Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Two-step procedure for fast post-buckling analysis of composite

stiffened panels
Riccardo Vescovini, Chiara Bisagni
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale, Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa 34, 20156 Milano, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 26 July 2012
Accepted 11 June 2013

Keywords:
Analytical formulation
Stiffened panels
Composite materials
Post-buckling

a b s t r a c t
The paper presents an analytical formulation for the post-buckling analysis of composite aeronautical
panels with omega stiffeners loaded in compression and shear. The formulation relies on an energy principle and the method of Ritz. In the rst step, the panel is an assembly of plate elements, and the buckling
analysis is performed. In the second step, the panel is an elastically restrained skin, and the post-buckling
behaviour is studied. The comparisons with nite element analyses and experimental results from the
literature reveal the ability of the formulation to assess the post-buckling response.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The European consortium MAAXIMUS (More Affordable Aircraft
structure through eXtended, Integrated, & Mature nUmerical Sizing) [1], consisting of 58 industries and universities, works to demonstrate the fast development of a highly-optimized composite
airframe. The project is divided into a physical platform, focused
on the development of composite technologies for low weight aircraft, and a virtual platform aiming to reduce the time required for
the identication of the best structural solutions.
This paper presents part of the activity performed by Politecnico di Milano during MAAXIMUS in the context of the virtual platform. The work focuses on the development of a fast
computational method, which can be used to assess the post-buckling response of composite stiffened panels during the early design
stages. The fast tool aims to improve the computational efciency
of the current design procedure, which mainly relies on expensive
nite element analyses. Not only the tool can be used for a fast
optimization of composite fuselages, but also to account for more
degrees of freedom compared to today standard practice. Indeed,
the amount of design solutions to be explored can be increased,
and consequently the efciency of the nal design can be improved. For this reason, the availability of a fast method represents
a crucial aspect to move from a more costly and empirical optimization to a faster structural design optimization loop.
Among the fast design methods in the literature, analytical and
semi-analytical formulations represent an attractive strategy
thanks to their computational efciency.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0223998390.
E-mail address: chiara.bisagni@polimi.it (C. Bisagni).
0045-7949/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.06.002

The simplest approach to study a stiffened panel is to consider the

portion of the skin between the stiffeners, assuming the edges as
simply supported or clamped. For these cases, closed-form solutions
are available both for isotropic [2,3] and composite materials [46].
A more rened level of approximation consists in representing
the stiffener as an elastic restraint, such as in the analytical formulations of Rhodes and Harvey [7] and van der Neut [8] for isotropic
panels and by Mittelstedt and Beerhorst [9] for composite panels
subjected to compression loadings. The post-buckling of isotropic
stiffened panels is studied with a semi-analytical procedure where
the stiffener is modeled as a beam by Brubak and Hellesland
[10,11] and Mijukovic et al. [12]. Two of the few analytical works
focusing on the post-buckling of elastically restrained composite
panels are those ones presented by Chai et al. [13] and by Boay
and Wah [14]. The methods of analysis are based on the semi-energy approach in combination with von Krmn large deection
equations. The post-buckling of panels elastically restrained by torsion bars and torsion springs was studied by Bisagni and Vescovini
for the analysis of composite stiffened panels, developing a semianalytical procedure [15] and closed-form solutions [16].
An even more rened modeling strategy consists in describing
the stiffened panel as an assembly of plate elements. The main
advantage is the ability of the formulation to capture local stiffener
instabilities, providing at the same time an accurate representation
of the skin/stiffener interaction. The drawback of the plate assembly approach is represented by a higher number of degrees of freedom, which turns in a reduction of the computational effectiveness
of the analytical procedure.
A plate assembly approach is presented by Byklum and Amdahl
[3], who developed a computational model for local post-buckling
analysis of stiffened isotropic panels. The model considers J-stiff-

39

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

ened panels where the web is modeled as a two dimensional plate

element. Buermann et al. [17] extended the approach to the case of
curved isotropic stiffened panels, including in the model also
frames and skin doublers by means of a beam representation. Both
the formulations of Refs. [3,17] are limited to isotropic materials.
Despite the relatively large amount of analytical and semi-analytical methods, quite a few of them allow the study of at and
curved composite panels under combined loading conditions.
The present work discusses the development of a fast tool for
the analysis of the post-buckling response of stiffened panels.
The tool offers the advantage of considering a wide set of congurations, including composite and isotropic materials, at and
curved panels, as well as loading conditions of compression and
shear. The formulation tries to combine the advantages of the plate
assembly representation with the ones of the elastic restraint
approach.
The use of the fast tool is discussed for the assessment of the
buckling and post-buckling response of omega stiffened panels.
The analysis procedure is illustrated by describing the input data
phase. The results are provided in terms of forcedisplacement
curves, out of plane displacements and maximum stress failure index. The accuracy of the results is demonstrated by comparison
with nite element analyses and with experimental data taken
from the literature.

2. Description of the formulation

The analytical formulation is developed for the buckling and
post-buckling analysis of composite at and curved panels stiffened with omega stringers. The loading conditions are compression and shear, that can be applied separately or in combination.
The formulation is divided into two steps, as shown in Fig. 1,
and the problem is formulated with an energy approach together
with the method of Ritz.
In the rst step the buckling analysis is performed referring to a
structural model based on a plate discretization of the stiffened panel. The approach guarantees a rened description of the panel,
and both the skin and the stiffener are explicitly represented as
plate elements.
The number of degrees of freedom required by the plate representation can be easy handled in the context of a linear analysis,
where the buckling load is obtained from the solution of an eigenvalue problem. When assessing the post-buckling response, the
governing equations are nonlinear, and it is important to guarantee
the computational efciency through a proper reduction of the
number of unknowns. For this reason, the second step is based
on a simpler structural model, where the stiffened panel is modeled by considering the portion of skin between two stiffeners.
The elasticity of the restraint provided by the stiffeners at the skin
longitudinal edges is accounted for by means of torsion springs
along the longitudinal edges, whose stiffness is determined from

Fig. 1. Overview of the two-step post-buckling procedure.

the buckling analysis. The choice of the elastically restrained skin

model is justied by the fact that the rst structural instability of
aeronautical panels usually regards the skin. For this reason, the
initial post-buckling response can be studied by considering the
nonlinear behaviour of the skin, while the response of the stiffener
can be reasonably assumed linear.
The laminates composing the stiffened panel have an arbitrary
number of layers. They are modeled as thin plate elements referring to Kirchhoff hypothesis together with classical lamination theory [18,19]. The effect of transverse shear deformation is not taken
into account, and the formulation can be applied to study the
behaviour of panels for which the buckling halfwave length is larger compared to the panel thickness. The constitutive equation of
each laminate is:

8
9 2
Nx >
A11
>
>
>
>
>
6
>
>
>
>
N
A12
y >
>
>
> 6
>
<N >
= 6
6
A16
xy
6
6B
>
M
x >
>
>
6
>
> 6 11
>
>
>
> My >
> 4 B12
>
>
>
>
:
;
M xy
B16

A12

A16

B11

B12

A22

A26

B12

B22

A26

A66

B16

B26

B12

B16

D11

D12

B22

B26

D12

D22

B26

B66

D16

D26

9
38
B16 > x >
>
>
>
> y >
>
>
B26 7
>
>
7>
>
>
>
7>
<
=
7
c
B66
xy
7
7
>
w;xx >
D16 7>
>
>
>
>
7>
>
> w;yy >
>
D26 5>
>
>
>
:
;
2w;xy
D66

where Nx,Ny,Nxy are the membrane forces per unit length, Mx,My,Mxy
the bending and twisting moments per unit length, x,y,cxy the
membrane strains, w the out of plane displacement and the derivatives of w represent the curvatures. The comma followed by the
coordinate denotes the differentiation with respect to that coordinate. The coefcients Aik and Dik dene the in plane and out of plane
stiffness of the laminate, respectively, and the coefcients Bik determine the coupling between in plane and out-of-plane behaviour.
Each laminate composing the panel can be made of an arbitrary
number of layers under the assumptions that:
 the laminate is symmetric with respect to the midplane, i.e.,
Bik = 0
 the coupling between extension and shear is null, i.e.,
A16 = A26 = 0
The formulation accounts for the terms D16 and D26 as typical
aeronautical panels can exhibit coupling between bending and
twisting.
3. Linear buckling analysis
In the rst step, the buckling analysis is performed referring to a
plate representation of the panel cross section. The approach analyzes a multistiffened panel by studying a representative unit composed of two stiffeners, one bay and two half-bays. An example is
reported in Fig. 2(a), where the plate representation of an omega
stiffened panel is shown with eleven plate elements. Five elements
model the skin, including the portion of skin under the stiffeners,
and six elements model the stiffeners. A generic plate element

Fig. 2. Plate assembly representation of the stiffened panel: (a) subdivision in plate
elements, (b) generic element dimensions and reference system.

40

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

composing the panel cross-section is reported in Fig. 2(b), where a

denotes the length common to all the elements, while b is the
width of the element. A Cartesian coordinate system is taken on
the element midsurface on lower right corner, with the x-axis directed along the longitudinal direction, the y-axis along the transverse direction, and the z-axis along the normal direction,
according to the right-hand rule.
Similar plate element representations can be used for the analysis of panels with different stiffener geometries, such as blade, J
and T stiffeners, even if the present work focuses on omega stiffened panels.
The formulation is developed starting from the total potential
energy P of the structure, which is:

Np
X

Pi U p

where Np is the number of elements that compose the representative unit, and Up is a penalty term which is added to the functional
to enforce compatibility of the rotations along the edges of adjacent
plates. The potential energy of each plate element is obtained as the
sum of three contributions:

Pi U b U m V load

where Ub is the strain energy for bending, Um is the membrane energy and Vload is the potential of the external loads. The membrane
energy term is introduced only for curved elements due to the coupling between in plane and out of plane behaviour. It is neglected in
case of at plates, as the in plane and out of plane response are
uncoupled.
Referring to Kirchhoff thin plate theory and classical lamination
theory, the bending energy of the i-th element is expressed as:

Z 
1
D11 w2;xx 2D12 w;xx w;yy D22 w2;yy 4D66 w2;xy
2 A

4D16 w;xx w;xy 4D26 w;yy w;xy dA

Ub

where A is the area of the plate element, w and Dik are the out of
plane displacement and the bending stiffness of the plate element.
The membrane energy is written in terms of Airy stress function
F, and is dened as:

Um

1
2

Z 

a11 F 2;yy a22 F 2;xx 2a12 F ;xx F ;yy a66 F 2;xy dA

where aik is the in plane compliance of the laminate.

The potential of the external loads is obtained as the sum of the
contributions of compression and shear loads:

V load

1
kNx
2

Z
A

w2;x dA kN xy

w;x w;y dA

where k is the multiplier of the pre-buckling condition.

Without loss of generality, the axial resultant Nx is determined
by assuming that the plate elements undergo the same shortening.
Indeed, in a multi-stringer aeronautical structure, the axial strain
compatibility condition is usually enforced by a rib or a frame. As
the shear load carrying capacity of a stiffened panel is mainly demanded to the skin, the shear force Nxy is introduced only on the
skin elements. The same approach is found in [20].
The essential boundary conditions of the problem are expressed
as:

8
on x 0; a
>
<w 0
w0
on y 0; b
>
: Du 0 along the edges of adjacent elements
ij

where Duij is the difference of rotation between the two elements i

and j expressed in function of the out of plane displacement.

The rst two conditions express null out of plane displacement

along the four edges of the plate element, and are due to the local
buckling hypothesis. The third condition regards the continuity of
rotations between adjacent plate elements.
The shape functions used to describe the out of plane displacement over these elements is a double trigonometric series of sine
terms:

M;N
X
mpx
npy
qmn sin
sin
a
b
m;n

where qmn are the unknown amplitudes, while M and N are the
number of shape functions along the longitudinal and transverse
direction. It can be observed that the rst two essential conditions
of Eq. (7) are identically satised, whereas the third one is imposed
with a penalty approach as described in the next paragraph.
The unknown amplitudes of the generic i-th element are
collected into the column vector qi, and the minimum potential
energy principle is applied:

@ Pi @U b U m @V load

0
@qi
@qi
@qi

The trigonometric expansions of the problem unknowns are then

substituted into Eq. (9) and, for each element composing the section, the analytical integration of the terms is carried out. The two
terms of Eq. (9) are re-written as:

@U b U m ~
Ki qi
@qi

@V load
kGi qi
@qi

10

~ i and Gi are the stiffness and the loading stiffness matrices

where K
of i-th element.
The degrees of freedom of the structure are obtained by collecting the unknowns qi into a global vector of unknowns q, dened
as:

qT1

qT2

   qTNp

oT

11

The stiffness and the loading stiffness matrices of the single plate
~ i and Gi are assembled according to the denition of
elements K
~ and G.
Eq. (11) to obtain K
The last step of the procedure regards the enforcement of the
compatibility condition of the rotations along the longitudinal
edges of adjacent plate elements. The condition is imposed by
introducing penalty terms, which are torsion springs along the
common edges of adjacent plates. Their expression is:

U p;ij

1
kt
2

Z
0

Du2ij dx

12

where kt is the stiffness of the spring.

An additional term, K, is obtained from the differentiation of Eq.
(12) with respect to the unknown amplitudes q. The term is added
to the stiffness matrix, obtaining:

~ K
KK

13

The assembled buckling equations are nally written as:

K kGq 0

14

where K and G are the stiffness and the loading stiffness matrices,
while q is the vector collecting the unknown amplitudes describing
the out of plane deections of the plate elements.
The eigenvalue problem of Eq. (14) is solved numerically and, to
improve the efciency of the procedure, it is decomposed into a set
of smaller subproblems accounting for the symmetry and antisymmetry of the buckling modes.

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

4. Post-buckling analysis
The structural model used in the second step is reported in
Fig. 3, and is representative of the skin of the stiffened panel. The
length and the width are denoted with a and b, respectively. The
transverse edges are simply supported, while the stiffeners are accounted for by introducing a torsion spring of stiffness kt along the
longitudinal edges. The stiffeners are also characterized by an axial
stiffness, which is denoted as EA. It is observed that, for a closedsection stiffener, the axial stiffness EA accounts not only for the
contribution of the stiffener itself, but also for the portion of skin
under the stiffener.
To represent the presence of the surrounding structure, whose
effect is to support the in plane motion of the panel, the longitudinal edges are free to move along the transverse direction, but are
forced to remain straight.
A Cartesian coordinate system is taken over the skin midsurface
with the x-axis directed along the longitudinal direction, and the yaxis along the transverse direction.
It is observed that the elastically restrained model, compared to
the plate assembly one, offers the advantage of limiting the computational time. Indeed, it allows a reduction of the number of
the degrees of freedom, and does not require to iterate at each step
of the incremental procedure to determine the fraction of load carried by each plate element [3,17]. A further complication in the use
of the plate assembly model would be represented by the need for
nding a different solution of the compatibility equation for each
different expression of the out of plane displacement.
4.1. Evaluation of the elastic restraint
The stiffness of the elastic restraint kt is determined by imposing that the buckling load of the elastically restrained panel is
equal to the buckling load of the plate assembly model. The approach assumes that the stiffeners restraint the rotation of the skin
edges, therefore representing an intermediate condition between
the simply-supported edges and the clamped edges [3], and carry
axial loads according to their axial stiffness EA.
The buckling eigenvalue problem is derived referring to the
minimum potential energy principle. In this case, the total potential energy is expressed as:

P U b U m V load U k

15

where the term Uk is added to the terms previously considered in

the linear analysis. It represents the energy stored in the torsion
spring, and is given by:

1
U k kt
2

Z
0




w2;y  dx
y0

1
kt
2

a
0




w2;y 

dx
yb

41

After applying the minimum potential energy principle, the problem is written in the form of Eq. (14), where the matrix K is now
function of the unknown stiffness kt.
The panel buckling load is obtained as the sum of two contributions. The rst one is the load acting on the skin, which is obtained
by integrating the skin buckling force per unit length along the panel width. The second term is the load acting on the stiffeners, and
can be derived assuming that both the skin and the stiffeners undergo the same displacement. The total load Ptot is:

Ptot

Z
0




Nx 


dy
x0

EA
DU
a

17

where DU is the buckling shortening.

An iterative procedure is implemented, where the value of kt is
progressively increased starting from kt = 0, until the difference between the buckling loads of the elastically restrained panel and the
plate assembly model is below a certain tolerance value.
The obtained stiffness kt is then used to perform the post-buckling analysis.
4.2. Derivation of the governing equations
The formulation for the post-buckling analysis is organized as
shown in the scheme of Fig. 4.
The out of plane displacement is described with an arbitrary
number of trigonometric shape functions. The bending energy,
the strain energy stored in the elastic restraint, as well as the potential of the external loads are directly calculated as function of
the out of plane displacement amplitudes. The membrane energy
is written in terms of Airy stress function, whose expression is obtained imposing the exact solution of the nonlinear compatibility
equation. It is worth observing that the membrane energy is introduced not only in the case of curved panels, but also for at panels,
as the in plane and out of plane behaviour are coupled in the nonlinear post-buckling range.
The nonlinear governing equations are derived imposing the
stationarity of the total potential energy and referring to the method of Ritz. The numerical solution is performed with an arc-length
procedure which allows to capture eventual snap-back and snapthrough responses.
The nonlinear compatibility equation for a laminated panel
with no shear/extension coupling and characterized by a radius
of curvature R is:

a11 F ;yyyy 2a12 a66 F ;xxyy a22 F xxxx

w2;xy  w;xx w;yy 2w0;xy w;xy  w0;xx w;yy  w0;yy w;xx

16


w w0 ;xx
R

18

where w0 are the initial imperfections. They are introduced to account for small deviations from the nominal conguration. Furthermore, the presence of small imperfections facilitate the numerical
solution of the problem, avoiding problems related to the
convergence.
The fulllment of the compatibility requirement of Eq. (18) allows to impose the equilibrium of the solution referring to the
minimum potential energy principle, which is written in terms of
out of plane displacement and Airy stress function. In particular,
the total potential energy is obtained as:

P Um Ub Uk V c V s

Fig. 3. Elastically restrained skin.

19

where the terms Um and Ub are the membrane and the bending energy, whose expression is reported in Eqs. (4) and (5). It is worth
observing that the strain energy expression of Eq. (19) is simplied,
as the contribution due to the stiffeners axial stiffness is neglected.

42

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

Fig. 4. Formulation for the nonlinear analysis.

Indeed, it was observed by Brubak and Hellesland [10] that the

introduction of this term determines a signicant increase of the
computational time, up to a factor of about 30, while playing a minor role in case of skin local buckling conditions. The same approach
is found in the formulation of Paik and Lee [21]. In any case, the
stringer axial stiffness EA is accounted for to compute the total load
carried by the panel according to Eq. (17).
The last two terms of Eq. (19) are the potential of the applied
loads of compression and shear. They are written as:


1
V c Nx b
a11 F ;yy a12 F ;xx  w2;x  w;x w0;x dx
2
0
Z


V s Nxy
w;x w;y w;x w0;y w;y w0;x dA
Z

w0

m;n

r;s;t;u1 brstu
 4
a11 nb 2a12


qrs qtu qrs q0tu qtu q0rs
 2  2
 4 i
a66 ma nb a22 ma

24

where the array of scalars brstu is dened as:

brstu rstu  r 2 u2
brstu rstu r 2 u2

if r t m and s u n

if jr  tj m and js  uj n
if jr  tj m and s u n

25

if r t m and js  uj n

and:

21

~f mn b
~mn q q0 
mn
mn

26

with:

mpx
npy
sin
sin
a
b

22

where q0mn are the known amplitudes of w0.

The trigonometric representation for the Airy stress function is
derived from the substitution of the out of plane displacement into
Eq. (18). The expression of the Airy stress function that identically
satises the compatibility equation is found as [3,17]:

1
F  Nx y2 Nxy xy
2

4a2 b

20

The variational principle expressed by the functional of Eq. (19) is

solved applying the method of Ritz. The out of plane displacement
is represented using the trigonometric expansion of Eq. (8). In this
case, the essential boundary conditions regard the null displacement along the four edges of the panel, and coincide with the rst
two conditions of Eq. (7). The use of the shape functions of Eq. (8)
ensures the fulllment of the two essential conditions.
The same shape functions of Eq. (8) are used to describe the initial imperfections:

q0mn

PM;N;M;N

M;N
X

fmn

2M;2N
X

fmn cos

m;n

M;N
X
~f mn sin mpx sin npy
a
b
m;n

mpx
npy
cos
a
b
23

where the rst two terms describe a state of uniform axial and
shear force. The third term is responsible for the force redistribution
due to the large deections, and the fourth term describes the distribution of the in plane forces related to the coupling between in
plane and out of plane behaviour due to the panel curvature.
The Airy stress function amplitudes fmn and ~f mn do not introduce
further degrees of freedom in the problem, as they are expressed as
function of the amplitudes qmn from the solution of the compatibility equation. In particular, after substitution of Eqs. 8, 22 and 23
into Eq. (18), it is obtained:

 2
1
~mn m
h
i
b
a Rp2 n4 a11 mn2 2a12 a66 m4 a22
b

ab

27

The nonlinear governing equations are derived applying the method

of Ritz. The shape functions of Eqs. 8, 22 and 23 are substituted into
the expression of Eq. (19), and the rst variation of the total potential energy is set to zero:

@P
0
@q

28

which are M  N equations, where q is the column vector collecting

the unknown amplitudes qmn.
4.3. Numerical solution
The nonlinear Eqs. (28) can be solved with a NewtonRaphson
incrementation technique. However, the post-buckling response
of the panels is sometimes characterized by phenomena such as
snap-backs or snap-throughs, making necessary the use of more
appropriate solution techniques.
The strategy here implemented refers to the work of Steen
[22], also implemented by Byklum [3] and Buermann et al. [17]
in the context of semi-analytical formulations for the post-buckling of isotropic panels. The method is an arc-length procedure,
implemented with a perturbation approach. Following the approach of Ref. [22], the rate parameter g, which is a pseudo-time,
is introduced. The loading conditions are dened through the
introduction of the load parameter K, which is a scalar that becomes part of the solution. The governing equations are then
written as function of the amplitudes q and the load parameter
K, and are derived minimizing the total energy P of Eq. (19) in
the rate form:

43

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

@2P
@ 2 P @q
@2P @K

0
2
@ g@q @q @ g @q@ K @ g

29

which is re-written in a more compact notation as:

Kq;g GK;g 0

30

The introduction of the load parameter K requires one further

equation to solve the set of Eqs. (30). The constraint equation is then
introduced, and the resulting system of nonlinear equation results:

Kq;g GK;g 0

K2;g qT q 1

31

The nonlinear Eqs. (31) are nally solved with a perturbation approach [22], where the unknowns q and K are represented with a
rst order Taylor expansion.
5. Implementation of the fast tool
The fast tool is implemented in a computer code working in
Matlab [23] environment. It results suited to perform quick analyses, to study different congurations and to realize parametric
studies. Thanks to the user-friendly graphical interface, the program allows for a simple introduction of the input data.
The length and the width of the panel, as well as the dimensions
of the stiffener, are rstly introduced as inputs. Then, the program
requires the material properties in the form of elastic moduli and
ply strengths. The values can be set manually or can be loaded
from a database. Furthermore, the stacking sequences of the skin
and the stiffener are introduced.
The fast tool offers the possibility of choosing between two
solution procedures. The rst one is the linear buckling analysis,
and relies on the plate assembly model, which is the rst step of
the procedure. The second possibility is the post-buckling analysis,
and refers to the complete two-step procedure.
The input is completed by setting up the analysis parameters.
The program requires to dene the pre-buckling load and the number of shape functions used in the plate assembly model. In case of
post-buckling analysis, further inputs are expected. They include
the number of shape functions for the post-buckling procedure,
the total applied load, the number of buckling eigenvalues used
as initial imperfections and their amplitudes. Different outputs
can be requested on the basis of the chosen type of analysis. In case
of buckling analysis, the user can require a summary of the results,
including the buckling load, the corresponding mode and the linear
stiffness. In case of post-buckling analysis, the available outputs
are the forcedisplacement curve, the deformed shape, and the
contour of three different failure criteria (maximum stress, maximum strain, Tsai-Hill).
6. Analysis of an omega stiffened panel
The fast tool is applied to study a curved omega stiffened panel
subjected to loading conditions of combined compression and
shear.
The load history is divided in two phases:
1. pure shear load per unit length of 62 N/mm
2. compression load with an axial displacement of 2.10 mm, and
shear load per unit length kept constant at 62 N/mm

one bay, and two half bays. The height of the stiffener is 24 mm,
the crown top is 27 mm long and the web angle measured from
the normal to the skin is equal to 10. The skin consists of quasiisotropic laminate of 12 plies with a stacking sequence of [45/
45/0/90/ 45/45]s, for a total thickness of 1.5 mm. The
stringers are composed of a laminate of 9 plies with stacking sequence of [45/0/ 45/0/90/0/ 45/0/45] and a total thickness of 1.125 mm.
The results computed with the fast tool are compared with
analyses performed using the commercial nite element code Abaqus [24].
The nite element model of the panel is reported in Fig. 5. The
skin and the stiffeners are modeled with four-noded S4R shell elements, with a mesh of about 5  5 mm chosen on the basis of a
preliminary convergence analysis. The loaded edges are simply
supported, whereas a constraint equation is applied to the longitudinal edges to enforce periodic conditions in terms of out of plane
displacements and rotations around the longitudinal axis. Two
analyses are performed, eigenvalue and nonlinear static.
The input data are introduced by means of the graphical user
interface. It is interesting to highlight the choice of the analysis
parameters, which are the number of shape functions and the initial imperfections. They can be dened case by case on the basis of
a convergence analysis. In the rst step, the out of plane deections
are represented using 10  10 functions for the skin, and 10  7
for the stiffener elements, which are a good compromise between
computational efciency and accuracy of the results. Considering
that the plate assembly model exploits the symmetries and the
anti-symmetries of the buckling modes, the total number of degrees of freedom for the buckling analysis is equal to 235.
In the second step, the skin deection is represented with a
number of 12  12 functions. The resulting problem is given by
145 equations, consisting in 144 equilibrium equations and 1 constraint equation requested by the arc-length procedure. Compared
to the rst step, the number of shape functions is increased. This
choice is motivated by the need to calculate the stresses, which
are related to the second derivatives of the displacements, and consequently characterized by a slower convergence rate.
Regarding the introduction of the initial imperfections, it is
important to avoid the convergence of the solution to the unbuckled conguration. The initial imperfections can be determined
through a Fourier analysis of experimental data, if available. Otherwise it is possible to use a linear superposition of buckling modes,
which is the strategy here adopted. In the present study, the initial
imperfections are taken equal to the rst buckling mode, with an
amplitude to thickness ratio of 5%.
The outputs are then dened. In particular, the results of the
rst step analysis are required in terms of buckling load and buckling mode, while the results of the post-buckling analysis are dened as force displacement curve, deformed surface at different
load levels and contour of the maximum stress index.
The buckling load obtained from the rst step of the procedure
is characterized by a compressive force per unit length equal to
59.2 N/mm, and a shear force per unit length of 62 N/mm. The
buckling mode shape reveals 6 skewed halfwaves on the skin,
whereas the plate elements composing the omega stiffener do

Table 1
IM7/8825 ply mechanical properties.
Material properties

The panel is made from carbon/epoxy unidirectional IM7/8552,

whose properties are summarized in Table 1. It has dimensions
300  536 mm, and a radius of curvature equal to 2075 mm. A
sketch is reported in Fig. 5. The panel, representative of a larger
structure with several stringers, is composed of two stiffeners,

Youngs modulus E11 [MPa]

Youngs modulus E22 [MPa]
Shear modulus G12 [MPa]
Poissons ratio m12
Ply thickness [mm]

150000
9000
5300
0.32
0.125

44

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

Fig. 5. Curved omega stiffened panel: (a) nite element model, (b) stiffener cross section.

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

Analytical
ABAQUS
0.5

1.5

2.5

Fig. 6. Forcedisplacement curve during the compressive loading phase.

not undergo signicant out of plane deections. The stiffness of the

elastic restraint, which is computed at the beginning of the postbuckling analysis procedure, is equal to 2200 N.
The forcedisplacement curve is reported for the compressive
loading phase in Fig. 6, where the results are normalized with

respect to buckling conditions under compression load. A drop of

stiffness is observed when u/ucr is below the unity, as the applied
shear load has the effect of reducing the buckling load. The drop
of stiffness after buckling, expressed as ratio between pre- and
post-buckling stiffness, is approximately 0.80. A slight difference
is observed from the comparison with the numerical result, which
is equal to approximately 0.76. In this case, the analytical model is
stiffer than the numerical one, and higher loads are obtained for
the same value of applied displacement. At the maximum value
of imposed displacement, the analytical load is 3% higher than
the numerical one.
The out of plane displacements in the post-buckling eld are
illustrated in Fig. 7. The deformed conguration is characterized
by six halfwaves, whose skewness is due to the combined effect
of the bending/twisting coupling and the shear pre-loading. The
comparison with the nite element results reveals the ability of
the formulation to represent a relatively complex out of plane deected pattern, as the one displayed in presence of shear. The fast
tool predicts a range of displacements in the range between
3.1 mm and 3.1 mm, while the nite element out of plane displacement are in the range between 3.8 mm and 4.2 mm.
The formulation is able to provide also an estimate of the maximum stress distribution on the skin in order to identify the most
critical areas which may exhibit damage onset.

Fig. 7. Contour of the out of plane displacement: (a) analytical, (b) Abaqus.

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

45

Fig. 8. Contour of the maximum stress failure index: (a) analytical, (b) Abaqus.

Table 2
T300/934 ply mechanical properties.
Material properties
Youngs modulus E11 [MPa]
Youngs modulus E22 [MPa]
Shear modulus G12 [MPa]
Poissons ratio m12
Ply thickness [mm]

124000
11400
5500
0.3
0.145

The stress eld is plotted at the last step of the solution. In this
example, the maximum stress criterion is computed for each ply of
the laminate. The contour is reported for the ply undergoing the
highest value of failure index, which is automatically identied
by the fast tool. In this case, the procedure identies the second
ply of the skin, which is oriented at  45, as the most stressed
one. The contour is reported in Fig. 8, with a maximum value equal
to 0.50 in proximity of the longitudinal edges. The numerical results of Fig. 8 are characterized by a maximum stress failure index
of 0.65. The results obtained with the fast tool can be used as a preliminary estimate of the stress level exhibited by the structure. The

level of approximation introduced by the analytical approach is

mainly related to the development by means of a mixed formulation, where the unknowns are the out of plane displacement and
the Airy stress function. Consequently, the formulation does not
handle the in plane displacements, which have a signicant inuence on the shear response of the structure. It is observed that the
loading condition of compression and shear represents the most
complex scenario for the present method, and much smaller differences are obtained in the pure compression loading case.
In any case, the fast tool allows for a correct assessment of the
deformed conguration shape, so providing useful information
regarding the areas undergoing the largest out of plane displacement, as well as the areas and the plies subjected to the highest
stress level. Moreover, the gain in terms of CPU time is signicant,
as the analysis required 43 s versus the 250 s required for the nite
element approach, using a Core2 Duo 3.00 GHz with 2 GB of RAM.
It is important to note that the difference of time between the two
approaches would be much greater in the context of preliminary
design optimization, where thousands of analyses are performed.
It is also observed that the present method does not require geometric modeling and nite element meshes have not to be created.

Fig. 9. Forcedisplacement curve of the panel reported in Ref. [26].

46

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

Fig. 10. Experimental [25] and analytical congurations in the post-buckling range:
(a) and (b) three halfwave conguration, (c) and (d) mode jumping, (e) and (f) ve
halfwave conguration.

7. Panel with mode jumping

The ability of the formulation to capture mode jumpings is assessed by the comparison with an experimental test published in
literature [26,25], where an omega stiffened composite panel
exhibits a mode transition in the post-buckling eld.
The panel is stiffened by two omega stiffeners. The distance from
the end tabs is 425 mm, whereas the portion of skin between the
stiffeners is equal to 186 mm. The conguration is characterized
by the presence of two external bays 40 mm long, whose longitudinal edges are free. The height of the omega stiffener is 25 mm, the
length of the crown top is 20 mm, while the portion of the skin under the stiffener is 35 mm. Both the skin and the stiffener are layered with the quasi-isotropic lay-up [45/ 45/0/90]s.

The panel is made from T300/934 unidirectional prepreg, whose

elastic properties are summarized in Table 2, but, following the
study of Falzon and Stevens [26], the nominal material properties
are reduced by 15.66% in order to avoid an overestimation of the
linear pre-buckling stiffness.
The fast tool is applied to perform the post-buckling analysis of
the panel reported in literature using the two-step approach. It is
worth noting that the two external bays do not provide any contribution to the total load carried by the structure in the post-buckling eld. Indeed, the external longitudinal edges are free, and
consequently buckle at relatively small load levels. In any case, it
is expected that these two portions of the structure provide stiffness in the linear pre-buckling eld.
In the rst step of the procedure, the trigonometric expansion is
arrested to 10  10 terms for the deection of the skin, and to 10
 7 terms for the deection of the stiffener elements. In the second
step, the number of terms describing the out of plane response of
the elastically restrained panel is increased to 12  12. The initial
imperfections are introduced as a linear superposition of the rst
four buckling modes, with a maximum amplitude to thickness ratio equal to 5%.
The forcedisplacement response is reported in Fig. 9, where
the analytical results are compared to the experimental ones. The
fast tool predicts a buckling load of 9 kN, which is very close to
the experimental one of 10 kN. The rst buckling mainly involves
the skin, and the stiffeners do not experience any out of plane
deections in the initial post-buckling eld. For this reason, a relatively small reduction of stiffness can be observed in the forcedisplacement curve just after the rst buckling. The analytical and
numerical curves are almost coincident in the initial post-buckling
range, until an imposed displacement of approximately 1.5 mm. In
the deep post-buckling eld, the differences between experimental
and analytical results become a little larger and the analytical and
the experimental loads differ by 14% when the imposed displacement is 3 mm. This discrepancy is due to the inability of the analytical model to account for the nonlinear response of the stiffeners,
including local stiffener instabilities, which becomes relevant at
high load levels.
From the analytical forcedisplacement curve it can be observed the mode jumping response of the panel. Indeed while for
low levels the load carried by the panel increases monotonically,
at 57 kN the structure starts to unload, and progressively turns to
another buckled conguration. A similar mode-jumping response
is observed in the experimental results, even tough it can not be
easily detected from the experimental curve. For this reason, it is
useful to present the results in terms of deformed congurations.
The more relevant phases are shown in Fig. 10, where the experimental MoirF pattern is compared to the analytical contour of
the out of plane deections. In the initial post-buckling range the
buckled conguration is characterized by three halfwaves, as
shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b). When the load is increased, the midbuckle enlarges and begins to split into two smaller buckles, as revealed by Fig. 10(c) and (d). The transition terminates with a ve
halfwaves conguration shown in Fig. 10(e) and (f).
Referring to Fig. 10, it can be seen that the experimental mode
jumping is observed at 66 kN, while the analytical one at 57 kN. In
any case, the result is satisfactory if it is considered that the mode
jumping is a highly nonlinear phenomenon that can be hardly
reproduced with a high level of accuracy even making use of more
sophisticated tools, such as the nite element method. Furthermore, the analytical model relies on several assumptions, including
the simplied representation of the stiffener and the simply supported loaded edges and does not consider the small imperfections
regarding the loading and boundary conditions that always characterize a physical test. It is worth to note the ability of the fast tool

R. Vescovini, C. Bisagni / Computers and Structures 128 (2013) 3847

to detect the presence of a mode-jumping and to correctly predict

the pattern before and after it.
8. Conclusions
An analytical formulation has been developed for the postbuckling analysis of composite stiffened panels based on a two step
procedure, which is developed referring to an energy principle and
the method of Ritz. In the rst step the buckling load is determined
by modeling the panel as an assembly of plate elements, while in
the second step the post-buckling analysis is performed by assuming the panel as an elastically restrained skin, considering so the
post-buckling response with a relatively small number of degrees
of freedom. The approach offers the advantage of allowing the
study of composite panels subjected to combined loading conditions of compression and shear.
The comparison with nite element analyses reveals that the
fast tool can be condently used to predict the drop of stiffness
due to the buckling of the skin and to trace the forcedisplacement
curve. Agreement between analytical and numerical predictions is
observed in terms of post-buckled pattern, as the number of halfwaves and their skew angle are correctly predicted. Furthermore,
the tool can be used to obtain an approximate representation of
the stress index distribution of the skin, and to identify the ply
undergoing the highest stress level.
The implementation of an arc-length solution procedure allows
to capture mode jumping phenomena, in case they are present, as
demonstrated by comparison with experimental results taken
from the literature.
The reduced amount of time required to perform the analysis
suggests the use of the tool within a preliminary design optimization loop, where buckling and post-buckling requirements are
introduced as constraints or compose the objective function. The
tool can also be inserted as a module for the post-buckling analysis
in the context of a multidisciplinary design procedure, or eventually coupled to a nite element code to obtain a hybrid design
procedure.
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has been partially funded
by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme FP7/
20072013 under Grant agreement No. 213371, MAAXIMUS
(www.maaximus.eu).
References
[1] Maaximus Project website. <http://www.maaximus.eu>.
[2] Levy S. Bending of rectangular plates with large deections. TM 737, NACA,
1942.

47

[3] Byklum E, Amdahl J. A simplied method for elastic large deection analysis of
plates and stiffened panels due to local buckling. Thin-Walled Struct
2002;40(11):92553.
[4] Harris GZ. Buckling and post-buckling of orthotropic laminated plate. In: 16th
AIAA/ASME/SAE Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
AIAA-1975-813, May 2729 1975, Denver, CO.
[5] Romeo G, Frulla G. Analytical/experimental behavior of anisotropic rectangular
panels under linearly varying combined loads. AIAA J 2001;39(5):93241.
[6] Diaconu CG, Weaver PM. Postbuckling of long unsymmetrically laminated
composite plates under axial compression. Int J Solids Struct 2006;43(22
23):697897.
[7] Rhodes J, Harvey JM. Plates in uniaxial compression with various support
conditions at the unloaded boundaries. Int J Mech Sci 1971;13(9):787802.
[8] van der Neut A. The stiffness in compression of imperfect elastically restrained
plate strips at various in-plane boundary conditions. Report LR-245, Delft,
1977.
[9] Mittelstedt C, Beerhorst M. Closed-form buckling analysis of compressively
loaded composite plates braced by omega-stringers. Compos Struct
2009;88(3):42435.
[10] Brubak L, Hellesland J. Semi-analytical postbuckling and strength analysis of
arbitrarily stiffened plates in local and global bending. Thin-Walled Struct
2007;45(6):62033.
[11] Brubak L, Hellesland J. Semi-analytical postbuckling analysis of stiffened
imperfect plates with a free or stiffened edge. Comput Struct 2011;89(17
18):157485.
[12] Mijukovic O, Coric B, Pavlovic MN. Transverse-stiffener requirements for the
post-buckling behaviour of a plate in shear. Thin-Walled Struct
1999;34(1):4363.
[13] Chai GB, Banks WM, Rhodes J. The instability behaviour of laminated panels
with
elastically
rotationally
restrained
edges.
Compos
Struct
1991;19(1):4165.
[14] Boay CG, Wah KP. Postbuckling formulation for symmetric laminated panels
with various edge support conditions. Mech Adv Mater Struct
2001;8(1):1528.
[15] Bisagni C, Vescovini R. Analytical formulation for local buckling and postbuckling analysis of stiffened laminated panels. Thin-Walled Struct
2009;47(3):31834.
[16] Vescovini R, Bisagni C. Single-mode solution for post-buckling analysis of
composite panels with elastic restraints loaded in compression. Compos: Part
B 2012;43(3):124758.
[17] Buermann P, Rolfes R, Tessmer J, Schagerl M. A semi-analytical model for local
post-buckling analysis of stringer- and frame-stiffened cylindrical panels.
Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44(1):10214.
[18] Hyer MW. Stress analysis of ber-reinforced composite materials. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1998.
[19] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells: theory and
analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2004.
[20] Loughlan J. The buckling performance of composite stiffened panel structures
subjected to combined in-plane compression and shear loading. Compos
Struct 1994;29(2):197212.
[21] Paik JK, Lee MS. A semi-analytical method for the elasticplastic large
deection analysis of stiffened panels under combined biaxial compression/
tension, biaxial in-plane bending, edge shear, and lateral pressure loads. ThinWalled Struct 2005;43(3):375410.
[22] Steen E. Application of the perturbation method to plate buckling problems.
Technical Report 98-1, University of Oslo, Department of Mathematics,
Mechanics Division, 1998.
[23] . Matlab. Users Guide 2011. Mathworks, Inc.; 2011.
[24] . ABAQUS, version 6.11. Users Manual. Providence, RI, USA: SIMULIA World
Headquarters; 2011.
[25] Falzon BG. The behaviour of damage tolerant hat-stiffened composite panels
loaded in uniaxial compression. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf
2001;32(9):125562.
[26] Falzon BG, Steven GP. Buckling mode transition in hat-stiffened composite
panels loaded in uniaxial compression. Compos Struct 1997;37(2):25367.