Pergamon Int. J. Mech. Sci. Vol. 39, No. 10, pp.

1139-1149, 1997
i 1997ElsevierScience Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0020 7403/97 $17.00+ 0.00

P I h S 0 0 2 0 - 7403 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - 8

THEORY AND COMPARISON OF THE EFFECT OF COMPOSITE

AND SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY STIFFENERS ON STABILITY OF
COMPOSITE SHELLS AND PLATES

VICTOR BIRMAN
U M R Engineering Education Center, University of Misso u ri- Rolla, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, M O 6 3121, U.S.A.

(Received 5 June 1996; and in final form 19 November 1996)

Abstract--The effects of composite and shape m e m o r y alloy stiffeners on stability of composite cylindrical
shells and rectangular plates subjected to a compressive load are compared. The governing equations for
reinforced cylindrical shells are developed based on the Love first approximation theory and smeared stiffeners
technique. It is shown that composite stiffeners are more efficient in cylindrical shells, while shape memory
alloy stiffeners may. be preferable in plates or in long shallow shells. It is also proven that shape m e m o r y alloy
stiffeners increase the upper and lower buckling loads, i.e. the linear buckling load and the m i n i m u m
postbuckling load-carrying capacity of cylindrical shells modeled as single-degree-of-freedom systems by the
same amount. @ 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: smart structures, composite shells and plates, shape memory alloys, stability.

INTRODUCTION

The subject of the present paper is a comparison of the effectiveness of composite and shape memory
alloy (SMA) stiffeners in enhancing the stability of composite cylindrical shells and rectangular
plates. The concept of smart piezoelectric stiffeners was introduced by Birman [1, 2]. However, SMA
materials may provide better active structural control than piezoelectrics due to higher strains (and
stresses) that can be generated. It is obvious that the advantages of smart (piezoelectric or shape
memory alloy) stiffeners have to be compared to those available using conventional composite
material stiffeners. Accordingly, the present paper attempts to identify geometries where SMA
stiffeners may provide higher stability. In addition, the effect of SMA stiffeners on the postbuckling
behavior, i.e. on the lower buckling load, is discussed.
Note that applications of SMA for enhancement of stability of composite structures were
considered in Refs [3-8]. In particular, the concept introduced by Baz and his colleagues [6] may
provide a convenient method to accommodate SMA elements within composite structures while
avoiding potential problems due to bonding between SMA and composite materials. According to
this approach, SMA wire is embedded within a resin sleeve bonded to the structure. However, the
wire is not bonded to the sleeve, although it experiences the same bending as the structure. In the
case where a SMA wire is embedded within the sleeves bonded to the surface of the structure or to
composite stiffeners, it may be called a "sliding stiffener", reflecting both the possibility of axial
motion of the wire along the sleeves and its stiffening effect on the structure that experiences bending
or buckling. A comparison between experimental and analytical results that justifies the approach
described above can be found in a number of papers. Mentioned here are the study of stability of
composite beams with SMA (nitinol) wires [6] and the work on the effect of SMA wires on natural
frequencies of plates [-9].
The problem of thermal buckling of composite plates reinforced by SMA fibers embedded within
the composite medium was considered by Zhong et al. [7]. However, the solution obtained in the
present paper is different, because it deals with SMA sliding stiffeners, rather than fibers. In addition,
the present solution considers a more general structural configuration, i.e. a cylindrical shell.
Another difference is related to the qualitative analysis of the effect of SMA stiffeners on the
postbuckling behavior presented in this paper.
The problem of postbuckling behavior of shell structures under mechanical or thermal loading is
of significant practical interest. If the structure is imperfection insensitive, i.e. the postbuckling
load-deformation curve is ascending, it may sustain additional loading. However, imperfection
1139
1140 v. Birman

sensitive structures with a descending postbuckling load-deformation curve exhibit snap-through to

a new equilibrium position that usually results in an unacceptable damage. The study of the
postbuckling characteristics of structures can be traced to the pioneering work of Koiter [-10, 11].
Later studies by Budiansky and Hutchinson [-12], Budiansky [13] and Elishakoff [-14] helped to
elucidate aspects of static and dynamic postbuckling behavior using convenient mechanical models.
Stability and postbuckling behavior of reinforced shells is particularly important, because such
shells represent the principal element of aerospace and ship structures. In particular, studies of
composite shells with stiffeners include the work of Block [-15], Bogdanovich [16], Bushnell et al.
[17], Knight and Starnes [18], Birman [-19] and Lei et al. [20].
One of the important conclusions from the previous research on shell structures is that the lower
buckling load of a structure does not necessarily represent the actual buckling load [-21]. Never-
theless, the lower buckling load is the smallest theoretically possible load corresponding to snap-
through of the shell and its increase is beneficial for the stability.
In the present paper, the governing equations of equilibrium of cylindrical shells with composite
stiffeners (axial and circumferential) and/or axial SMA sliding stiffeners are based on ]Love's first
approximation theory [22]. The qualitative analysis presented in the paper illustrates that the lower
buckling load is affected by SMA stiffeners by the same amount as the linear (upper) buckling load.
Therefore, analysis limited to the linear case can provide important information on the postbuckling
behavior. A linear comparative analysis of shells and plates reinforced by composite or SMA
stiffeners results in the conclusions on appropriate areas of application of each class of stiffeners.

ANALYSIS
Consider a symmetrically laminated multilayered composite cylindrical shell subjected to an axial
compressive load of intensity N. The shell is reinforced by longitudinal and ring stiffeners. The
longitudinal stiffeners may include sleeves with SMA wire, as shown in Fig. 1. The wire is not
bonded to the sleeves, and therefore, it is free to slide along the stiffeners ("sliding stiffeners").
However, the wire is embedded within the sleeves so that it participates in bending of the stiffener
and the shell. The temperature of the SMA wire that was originally in the austenitic phase in reduced
to the martensite finish temperature. Then the wire is plastically prestrained (extended) up to 8%
and its ends are clamped to prevent contraction during the recovery. If the temperature is. raised, the
wire experiences the reverse transformation to the austenitic phase and attempts to recover its

(a)

(b) 2

Fig. 1. Geometry of a shell with axial SMA stiffeners embedded within resin sleeves (a) shell with axial
stiffeners,note that the ends of the stiffenersare restrained;(b) cross-sectionwith a stiffener: 1, shell; 2, SMA
wire; 3, resin enclosure(sleeve)bonded to the shell.
 Effects of composite and shape memory alloy stiffeners 1141

original shape. This recovery is prevented and tensile stresses develop in the wire. Note that the
range of transformation temperatures of a typical SMA is narrow. For example, the martensite start
and finish temperatures of nitinol are 18.4°C and 9°C, respectively [23]. The austenite start and
finish temperatures of the same material are 34.5°C and 49°C, respectively. Therefore, thermal
stresses associated with variations of temperature necessary to prestress the SMA wire can often be
neglected.
Note that using SMA wire working in the reverse transformation regime in ring stiffeners would
be detrimental for stability. This is because reverse transformation is accompanied by a contraction
of a SMA ring and would result in compression of the shell. However, SMA ring stiffeners can be
useful for pressure vessels subjected to an internal pressure [-24].
Although a number of structural problems have been considered using SMA wire embedded
within resin sleeves, the problem of the effectiveness of such an approach compared to conventional
stiffeners has not been discussed. One of the potential drawbacks of SMA wire working in the
recovery regime is due to the axial forces that are transmitted from the wire to supporting structures.
It is necessary to prevent these forces from being transmitted to the supported structure. Otherwise,
they will cancel the beneficial effect of the method. The solution may be to support several spans of
the structure using a continuous wire. In this case, only the outer supports that will be loaded require
a special design. The intermediate supports can be designed to prevent lateral deformations, without
restraining axial displacements of the wire. Power requirements and thermal effects due to heat
transfer from the SMA wire to the composite structure represent other potential problems. The
latter problem is partially addressed if the SMA wire is located within the stiffeners, i.e. outside the
skin. In addition, because the range of transformation temperatures of a typical SMA is small, it is
often assumed that thermal effects are negligible.
The shell is analyzed using Love's first approximation theory [22]. The choice of shell theory is
based on the previous research by Bert and Reddy [25] who illustrated that the results obtained with
Love's theory are very close to those obtained using Sanders' and Morley's theories. On the other
hand, the relatively simple theory of Donnell was shown to be inaccurate for thicker shells and for
longer ones.
Nonlinear strain-displacement relationships for a shell with a middle surface radius R are:
1 2

,~0 = U y -~- w / R "~-I'lhw2

~2! ,)'

~0 = U,y + V,x -'b W x W , y

14,1 ~ --W x x

to2 = - w ~,y + v S R

~c6 = -2Wxy + v x / R , (1)

where u, v and w denote axial, circumferential and radial displacements, and x and y are the axial and
circumferential coordinates. The strains in the middle surface and the changes of curvature and twist
are denoted by e° and ~cl (i = 1, 2 and 6), respectively.
The constitutive stress-strain equations for the shell material are omitted here for brevity. Note
however, that in a multilayered symmetrically laminated material the coupling stiffnesses are equal
to zero, while the extensional stiffnesses, A16 and A26, and the bending stiffnesses, DI6 and D26, are
negligible compared to the other stiffnesses. This means that the constitutive equations are identical
to those for a specially orthotropic material. The contribution of the stiffeners can be accounted for
using the smeared stiffener technique that was shown to yield accurate results even if the number of
stiffeners in the corresponding direction is small [2]. For example, the error due to smearing of three
stiffeners was equal to only 5.5%. Then integrating the stress-strain equations and their moments
through the thickness of the shell we obtain the expressions for stress resultants and couples:
N I ~ ( A l x + E A I / S l ) e ° + A12e ° + (EAI/SI)Z1K1 + Nr/Sl
N 2 = A~2e ° + (A22 + E A 2 / s 2 ) e ° + ( E A 2 / s 2 ) z 2 • 2

N 6 = A66 ~0
1142 V. Birman

Mt = (D11 + EI1/s1)K1 + D12 K2 + (EA1,/sl)zl e°

M 2 = D12K 1 + (D22 + EI2/s2)K2 + (EA2/s2)z2 gO

M 6 = D66 K6, (2)

where Aij and Dij (i, j = 1, 2 and 6) are extensional and bending stiffnesses of the shell without
stiffeners and E is the effective modulus in the axial direction of the corresponding stiffener which is
assumed identical for both longitudinal and ring stiffeners. Note that the modulus of the: SMA wire
in longitudinal stiffeners does not affect the modulus E, because the wire is not bonded to the
stiffeners. The spacings of the longitudinal and ring stiffeners are denoted by s 1 and $2, respectively.
The quantities 11, 12, 2"1 and z2 are the second moments of area and eccentricities of file stiffeners
with respect to the middle surface of the shell (the SMA wire is excluded from the calculations of 11
and zl). The torsional stiffness of the stiffeners is disregarded in Eqns (2). This is justified for open
profile composite stiffeners and/or resin sleeves with embedded SMA wire.
The recovery tensile force in the SMA wire is denoted by N r. This force does not generate
a bending moment, because the wire can move freely along the sleeve. Thermal contributions to the
stress resultants and couples are disregarded in Eqns (2) based on the assumption that the range of
temperatures necessary to activate the stiffeners is very small. Indeed, if the operating temperature
can be identified with the austenite start temperature, a rise in temperature from 60°C to 80°C would
be sufficient to cause a reverse transformation of a restrained nitinol wire with a 3 - 8 % prestrain
[-26]. Note the range of temperatures listed here may differ from typical transformation temperatures
for nitinol [23] due to the effect of tensile stresses on the transformation temperatures.
The equations of equilibrium of a shell according to Love's theory are:
N1, x + N6,y = 0
N6,x + N2,y + M6.x/R + MZ,y/R = 0
Ml.xx +2M6,xy + m2,yy - - N z / R + ( N l w x +N6w,y),x +(N6w,x +N2w,y),y + N w x x = 0 . (3)
The substitution of Eqns (1) and (2) into (3) yields the system of equations of equilibrium in terms
of displacements:
Lu + NA(w) + NB(u, w) + NC(v, w) = 0, (4)
where L is a symmetric matrix of linear differential operators, u = {u v w} v is a vector of displace-
ments, and NA, NB and N C are third-order vectors of nonlinear differential functions. Note that the
first two elements of the vectors NB and N C are equal to zero.
The elements of the matrix of linear operators are:
L t t = ( A l l + EA1/sl)(... ),~ + A66( - - . ),yy
L12 =(A12 +A66)(..-),xy
L~3 = (A~z/R)( ... ),x - (EAx/Sl)Zl (...) ....
L22 = (A66 + D66/R2)(... ),xx + [A22 + D22/R 2 + EA2(1 + 2zz/R)/s2 + EI2/szR2](... ),yy
L23 = (1/R)[A22 + EA2(1 + z2/R)/s2](... ),y -- (1/R)(D12 + 2D66)( ... ),xxy

- (D22/R + EA2z2/s2 + EI2/szR)(... ),,,y

L33 = (Dlt + EI1/sO(... ). . . . . + 2(D12 + 2D66)( ... ),x~yy + (D22 + EI2/s2)(... ),yyyy
- 2(EA2z2/szR)(... ),,, + (1/R2)(A22 + EA2/s2) - (N + N*)( ... ).... (5)
The nonzero elements of the vectors of nonlinear functions in Eqns (4) are:
NAl(w) = ( A l l + EAlSl)WxW,xx +(Aa2 + A66)W yW ~y + A66w xw yy
NA2(w ) = (A12 + Ah6)W,xW,xy + A66w.xxW,y + [A22 + EA2(I + z2/R)/s2]W,yW,yy
NA3(w) = - (At2:/R)(w2,x/2 + ww,x~) - (A22 + EAz/s2)(w2.S2R + WW.yy/R + 3wZyw ,./2)
- 2(All + EA1/Sl)W2,~w,x~, - 2(A12 + 2A66)W,xW,yW,xy
-- (A12/2 + A66)wZ,xw,yy -- (A12/2 + A66)W,~xW2y
 Effects of composite and shape memory alloy stiffeners 1143

NBa(u, w) = -- (A 11 + EA1/sl)(U,xW,x),x -- (Aa2 + A66)U,xyW,y -- A66u,yyWx

-- A12U xW,yy -- 2A66u,yw,xy

NC3(v , w) = -- (A12 -q--A 6 6 ) V xyW x - A66v,xxW,y - [A22 q- EA2(1 + z 2 / R ) / s 2 ] ( I ) , y w , y ) , y

-- A121),yW,xx -- 2A66 ~),xW,x r • (6)

It is shown below that the nonlinear terms do not affect the effectiveness of SMA stiffeners in
enhancing the postbuckling behavior, if the buckling mode shape is represented by a single term of
a double Fourier series. Such an approximation is acceptable in the vicinity of the buckling load,
prior to the change of the buckle pattern [27]. Accordingly, if it is assumed that the mode shape of
a buckled shell remains stable, important conclusions regarding the postbuckling behavior of shells
with SMA stiffeners can be based on linear analysis.
The shell considered in the following analysis is simply supported and axial displacements of its
ends cross sections are not restrained. On the other hand, if the end cross-sections of the shell are
supported by circular bulkheads or stiffeners, as is usually the case, the circumferential displacem-
ents are practically prevented. The boundary conditions discussed here can be satisfied if the
buckling mode shape is represented by
u = U,., cos(m~zx/L)sin(ny/R)

v = V,,. sin(m~zx/L)cos(ny/R)

w = W,., sin(mrcx/L)sin(ny/R), (7)

where L is the length of the shell, while m and n are natural numbers representing the number of
halfwaves in the axial and circumferential directions.
Substitution of Eqns (7) into the equations of equilibrium (4) and applying the Galerkin procedure
yield the set of three algebraic equations with respect to the amplitudes U,,,, V,., and W,,n. The first
two equations of this set are linear so that the amplitudes of the in-plane displacements can be
expressed in terms of W,,,. When these expressions are substituted into the remaining equation of
equilibrium, the result is a nonlinear algebraic equation with respect to W,., that can be xepresented
in the form:
a W 3 . + b W 2 . + [c + d ( N + Nr)] W,.. = 0, (8)
where a, b, c and d are coefficients which depend on the material, geometry and the buckling mode
shape. Note that a similar equation can be obtained for arbitrary boundary conditions as long as the
shell is modeled as a single degree of freedom system, i.e. a single Fourier term is retained in each
displacement component as in Eqns (7).
The lower buckling load of the shell can be obtained from Eqn (8) using the condition
c~N/OW,,, = 0. (9)
The value of Win, corresponding to the lower buckling load is found from equation (9) and
substituted into Eqn (8) yielding
Nlo w = (bZ/'4a - c - dNr)/d (10)
The effect of the recovery forces in the SMA wires on the linear buckling load is immediately
evaluated from the linearized version of Eqn (8):
Nor = - - ( c +dNr)/d (11)

The comparison of Eqns (10) and (11) yields the conclusion that the effect of SMA sliding stiffeners
on the upper buckling load (that coincides with the linear buckling load, in the absence of initial
imperfections) is numerically equal to their effect on the lower buckling load. Accordingly, the,
postbuckling curves in the presence or absence of SMA wires are parallel to each other, as illustrated
in Fig. 2 where "'deformation" along the horizontal axis may be either Win, or the axial contraction
of the shell. The difference between the upper and lower buckling loads is always the same, i.e,
bZ/4ad.
It is now possible to estimate the beneficial effect of SMA sliding stiffeners on both the lineal"
buckling load (upper buckling load) and the lower buckling load. In the following examples the
1144 V. Birman

N (compressive load)
5.5
5

4.5
4
3.5
3 - -

2.5

20 0.5 1 15 2 2.5
Deformation

Fig. 2. Qualitative effect of SMA stiffeners on postbuckling behavior of composite shells. Curve 1: shell with
SMA stiffeners; curve 2: unstiffened shell. The upper and lower buckling loads correspond to the deformation
equal to zero and to the smallest value of N, respectively.

analysis is limited to the linear case. A detailed comparison between the effectiveness of composite
and SMA stiffeners in the postbuckling range would require an evaluation of the coefficients of the
nonlinear terms (a and b). This analysis is a subject of future research.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

The material of the shells considered in the following examples had Thornel 300 graphite fibers
and Narmco 5208 thermosetting epoxy resin [18]. The properties of this material are
Ec = 127.4GPa, ET = 13.0GPa, GL~ = 6 . 4 G P a , VeT =0.38. The skin of the shell had 16 plies,
[ 4 5 / - 4 5 / 0 2 / 4 5 / - 4 5 / 9 0 2 ] s , each ply being 0.14 mm thick.
The purpose of the following examples being a comparison of the effectiveness of composite and
SMA stiffeners, the spacing of both types of stiffener was equal. In the case of axial stiffeners, this
spacing was 0.10l 3 m, if not indicated otherwise. This corresponds to 30 stiffeners reinforcing a shell
with a radius equal to 0.5 m. The spacing of composite ring stiffeners was equal to 0.1 m.
The material of the composite stiffeners was the same as that of the skin. The stacking sequence
was [ - 0 / 4 5 / - 4 5 / 4 5 / - 4 5 / 0 2 / 4 5 / - 4 5 / 0 2 ] s . The effective modulus of elasticity in the direction of the
stiffeners was calculated according to the recommendations of Gibson [28]. The height of the
stiffeners was equal to 20 mm, while their width calculated based on the ply thickness equal to
0.14 mm was 3.08 mm. Such relatively shallow stiffeners were selected to ensure that their weight is
comparable to the weight of SMA stiffeners.
SMA stiffeners considered in this paper were manufactured from a circular cross section wire with
the diameter equal to 5 mm. The recovery stress, equal to 220 MPa, was chosen based on the
consideration of experimental data for nitinol presented by Cross et al. [-26]. The corresponding
force developed in each wire is 4.32 kN. SMA stiffeners were assumed to be embedded within a resin
sleeve bonded to the surface of the shell. The contribution of the material of the sleeve to the stiffness
of the shell was neglected.
A comparison of the effectiveness of various stiffeners on the buckling load is illustrated in Fig. 3
for shells with a relatively large curvature. From this figure it is clear that although SMA stiffeners
significantly increase the buckling load, they cannot compete with composite axial stiffeners. Ring
stiffeners appear to be less efficient than their axial counterparts, although in static and dynamic
buckling problems for longer shells subjected to axial loading they are usually preferable [29].
However, in relatively short shells considered in Fig. 3, an enhancement of the axial stiffness of the
shell is more beneficial than an increase of its circumferential stiffness. A similar conclusion follows
from the work of Almroth [30] who considered the postbuckling response of stiffened cylindrical
shells. Accordingly, ring stiffeners are not as efficient as axial composite stringers, although they are
still more efficient than SMA stiffeners. Curve 4 represents the case where SMA stiffeners are
combined with axial composite stiffeners. Predictably, this results in the highest buckling
load. However, it can easily be shown that a better result could be achieved by simply increasing
 Effects of composite and shape memory alloy stiffeners 1145

Ncr (MN/m)
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
R (m)

Fig. 3. Effect of the radius on buckling loads of cylindrical shells with L = 0.6 m. Curve 1: unreinforced shell;
curve 2: shell with SMA stiffeners; curve 3: shell with axial composite stiffeners; curve 4: shell with combined
axial composite and SMA stiffeners; curve 5: shell with ring composite stiffeners.

the profile of composite stiffeners using the additional material of the same weight as that of
S M A wires.
The effectiveness of S M A stiffeners increases in long shells, as follows from Fig. 4. S M A stiffeners
provide a higher stability of the shells analyzed in this figure when their radius exceeds 1.0 m.
A higher stability of longer shells reinforced by S M A stiffeners can be explained by the fact that while
composite stiffeners become relatively less efficient because of their large span, tensile forces in S M A
stiffeners are not affected by their length. The results for ring composite stiffeners are not shown in
Fig. 4, because they are relatively less efficient in shallow cylindrical shells.
The effect of the length on stability of shells with a large curvature (R = 0.6 m) is illustrated in
Fig. 5. The buckling load for shells reinforced by ring stiffeners, which is not presented in this figure,
was almost insensitive to the length and equal to 0.344 M N m - 1 . The best results were achieved
when axial and ring composite stiffeners were used together. The buckling load of such shells
increased almost by an order of magnitude c o m p a r e d to the shells reinforced in axial or circumferen-
tial directions only; this load varied from 2.434 M N m - 1 (L = 0.6 m) to 2.356 M N m - 1 (L -- 4.0 m).
However, a c o m b i n a t i o n of axial and ring stiffeners results in a relatively heavy shell. In addition,
exceedingly high buckling loads cannot be utilized, because of the possibility of prior material
failure. The results shown in Fig. 5 comply with the previous conclusion, i.e. the effectiveness of
axial composite stiffeners reduces as the length increases. W h e n L > 4.0 m S M A stiffeners, whose

Ncr(MN/m)
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

R (m)

Fig. 4. Effect of the radius on buckling loads of cylindrical shells with L = 4.0 m. Curve 1: unreinforced shell;
curve 2: shell with SMA stiffeners: curve 3: shell with axial composite stiffeners; curve 4: shell with combined
composite and SMA stiffeners.
1146 V. Birman

Ncr (MN/m)
0.6

0.5
~. °'o.
%. "**-,=.
•~ °°-°...
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 L
0 1 2 3 4 5
L (m)

Fig. 5. Effect of the length on buckling loads of cylindrical shells with R = 0.6 m. Curve 1: unreinforced shell;
curve 2: shell with SMA stiffeners; curve 3: shell with axial composite stiffeners; curve 4: shell with combined
axial composite and SMA stiffeners.

Ncr (MN/m)
0.3

0.25 \
0.2
\\ "°'°'oo.....
0.15
%. ~'°°~.°.,
%. =°.......
0.1

0.05

~ m
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
L (m)

Fig. 6. Effectof the length on buckling loads of shallow cylindricalshells with R = 4.0 m. Curve 1: unreinforced
shell; curve 2: shell with SMA stiffeners; curve 3: shell with axial composite stiffeners: curve 4: shell with
combined axial composite and SMA stiffeners.

efficiency is unaffected by the length of the shell, become more effective than axial composite
stiffeners. However, ring stiffeners appear to offer the best solution for the shells with a large
curvature on the basis of comparable weight if L > 1.2 m.
The conclusions from the previous figures do not encourage the application of S M A stiffeners in
composite cylindrical shells with a large curvature. However, these stiffeners become m o r e effective
in shallow shells. This is illustrated in Fig. 6 for shells with R = 4.0 m. Again, as in Fig. 5, the results
for the shells with ring stiffeners are not shown, because the buckling load was not noticeably
affected by length variations and remained equal to 0.051 M N m - ~. The best results were achieved
by combining axial and ring composite stiffeners (0.37 M N m - ~) but, as indicated above,, such shells
are much heavier than the shells analyzed here. The analysis of Fig. 6 yields the conclusions that
S M A stiffeners become more efficient than either axial or ring composite stiffeners when L > 1.7 m.
The previous discussion m a y result in the conclusion that the efficiency of S M A stiffeners
c o m p a r e d to composite stiffeners is highest in shallow shells and plates. This conclusion is correct,
because S M A stiffeners result in an identical increase of the buckling load for both curved and flat
structures. However, both the buckling load and the efficiency of composite stiffeners are m u c h
higher in shell structures than in plates. The validity of the point made in this p a r a g r a p h is reflected
in Figs 7 and 8. These figures present buckling loads resulting in a cylindrical buckling of large
aspect ratio plates subjected to compression along the short edges. O n l y one orientation of the
 Effects of composite and shape memory alloy stiffeners 1147

Ncr (N/m)
200,0~
\
\\
150,000

100,000

50,000 ii~

0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1,4 1.6 1.8 2
L (m)

Fig. 7. Effect of the span on buckling loads of large aspect ratio rectangular plates compressed along short
edges: cylindrical buckling. Curve 1: SMA stiffeners; curve 2: composite stiffeners; curve 3: combined composite
and SMA stiffeners.

Ncr (N/m)
100,000

80,000 \" \

\ -, ,.
1
--II-
2

+0000 3

40,000

20,000

i I
0.05 011 0. 5 02 0.25 013 0.35
Spacing (m)

Fig. 8. Effect of spacing of the stiffeners on buckling loads of large aspect ratio rectangular plates compressed
along short edges: cylindrical buckling, Curve 1: SMA stiffeners; curve 2: composite stiffeners; curve 3:
combined composite and SMA stiffeners.

stiffeners, along the direction of the load was considered, because stiffeners oriented along the long,
edges would be too heavy due to a large span. The stiffeners and the skin were the same as in the,'
previous examples. The solution is immediately available as a particular case of the solution
presented above.
The effect of the length of the short edges of the plate (L) on stability is shown in Fig. 7. The results
for an unreinforced plate are not presented because its stability is very low (buckling loads are less
than 2.0 kN m-1, even for L < 0.6 m). Predictably, the effectiveness of axial composite stiffeners
sharply decreases as the span increases. However, the effectiveness of SMA stiffeners is insensitive to
the length of the span. Although the highest buckling load was obtained for combined com-
posite-SMA stiffeners, better results could be achieved increasing the volume of the SMA material
for longer spans or applying composite stiffeners with larger profiles for shorter spans.
The effect of the spacing of the stiffeners is illustrated in Fig. 8 for relatively long plates
(L = 1.2 m). As follows from Fig. 8, the buckling load decreases as the spacing increases at
approximately the same rate for both types of the stiffener. However, at least in the present example,
the effectiveness of SMA stiffeners increases at a higher rate when their spacing is decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Shape memory alloy stiffeners may present an alternative to composite stiffeners in thin-walled
composite structures. A relative advantage of one type of stiffener over the other depends on the
1148 v. Birman

g e o m e t r y a n d m a t e r i a l of the structure. O t h e r factors that have to be c o n s i d e r e d include p o w e r

r e q u i r e m e n t s for S M A stiffeners, t h e r m a l l y - i n d u c e d stresses, a n d d e g r a d a t i o n of the c o m p o s i t e
m a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s due to the heat transfer from S M A stiffeners to the structure. H o w e v e r , in the
case of a typical shape m e m o r y alloy, the range of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t e m p e r a t u r e s is small so t h a t
t h e r m a l effects on the c o m p o s i t e skin m a y be negligible. W h i l e p o w e r r e q u i r e m e n t s r e m a i n a p r o b -
lem, S M A stiffeners c o u l d be p a r t i c u l a r l y attractive in p r e v e n t i n g t h e r m a l b u c k l i n g where there is no
need for an external p o w e r supply.
As follows from the analysis presented in the p a p e r , S M A stiffeners result in an identical increase
of the u p p e r a n d lower buckling loads, a l t h o u g h the validity of this conclusion m a y be limited due to
a single-degree-of-freedom n o n l i n e a r analysis e m p l o y e d here.
Axial a n d ring c o m p o s i t e stiffeners are m o r e efficient in e n h a n c i n g the b u c k l i n g l o a d of relatively
short cylindrical shells with large c u r v a t u r e t h a n their S M A c o u n t e r p a r t s . T h e efficiency of S M A
stiffeners increases with the length of the shell. S h a l l o w shells are better c a n d i d a t e s for S M A
stiffeners t h a n the shells with significant curvature.
S M A stiffeners m a y be m o r e efficient t h a n c o m p o s i t e stiffeners in plates, p a r t i c u l a r l y , if the span
t h a t has to be s u p p o r t e d is large. C h a n g e s in the spacing have similar effects on the efficiency of S M A
a n d c o m p o s i t e stiffeners reinforcing plates.
Finally, it is i m p o r t a n t to e m p h a s i z e t h a t m o r e research is n e e d e d to justify the a p p l i c a t i o n of
active S M A stiffeners or S M A fibers e m b e d d e d within the c o m p o s i t e m a t e r i a l i n s t e a d of c o m p o s i t e
stiffeners. The list of subjects t h a t require close a t t e n t i o n includes a selection of a p p r o p r i a t e
g e o m e t r i e s a n d l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n s where S M A stiffeners have a d v a n t a g e s over o t h e r technologies as
well as p o w e r r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d t h e r m a l p r o b l e m s . Nevertheless, an interest to S M A stiffeners is
certainly justified by p o t e n t i a l benefits.

Acknowledgements--This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research (grant N00014-94-1-1200 with Dr. Thomas
M. McKenna as the Technical Monitorj and the Army Research Office (grant DAAH04-95-1-0142 with Dr. Gary
L. Anderson as the Technical Monitor).

REFERENCES

1. Birman, V., Active control of composite plates using piezoelectric stiffeners. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 1993, 35, 387-396.
2. Birman, V., Analytical models of sandwich plates with piezoelectric strip-stiffeners. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 1994, 36, 567-578.
3. Baz, A. and Tampe, L., Active control of flexible beams. In Failure Prevention and Reliability--1989 (Proceedings of the
8th Biennial Conference of Failure Prevention and Reliability), ed. S. Sheppard. ASME, New York, 1989, pp. 211 218.
4. Rogers, C. A., Liang, C. and Jia, J., Behavior of shape memory alloy reinforced composite plates I. Model formulation
and control concepts. In Collection of Technical Papers. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 30th Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference. AIAA, Washington, DC, 1989, pp. 2011-2017.
5. Jia, J. and Rogers, C. A., Formulation of a mechanical model for composites with embedded SMA actuators. In Failure
Prevention and Reliability--1989 (Proceedings of the 8th Biennial Conference on Failure Prevention and Reliability). ed.
S. Sheppard. ASME, New York, 1989, pp. 203 210.
6. Baz, A., Ro, J., Mutua, M. and Gilheany, J., Active control of buckling of nitinol-reinforced composite beams. In
Proceedings of the ADPA/AIAA/ASME/SPIE Conference on Active Materials and Adaptive Structures. IOP Publishing
Ltd, Arlington, Virginia, 1992, pp. 167 176.
7. Zhong, Z. W., Chen, R. R., Mei, C. and Pates, C. S., Buckling and postbuckling of shape memory alloy fiber-reinforced
composite plates. In Buckling and Posrbuckling of Composite Structures, ed., A. K. Noor. ASME, New York, 1994, pp.
115 132.
8. Ro, J. and Baz, A., Nitinol-reinforced plates--II. Static and buckling characteristics. Composites Engmj, 1995, 5, 77 90.
9. Ro, J. and Baz, A., Nitinol-reinforced plates III. Dynamic characteristics. Composites Engng, 1995, 5, 91 106.
10. Koiter, W. T., On the stability of elastic equilibrium. Thesis, Delft, the Netherlands, 1945. In Dutch. English translation:
NASA TT-F-10833, Washington, DC, 1967.
11. Koiter, W. T., Elastic stability and postbuckling behavior. In Nonlinear Problems, ed. R. E. Langer. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 1963, pp. 257 275.
12. Budiansky, B. and Hutchinson, J. W., Dynamic buckling of imperfection-sensitive structures. In Proceedings of the
Eleventh International Congress of Applied Mechanics (Munich 1964), ed. H. Goertler. Springer, Berlin, 1966, pp. 636-651.
13. Budiansky, B., Dynamic buckling of elastic structures: criteria and estimates. In Dynamic Stability qf Structures, ed.
G. Herrmann. Pergamon Press. Oxford, 1967, pp. 83 106.
14. Elishakoff, I., Remarks on the static and dynamic imperfection-sensitivity of nonsymmetric structures. J. Appl. Mech.,
1980,47, 111 115.
15. Block, D. L., Influence of discrete ring stiffeners and prebuckling deformation on buckling of eccentrically stiffened
orthotropic cylinders, NASA TN D-4238, Washington, DC., 1968.
16. Bogdanovich, A. E., Nonlinear problems of the dynamic buckling of reinforced laminar cylindrical shells. Soviet Appl.
Mech., 1968, 22, 745-753.
 Effects of composite and shape memory alloy stiffeners 1149

17. Bushnell, D., Holmes, A. M. C., Flaggs, D. L. and McCormick, P. J., Optimum design, fabrication and test of
graphite-epoxy, curved, stiffened, locally buckled panels loaded in axial compression. In Buckling of Structures, ed.
I. Elishakoff et al. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 61-131.
18. Knight, N. F. Jr. and Starnes, J. I. L., Postbuckling behavior of selected curved stiffened graphite--epoxy panels loaded in
axial compression. AIAA J., 1988, 26, 344-352.
19. Birman, V., On the post-buckling behavior of reinforced composite shells. J. Ship Res., 1990, 34, 207 211.
20. Lei, R. P., Johnson, E. R. and Gurdal, Z., Buckling of imperfect, anisotropic, ring-stiffened cylinders under combined
loads. AIAA J., 1994, 32, 1302 1309.
21. Hoff, N. J., The preplexing behavior of thin circular cylindrical shells in axial compression. Israel J. Technol., 1996, 4,
1 28.
22. Love, A. E. H., A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, London, 1927,
pp. 528-532.
23. Brinson, L. C., Bekker, A. and Hwang, S., Deformation of shape memory alloys due to thermo-induced transformation.
J. Intelligent Mater. Systems Struct., 1996, 7, 97 107.
24. Birman, V., Mechanics of long cylindrical composite shells with shape memory alloy stiffeners. In Composite Science
Technology (Proceedings of the First International Conference on Composite Science and Technology), eds. S. Adali and
V. E. Verijenko. University of Natal, Durban, South Africa, 1996, pp. 37-42.
25. Bert, C. W. and Reddy, V. S., Cylindrical shells of bimodulus composite material. ASCE J. Engng Mech., 1982, 108,
675-688.
26. Cross, W. B., Kariotis, A. H. and Stimler, F. J., Nitinol characterization study. NASA CR-1433, 1970.
27. Stein, M., Postbuckling of eccentric open-section stiffened composite panels. Collection of Technical Papers.
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 29th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. AIAA, Washington, DC, 1988,
pp. 57-61.
28. Gibson, R. F., Principles of Composite Materials Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994, p. 52.
29. Fisher, C. A. and Bert C. W., Design of crashworthy aircraft cabins based on dynamic buckling. J. Aircraft, 1973, 10,
693-695. Errata, 1975, 12, p. 500.
30. Almroth, B. O., Postbuckling behavior of orthotropic cylinders under axial compression. AIAA J., 1964, 2, 1795-1799.