N A S AC O N T R A C T O R REPORT

NAS
: -

LOAN COPY: RETURN T@ AFWL (WLIL-2) KIRTLAND AFB, N

THE BUCKLING OF THIN-WALLED CIRCULARCYLINDERSUNDER AXIALCOMPRESSION A N D B E N D I N G

by F. R. Stnurt, J. T. Goto, und E. E. Sechler
Prepared by

CALIFORNIAINSTITUTE
Pasadena, Calif.
for

OF TECHNOLOGY

NATIONAA L ERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

W A S H I N G T O N , D. C.

SEPTEMBER 1 9 6 8

/ NASA CR-

1160

TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

00b037b

THE BUCKLING OF THIN-WALLED CIRCULAR CYLINDERS

UNDER AXIAL COMPRESSION AND BENDING

By F. Rr Stuart, J. T. , ~ d o t o g n d E. E. Sechler
../

/-"---?

" " _ _ I . " -

- ."

Distribution of this report is provided in the interestof informationexchange.Responsibility for thecontents resides in the author or organization that prepared it.

/'Prepared under Grant No. NsG-18-59 by E C CALIFORNIA INSTWWM? OF T Pasadena, Calif. for

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 CFSTI price $3.00

THE BUCKLING O F THIN- WALLED CIRCULAR CYLINDERS UNDER AXIAL COMPRESSION AND BENDING

By F. R . Stuart, J. T. Goto, and E. E. Sechler

C a l i f o r n i a I n s t i t u t e of Technology SUMMARY A s e r i e s of tests was conducted on both 'electroplated copper and Mylar cylinders under combined axial compression and bending. Great c a r e w a s t a k e n t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e c y l i n d e r s w e r eas p e r f e c t a s w a s possible and loading and boundary conditions were carefully controlled. For the Mylar cylinders, corrections were made for both area and s t i f f n e s s of the lap joint. Under these conditions, much higher values of the buckling stress have been obtained than had been reported on by previous investigators. INTRODUCTION A s an extension of the work on the buckling stress of thinwalled circular cylinders,

it was desirable to determine the effects

of

combined loading conditions. bending.

One of the most important of t h e s e f r o m

a structural design standpoint is the combination of axial load and

By using an electroplating technique discussed in References

a minimum of

1 , 2 , and 3 , thin- walled cylinders could be made without seams , with a high degree of dimensional accuracy, and which had initial deformations. In addition to the tests on these "perfect" metal c y l i n d e r s , a number of t e s t s w e r e r u n o n c y l i n d e r s m a d e f r o m M y l a r . These cylinders had a l a p s e a m w h o s e d i m e n s i o n s w e r e v a r i e d . T h e main difference between these tests on Mylar specimens and those carried out by other experimenters lay in the fact that the effect of both the area and the stiffness of the seam were taken into account in reducing the experimental data. Loading and boundary conditions were carefully controlled and any anomalies in the data were systematically investigated.

The combination of axial compression and bending, even though

it is a c o m m o n l o a d i n g f o r b o t h a i r c r a f t a n d m i s s i l e s , h a s n o t b e e n
extensively investigated. References check points in reference 4 and 5 give interaction data for this loading condition for celluloid and Mylar cylinders with

a few

4 for metal specimens. Even the case for

pure bending has been in doubt since, until recently, the theoretical value of c r i t i c a l b e n d i n g s t r e s s w a s a c c e p t e d a s t h a t p r e s e n t e d by Fltigge, namely 1.3
u c (Ref. 6 ) . It hasbeenshown(Ref.

7) that

Fliigge's calculation was quite restricted and a m o r e g e n e r a l i n v e s t i g a tion has led to the conclusion that the maximum stress to cause bending f a i l u r e is t h e s a m e a s t h a t n e c e s s a r y t o c a u s e f a i l u r e u n d e r u n i f o r m axial compression. In the past, experimental investigations have been discouraging. The correspondence with theory was poor (Ref. 8) and the scatter has been great. However,

it has been shown by Babcock that careful fabri-

cation of the test specimens and good control of the experimentation will lead to more satisfactory results. These controls have been practiced i n t h e c u r r e n t s e t of t e s t s . The Metal Specimens T h e e l e c t r o f o r m i n g p r o c e s s d i s c u s s e d i n R e f e r e n c e 1 was used. Briefly, the method consists of plating a copper shell on an accurately
is cut to a length of 10 inches

machined 8 . 0 inch (20.3 cm) diameter form which has been coated with silver paint. After plating, the shell shown in Table I. T h e a v e r a g e t h i c k n e s s of the shell was found by accurately weighing the shell and dividing this weight by the surface area and density. 3 A density of 8 . 9 g r a m s / c c (8900 k g / m ) was used for this purpose and checks of the actual thickness using a comparator on samples confirmed the method. Spot checks on typical cylinders indicated that the variation in thickness over the shell area was not g r e a t e r t h a n t 3 /o.
0

(25.4 cm) and is removed by melting the wax. Specimen dimensions are

See Table

I1 f o r t y p i c a l r e s u l t s .
P o i s s o n ' s R a t i o w a s t a k e n as 0.30 and the modulus of elasticity w a s m e a s u r e d by s p e c i m e n s f r o m e a c h s h e l l w h i c h w e r e t e s t e d i n

uniaxial tension on an Instron testing machine.

2

A typical stress-strain

c u r v e is shown in Fig. 1 which indicates good l i n e a r i t y u p t o a stress value of about 13, 000 p s i ( 8 9 . 6 M N / m ). The value of Young's modulus used to reduce the data is a n a v e r a g e of s e v e r a l t e s t s c o n d u c t e d o n specimens from each shell. These values are shown in Table
1 1 1 .

Table 1 1 1also indicates the scatter obtained during these tests. Similar values for electroplated copper were obtained by Read and Graham (Ref. 9) and they explained the scatter by the grain size of different specimens. After mounting the b a s e of the specimen in the testing machine, m e a s u r e m e n t s w e r e t a k e n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d e v i a t i o n of the cylinder g e n e r a t o r s f r o m a straight line. The pick-up was an iron-core reluctance unit with an output of approximately 25 volts/inch (10 volts/cm) and had a working range of 0.200 inches (7.87 mm). c i r c u m f e r e n c e ,F i g . 2. Figs.3, It was mounted on
a vertical slide that could be placed at any place desired around the

4, and 5 show typical data.

Test Procedure for Metal Cylinders The cylindrical shell was first mounted in a b r a s s end ring with a low temperature melting point alloy, Cerrobend. After the Cerrobend hardened, the other end

of the shell was mounted in the load ring

of the

testing machine with the same material. The testing machine was then rotated to the testing position (horizontal) and the free end plate with Devcon Plastic Steel. Figure and shell in the testing position. Although the testing machine was originally designed for axial loading it was possible to apply a bending moment by varying the end plate displacement through non-uniform adjustmentof the three loading screws. Close control of the end plate movement was possible since
a

of t h e s h e l l

(that opposite to the load ring) was rigidly attached to the machine end
6 shows the testing machine

single revolution of the loading screws corresponded to 0.025 inch

(0.635 m m ) and the screw could be adjusted to one tooth of the 180 tooth
loading gear. The total applied load and the load distribution was obtained from the loading ring, Fig.

7.

This was a b r a s s c y l i n d e r 8 . 0 0 inches

(20.32 cm) in diameter, 2.50 inches (6.35 cm) long and 0.0107 inches (0.271 m m ) thick. Twenty-four strain gages were mounted around the inside and outside circumference

at equally spaced stations

inside and

outside gages being directly opposite each other. The load ring gages were connected into a bridge circuit with dummy gages on a b r a s s plate to give temperature compensation. The output was connected to a n a m p l i f i e r and read out on a Leeds and Northrop voltmeter. The load ring was calibrated to determine the load and moment as of gage output. Typical calibration curves are shown in Fig. a function

8.

The actual testing was carried out in the following manner: After the shell was mounted, the desired difference in strain gage readings was adjusted at diametrically opposite points in the shell. Once the desired moment was applied, all three loading screws were operated simultaneously to apply uniform axial compression. Data w e r e t a k e n a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50
at small i n c r e m e n t s t h e r e a f t e r .
0

/ o of the anticipated buckling load and

If necessary, individual screw adjust-

ments were made to maintain the desired bending moment. The axial compression load was increased until buckling occurred and the highest strain gage readings were recorded. Test Results on Metal Cylinders
A t o t a l of 16 s h e l l s w e r e t e s t e d . T a b l e

I gives the description

of the specimens and Table

V a s u m m a r y of t h e r e s u l t s . T h e d a t a a r e

shown plotted in F i g . 9 in which ubR/Et

CC = u c R / E t

0.6 = ucjR/Et

where ub

= m a x i m u mb e n d i n gs t r e s s
= uniform compressive

stress

u c e = classicalbucklingstress

Buckling occurred in all tests with complete failure and subsequent large load reduction. There were no visual indications of local buckling before failure. The postbuckling state was the familiar diamond shaped pattern occurring in several rows around the circumference in most cases. When high moments were present, buckling of the shell. was restricted to the high stress side

Strain gage data was reduced by a F o u r i e r a n a l y s i s c a r r i e d o u t o n a n IBM 7094 computer. The method employed was that Reference 10. The data were presented in the form

of

6
strain gage reading
= A.
0

B n

COS

(0

+n)

M= 1
and the constant and the first harmonic coefficients were used to calculate the applied loads and stresses. Table IV gives the results of t h i s analysis and F i g s . 10 and 11 s h o w typical correspondence between the actual strain gage readings and the Fourier representation used to calculate the buckling stresses. A few metal cylinders were tested under dead-weight loading, in contrast to a fixed displacement loading. These are also shown in Fig. 9 and the data show the same trend as those obtained earlier. Another method of presenting the data is shown in F i g . 12 where rb/uce whe r e

crTOT/cceis plottedagainst

Conclusions Concerning Metal Cylinders F i g u r e s 9 and 10 indicate that careful testing of carefully made metal cylinders will give much higher values for the buckling stresses than have been reported on p r e v i o u s l y . I n g e n e r a l , t h e t o t a l s t r e s s t h a t can be developed lies between 0 . 6 5 and 0 . 9 5 t i m e s t h e c l a s s i c a l b u c k l i n g stress, the higher vhlues being obtained for loads approaching pure bending. There may be two reasons for this trend namely:
5

a) The high stresses for pure bending are acting over a smaller percentage of the total shell and, b) The effect of the fixed boundary as discussed in Reference 3 may be different for bending than it is i n uniform axial compression and may not be as effective in lowering the buckling stress. The Mylar Specimens A s e c o n d p r o g r a m o n t h e s a m e p r o b l e m w a s s e t up using cylind e r s m a d e of Mylar. The advantage in using

this m a t e r i a l is that, if

postbuckling is n o t c a r r i e d t o o f a r , t h e s p e c i m e n d o e s n o t s u f f e r permanent damage upon buckling and can, therefore, be used to obtain many data points. T h e s p e c i m e n s w e r e 8 inches (20.32 cm) in diameter and inches (25.40 cm) long and had thicknesses ranging from 0.00475 to 0.0103 inches (0.1206 to 0.2616 10

mm).

The ends were cast in

circular slot in an aluminum end plate using Cerrolow,

a low melting

point alloy. In order to assure that the Mylar did not slip in the alloy (particularly when the sheet was in tension) it was found necessary to add a locking device to the edge. This was easily accomplished buried in the Cerrolow. Loading was through a ring dynamometer and was accomplished by a h a n d - t u r n e d , f i n e t h r e a d s c r e w a t t a c h e d t o t h e f r a m e of the testing machine. The by putting a row of paper staples around the edge so that they would be

r i n g dynamometer was calibrated with dead weights.

Load points all lay along a diameter containing the seam and the combined loading consisted of an axial compressive load equal to (See Fig. 13)

PA = PL

+ PH

w h e r e PL = the load read by the dynamometer plus the dynamometer dead weight and

PH = the dead weight

of the loading head.

1-

f
To this is added a bending moment given by
M = P where e
= the distance of the loading point from the

+ PH x s e Lx e-

experimentally determined neutral axis and 6e = t h e d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e c e n t e r l i n e specimen to the neutral axis. T h e s e a m s w e r e m a d e as an overlap cemented with an Epoxy cement. Since the combination of Epoxy and Mylar did not have the same Young's modulus a s t h e M y l a r a l o n e , t y p i c a l s e a m s w e r e c u t from specimens and tested in uniaxial tension to determine the seam mo dulus , Es. From this value and the seam dimensions a theoretical neutral axis and an effective area could be calculated as indicated in the Appendix. In addition to the theoretical neutral axis, an experimental one was determined by finding that loading point which gave the maximum axial load carrying ability
7 specimens tested are shown in

of the

of the specimen. Curves for the

F i g . 14. Since the experimental

determination of the neutral axis also took into account any effect of seam initial waviness, the experimental value was used to calculate the bending moments and the bending stresses. Test Results on Mylar Cylinders Table VI1 g i v e s t h e s t r e s s r a t i o s f o r t h e s e v e n M y l a r c y l i n d e r s tested and the results are plotted in g e n e r a l ,t h e r e F i g s . 19 t o 21 inclusive. In
r c / r c $ andcrb/rc&

is a linearrelationshipbetween

and the maximum allowable total stress remains nearly constant. As i n t h e m e t a l c y l i n d e r s , w h e n t h e s t r e s s i s primarily due to bending, the buckling stress is somewhat higher than it is when a uniform axial c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e s s is acting. Even
s o , t h e i n c r e a s e is not great and
so, to use the same value

it would be conservative, but not excessively

axial compression.

for the allowable maximum bending stress as is found for uniform

Collected summary data for the shown in Figs. a r e shown in F i g . 24.

two s m a l l e s t R / t r a t i o s a r e
all data collected in

22 and 2 3 a n d t h e s u m m a r y f o r t h e t o t a l s t r e s s r a t i o s
Finally, the collection of
is shown in F i g . 2 5 in

this study both on Mylar and metal cylinders comparison with previously existing data.

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions appear valid as a r e s u l t of this study on combined axial and bending loads on circular cylinders:

I)

By using careful control over specimen and testing

technique variables, much higher values previously reported. This

of cylinder

buckling stresses can be obtained than have been

is true, not only for seamless

m e t a l c y l i n d e r s m a d e b y a plating process, but also for Mylar cylinders having a l a p s e a m .

2)

Thebuckling

stress for bending can conservatively

b e a s s u m e d t o b e t h e s a m e a s t h a t found by tests on cylinders loaded with uniform axial c o m p r e s s i o n .

3)

When t h e m a x i m u m t o t a l s t r e s s

is o n t h e s e a m s i d e

of such cylinders the buckling stress may be lower than when the maximum s t r e s s is opposite to the seam, but

it still h a s a value equal to that found in pure compression.

4)

Detailed study of the effect of the boundary conditions

on cylinders under bending appears to be called for.

"

APPENDIX
Correction equations for the effect of the seam on the moment and stress analysis. Letting

t
w
tS
S

= thickness of cylinder wall = width of s e a m = thickness of s e a m = cylinder radius = Young' s modulus of

R
E
material

cylinder
= Young's modulus
of s e a m

Il Y
cement

Then the effective area is Ae

= 2 ~ Rt wst

S + wS( t s -$

= 2rRt

+ wst s

( -

ES

- "1

Sec. A

tS

The distance to the neutral axis

is

since

tS 2 <<

R.
x-x axis is given by

The moment of inertia about

In

3 = rR t

+ 2rrRty2 + w st s ( E S

T)(R
S

2 - -y)

( A - 3)

and,aboutthey-yaxisis

I YY

3 r R t +

12

(A-4)

.. .

Conversion of U. S. Customary Units to SI Units The International System of Units (SI) was adopted by the Eleventh General Conference on Weights and Measures, Resolution No. 12, Ref. 11. a r e given in the following table: Physical Customary Factor Quantity Density Force Length Paris, October 1960, i n Conversion factors for the units used herein

u. s.
(:%)

SI Unit

Unit lbm/ft
lbf
3

16.02 4.448 0.0254 2.54 25.4

3 3 6.895~10

3 3 kilograms /meter (kg /m )

newtons ( N ) m e t e r s (m) centimeters (cm) m i l l i m e t e r s (mm) n e w t o n s / m e t e r( N / m millimeters millimeters

in. in. in.

Stress Area Moment of Inertia Bending moment

psi=lbf /m
in.

645.2

(mrn ) ( m m )

in

4 4.163~10
0.1130

in- lbf

meter-newtons (m-N)

. L 1 .

y conversion factor to Multiply value g j.ven in U. S. Customary Unit bb obtain equivalent value in SI Unit. Prefixes used giga mega c e( n ct) i milli (G)
= = =

lo9
10

(M)

6
2

1010

(m)

-3

10

REFERENCES

1.

Babcock, C. D. : T h e Buckling of Cylindrical Shells with a n Initial Imperfection under Axial Compression Loading. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, 1962.

Ph. D.

2.

Babcock, C. D. and Sechler, NASA T N 2005, July 1963.

E. E. : The Effect of Initial

Imperfections on the Buckling Stress of Cylindrical Shells. 3. Babcock, C. D. December 1964. 4. Bruhn, E. F. : T e s t s on Thin-Walled Celluloid Cylinders to Determine the Interaction Curves under Combined Bending, Torsion, and Compression or Tension Loads. January 1945. 5. Weingarten, V. I. , Morgan,E.
J. , andSeide,

and Sechler,

E. E. : The Effect of End Slope on

NASA TN D-2537,

the Buckling Stress

of Cylindrical Shells.

NACA TN 951,
P. : FinalReport

on Development of Design Criteria for Elastic Stability of Thin Shell Structures. Space Technology Laboratories, Report 6. 7. Fliigge, W. : DieStabilitaetderKreiszylinderschale.Ingen. Archiv. No. STL/TR-60-0000-19425 (EM 10-26),December1960,pp.127-132.

, Vol.3,1932,pp.463-506.
V. I. : On the Buckling

Seide, P. , and Weingarten, Laboratories, Report

of C i r c u l a r 1959.

Cylindrical Shells under Pure Bending. Space Technology No. TR-59-0000-00688(EM4-11),June London,1960, 8. Fung, Y. C. , and Sechler, pp. 115- 116. 9. Read, H. J . , and Graham, ChemicalSociety, 10. Vol. 108, A. H. : The Elastic Modulus and
of E l e c t r o -

E. E. : Instability of Thin Elastic Shells.

S t r u c t u r a lM e c h a n i c s ,P e r g a m o nP r e s s ,O x f o r d ,

Internal Friction of Electrodeposited Copper. Journ. No. 2, 1961. von KBrmAn, T . : and Biot, Engineering, McGraw-Hill 336-338. 11. Mechtly, E. A. : The International System of Units Constants and Conversion Factors.

M. : Mathematical Methods in Book Co., Inc.

, NewYork,1940,pp.

Physical

NASA SP-7012,1964.

11

TABLE I DESCRIPTION OF T E S T S P E C I M E N S

R/t

T Shell hickness

Length
inc h e s

(cm)

3 inches x 10
4. 78

(mm)

s-1
s-2 s-3

9. 97
9. 98 10. 03

(25. 32) (25. 34) (25. 48) (25. 32) (25. 34) (25. 40) (25. 40) (25. 32) (25. 32) (25. 32) (25. 32) (25. 32) (25. 32) (25. 32) (25. 32) (25. 32)

(0. 121) (0. 119)

(0. 126)

838

4. 6 9 4. 97 4. 78
4. 68

855 805 838 855

81 5

s-4

9. 97 9. 98
10.00 10.00 9. 97

(0. 121)
(0. 119)

s- 5
S-6 s-7
S-8

4. 91 4. 60 4. 78
4. 8 5 4. 76

(0. 125)
(0. 117)

870 836 825 824 92 5 7 97 730 795 783 1000

(0. 121) (0. 123)

(0. 121) ( 0 . 109)

s-9
s-10
s-11

9. 97
9. 97

9. 97
9. 97

4. 31 5. 02 5. 48 5. 04
5. 12

s-12 S-13 S-14 S-15 S-16

(0. 128)
(0. 139)

9. 97
9. 97 9. 97

(0. 128)
(0. 130)
( 0 . 101)

9. 97

3. 97

12

T A B L E II THICKNESS VARIATION OF S H E L L S
14

12
3

11

N u m b e r s i n d i c a t e p o s i t i o n o n shell at w h i c h thickness specimens were cut. T h i c k n e s s inches x 1O3

Pos Sih ti eo ll n S-8
(mm)

Shell S-1 1 4. 31
( 0 . 109)

S S-h 1e 2l l
5. 00
4. 88 (0. 127)

1 2 3
4

4. 82 4. 8 7 4. 88 4. 80 4. 72 4. 66 4. 6 5 4. 88 4. 89

(0. 122)
(0. 124) (0. 124)

4. 36 (0. 111)
4. 40 (0. 112) 4. 39 (0. 112) 4. 3 4 (0. 110)

(0. 124)
( 0 . 123)

4. 8 5
4. 94
5. 0 5

(0. 122) (0. 120)

(0. 125)
( 0 . 128)
(0. 131)

6
7
8

(0. 118)
(0. 118)

4. 26 ( 0 . 108) 4. 1 9 (0. 106)

4. 26 (0. 108)

5. 17 5. 21 4. 89 4. 8 1 4. 82
4. 97

( 0 . 132)

(0. 124) (0. 124) (0. 123) (0. 120) (0. 119)
(0. 119)
(0. 122)

(0. 124)

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average

4. 3 4 (0. 110) 4. 40 ( 0 . 112) 4. 3 5 (0. 110)

4. 28

(0. 122)
(0. 122)

4. 8 5
4. 7 4
4. 69 4. 68

(0. 126) (0. 131) (0. 131)

(0. 126) (0. 125)
(0. 127)

(0. 109)

5. 17 5. 1 7 4. 98
4. 92 4. 99

4. 2 3 ( 0 . 107)

4. 81
4. 77

4. 39 (0. 112)
4. 41 (0. 112)

(0. 121)

4. 78

(0. 121)

4. 33 (0. 110)

13

TABLE III YOUNG'S MODULUS TEST RESULTS

Shell

E
psi x 10

Ernax- Ernin o ,
2 (GN/m 1

-6 5)

ave 9. 2
2. 0

' 0

s-1 16. 15, s-2 s-3

15. 3
7

(105. (115. 1 ) (104. 1) (103. 4) (105. 5) (1 09.2) (102. 7) (110. 3 )

(115. 8)

1 15. 0 15, 3
7

12. 0 6. 6
4. 6

s-4
s-5 15. S-6

5. 2 8. 0
5. 0 7. 2

s-7
S-8

14. 9 16. 0

s-9
15. 16. 16. s-10 s-11 s-12 S-13 15. S-14 15. S-15 14. S-16

16. 8
9
0

(109. 6) (110. 3 ) (1 13.8) (108. 9) 11. (1 07.6) 08. (1

9. 4
7. 6
2. 4

15. 8 6 8 9

9. 4 6
5. 0

9)

(102. 7)

9. 4

14

TABLE IV

RESULTS OF FOURIER ANALYSIS" Strain gage reading = A t B

0

cos

(e

- 5 n); n = 1 , 2 . . .

Shell

A.

B1

51

B2

t 2

B3

53

B4

54

B5

I 5

B6

t6

S-1 S-2

145,4 340, 1 264.4 209. 9

7

96. 8 6. 5 63, 5 145. -25' 6 44. 4 204 249.7 118.8 150, 1 232.2

-24' 10' -35'

9. 6
8. 9 10. 9
13. 9

-26

2. 5

-66' -86' -80' 75'

0. 8

-81' -31' -45' 68' 40'

3, 9 3.4 1. 9 2.2 1. 5

2' -69'

0.4

0'

31'

9. 3
8, 6 4. 0

5, 3
3.2 2,2

1. 9
0.2 2.1 2. 9

0'
0'

5 :

S-3
S-4

58' 25' -59 -77' -67' 51' -67' 77'

0

64'
-88' -22' 48'

0' 0'

S-5 282.

-19'
-30' -32' -34' -29' -33'

11. 2 16. 8 19.6 18. 6

4 3. 7. -37' 5 4, 4 24' 23' 55' 2. 4 2.4

3. 6

S-6
s-7 5-8

11 1. 7

-79' -37' -45' 73' -31'

1. 8 3.0
0. 9 5. 4 3.0

0. 5 0. 7
1.2 5, 3 0.2

0'
0'

108. 1
268. 3 213, 0 165. 0

3,8

-19'
-46' -72' -82'

9. 1
11.5

Oo
0' 0'

S-9
S-10

9, 3
28.4

4 ' 69'

14,2

6. 1

5.0

T A B L E IV (cont'd) RESULTS OF FOURIER ANALYSIS S t r a i n g a g e r e a d i n g = A. t Bn c o s

(e - t

n); n = 1 , 2

...

Shell

A.

B1

tl
-28'

B2

1B 24 E 3 B 3

5 4

*5

f 5

B6

56

S-11 125, S-12 331. 3

51. 6

307. 3

29. -59 9
8 10. 1 39. 9 11. 5 10. 10. 0

4. 1 16. 2 4. 7 6. 6

-87' 18O -75' 5. 72'

315,

82' -69' 40' -76'

5.4

88'

1. 6 0. 2

0'

9
169, 1
297. 4 209. 8

-17' -35' -25O 6' -31'

22' -88' 3' -35' -71'

7. 7
6. 6

6. 6
7. 9
2. 7 3. 1 9 1.

5'

Oo
0' 0'

+ a 3

S-13 S-14 202. 5 16. S-15 380. 8 263.0 7 S-16 25.

-29' 85' -25' 54'

1. 3
5 2.

9
2. 8 2. 8

9. 4
4.4

-69'
59'

4' 58'

0. 4
2. 6

Oo
0'

* T a b u l a t e d v a l u e s are s t r a i n g a g e r e a d i n g s i n m v x l o 2 at buckling.

TABLE V
S U M M A R Y OF BUCKLING DATA

Shell

b max

max

CC
2

CC

psi

(MN / m2)
(16.93) ( 1. 16)

psi

(MN/m)
(22. 97) 0.187 0.41 7 (54.77) 0.319 (40.18) 0.274 (33.17) 0. 38 (45.62)

-T
0. 309

Cb
0.134 0. 0 1 0.083 0.205 0.064

c ,
( r

Cb

s-1
s-2 s-3

2456 168

3332

0.218
0. 016
I

1551

s-4 s-5
c .
4

3695
1150 5040
. .

S-6

7945 (10. 69) 5828 4811 (25.47) 6618 ( 7.93) 0.261 0.220 0.133 18) (34. (17. 2492 75)

0.690 0. 527 0.453 0.628

0.137 0.239 0.106

I
I

i
I

0.481
0. 33

s-7 S-8

s-9 s-10 s-11 s-12 S-13 S-14 S-15 S-16

6586 301 5 3755 5920 8650 3042 6586 5052 391 8038

(45. 0.154 2575 (17. 75) 40) 0.254 0.384 0.635 (42. 40) 50 (20. 61 79) (26. 03) 481 1

0. 545

0.243 (40. 81) 3798 (26. 18) 0.206 1310 0.078 (59.63) ( 9 .0 3 ) 30 (49. 0.367 (20. 97) 72 84) 3380 0.160 (45.40) (23.30) 0. 23 4403 (34.83) (30.35) 81 48 (56. 17) 0.414 ( 2 . 70) 708 0.049 ( 4. 88) (55.4 1 )
(33. 17)

0.401 0. 341 0.129 0.606 0.264 0. 380 0.684 0.081

0.158 0.261 0.184 0. 313 0. 501 0.150 0. 304 0.257 0.019 0. 543

0.304 0. 517 0.829 0.248 0. 502 0.425 0.031 0.897

TABLE VI MYLAR SPECIMEN DETAILS

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~

A l l Specimens

- Radius

= 4. 0 in,Length
(10.16 cm) = 731,000 psi 2 (5. 04 GN/m )

= 10, 0 in.
(25. 4 cm)

E = Esheet
EffectEffectSeam Seam Seam Sheet Thickness ness Width ThickModulated lus ive

Calcu-

ive Area A e 2 in. (mm )

0.2692 (173. 7) 0.2636 (170. 1 ) 0.2609 (168. 3) 0,1909 (123. 2)

Mom,
her.

t
in. Spec. No.
r 0) 1

W S

e '
in.

c. g. offset e
0

Exper. c. g. offset e
*C

Buckling Stress
r
C

in.
(mm)

in.
2
(mm) (mm)

psi x1 0

4- 3

2 E/ (GN/m ) Es 605 (4. 22) 605 (4, 22) 605 0.828 (4. 22) 605 0.828 (4, 22) 605 (4, 22) 605 0.828 (4. 22) 530 (3. 70) 0. 725
0. 828

psi in, 4 -4 (mm x10 ) (mm)

2.231 (92. 86) 2. 162 (89. 99) 2.105 (87. 62)
0. 1560 (3. 962)

in, (mm)
0. 150 (3. 810) 0
( 0 )

2 (MN/m ) 1129 (7. 784) 1129 (7. 784) 1129 (7. 784) 786 (5. 419) 786 (5. 41 9) 786 (5. 41 9) 52 0 (3. 585)

0. 0103 (0. 262)

0. 01 03 (0. 262)

1.0 (25. 4) 0. 5 (12. 7) 0. 2

( 5. 08)

0. 0252 (0. 640) 0. 0245 (0. 622) 0. 0258 (0. 655) 0. 0210
(0. 533)

0. 828
0. 828

2 3 4 5

0103 (0. 262) 0. 00718

( 0 . 182)

I).

1. 0 (25. 4)
0. 5 (12. 7)

1. 597 (66. 47)

0. 00718
(0. 182)

0. 0186 (0. 472)

0. 1848 (11 9. 2 ) 0. 1830 (118. 1 ) 0.1245 (80. 3)

6
7

0. 00718 (0. 182) 0. 00475

(0. 121)

0. 2 ( 5. 08) 1.0 (25. 4)

0. 0225 (0. 572) 0. 0160 (0. 406)

1. 507 (62. 73) 1.478 (61. 52) 1. 046 (43. 54)

0.0758 (1. 925) 0. 0340 (0. 864) 0. 2141 (5. 438) 0. 0890 (2. 261) 0. 0500 (1. 270) 0. 1860 (4. 724)

-0. 030 ( -0. 762)

0. 300 (7. 620) 0. 030 (0. 762)

0
( 0 )

0.250 (6. 350

TABLE VII MYLAR TEST RESULTS

Specimen No. 1

Specimen No. 2

Specimen No. 3

~~

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.297

0. 569 0. 542 0. 503

0.472

0. 866 0. 863

0.296

0. 550
0. 508
0.845 0.494

0. 846

0.259 0.284

0.483 0.464 0.432 0.399 0.349

0. 742
0. 748

0. 321
0. 344

0. 312 0. 351 0. 383

0. 415

0. 820
0. 833 0. 806 0. 816

0. 847
0. 855

0. 308 0. 340
0.373

0. 740 0. 739 0. 721

0. 722

0. 383
0, 422

0. 450 0. 391 0. 369 0. 334 0.804

0. 302

0. 424
0.395

0.846

0.445 0.468 0.499

0. 840 0. 830 0. 837

0. 829

0.447 0.470

0. 396
0. 428
0.468

0. 326

0. 362 0. 328
0.291 0.241 0.186 0.125

0. 302
0,274 0.234 0.188

0 . 730
0. 742 0. 734

0. 510
0. 550

0. 812 0. 811 0. 767

9
10

0. 538 0. 569

0.261 0.202

0. 500 0. 540 0. 588

0. 810 0. 794 0. 787 0. 767

0.806

0. 565 0. 621 0. 676

0.739

0. 728
0. 736
0.739

11
12 13 14 15

0. 608
0. 662 0. 716

0. 0.769 148 0. 081 0

0. 0.757 081

0. 148 0. 071
0,011

0. 757
0.739

0. 668
0. 740 0. 684 0. 620

0. 051 0. 036 0. 108

0. 751
0.777

0. 770 0. 654

0. 676 0. 613

0. 093
0.159

0. 762

0.7 05 .1 94 6

0. 779

TABLE VI1 (Cont'd)

MYLAR TEST RESULTS
"
~~~

Specimen No. 1

Specimen No. 2

Specimen No. 3

~~

-~

16
17

0.600

0.170 0.218 0.254 0.291

0. 770 0, 7 6 4
0. 745

0. 573 0. 525
0. 494

0.205 0.241 0.293

0. 778 0. 776 0. 787

0. 790

0. 564
0. 516

0.213 0.256 0.288

0.777

0. 546 0. 491
0. 460

0. 772
0. 756
0.735

18

0. 468
0. 424 0. 392 0. 372

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

0. 751 0. 7 5 0
0. 742

0.462
0. 431 0. 415

0. 328
0. 356
0. 391

0. 311
0.333

0. 429 0. 398
0.359
0. 328

0. 321 0. 344
0. 392

0. 787 0. 806 0. 798 0. 807

0.777

0. 725
0. 732

0. 360 0. 399
0.429 0.458 0.475

0. 751
0.761

0. 367 0. 336
0.296 0,280

0. 431
0.471 0.481

0. 331 0. 300
0.276 0.251

0. 730
0.729 0.734

0.433 0.460 0.485

0.298 0.274

0. 758
0.759

0. 520

0.800

0. 726

Points 1 1 3 max bending s t r e s s is on sideoppositeseam. Points 13 2 5 max bending s t r e s s i s at the seam,

R / t for Specimens 1, 2 and 3 = 388.

TABLE VII (Contd)

MYLAR TEST RESULTS

Specimen No. 4 Specimen No. 5

Load

* *
FC
0-

< b
U
C

cQ

cQ

0-

Cl

C l

0-

cQ

%4?
0.735
0. 730 0. 700 0. 742
0. 7 6 1

0.298
0. 322

0.554
0. 532 0. 512

0. 852

0.265 0.285 0.298 0.346 0.395

0. 41 1

0.470 0.445 0.402 0.396 0.366 0.335

0. 3 1 5

2
3

0.854 0.865
0. 825

0.353 0.369 0.417 0.432 0.464

0. 480 0. 511
0. 535

4 5

0.456
0. 426

0.843 0.827 0.838

0. 8 1 4

6
7 8

0.395 0.374 0.334 0.299 0.254 0.220

0. 160

0.746
0. 762 0. 758 0. 776

0.447 0.476
0. 525 0. 557 0. 606

0.282 0.2 51 0.203

0. 150

9
10

0.810 0.789
0. 826

0.760 0.756 0.759

0. 713 0. 729 0. 71 9 0. 701 0. 713
0. 719

11

0.606 0.637 0.669 0.763

0. 732

12 13 14 15

0.797
0. 761 0. 781
0. 799

0.671
0. 703 0. 661 0. 590 0. 525 0. 492 0. 460 0. 428

0.088 0.010 0.068 0.129 0.176 0.221 0.259 0.288 0.310 0.340 0.370
0. 398

0. 092
0. 018

0.067 0.137
0. 198

16
17 18

0.669
0. 621 0. 590 0. 558 0. 519

0.806 0.819 0.844

0. 861 0. 858

0.254
0. 303

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

0. 716

0.339
0. 379

0.395 0.379 0.334

0. 301

0.706 0.719 0.705 0.699

0. 7 1 4 0. 7 0 4

0.495 0.432 0.401 0.353 0.339

0.874 0.856
0. 8 8 1

0.424 0.480 0.497

0. 546

0.850
0. 885

0.282 0.257

0.432 0.447

R / t for Specimens 4, 5 and 6 = 557

.21

TABLE VII (Contd) MYLAR TEST RESULTS Specimen No. 6 Specimen No. 7

Load-

U
U

b
C

0-

t
C&

CQ

0-

C&

0-

cQ

1 2 3 4 5

0.286 0.318
0. 351 0. 384 0. 416

0. 508

0.794
0. 819 0. 832

0.212 0.230 0.248 0.273 0.295

0. 320 0. 338 0. 356 0. 403 0. 41 7

0. 381 0. 369 0. 346 0. 328

0. 593 0. 599

0. 501 0. 481

0. 594
0.601

0.439
0. 383 0. 350 0. 324

0. 823
0.799

0.2 92 0.283 0.263 0.239 0.227 0.189

0. 152

0. 587
0.603
0. 601

6
7 8 9 10
11

0.433 0.466 0.498

0. 531 0. 556 0. 613 0. 646 0. 728 0. 679 0. 605 0. 564 0. 548

0. 783
0. 790 0. 788

0.290 0.248
0. 196

0.595 0.630 0.606

0.779
0. 752 0. 758 0. 722

0.145 0.076
0

0.446 0.490
0. 536

0. 598 0. 602
0. 598 0. 591 0. 598 0. 592

12 13 14 15

0.112 0.062
0

0. 728
0.759 0.747 0.762 0.805

0.080
0. 142

0. 591 0. 536
0.482 0.454

0.062 0.110 0.154 0.188 0.220 0.252 0.278

0.307

16
17 18

0.198 0.257 0.280

0. 318

0.608 0.606
0. 612

0.482 0.457 0.425

0. 400 0. 368

0. 762
0.775 0.768 0.768 0.787 0.789 0.775 0.794

0. 418 0. 392
0.374

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

0.343

0.626 0.634 0.616

0. 668 0. 642

0. 368
0.41 9 0.454 0.473

0. 356
0. 309 0. 302

0.335

0.366 0.376 0.401

0. 302
0.286

0.266 0.248

0. 508

0.649

R / t for Specimen No. 7 = 842 22

150
20

MN
/m2

1 5

IO0

ksi
IO

0.001
E

0.002
in/in

0.003

FIG. I TYPICAL STRESS STRAIN CURVE FOR PLATED COPPER

FIG. 2

SET U P FORINITIALIMPERFECTIONMEASUREMENTS.

PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY O F C. D. BABCOCK, JR.

24

3.0 c

40O

11.0

0 . 0

I
1.0

3.0
0.0
3,O

0.0

80 O

3.0 c

0.0f
3.0
2 0

120 O
. I

1.0
v) L

0.0f l

5
w

i ,

3.0-

0 . 0

200 *

160

a 8

-1.0;

E - 1.0
#

E .-

3.00.0

3.0 n n/ V.V

240 O

- 1.0
L

3.0 r

280 O
1
z

0.0

.
I

1.0

320 O
I
1

3.0 I 0

4 6 DISTANCE ALONG AXIS ( i n c h e s )

J1 . 0

FIG. 3 INITIALIMPERFECTION,SHELLSI
25

3.0

0.0

3.0 r

0.0 3.0

0.0

- 1.0
O0

- 1.0
"_

40

1
- 1.0

3.0 -

80 O

0.0e .v

120 O

3.00.0

3.0 0.0
3.0
1

a 0.0

2
I

I 6 0O

- 1.0
~~

. I

u ) L
Q)

t
Q)

200 O

1.0= .E

E .-

240

280 O
11.0

3.0 0 .o

320O
3. Oo
4
I

DISTANCE ALONG AXIS ( i n c h e s )

1 . 0

FIG. 4 INITIALIMPERFECTION,SHELL
26

S4

3.0

~~ ~

- 1.0
0
~~

- *o . o
3.010.03.0 n

-1.0
~~ ~

40 O

- 1.0
~

lo 0
U J

0.0 L
~~ ~~~

80 O

3.0 r
120 O

1.0

.a 8 0
c
0
Y

.E 3.0
2 0

1 . 0
UJ

$ W

0.03.00.0

160

-1.0 c
\

QI
Q,

&
W

/ 3.0 0.0

E .-

200O

-1.0-ii

240
-1.0
~~

3 . 0+

0.0
3.0

0.0 -i
2

280 O
-1.0

320

3.0

0
-1.0

DISTANCE ALONG AXIS ( inches FIG. 5 INITIAL IMPERFECTION,SHELL

27

S8

FIG. 6

TESTINGMACHINEWITH

SHELL I N TESTINGPOSITION.

PHOTOGRAPHCOURTESY O F C. D. BABCOCK, J R .

FIG. 7

LOAD MEASURING RING. C. D. BABCOCK. JR.

28

PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY O F

m-N
58.34 189.26 153.68 106.72 71. I5

3.0

2.0

t z n
(3

o
500
I

IO00
I

1500
I

2000
I

newtons 2500
I

a 3.0-

AXIAL COMPRESSION FIG. 8 L O A D RING C A L I B R A T I O N RESULTS

29

I .o

SMALL DEFLECTION (REE 7 )

THEORY

0 DEAD WEIGHT LOADING A DISPLACEMENT LOADING

\

'

0.5

b 0

\\
\

:\
FROM REF. 4

DATA FROM REF. 5 /f

h .

/-DATA
I

0 0
I .o

FIG. 9 INTERACTION CURVE, AND BENDING

A X I A L COMPRESSION

30

1.50-

42 % CRITICAL

- 0.50-1.00

83.5 % CRITICAL

2.0

0.5

0
W

e
-Oe50

I
0

240 CIRCUMFERENTIAL POSITION IN

60

I20

180

300

360

DEGREES

FIG. IO

COMPARISON OF COMPUTED LOAD DISTRIBUTION WITH STRAIN GAGE DATA FOR VARIOUS INCREMENTS OF LOADING ; SHELL S I
31

4.0 0

SHELL S 2

3.50
3.00

"

ALL

3.50 3.00

SHELL S3

2.50

>

2.00
1.50

J E z a z P

3.50
3.00
2.50

a
W
W

8 z a
a

(3

2.00
1.50
1.00

0.50

3.50
3.00

SHELL S 5

2.50
60 120 I80 240 300 360 CIRCUMFERENTIAL POSITION IN DEGREES FIG. II COMPARISON OF COMPUTED LOAD DISTRIBUTIONWITH STRAIN GAGE DATA AT BUCKLING,SHELLS S2,S3,S4,8S5
32

2.00 0

1.0

A A

0.8
=TOT

A A

A A
0

A A

A A

%Q
0.6

A
0.4

0 DEAD WEIGHT LOADING

0.2

DISPLACEMENT LOADING

.. ."

_ " I

. .

0.2

0.4
%UCQ

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIG. 12

INTERACTION CURVE

FOR MAXIMUM TOTAL STRESS

33

I1

\\

!I+ I
!I
/

e
I
FIG. 13
M Y L A R TEST SET - U P
34

NO. I

240 220 200 P C LBF

180
160

NO. 2

220
200
180 P c LBF
I60

NO. 3

F
N0.4

I 1
I

220

200 180

P LBF C

160

r 110
loo pC

90
80

LBF

NO. 5

NO. 6

100

P C LBF

80

70

IO0

90 80

pC LBF

6.35mmNO. 7

70
40

30
I
~~~ ~~

P C LBF

~ ~ _ _ _
~~

1.0

I .o

20

(2.54cm)

LOAD OFFSET

2.0 IN. (5.08 cm)

FIG. 14 DETERMINATION OF NEUTRAL A X I S

35

1.0

SPECIMEN NO. I
t = 0.0103 IN.

0.4

0.3

v
X

0.2 TOWARDS SEAM

0. I

-o0

AWAY FROM SEAM

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1 . 0

FIG. 1 5

INTERACTION CURVE

36

1.0
0.9

SPECIMEN NO. 2
t =0.0103 IN.

(0.262 mm)

0.4

-v
X

0.3 o*2

TOWARDS SEAM AWAY FROM SEAM

0. I

-0
0.1

0.2 0.3 0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 . 0

FIG. 1 6 INTERACTION CURVE

37

1.0

SPECIMEN NO. 3
t = 0.0103 IN.

0 . 9 0.8

(0.262 mm)

0.4
0.3

0.2 0 . 1
0

vx
0 0

TOWARDS SEAM AWAY FROM SEAM

I

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
Q

0.5
b/acl

0.6

0.7 0.8

0 . 9 1.0

FIG. 1 7 INTERACTION CURVE

38

1.0 0.9

SPECIMEN NO. 4
t

= 0.00718IN.
(0.182 mm)

0.4

0.3 0.2 0 . 1v x

TOWARDS SEAM
AWAY FROM SEAM
I

0.1

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 . 6 0.7 0.8

Ob/Gc 1

0 . 9 1 . 0

FIG. 1 8 INTERACTION CURVE

39

1.0
0.9

SPECIMEN NO. 5
t = 0.00718 IN.

(0.182 m m )

0.8
T/Ucl

0.7
QC/Uc,

0.6
0.5
0.4

0.3

0.2
v X

0.I
0

TOWARDS SEAM AWAY FROM SEAM

1 1

0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 . 7

0.8 0.9

1.0

FIG. 1 9 INTERACTION CURVE

40

1.0

SPECIMEN NO. 6
t = 0.00718 IN. ( 0.182 mm 1
\I

0 . 9
UT 4
U C & c l

0.8
1

" e 8
W

p99,

O o v0v O va

"

" -

L=T/uc

0.6
0.5

0.4

0.3 -

0.2
0. I

v x
o

TOWARDS SEAM AWAY FROM SEAM

\
I
I\

/I
I

I.

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

% C C ,

0.9 1.0

FIG. 20

INTERACTION CURVE

41

1.0

SPECIMEN NO.7
t = 0.00475

0.9

IN. (0.121mm 1

0.8
0

0.7

T % l

0.6
=cC/oc,

0.5
0.4

0.3 0.2

v x
o
0

TOWARDS SEAM AWAY FROM SEAM

0. I

tI

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4 0.5

0 . 6 0.7 0.8

0.9

1.0

FIG. 21

INTERACTION

CURVE

42

SUMMARY
t=0 . 0 1 0 3 IN.

0 . 9

(0.262m m )

0.1 0.2
I
I

0.1

0 . 2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8

0 . 9 1.0

Ob /crcl

FIG. 22 SUMMARY FOR R / t = 388

43

1 . 0

SUMMARY

0.9
g

t = 0.00718 IN. ( 0.182 m m

7=c I

0.8
0.7

0.6 q / % l

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.2

0. I
1

0 . 1

0.2 0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7 0.8 0 . 9 1 . 0

cb /vcI

FIG. 23

SUMMARY FOR R / t = 5 5 7

44

l.Oy

A - Celluloid R/t = 344 (1945)

0 . 9

"B"""_ Mylar R/t = 533

X

(1959)
800
II
11

Plated Copper R/t

I1 II

0.8

(Deadweight loadings) Mylar

V .

R / t = 388
R / t = 557 R/t =842

Mylar

3
0.3

xoTil

Mylar

0 . 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 . 6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

=b /=it

FIG.25 SUMMARY OF ALL DATA