Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws
A semi-analytical model for global buckling
and postbuckling analysis of stiffened panels
Eirik Byklum
a,Ã
, Eivind Steen
a
, Jørgen Amdahl
b
a
Det Norske Veritas, Maritime Technology and Production Centre, Veritasveien 1,
N-1322 Høvik, Norway
b
Department of Marine Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
Received 27 February 2003; received in revised form 24 November 2003; accepted 23 December 2003
Abstract
A computational model for global buckling and postbuckling analysis of stiffened panels
is derived. The loads considered are biaxial in-plane compression or tension, shear, and lat-
eral pressure. Deflections are assumed in the form of trigonometric function series, and the
principle of stationary potential energy is used for deriving the equilibrium equations. Lat-
eral pressure is accounted for by taking the deflection as a combination of a clamped and a
simply supported deflection mode. The global buckling model is based on Marguerre’s non-
linear plate theory, by deriving a set of anisotropic stiffness coefficients to account for the
plate stiffening. Local buckling is treated in a separate local model developed previously.
The anisotropic stiffness coefficients used in the global model are derived from the local
analysis. Together, the two models provide a tool for buckling assessment of stiffened
panels. Implemented in the computer code PULS, developed at Det Norske Veritas, local
and global stresses are combined in an incremental procedure. Ultimate limit state estimates
for design are obtained by calculating the stresses at certain critical points, and using the
onset of yielding due to membrane stress as the limiting criterion.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stiffened panel; Global deflection; Buckling; Postbuckling; Ultimate strength; Analytical
model; Energy principles
Ã
Corresponding author. Tel.: +47-67-57-99-00; fax: +47-67-57-99-11.
E-mail address: eirik.byklum@dnv.com (E. Byklum).
0263-8231/$ - see front matter #2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2003.12.006
1. Introduction
The global capacity of ships and offshore structures depends to a large extent
on the buckling strength of the individual stiffened panels. In order to achieve
safe and economical design, it is therefore necessary to have a tool for buckling
assessment of stiffened panels. Such a tool should be computationally efficient
and as accurate as possible. The global buckling model presented in the follow-
ing is developed as one part of such a tool. Together with a local buckling
model presented in [1], it may be used for buckling assessment of stiffened
panels. The models are implemented in PULS, which is a computer code for
buckling assessment developed at Det Norske Veritas. Local and global stresses
are combined in an incremental procedure [2,3], and ultimate limit state estimates
are obtained.
The stiffened panel is assumed to consist of a rectangular plate area with longi-
tudinal stiffeners in one direction and heavy transverse girders in the other direc-
tion, as shown in Fig. 1. This is a typical configuration for the deck, side, or
bottom of a ship hull girder. The loads acting on a stiffened panel in a ship are in-
plane compression or tension, resulting from the overall hull girder bending
moment or torsion, shear force resulting from the hull girder shear force, and lat-
eral pressure resulting from internal cargo or the external sea.
The computational model for the global buckling is developed by considering
the stiffened panel as a plate with anisotropic stiffness coefficients. The anisotropy
is structural, meaning that it is caused by the plate stiffening. The material is
assumed to be isotropic elastic. The local deformation of the plating and stiffeners
is accounted for by applying a set of reduced anisotropic stiffness coefficients,
which is derived from the local buckling model [1]. Due to the local buckling
effects, the stiffness properties are reduced compared to the initial stiffness.
Fig. 1. Stiffened panel.
E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 702
Consistent with the anisotropic/orthotropic plate theory, the global buckling
mode involves lifting the stiffeners out-of-plane together with the plating, as
illustrated in Fig. 2. With respect to the global and local mode interaction effect as
implemented in the PULS code [2], the global deflections are assumed not to influ-
ence the local deformation, and the procedure may therefore be viewed upon as a
kind of one-way interaction between local and global buckling.
The response of the stiffened plate during buckling is studied using the principle
of stationary potential energy:
dP ¼ dU þdT ¼ 0 ð1Þ
G is total potential energy, U is internal energy, T is the potential of the external
loads, and d is the variational operator. Using trigonometric functions to represent
the displacement, analytical expressions are found for the potential energy.
The stationary potential energy principle generates the nonlinear algebraic equi-
librium equations, which are next solved numerically using perturbation methods
[4]. The numerical procedure involves deriving the incremental stiffness matrices
and load vectors, consistent with a first order perturbation expansion of the equi-
librium equations. By stepping along the equilibrium path in very small increments,
directly using the arc length parameter as control [5], equilibrium iterations are
abandoned and fast and sufficiently accurate solutions are achieved. Numerical
results confirming this are given in Section 5.
Previously, the large deflection response of unstiffened plates had been studied
analytically by Ueda et al. [6] and Paik et al. [7]. In these studies, isotropic elastic
plates were considered. The global deflection of a stiffened plate was studied ana-
lytically using a single degree of freedom model in [8]. The effect of local defor-
mation was not accounted for. In the present work, the buckling and postbuckling
problem is solved for plates with general anisotropic stiffness, and for a combination
Fig. 2. Global buckling deflection in a stiffened panel.
703 E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717
of simply supported mode deflection and clamped mode deflection, using a two-
span model philosophy (Fig. 5).
2. Definition of global stiffness coefficients
The global stiffness coefficients C
ij
for the stiffened panel are defined as the
change in load N
i
resulting from a change in displacement e
j
, provided that all
other displacements are kept fixed. The loads considered on the global level are
defined as (see Fig. 3):
N
1
axial force per unit breadth in x-direction
N
2
axial force per unit length in y-direction
N
3
shear flow
M
1
resulting moment about the plate plane due to N
1
M
2
resulting moment about the plate plane due to N
2
M
3
torsional moment
The corresponding displacements are:
e
1
average strain in x-direction
e
2
average strain in y-direction
e
3
shear strain
j
1
curvature about the y-axis
j
2
curvature about the x-axis
j
3
torsion
It should be noted that these definitions are somewhat unusual, since N
3
is shear
flow rather than force in z-direction, and M
3
is torsional moment rather than
moment about the z-axis. The displacement parameters used are all average values.
Hence, the stiffness coefficients may also be considered as averaged over the panel.
Fig. 3. Definition of global forces and moments.
E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 704
Consistent with the first order perturbation expansion of the equilibrium sol-
ution, the incremental force–displacement relation for the stiffened panel is [9]:
DN
1
DN
2
DN
3
DM
1
DM
2
DM
3
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
¼
C
11
C
12
C
13
Q
11
Q
12
Q
13
C
21
C
22
C
23
Q
21
Q
22
Q
23
C
31
C
32
C
33
Q
31
Q
32
Q
33
Q
11
Q
21
Q
31
D
11
D
12
D
13
Q
12
Q
22
Q
32
D
21
D
22
D
23
Q
13
Q
23
Q
33
D
31
D
32
D
33
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
De
1
De
2
De
3
Dj
1
Dj
2
Dj
3
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
ð2Þ
The stiffness matrix is symmetric, so that C
ij
¼ C
ji
and D
ij
¼ D
ji
. The stiffness coef-
ficients may be divided into a linear and a nonlinear part:
C
ij
¼ C
L
ij
þC
NL
ij
ð3Þ
D
ij
¼ D
L
ij
þD
NL
ij
ð4Þ
Q
ij
¼ Q
L
ij
þQ
NL
ij
ð5Þ
The linear parts are the ones corresponding to classical orthotropic stiffness coeffi-
cients, and these are independent of load and displacement. The nonlinear parts
are calculated using the local buckling model, and will be functions of load and
displacement. For compressive loads they will be negative, resulting in a stiffness
reduction.
3. Derivation of reduced stiffness
For calculation of the reduced stiffness coefficients to be used in the global buck-
ling model, the total forces are written as follows:
N
M
_ _
¼
C Q
Q
T
D
_ _
L
e
j
_ _
þ
g
N
ðA
mn
Þ
g
M
ðA
mn
Þ
_ _
ð6Þ
where g
N
(A
mn
) and g
M
(A
mn
) are nonlinear terms, which are due to local buckling
effects. The reduced stiffness coefficients are then defined as:
C
ij
¼
@N
i
@e
j
¼ C
L
ij
þ
@g
N
i
@e
j
ð7Þ
Q
ij
¼
@N
i
@j
j
¼ Q
L
ij
þ
@g
N
i
@j
j
ð8Þ
¼
@M
j
@e
i
¼ Q
L
ij
þ
@g
M
j
@e
i
ð9Þ
D
ij
¼
@M
i
@j
j
¼ M
L
ij
þ
@g
M
i
@j
j
ð10Þ
The reduced stiffness coefficients are derived using the local buckling model pre-
sented in [1]. First, the resultant forces and moments are calculated by integration
705 E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717
of the membrane stress:
N
i
¼
_
h
r
ii
dz ð11Þ
M
i
¼
_
h
zr
ii
dz ð12Þ
The neutral axis of the stiffener is not known, since it is continuously changing
during buckling. The bending moment is therefore calculated about the middle
plate plane. The neutral axis and the neutral bending stiffness coefficients can be
calculated once the in-plane and bending stiffness are determined.
For open profile stiffeners, the following expressions were calculated in [1] for
the internal axial and transverse force:
N
1
¼ E
A
T
b
1 þ
m
2
bt
A
T
1 Àm
2
ð Þ
_ _
e
1
þ
mtE
1 Àm
2
e
2
þ
EA
s
z
gs
b
j
1
þg
N
1
ð13Þ
N
2
¼
mtE
1 Àm
2
e
1
þ
tE
1 Àm
2
e
2
þg
N
2
ð14Þ
where A
T
is the total cross-sectional area, A
s
is the stiffener area, and z
gs
is the dis-
tance from the plate plane to the centroid of the stiffener. The curvature j
1
is due
to global deflection. The shear force and bending moment are:
N
3
¼ Gte
3
þg
N
3
ð15Þ
M
1
¼
EA
s
b
e
1
þ
EI
b
j
1
þg
M
1
ð16Þ
where I is the moment of inertia of the whole cross-section. The stiffness coeffi-
cients are found by differentiation of the above expressions. The linear parts are
given directly as:
C
L
11
¼ E
A
T
b
1 þ
m
2
bt
A
T
1 Àm
2
ð Þ
_ _
ð17Þ
C
L
12
¼ C
L
21
¼
mtE
1 Àm
2
ð18Þ
C
L
22
¼
tE
1 Àm
2
e
2
ð19Þ
C
L
33
¼ Gt ð20Þ
Q
L
11
¼
EA
s
z
gs
b
ð21Þ
D
L
11
¼
EI
b
ð22Þ
E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 706
All other linear coefficients are zero for open profile stiffeners. The nonlinear
parts of the stiffness coefficients are calculated as:
C
NL
ij
¼
@g
N
i
@w
L
@w
L
@e
j
ð23Þ
Q
NL
ij
¼
@g
N
i
@w
L
@w
L
@j
j
ð24Þ
D
NL
ij
¼
@g
M
i
@w
L
@w
L
@j
j
ð25Þ
where w
L
is the local deflection. The first part may be found directly by differen-
tiation once g
N
and g
M
are known. They can be calculated from expressions for N
i
and M
i
derived for the local model in [1]. The second part is calculated using the
equilibrium equations for the local buckling problem. By applying partial differen-
tiation to the stationary potential energy, we get:
@ð@P=@w
L
Þ
@e
i
¼
@
2
P
@w
2
L
@w
L
@e
i
þ
@
2
P
@w
L
@e
i
¼ 0 ð26Þ
@ð@P=@w
L
Þ
@j
1
¼
@
2
P
@w
2
L
@w
L
@j
1
þ
@
2
P
@w
L
@j
1
¼ 0 ð27Þ
By introducing the incremental stiffness matrix K and load vectors G, defined as
K ¼
@
2
P
@w
2
L
ð28Þ
G
e
i
¼
@
2
P
@w
L
@e
i
ð29Þ
G
j
1
¼
@
2
P
@w
L
@j
1
ð30Þ
we can write:
K
@w
L
@e
i
þG
e
i
¼ 0 ð31Þ
K
@w
L
@j
1
þG
j
1
¼ 0 ð32Þ
This means that
@w
L
@e
i
¼ ÀðKÞ
À1
G
e
i
ð33Þ
and
@w
L
@j
1
¼ ÀðKÞ
À1
G
j
1
ð34Þ
707 E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717
An example of how the stiffness coefficients may change during local deformation
is given in Fig. 4. The calculations are for a steel angle bar (Table 1). The load is
axial, and the imperfection is 1 mm in the local eigenmode.
The values plotted are the ratio between the nonlinear stiffness coefficients and
the corresponding initial values. Q
12
is divided by Q
11
since Q
L
12
is zero. The stiff-
ness ratios are slightly smaller than 1.0 at the start of the analysis due to the imper-
fection. If the imperfection were larger, the stiffness ratios would also have smaller
initial values.
It is seen that the stiffness reduction is significant for C
11
and C
22
, but the most
drastic change is for C
12
, which even changes sign. The reason is that C
12
is posi-
tive for a flat plate due to the Poisson effect, while it becomes negative for large
deflection due to membrane stretching. The change in Q
11
, Q
12
, and D
11
is small.
There is some reduction in D
n11
, which is the neutral bending stiffness. This coef-
ficient is defined in the next section.
It is seen that the stiffness reduction is quite localized. The reduction occurs
around the buckling strain, and the stiffness is almost constant after this. This is a
Fig. 4. Change in stiffness properties during local buckling due to axial load for steel angle bar.
E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 708
general trend found for all the stiffeners investigated here. For smaller imperfec-
tions the stiffness reduction will be even more sudden, while for larger imperfec-
tions there will be a more gradual transition.
4. Global buckling model
For the following derivations, the stiffeners are assumed to be in the longitudinal
direction, but transverse stiffening can be analyzed simply by switching panel
length and breadth. The stiffened panel is supported on all edges by transverse and
longitudinal girders. The length of the panel is a, while the width is B. The loads
considered are in-plane compression or tension, shear force, and lateral pressure.
The edge loads are assumed to be constant in magnitude.
Two stiffener spans and panel widths are included in the model. The intention is
to account properly for the effect of lateral pressure on the panel. The pressure
must be carried by the stiffeners, and the deflection of the stiffeners may therefore
be a combination of the simply supported mode and the clamped mode (Fig. 5).
The deflection shape is therefore taken as a combination of sine terms and cosine
terms:
w ¼ w
s
þw
c
ð35Þ
w
0
¼ w
s
0
þw
c
0
ð36Þ
where s and c denote sine and cosine mode deflection, respectively:
w
s
¼

M
s
m¼1

N
s
n¼1
A
s
mn
sin
mpx
a
_ _
sin
npy
B
_ _
ð37Þ
Fig. 5. Global deflection of stiffener in simply supported mode and clamped mode.
Table 1
Dimensions for stiffened steel plate
Stiffener a (m) b (m) t (m) h (m) t
w
(m) b
f
(m) t
f
(m) r
f
(MPa)
Angle bar 2.73 0.85 0.0165 0.350 0.012 0.100 0.017 355
709 E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717
w
c
¼

M
c
m¼1

N
c
n¼1
A
c
mn
2
1 Àcos
2mpx
a
_ _ _ _
sin
npy
B
_ _
ð38Þ
w
s
0
¼

M
s
m¼1

N
s
n¼1
B
s
mn
sin
mpx
a
_ _
sin
npy
B
_ _
ð39Þ
w
c
0
¼

M
c
m¼1

N
c
n¼1
B
c
mn
2
1 Àcos
2mpx
a
_ _ _ _
sin
npy
B
_ _
ð40Þ
The anisotropic material law for plane stress, using the stress resultants N
1
, N
2
,
and N
3
, is:
N
1
N
2
N
3
_
_
_
_
¼
C
11
C
12
C
13
C
21
C
22
C
23
C
31
C
32
C
33
_
_
_
_
e
1
e
2
c
3
_
_
_
_
ð41Þ
The corresponding flexibility relation is needed for derivation of the stress func-
tion. It is written as:
e
1
e
2
c
3
_
_
_
_
¼
M
11
M
12
M
13
M
21
M
22
M
23
M
31
M
32
M
33
_
_
_
_
N
1
N
2
N
3
_
_
_
_
ð42Þ
The stiffness relation for the resultant bending moments is:
M
1
M
2
M
3
_
_
_
_
¼
D
11
D
12
D
13
D
21
D
22
D
23
D
31
D
32
D
33
_
_
_
_
j
1
j
2
j
3
_
_
_
_
ð43Þ
It is assumed that there is no coupling between resultant forces and moments, i.e.
all Q
ij
terms are zero. This can be done by performing a neutralization of the stiff-
ness coefficients, as explained in [2]. This means that the bending stiffness coeffi-
cients are redefined so that no coupling occurs. The neutral bending stiffness matrix

DD is calculated from the original stiffness as

DD ¼ DÀQ
T
C
À1
Q. For simplicity, the
symbol D is used in the following to denote the neutral bending stiffness matrix.
Using large deflection plate theory [10], the general requirement for strain com-
patibility can be written as:
e
x;yy
þe
y;xx
Àc
xy;xy
¼ w
2
;xy
Àw
;xx
w
;yy
þ2w
0;xy
w
;xy
Àw
0;yy
w
;xx
Àw
;yy
w
0;xx
ð44Þ
Following the same approach as was used in [11], a stress function F is defined
in terms of the stress resultants N
i
in the stiffened plate, so that:
N
1
¼ F
;yy
ð45Þ
N
2
¼ F
;xx
ð46Þ
N
3
¼ ÀF
;xy
ð47Þ
E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 710
Using the material law as defined above, and introducing the stress function F, the
compatibility equation for the anisotropic plate can be written as:
M
1111
F
;yyyy
þM
2222
F
;xxxx
þð2M
1122
þM
1212
ÞF
;xxyy
À2M
1112
F
;xyyy
ÀM
2221
F
;yxxx
¼ w
2
;xy
þ2w
0;xy
w
;xy
Àw
;xx
w
;yy
Àw
0;yy
w
;xx
Àw
;yy
w
0;xx
ð48Þ
The solution to this equation is more complex than for an isotropic plate, due to
the nonzero coefficients M
1112
and M
2221
. A solution is found by assuming the
stress function to consist of the following terms:
F ¼ F
0
þF
s1
þF
s2
þF
c1
þF
c2
þF
sc1
þF
sc2
ð49Þ
where
F
0
¼ À
S
x
y
2
t
2
À
S
y
x
2
t
2
ÀS
xy
xyt ð50Þ
F
s1
¼

2M
s
0

2N
s
0
f
s1
mn
cos
mpx
a
_ _
cos
npy
B
_ _
ð51Þ
F
s2
¼

2M
s
0

2N
s
0
f
s2
mn
sin
mpx
a
_ _
sin
npy
B
_ _
ð52Þ
F
c1
¼

2M
c
0

2N
c
0
f
c1
mn
cos
2mpx
a
_ _
cos
npy
B
_ _
ð53Þ
F
c2
¼

2M
c
0

2N
c
0
f
c2
mn
sin
2mpx
a
_ _
sin
npy
B
_ _
ð54Þ
F
sc1
¼

M
s
þM
c
0

N
s
þ2N
c
0
f
sc1
mn
sin
mpx
a
_ _
cos
npy
B
_ _
ð55Þ
F
sc2
¼

M
s
þM
c
0

N
s
þ2N
c
0
f
sc2
mn
cos
mpx
a
_ _
sin
npy
B
_ _
ð56Þ
711 E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717
By substitution of the assumed stress function into the compatibility equation, it
is found that the coefficients f
1
mn
and f
2
mn
must be:
f
s1
mn
¼
1
4a
2
B
2
ðK1s ÀK2s
2
=K1sÞ

rspq
b
s
rspq
A
s
rs
A
s
pq
þA
s
rs
B
s
pq
þA
s
pq
B
s
rs
_ _
ð57Þ
f
s2
mn
¼ À
K2s
K1s
f
s1
mn
ð58Þ
f
c1
mn
¼
1
4a
2
B
2
ðK1c ÀK2c
2
=K1cÞ

rspq
b
c
rspq
A
c
rs
A
c
pq
þA
c
rs
B
c
pq
þA
c
pq
B
c
rs
_ _
ð59Þ
f
c2
mn
¼ À
K2c
K1c
f
c1
mn
ð60Þ
f
sc1
mn
¼
1
4a
2
B
2
ðK1sc ÀK2sc
2
=K1scÞ

rspq
b
sc
rspq
A
s
rs
A
c
pq
þA
s
rs
B
c
pq
þA
c
pq
B
s
rs
_ _
ð61Þ
f
sc2
mn
¼ À
K2sc
K1sc
f
sc1
mn
ð62Þ
where
K1s ¼
m
4
a
4
M
2222
þ
m
2
n
2
a
2
B
2
ð2M
1122
þM
1212
Þ þ
n
4
B
4
M
1111
ð63Þ
K2s ¼ 2
m
3
n
a
3
B
M
2221
þ2
mn
3
aB
3
M
1112
ð64Þ
K1c ¼ 16
m
4
a
4
M
2222
þ4
m
2
n
2
a
2
B
2
ð2M
1122
þM
1212
Þ þ
n
4
B
4
M
1111
ð65Þ
K2c ¼ 16
m
3
n
a
3
B
M
2221
þ4
mn
3
aB
3
M
1112
ð66Þ
K1sc ¼
m
4
a
4
M
2222
þ
m
2
n
2
a
2
B
2
ð2M
1122
þM
1212
Þ þ
n
4
B
4
M
1111
ð67Þ
K2sc ¼ À2
m
3
n
a
3
B
M
2221
À2
mn
3
aB
3
M
1112
ð68Þ
and f
0,0
is defined as zero. The coefficients b
s
rspq
, b
c
rspq
, and b
sc
rspq
can be found in [12].
The potential of internal energy is generally written as
U ¼
1
2
_
V
re dV ð69Þ
The strain is first divided into a constant membrane part e
m
and a linearly varying
bending part e
b
¼ zj. Integration is then performed over the thickness in order to
E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 712
express the potential energy as a function of stress resultants:
U ¼
1
2
_
V
rðe
m
þe
b
ÞdV ð70Þ
¼
1
2
_
V
re
m
dV þ
1
2
_
V
zrj dV ð71Þ
¼
1
2
_
A
Ne
m
dV þ
1
2
_
V
Mj dV ð72Þ
¼ U
m
þU
b
ð73Þ
By substitution of the material law, the membrane energy is written as:
U
m
¼
1
2
M
11
_
A
N
2
1
dA þM
22
_
A
N
2
2
dA þM
33
_
A
N
2
3
dA
_
þ2M
12
_
A
N
1
N
2
dA þ2M
13
_
A
N
1
N
3
dA þ2M
23
_
A
N
2
N
3
dA
_
ð74Þ
The membrane energy is calculated by substitution of the stress function and inte-
grating over the plate area. The final expression can be found in [12]. The bending
energy is:
U
b
¼
1
2
D
11
_
A
j
2
1
dA þD
22
_
A
j
2
2
dA þD
33
_
A
j
2
3
dA
_
þ2D
12
_
A
j
1
j
2
dA þ2D
13
_
A
j
1
j
3
dA þ2D
23
_
A
j
2
j
3
dA
_
ð75Þ
The resulting expression is found by substituting j
1
¼ w
;xx
, j
2
¼ w
;yy
, and
j
3
¼ 2w
;xy
, and performing the integration. The result is given in [12].
The energy due to in-plane tension or compression load is:
T
c
¼
_
2a
0
_
2B
0
N
1
u
;x
dy dx þ
_
2a
0
_
2B
0
N
2
v
;y
dy dx ð76Þ
The shear energy is:
T
s
¼ N
3
_
2a
0
_
2B
0
ðu
;y
þv
;x
Þdy dx ð77Þ
The energy due to lateral pressure is:
T
lp
¼ À
_
2a
0
_
2B
0
pw dy dx ð78Þ
It is seen that contribution from the sine deflection to the lateral pressure energy
vanishes upon integration. This is due to the anti-symmetry of the sine deflection.
Physically, this means that lateral pressure will only give rise to deflection in the
713 E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717
cosine mode. For combined loads, the deflection will be a combination of the two.
All final expressions can be found in [12].
5. Results
For verification of the computational model developed, analyses were performed
using the nonlinear finite element code ABAQUS.
In the first case, the anisotropic material option was applied for the case of an
unstiffened plate. This means that all the in-plane stiffness coefficients may be given
independently, while the bending stiffness is given directly by integration over the
thickness.
Fig. 6 shows the nondimensional load-shortening response for an 840 Â980 Â
11 mm aluminium plate with elastic modulus E ¼ 70 000 MPa and yield stress
r
f
¼ 240 MPa. A combination of lateral pressure p ¼ 0:2 MPa, corresponding to a
20 m water column, and transverse compression, S
y
¼ 240 MPa, is applied pro-
portionally. The combination of in-plane and out-of-plane loads gives a deflection
mode in between simply supported and clamped. In order to check the model with
anisotropic stiffness, the stiffness was arbitrarily chosen so that C
1112
¼ C
2221
¼
C
iso
1212
. The imperfection is 10 mm in the eigenmode.
It is seen that this load combination results in a snap-back response. The reason
is that the imperfection and the transverse loading gives a deflection in the simply
supported mode in the first part of the analysis, while the lateral pressure eventu-
ally forces the deflection into a clamped mode. It is seen that the agreement
between the results from the model and from ABAQUS is very good. This shows
that the first order perturbation expansion works very well even for such a complex
Fig. 6. Load–average strain response for anisotropic plate subjected to combined transverse load and
lateral pressure.
E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 714
response. Also, the lateral pressure effect, which gives a resulting deflection mode
in between simply supported and clamped, is well taken care of.
In order to check the bending stiffness formulations, analyses are performed
using a stiffened panel in ABAQUS. It is desirable to compare the model with a
stiffened panel deflecting in a pure global mode, i.e. without local buckling of plate
and stiffeners. One way to achieve this is to model a panel with very large plate
thickness compared to the panel dimensions. Such a panel is likely to deflect glo-
bally without local deformations.
A stiffened panel consisting of three aluminium profiles (Table 2) is modelled in
ABAQUS. The thickness of the plate, the web, and the flange is increased from the
original dimensions given in the table to 50 mm. This geometry is so stocky that
the resulting deformation is purely in the global mode. Analyses are performed on
the stiffened panel in ABAQUS for axial and transverse loading, with an imperfec-
tion in the global mode equal to 3.6 mm. Analyses are then performed with the
global buckling model using linear anisotropic stiffness coefficients according to the
stiffener dimensions, as explained previously. The results are shown in Fig. 7. It is
seen that the agreement is very good.
In Fig. 8, the response of this panel under axial loading, calculated using linear
stiffness coefficients, is compared with the response calculated using reduced stiff-
ness resulting from local buckling analysis. The imperfection is 3.2 mm in the local
mode and 3.6 mm in the global mode. It is seen that the global deflection is larger
when the reduced stiffness is applied, as expected. In this analysis, the stiffness
Table 2
Dimensions for aluminium stiffeners
Stiffener a (m) b (m) t (m) h (m) t
w
(m) b
f
(m) t
f
(m) r
f
(MPa)
Tee bar 2.4 0.32 0.005 0.075 0.005 0.040 0.005 240
Fig. 7. Load–average strain response due to pure global buckling for stiffened panel subjected to axial
compression (left) and transverse compression (right).
715 E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717
coefficients input to the global model are gradually reduced, corresponding to the
current load factor.
6. Concluding remarks
A computational model for the analysis of global buckling and postbuckling of
stiffened panels has been derived. The model was developed as part of a tool for
buckling assessment of stiffened panels. It is formulated using large deflection plate
theory and energy principles. Any combination of biaxial in-plane compression or
tension, shear, and lateral pressure may be analyzed. The procedure is semi-ana-
lytical in the sense that all energy formulations are derived analytically, while a
numerical method is used for solving the resulting set of equations, and for incre-
menting the solution. The load–deflection curves produced by the proposed model
are compared with results from nonlinear FEM. Good correspondence is achieved,
and the efficiency of the calculations is high.
The global model is combined with a local buckling model in the DNV com-
puter code PULS [13]. In this program, the ultimate strength of panels is estimated
by checking the stress at certain critical points at each increment. Using the von
Mises yield criterion, the onset of yielding is taken as the collapse load for design
purposes. This is conservative, and a sound, design approach, since yielding will
give unwanted permanent deformations in the structure.
Acknowledgements
This study has been performed with support from the Norwegian Research
Council and Det Norske Veritas.
Fig. 8. Load–average strain response during axial load calculated from global buckling model using lin-
ear and nonlinear stiffness coefficients.
E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 716
References
[1] Byklum E, Amdahl J. A simplified method for elastic large deflection analysis of plates and stif-
fened panels due to local buckling. Thin-Walled Structures 2002;40(11):923–51.
[2] Det Norske Veritas. PULS 1.5 theory manual. 2003.
[3] Byklum E, Amdahl J. Nonlinear buckling analysis and ultimate strength prediction of stiffened steel
and aluminium panels. The Second International Conference on Advances in Structural Engineer-
ing and Mechanics, Pusan. 2002.
[4] Huseyin K. Nonlinear theory of elastic stability. Leyden: Nordhoff International Publishing; 1975.
[5] Steen E. Application of the perturbation method to plate buckling problems. Research report in
mechanics 98-1, University of Oslo, 1998.
[6] Ueda Y, Rashed S, Paik J. An incremental Galerkin method for plates and stiffened plates. Compu-
ters and Structures 1987;27(1):147–56.
[7] Paik J, Thayamballi A, Lee S, Kang S. A semi-analytical method for the elastic–plastic large deflec-
tion analysis of welded steel or aluminium plating under combined in-plane and lateral pressure
loads. Thin-Walled Structures 2001;39:125–52.
[8] Steen E. Elastic buckling and postbuckling of eccentrically stiffened plates. International Journal of
Solids and Structures 1989;25(7):751–68.
[9] Steen E. Buckling of stiffened plates using a Shanley model approach. Research report in mechanics
99-1, University of Oslo, 1999.
[10] Marguerre K. Die mittragende Breite der gedruckten Platte. Luftfahrtsforschung 1937;14(3):121–8.
[11] Levy S. Bending of rectangular plates with large deflection. Report 737, NACA, 1942.
[12] Byklum E. Ultimate strength analysis of stiffened steel and aluminium panels using semi-analytical
methods. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2002.
[13] Det Norske Veritas. PULS 1.5 user’s manual. 2003.
717 E. Byklum et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717

. 1. The stiffened panel is assumed to consist of a rectangular plate area with longitudinal stiffeners in one direction and heavy transverse girders in the other direction. the stiffness properties are reduced compared to the initial stiffness. 1. Introduction The global capacity of ships and offshore structures depends to a large extent on the buckling strength of the individual stiffened panels. The loads acting on a stiffened panel in a ship are inplane compression or tension. which is a computer code for buckling assessment developed at Det Norske Veritas. meaning that it is caused by the plate stiffening. Fig.3]. This is a typical configuration for the deck. shear force resulting from the hull girder shear force. The computational model for the global buckling is developed by considering the stiffened panel as a plate with anisotropic stiffness coefficients. Stiffened panel. Local and global stresses are combined in an incremental procedure [2. The models are implemented in PULS. or bottom of a ship hull girder. and ultimate limit state estimates are obtained. side. it is therefore necessary to have a tool for buckling assessment of stiffened panels. and lateral pressure resulting from internal cargo or the external sea. The local deformation of the plating and stiffeners is accounted for by applying a set of reduced anisotropic stiffness coefficients.702 E. resulting from the overall hull girder bending moment or torsion. In order to achieve safe and economical design. Such a tool should be computationally efficient and as accurate as possible. The global buckling model presented in the following is developed as one part of such a tool. Due to the local buckling effects. as shown in Fig. it may be used for buckling assessment of stiffened panels. Together with a local buckling model presented in [1]. Byklum et al. The anisotropy is structural. The material is assumed to be isotropic elastic. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 1. which is derived from the local buckling model [1].

The stationary potential energy principle generates the nonlinear algebraic equilibrium equations. [6] and Paik et al. [7]. . and d is the variational operator. By stepping along the equilibrium path in very small increments. equilibrium iterations are abandoned and fast and sufficiently accurate solutions are achieved. and the procedure may therefore be viewed upon as a kind of one-way interaction between local and global buckling. the large deflection response of unstiffened plates had been studied analytically by Ueda et al. With respect to the global and local mode interaction effect as implemented in the PULS code [2]. the global deflections are assumed not to influence the local deformation. 2. The response of the stiffened plate during buckling is studied using the principle of stationary potential energy: dP ¼ dU þ dT ¼ 0 ð1Þ G is total potential energy. In these studies. Using trigonometric functions to represent the displacement. and for a combination Fig. which are next solved numerically using perturbation methods [4]. U is internal energy. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 703 Consistent with the anisotropic/orthotropic plate theory. isotropic elastic plates were considered. directly using the arc length parameter as control [5]. the buckling and postbuckling problem is solved for plates with general anisotropic stiffness. Global buckling deflection in a stiffened panel. The global deflection of a stiffened plate was studied analytically using a single degree of freedom model in [8]. 2. In the present work. The numerical procedure involves deriving the incremental stiffness matrices and load vectors. Previously. Byklum et al. Numerical results confirming this are given in Section 5. consistent with a first order perturbation expansion of the equilibrium equations. as illustrated in Fig. the global buckling mode involves lifting the stiffeners out-of-plane together with the plating. T is the potential of the external loads.E. analytical expressions are found for the potential energy. The effect of local deformation was not accounted for.

Hence. using a twospan model philosophy (Fig. The loads considered on the global level are defined as (see Fig. Definition of global stiffness coefficients The global stiffness coefficients Cij for the stiffened panel are defined as the change in load Ni resulting from a change in displacement ej. The displacement parameters used are all average values. since N3 is shear flow rather than force in z-direction. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 of simply supported mode deflection and clamped mode deflection. Byklum et al.704 E. 3): N1 N2 N3 M1 M2 M3 axial force per unit breadth in x-direction axial force per unit length in y-direction shear flow resulting moment about the plate plane due to N1 resulting moment about the plate plane due to N2 torsional moment The corresponding displacements are: e1 e2 e3 j1 j2 j3 average strain in x-direction average strain in y-direction shear strain curvature about the y-axis curvature about the x-axis torsion It should be noted that these definitions are somewhat unusual. the stiffness coefficients may also be considered as averaged over the panel. 5). provided that all other displacements are kept fixed. Definition of global forces and moments. and M3 is torsional moment rather than moment about the z-axis. 2. . 3. Fig.

The reduced stiffness coefficients are then defined as: Cij ¼ Qij ¼ ¼ @Ni @gNi L ¼ Cij þ @ej @ej @Ni @gNi ¼ QL þ ij @jj @jj ð7Þ ð8Þ ð9Þ ð10Þ @gMj @Mj ¼ QL þ ij @ei @ei @Mi @gMi L Dij ¼ ¼ Mij þ @jj @jj The reduced stiffness coefficients are derived using the local buckling model presented in [1]. the incremental force–displacement relation for the stiffened panel is [9]: 3 2 32 3 2 De1 C11 C12 C13 Q11 Q12 Q13 DN1 6 DN2 7 6 C21 C22 C23 Q21 Q22 Q23 76 De2 7 7 6 76 7 6 6 DN3 7 6 C31 C32 C33 Q31 Q32 Q33 76 De3 7 7¼6 76 7 6 ð2Þ 6 DM1 7 6 Q11 Q21 Q31 D11 D12 D13 76 Dj1 7 7 6 76 7 6 4 DM2 5 4 Q12 Q22 Q32 D21 D22 D23 54 Dj2 5 DM3 Q13 Q23 Q33 D31 D32 D33 Dj3 The stiffness matrix is symmetric. which are due to local buckling effects. Byklum et al. the resultant forces and moments are calculated by integration . Derivation of reduced stiffness For calculation of the reduced stiffness coefficients to be used in the global buckling model. For compressive loads they will be negative. and will be functions of load and displacement. and these are independent of load and displacement. so that Cij ¼ Cji and Dij ¼ Dji . resulting in a stiffness reduction. First. 3.E. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 705 Consistent with the first order perturbation expansion of the equilibrium solution. the total forces are written as follows:    L     N C Q e gN ðAmn Þ ¼ þ ð6Þ M QT D j gM ðAmn Þ where gN(Amn) and gM(Amn) are nonlinear terms. The nonlinear parts are calculated using the local buckling model. The stiffness coefficients may be divided into a linear and a nonlinear part: L NL Cij ¼ Cij þ Cij ð3Þ ð4Þ ð5Þ Dij ¼ DL þ DNL ij ij Qij ¼ QL ij þ QNL ij The linear parts are the ones corresponding to classical orthotropic stiffness coefficients.

The curvature j1 is due to global deflection.706 E. For open profile stiffeners. The stiffness coefficients are found by differentiation of the above expressions. The shear force and bending moment are: N3 ¼ Gte3 þ gN3 M1 ¼ EAs EI j1 þ gM1 e1 þ b b ð15Þ ð16Þ where I is the moment of inertia of the whole cross-section. the following expressions were calculated in [1] for the internal axial and transverse force:   EAs zgs AT m2 bt mtE 1þ j1 þ gN1 e2 þ ð13Þ e1 þ N1 ¼ E A T ð 1 À m2 Þ 1 À m2 b b N2 ¼ mtE tE e1 þ e 2 þ gN 2 1 À m2 1 À m2 ð14Þ where AT is the total cross-sectional area. and zgs is the distance from the plate plane to the centroid of the stiffener. The bending moment is therefore calculated about the middle plate plane. The neutral axis and the neutral bending stiffness coefficients can be calculated once the in-plane and bending stiffness are determined. Byklum et al. since it is continuously changing during buckling. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 of the membrane stress: ð Ni ¼ rii dz h ð11Þ ð12Þ Mi ¼ ð zrii dz h The neutral axis of the stiffener is not known. The linear parts are given directly as: L C11   AT m2 bt 1þ ¼E AT ð1 À m2 Þ b mtE 1 À m2 ð17Þ ð18Þ ð19Þ ð20Þ ð21Þ ð22Þ L L C12 ¼ C21 ¼ L C22 ¼ tE e2 1 À m2 L C33 ¼ Gt QL ¼ 11 DL ¼ 11 EAs zgs b EI b . As is the stiffener area.

The second part is calculated using the equilibrium equations for the local buckling problem. They can be calculated from expressions for Ni and Mi derived for the local model in [1]. Byklum et al. we get: @ð@P=@wL Þ @ 2 P @wL @2P ¼ þ ¼0 2 @e @ei @wL @ei @wL i @ð@P=@wL Þ @ 2 P @wL @2P ¼ þ ¼0 @j1 @w2 @j1 @wL @j1 L @2P @w2 L @2P @wL @ei @2P @wL @j1 ð26Þ ð27Þ By introducing the incremental stiffness matrix K and load vectors G. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 707 All other linear coefficients are zero for open profile stiffeners. The nonlinear parts of the stiffness coefficients are calculated as: NL Cij ¼ @gNi @wL @wL @ej @gNi @wL @wL @jj @gMi @wL @wL @jj ð23Þ ð24Þ ð25Þ QNL ¼ ij DNL ¼ ij where wL is the local deflection. By applying partial differentiation to the stationary potential energy.E. The first part may be found directly by differentiation once gN and gM are known. defined as K¼ ð28Þ ð29Þ ð30Þ Gei ¼ Gj1 ¼ we can write: K K @wL þ Gei ¼ 0 @ei @wL þ G j1 ¼ 0 @j1 ð31Þ ð32Þ This means that @wL ¼ ÀðKÞÀ1 Gei @ei and @wL ¼ ÀðKÞÀ1 Gj1 @j1 ð34Þ ð33Þ .

The stiff12 ness ratios are slightly smaller than 1. The calculations are for a steel angle bar (Table 1). The change in Q11. Byklum et al. There is some reduction in Dn11. and D11 is small. Q12 is divided by Q11 since QL is zero. and the imperfection is 1 mm in the local eigenmode. Q12. 4.0 at the start of the analysis due to the imperfection. Change in stiffness properties during local buckling due to axial load for steel angle bar. and the stiffness is almost constant after this. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 An example of how the stiffness coefficients may change during local deformation is given in Fig.708 E. The reduction occurs around the buckling strain. while it becomes negative for large deflection due to membrane stretching. which even changes sign. . which is the neutral bending stiffness. The values plotted are the ratio between the nonlinear stiffness coefficients and the corresponding initial values. The reason is that C12 is positive for a flat plate due to the Poisson effect. The load is axial. the stiffness ratios would also have smaller initial values. This coefficient is defined in the next section. but the most drastic change is for C12. It is seen that the stiffness reduction is quite localized. 4. It is seen that the stiffness reduction is significant for C11 and C22. This is a Fig. If the imperfection were larger.

Byklum et al. For smaller imperfections the stiffness reduction will be even more sudden. the stiffeners are assumed to be in the longitudinal direction.100 tf (m) 0. and lateral pressure.012 bf (m) 0.E. Global deflection of stiffener in simply supported mode and clamped mode. 4. Two stiffener spans and panel widths are included in the model. shear force. The stiffened panel is supported on all edges by transverse and longitudinal girders. The edge loads are assumed to be constant in magnitude.73 b (m) 0. The deflection shape is therefore taken as a combination of sine terms and cosine terms: w ¼ ws þ wc w0 ¼ ws 0 þ wc 0  mpx   npy  sin a B where s and c denote sine and cosine mode deflection. while for larger imperfections there will be a more gradual transition.350 tw (m) 0. The length of the panel is a. while the width is B. respectively: ws ¼ Ms Ns XX m¼1 n¼1 ð35Þ ð36Þ As sin mn ð37Þ Fig. 5. Global buckling model For the following derivations.017 709 rf (MPa) 355 general trend found for all the stiffeners investigated here. . The intention is to account properly for the effect of lateral pressure on the panel. and the deflection of the stiffeners may therefore be a combination of the simply supported mode and the clamped mode (Fig.0165 h (m) 0. but transverse stiffening can be analyzed simply by switching panel length and breadth. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 Table 1 Dimensions for stiffened steel plate Stiffener Angle bar a (m) 2. The loads considered are in-plane compression or tension. 5).85 t (m) 0. The pressure must be carried by the stiffeners.

yy þ 2w0. is: 2 3 2 N1 C11 C12 4 N2 5 ¼ 4 C21 C22 N3 C31 C32 law for plane stress. For simplicity.710 c E.yy N2 ¼ F. 32 3 e1 C13 C23 54 e2 5 C33 c3 ð41Þ The corresponding flexibility relation is needed for derivation of the stress function. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 Mc Nc XX Ac  mn m¼1 n¼1 w ¼ 2 2mpx 1 À cos a    npy  sin B ð38Þ ws ¼ 0 wc 0 Ms Ns  mpx   npy  XX Bs sin sin mn a B m¼1 n¼1 Mc Nc XX Bc  mn m¼1 n¼1 ð39Þ ¼ 2 2mpx 1 À cos a    npy  sin B ð40Þ The anisotropic material and N3.e.xx À w. the symbol D is used in the following to denote the neutral bending stiffness matrix.xx N3 ¼ ÀF. Byklum et al.xy ¼ w2 À w.yy w. This can be done by performing a neutralization of the stiffness coefficients.xx w. It is written as: 2 3 2 e1 M11 4 e2 5 ¼ 4 M21 c3 M31 2 3 2 M1 D11 4 M2 5 ¼ 4 D21 M3 D31 M12 M22 M32 32 3 N1 M13 M23 54 N2 5 M33 N3 32 3 j1 D13 D23 54 j2 5 D33 j3 ð42Þ The stiffness relation for the resultant bending moments is: D12 D22 D32 ð43Þ It is assumed that there is no coupling between resultant forces and moments. so that: N1 ¼ F.xy ð45Þ ð46Þ ð47Þ .xx . The neutral bending stiffness matrix   D is calculated from the original stiffness as D ¼ D À QT CÀ1 Q.yy w0. N2. as explained in [2]. Using large deflection plate theory [10]. This means that the bending stiffness coefficients are redefined so that no coupling occurs. i.xy À w0.xy w.xx À cxy. all Qij terms are zero. the general requirement for strain compatibility can be written as: ex. using the stress resultants N1.yy þ ey.xy ð44Þ Following the same approach as was used in [11]. a stress function F is defined in terms of the stress resultants Ni in the stiffened plate.

xy À w.yxxx ¼ w2 þ 2w0.xx . the compatibility equation for the anisotropic plate can be written as: M1111 F. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 711 Using the material law as defined above. A solution is found by assuming the stress function to consist of the following terms: F ¼ F0 þ Fs1 þ Fs2 þ Fc1 þ Fc2 þ Fsc1 þ Fsc2 where Sx y2 t Sy x2 t À À Sxy xyt 2 2 ð49Þ F0 ¼ À ð50Þ Fs1 ¼ 2Ms 2Ns  mpx   npy  XX s1 fmn cos cos a B 0 0 ð51Þ Fs2 ¼ 2Ms 2Ns  mpx   npy  XX s2 fmn sin sin a B 0 0 ð52Þ Fc1 ¼ 2Mc 2Nc XX 0 0 c1 fmn cos    2mpx npy  cos a B ð53Þ Fc2 ¼ 2Mc 2Nc XX 0 0 c2 fmn sin    2mpx npy  sin a B ð54Þ Fsc1 ¼ Ms þMc NX c X s þ2N 0 0 sc1 fmn sin  mpx  a cos  npy  B ð55Þ Fsc2 ¼ Ms þMc NX c X s þ2N 0 0  mpx   npy  sc2 fmn cos sin a B ð56Þ . Byklum et al.E.xx w.xxxx þ ð2M1122 þ M1212 ÞF.xx À w.xy w.xy ð48Þ The solution to this equation is more complex than for an isotropic plate.yy À w0.xyyy À M2221 F.yy w0.yy w. and introducing the stress function F. due to the nonzero coefficients M1112 and M2221.xxyy À 2M1112 F.yyyy þ M2222 F.

0 is defined as zero. Integration is then performed over the thickness in order to . Byklum et al. bc . and bsc can be found in [12]. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 By substitution of the assumed stress function into the compatibility equation. rspq rspq rspq The potential of internal energy is generally written as ð 1 U¼ re dV ð69Þ 2 V The strain is first divided into a constant membrane part em and a linearly varying bending part eb ¼ zj.712 E. it 1 2 is found that the coefficients fmn and fmn must be:   X 1 s1 s s s s s s fmn ¼ 2 2 bs ð57Þ rspq Ars Apq þ Ars Bpq þ Apq Brs 2 =K1sÞ 4a B ðK1s À K2s rspq s2 fmn ¼ À K2s s1 f K1s mn   X 1 c c c c c c bc rspq Ars Apq þ Ars Bpq þ Apq Brs 2 =K1cÞ À K2c rspq ð58Þ ð59Þ c1 fmn ¼ 4a2 B2 ðK1c K2c c1 f K1c mn c2 fmn ¼ À ð60Þ ð61Þ sc1 fmn ¼   X 1 bsc As Ac þ As Bc þ Ac Bs rs pq pq rs 4a2 B2 ðK1sc À K2sc2 =K1scÞ rspq rspq rs pq K2sc sc1 f K1sc mn sc2 fmn ¼ À ð62Þ where K1s ¼ m4 m 2 n2 n4 M2222 þ 2 2 ð2M1122 þ M1212 Þ þ 4 M1111 a4 aB B m3 n mn3 M2221 þ 2 3 M1112 a3 B aB m4 m 2 n2 n4 M2222 þ 4 2 2 ð2M1122 þ M1212 Þ þ 4 M1111 a4 a B B m3 n mn3 M2221 þ 4 3 M1112 3B a aB ð63Þ ð64Þ ð65Þ ð66Þ ð67Þ ð68Þ K2s ¼ 2 K1c ¼ 16 K2c ¼ 16 K1sc ¼ m4 m2 n2 n4 M2222 þ 2 2 ð2M1122 þ M1212 Þ þ 4 M1111 4 a aB B m3 n mn3 M2221 À 2 3 M1112 3B a aB K2sc ¼ À2 and f0. The coefficients bs .

x Þdy dx ð77Þ The energy due to lateral pressure is: ð 2a ð 2B Tlp ¼ À pw dy dx 0 0 ð78Þ It is seen that contribution from the sine deflection to the lateral pressure energy vanishes upon integration. Physically.yy .xy . The final expression can be found in [12]. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 713 express the potential energy as a function of stress resultants: ð 1 U¼ rðem þ eb ÞdV 2 V ð ð 1 1 m ¼ re dV þ zrj dV 2 V 2 V ð ð 1 1 Nem dV þ Mj dV ¼ 2 A 2 V ¼ Um þ Ub By substitution of the material law. the membrane energy is written as:  ð ð ð 1 2 2 2 M11 N1 dA þ M22 N2 dA þ M33 N3 dA Um ¼ 2 A A A  ð ð ð þ2M12 N1 N2 dA þ 2M13 N1 N3 dA þ 2M23 N2 N3 dA A A A ð70Þ ð71Þ ð72Þ ð73Þ ð74Þ The membrane energy is calculated by substitution of the stress function and integrating over the plate area. and performing the integration. This is due to the anti-symmetry of the sine deflection. j2 ¼ w.E. Byklum et al.xx . this means that lateral pressure will only give rise to deflection in the .x dy dx þ N2 v. The result is given in [12].y þ v. The energy due to in-plane tension or compression load is: ð 2a ð 2B ð 2a ð 2B Tc ¼ N1 u. and j3 ¼ 2w.y dy dx ð76Þ 0 0 0 0 The shear energy is: Ts ¼ N3 ð 2a ð 2B 0 0 ðu. The bending energy is:  ð ð ð 1 D11 j2 dA þ D22 j2 dA þ D33 j2 dA Ub ¼ 1 2 3 2 A A A  ð ð ð þ2D12 j1 j2 dA þ 2D13 j1 j3 dA þ 2D23 j2 j3 dA ð75Þ A A A The resulting expression is found by substituting j1 ¼ w.

5. It is seen that this load combination results in a snap-back response. analyses were performed using the nonlinear finite element code ABAQUS. The reason is that the imperfection and the transverse loading gives a deflection in the simply supported mode in the first part of the analysis. In order to check the model with anisotropic stiffness. Fig. Byklum et al. Load–average strain response for anisotropic plate subjected to combined transverse load and lateral pressure. the anisotropic material option was applied for the case of an unstiffened plate. . It is seen that the agreement between the results from the model and from ABAQUS is very good. The imperfection is 10 mm in the eigenmode. 6 shows the nondimensional load-shortening response for an 840 Â 980 Â 11 mm aluminium plate with elastic modulus E ¼ 70 000 MPa and yield stress rf ¼ 240 MPa. A combination of lateral pressure p ¼ 0:2 MPa. All final expressions can be found in [12]. Results For verification of the computational model developed. In the first case. the stiffness was arbitrarily chosen so that C1112 ¼ C2221 ¼ iso C1212 . while the bending stiffness is given directly by integration over the thickness. This means that all the in-plane stiffness coefficients may be given independently. 6.714 E. Sy ¼ 240 MPa. and transverse compression. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 cosine mode. the deflection will be a combination of the two. corresponding to a 20 m water column. The combination of in-plane and out-of-plane loads gives a deflection mode in between simply supported and clamped. is applied proportionally. This shows that the first order perturbation expansion works very well even for such a complex Fig. For combined loads. while the lateral pressure eventually forces the deflection into a clamped mode.

is compared with the response calculated using reduced stiffness resulting from local buckling analysis.005 715 rf (MPa) 240 response. which gives a resulting deflection mode in between simply supported and clamped. with an imperfection in the global mode equal to 3. 8. It is seen that the global deflection is larger when the reduced stiffness is applied. Analyses are performed on the stiffened panel in ABAQUS for axial and transverse loading. In order to check the bending stiffness formulations. This geometry is so stocky that the resulting deformation is purely in the global mode. Load–average strain response due to pure global buckling for stiffened panel subjected to axial compression (left) and transverse compression (right). The results are shown in Fig. is well taken care of. without local buckling of plate and stiffeners.32 t (m) 0. and the flange is increased from the original dimensions given in the table to 50 mm. It is seen that the agreement is very good. the response of this panel under axial loading. In Fig. analyses are performed using a stiffened panel in ABAQUS.E. Such a panel is likely to deflect globally without local deformations.005 bf (m) 0. One way to achieve this is to model a panel with very large plate thickness compared to the panel dimensions. calculated using linear stiffness coefficients.040 tf (m) 0.6 mm in the global mode.e.4 b (m) 0. 7.2 mm in the local mode and 3. Also. The imperfection is 3. Analyses are then performed with the global buckling model using linear anisotropic stiffness coefficients according to the stiffener dimensions. . the web. the lateral pressure effect. i.6 mm. It is desirable to compare the model with a stiffened panel deflecting in a pure global mode. 7. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 Table 2 Dimensions for aluminium stiffeners Stiffener Tee bar a (m) 2. as explained previously. Byklum et al. In this analysis. The thickness of the plate. the stiffness Fig.005 h (m) 0. A stiffened panel consisting of three aluminium profiles (Table 2) is modelled in ABAQUS.075 tw (m) 0. as expected.

shear. the ultimate strength of panels is estimated by checking the stress at certain critical points at each increment. Load–average strain response during axial load calculated from global buckling model using linear and nonlinear stiffness coefficients. The model was developed as part of a tool for buckling assessment of stiffened panels. and the efficiency of the calculations is high. Any combination of biaxial in-plane compression or tension. coefficients input to the global model are gradually reduced. and lateral pressure may be analyzed. .716 E. Byklum et al. In this program. 8. It is formulated using large deflection plate theory and energy principles. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 Fig. 6. Using the von Mises yield criterion. since yielding will give unwanted permanent deformations in the structure. Concluding remarks A computational model for the analysis of global buckling and postbuckling of stiffened panels has been derived. and a sound. the onset of yielding is taken as the collapse load for design purposes. This is conservative. The procedure is semi-analytical in the sense that all energy formulations are derived analytically. The global model is combined with a local buckling model in the DNV computer code PULS [13]. corresponding to the current load factor. and for incrementing the solution. The load–deflection curves produced by the proposed model are compared with results from nonlinear FEM. while a numerical method is used for solving the resulting set of equations. Good correspondence is achieved. Acknowledgements This study has been performed with support from the Norwegian Research Council and Det Norske Veritas. design approach.

1998.5 user’s manual. NACA. Research report in mechanics 98-1. Luftfahrtsforschung 1937. Buckling of stiffened plates using a Shanley model approach. [10] Marguerre K. Elastic buckling and postbuckling of eccentrically stiffened plates. 1975. Rashed S. [7] Paik J.5 theory manual. / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 701–717 717 References [1] Byklum E. Byklum et al. Nonlinear buckling analysis and ultimate strength prediction of stiffened steel and aluminium panels. A semi-analytical method for the elastic–plastic large deflection analysis of welded steel or aluminium plating under combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads. 2003. Research report in mechanics 99-1. Lee S. 2003. Nonlinear theory of elastic stability. 1942. Computers and Structures 1987. PULS 1. [4] Huseyin K. Ultimate strength analysis of stiffened steel and aluminium panels using semi-analytical methods. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1989.39:125–52.E. [3] Byklum E.14(3):121–8. [8] Steen E. An incremental Galerkin method for plates and stiffened plates. Application of the perturbation method to plate buckling problems. University of Oslo. [6] Ueda Y. Pusan. Thin-Walled Structures 2002. Amdahl J. University of Oslo. [11] Levy S. The Second International Conference on Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics.40(11):923–51. Bending of rectangular plates with large deflection. [2] Det Norske Veritas. Thayamballi A. PULS 1. Paik J. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Die mittragende Breite der gedruckten Platte. Thin-Walled Structures 2001. Kang S. Report 737.27(1):147–56. [13] Det Norske Veritas. 2002.25(7):751–68. [12] Byklum E. [9] Steen E. Amdahl J. . [5] Steen E. A simplified method for elastic large deflection analysis of plates and stiffened panels due to local buckling. 1999. PhD thesis. Leyden: Nordhoff International Publishing. 2002.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful