
47 (1984) 219–259.
1132 C.A. Schenk, G.I. Schu.eller / International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 38 (2003) 1119 – 1132
[21] M.A. Cris>eld, Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids
and Structures, Vol. 1, Essentials, Wiley, Chichester, New
York, 1991.
[22] E. Riks, Progress in collapse analyses, J. Pressure Vessel
Technol. 109 (1987) 33–41.
[23] K. Park, G. Stanley, A curved C 0 shell element based on
assumed natural-coordinate strains, J. Appl. Mech. 53 (1986)
278–290.
[24] C.C. Rankin, F.A. Brogan, W.A. Loden, H.D. Cabiness,
STAGS (STructural Analysis of General Shells) User
Manual, LMSC P032594, Version 3.0, Lockheed Martin
Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA,
1998.
[25] C.C. Rankin, Institute of Engineering Mechanics,
Leopold Franzens University, Austria, EU, 2000, personal
communication.
[26] E. Riks, C.C. Rankin, F.A. Brogan, The numerical
simulation of the collapse process of axially compressed
cylindrical shells with measured imperfections, Technical
Report LR-705, TU Delft, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering,
1992.
[27] R. Lorenz, Achsensymmetrische Verzerrungen in
d+unnwandigen Hohlzylindern, Zeitschrift des Vereins
Deutscher Ingenieure 52, 1908.
[28] S.P. Timoshenko, Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hill
Book, New York, 1936.
[29] J. Arbocz, J.M.A.M. Hol, Koiter’s stability theory in a
computer aided engineering (CAE) environment, Internat. J.
Solids Struct. 26 (9 –10) (1991) 945–973.
[30] J.M.A.M. Hol, Shell Design & Analysis System, Usage
Notes, Delft University of Technology, Koiter Institute, The
Netherlands, Version 1.2c., 1996.
[31] D. Bushnell, Computerized analysis of shells—governing
equations, Comput. Struct. 18 (3) (1984) 471–536.
[32] F.A. Brogan, C.C. Rankin, H.D. Cabiness, STAR Reference
Manual, LMMS P032595, Lockheed Martin Missiles and
Space Co., Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1996.
[33] MATLAB, Version 5.3, The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA,
1999.
[34] PERL, Version 5.005-02, L. Hall, 1998.
[35] T.T. Soong, M. Grigoriu, Random Vibration of Mechanical
and Structural Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli,s, NJ,
1993.
[36] M. Lo:eve, Probability Theory, 3rd Edition, D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ, 1963.
[37] R.G. Ghanem, P.D. Spanos, Spectral stochastic >nite-
element formulation for reliability analysis, J. Eng. Mech.
117 (10) (1991) 2351–2370.