Cylindrical shells under axial compression

67

imperfections in specimens have been measured. Consequently, the predictions of shell buckling strength have usually been used as an informative guide to key features of shell strength, rather than as a basis for design. Since the buckling strength is very sensitive to the amplitude and form of geometric imperfections in the surface, its amplitude must be controlled by tolerance measures as part of the design process. However, a major difculty arises here, as it is not easy for the designer to predict the level of imperfections which may be found in his structure, or for the fabricator to control the magnitude and shape of the imperfections he may produce. Moreover, some of the inevitable imperfection forms which arise in civil engineering practice have received little attention in very thin shells: bolted lap joints, local ats near welds and slight ovalling of the circular planform. A key aspect of the relationship between shell strengths achieved in practice and tolerances to be achieved in construction is the cause and origin of imperfections. If the mechanics of the causes of imperfections can be understood, then a better estimation can be made of the amplitudes and forms that will occur. Unfortunately, very few studies have explored the causes of imperfections, but recent work on the basic phenomena has been undertaken by Holst et al. (1996, 1997, 1999, 2000) and Guggenberger (1996), but these represent only initial basic explorations. This eld is likely to prove important in future research in shell buckling. Since the strengths are highly correlated with the form and amplitude of geometric imperfections, there exists a range of potential imperfections that are associated with the empirical lower bound strength. If the empirical strength designs are to be able to account for the greater strength of accurately fabricated shells, it is vital that fabrication tolerances associated with the design strengths are dened and met in execution. This connection was rst suggested by Hoff and Soong (1967), but it has taken many years to be adopted into a design standard. Strengths and tolerances in standards As noted above, most design rules have been developed as empirical lower bounds on the results of experiments. Standards that have adopted this approach include API 620 (1978), AWWA D100 (1979), ECCS (1988) and DIN 18800 (1990). An effort to correlate this lower bound with appropriate tolerance measurements was made in the ECCS and DIN standards, but the quantitative basis of the match does not appear to have been published. The drafting committee for the earlier 1983 version of the ECCS standard recognised that some constructions might fail to achieve the specied tolerances and added, in the commentary, a note to the effect that the tolerances could be relaxed to double their intended values if the assessed buckling strength was halved. Rotter (1985) coupled this idea with the tolerance measure to show that the two rules could be combined to produce an almost unique strength-imperfection sensitivity curve that was not far from that of Koiter (1945). This demonstration led the way to permitting the ECCS rule to be re-cast for the Eurocode (ENV 1993-1-6 1999) in