1

What is a shell structure and how do they work?

Classification of structural shapes

Structures can be classified in many ways according to their shape, their function and the
materials from which they are made. A structure or structural element may be a fully three-
dimensional solid object like a ball bearing, or it might have some dimensions notable smaller
than others.

If it is largely straight and one dimensional then we might call it a beam, a girder, a column, or
possibly a strut or tie if it is designed to work particularly in compression or tension. We may
be very concerned with the cross-sectional shape of these elements, solid rectangle, I –
section, circular tube and so on, but the size of the cross-section is ‘small’ compared to the
length. There is no absolute rule as how small is ‘small’, except that some mathematical
formulae only work well if the ‘span to depth ratio’ is big enough.

If an element is curved and one-dimensional then it might be an arch or the parabolic cable of
a suspension bridge. Arches and suspension cables rely on curvature for the thrust or tension
in the element to resist lateral loads.

Both straight and curved structural elements are much more efficient at carrying axial forces
than shear forces and bending moments. But compressive axial forces may cause the object
to element deflect sideways and buckle.

It is possible to build up beams or arches from assemblies of smaller one-dimensional

objects, to produce a truss or a truss arch.

A flat two-dimensional object might be described as a plate or slab or wall, depending upon
the job it is called to do. Again there is no absolute rule as to how thin the object has to be
before you think of it as primarily two-dimensional. Plates are very efficient at carrying in-
plane loading, for example when acting as a wall, but less efficient when carrying lateral
loading as a floor slab.

A curved two-dimensional structure is a shell. If a beam is defined by a straight line, an arch

by a curved line and a plate by a plane, then a shell is defined by a curved surface. Again
there is no absolute rule as to how thin a structure has to be before it is called a shell.

The relationship between a shell and a plate is similar to that between an arch and a beam. In
each case the curved object can use its curvature to resist a load perpendicular to its axis or
surface by tensions or compressions parallel to its axis or surface. Shell structures include
birds’ eggs, concrete shells, pressure vessels, ships hulls, sails, balloons, inflatable boats, car
tyres, monocoque car bodies, aircraft fuselages, masonry vaults and the skull. It may seem
odd to describe a balloon as a shell, but it certainly corresponds to a structure formed from a
thin curved surface. The balloon fabric is so thin that it will immediately buckle in compression
and can therefore only carry tension forces. Masonry structures can only work in compression
 2

with the line of thrust within the cross-section. Reinforced concrete shells and steel car bodies
can work in both tension and compression, and may also have appreciable bending stiffness.

Just as a beam can be made from an assemblage of straight elements in the form of a truss,
a shell can be made from linear elements joined together. Examples include grid, lattice and
reticulated (meaning ‘net-like’) shells, geodesic domes, cable nets, fishing nets and spiders’
webs. The words ‘grid’, ‘lattice’ and ‘reticulated’ all mean very much the same thing, although
some authors like to use one or other for particular types of shell. Usually the elements that
make up the shell are all in one layer, but sometimes they are in two or more layers.

There is no clear distinction between structural forms. How wide does a beam have to be
before it becomes a slab? A wide arch is a cylindrical shell. A cylinder is a surface formed by
moving a curve along a straight line and the most common cylinder is the circular cylinder
(often just called a ‘cylinder’), but a cylinder can have any shape. This relationship between
arches and shells makes it worth thinking as much as possible about arches before moving
onto shells with more complicated geometries. There is some mathematics in the following
section, but it does not have to be followed in detail to get the gist of the argument.

Funicular arches
The word ‘funicular’ comes from the Latin for a ‘slender rope’. If a rope carries a uniform
vertical load per unit horizontal length, then it will automatically hang in the shape of a
parabola. The parabola is the ‘funicular shape’ corresponding to a uniform load per unit
horizontal length and the uniform load per unit horizontal length is the ‘funicular load’
corresponding to a parabolic cable. A suspension bridge deck is roughly horizontal and
therefore, in the absence of traffic, it applies a uniform load per unit horizontal length to the
suspension cable via the hangers.

The own weight of the cable itself is uniform

per unit arc length along the cable, rather
than per unit horizontal length. This is usually
neglected in the case of a suspension bridge
because the deck is so much heavier than
the cable, but if a cable is hanging under its
own weight it will hang in a catenary rather
than a parabola. The work ‘catenary’ comes
from the Latin for a chain. Some people use
Figure 1. Parabola and catenary (upper
the words funicular and catenary
curve)
interchangeably, but others prefer to reserve
the word catenary for the particular case of the rope or cable hanging under its own weight.

If a cable is only carrying vertical loads then the horizontal component of tension in the cable,

H = T cos λ = constant .
 3

Here T is the tension in the cable and λ is the slope. The vertical component of tension,

dy
V = T sin λ = Htanλ = H .
dx
Thus in the case of a uniform load per unit horizontal length, w , vertical equilibrium gives

dV d2y
w= =H 2.
dx dx
This can be integrated twice to give

x2
y= .
2c

w
where c= which has the units of length. Thus we have a parabola. We don’t need to
H
worry about the constants of integration, they just move the curve around.

If the loading, w , is constant per unit arc length, s , then

dV dx dV dV 1 dV 1 d2y
w= = = cos λ = = H .
ds ds dx dx 1 + tan 2 λ dx ⎛ dy ⎞
2 dx 2
1+ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ dx ⎠

This can be integrated to give

dy ⎛ x⎞
= sinh ⎜ ⎟ .
dx ⎝ c⎠

w
Again c= and we have left out the constant of integration because it just moves the
H
curve sideways. Integrating again,

y ⎛ x⎞
= cosh ⎜ ⎟ − 1
c ⎝ c⎠

in which the constant of integration is chosen so that the curve goes through the origin. This
is the upper curve in figure 1, while the lower curve is the parabola

It can be seen that the two curves are identical when their slope is low and they only peal
apart when the load per unit horizontal length on the catenary increases with slope.

eθ + e−θ
The function ‘cosh’ is the hyperbolic cosine, cosh θ = , in which e = 2.718... is
2
Euler’s number.
 4

The parabola and catenary have a number of different and sometimes interesting properties.
The catenary is one of the few curves where there is a simple relationship between x and y
and the arc length along the curve, s , starting from the bottom,

2
s ⎛ x⎞ ⎛y ⎞
= sinh ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ + 1⎟ − 1 .
c ⎝ c⎠ ⎝c ⎠

The tension in the catenary is

⎛ x⎞
T = H cosh ⎜ ⎟ .
⎝ c⎠

It is relatively easy to find the funicular load for a given shape of cable or funicular shape for a
given load, either by doing a simple physical experiment or mathematically. Having found the
shape it can be inverted, or turned upside down, to find the best shape for the equivalent
compression structure or arch.

If an arch is carrying a funicular load, there

will be no bending moment in it, which is
equivalent to saying that the line of thrust is
along the axis of the arch. If a non-funicular
load is added, it will produce bending
moments and cause a deviation of the line
of thrust, possibly causing the collapse of a
masonry arch.

The concept of funicular load applies

particularly to structures that have to carry
Figure 2. Torcello, Henri Cartier-Bresson 1956
one dominant load case, perhaps their own
weight or some permanent load due to
water or soil. The arch at Torcello (figure 2)
has to carry the extra of the
masonry supporting the steps. This
means that more curvature is
required towards the supports than
mid-span.

Even if the arch is only supporting

its own weight, it may vary along its
length. Close examination of the
photograph of the Taq-i Kisra
(figure 3) shows that the arch (or
cylindrical shell) is thinner at the Figure 3. Taq-i Kisra or the Great arch of Ctesiphon, Iraq
 5

top. This means that the funicular shape is no longer the catenary and the curvature at the
top needs to be reduced to take into account the reduced loading.

Let us suppose that we want to make a circular cylindrical shell of varying thickness so its
own weight is funicular.

If t is the thickness of the arch, R is its radius and ρ g is its weight per unit volume,

1 dV H d H
ρ gt = − =− ( − tan λ ) = sec 2 λ .
R dλ R dλ R
so that

H
t=
ρ gR cos 2 λ

H
in which is a constant with the
ρ gR
units of length. Note that H is now a
compression, and also has unit of force
per unit width. Figure 4 shows how the
shell gets thicker as it approaches the
vertical. The stress in the arch,

H
σ= = ρ gR cos λ Figure 4. Funicular circular arch
t cos λ ,

which reduces away from the top, the

reverse of what happens with a
catenary.

It seems arbitrary to choose a

cylindrical shell of uniform thickness
(which has the catenary as the
funicular shape) or to choose a circular
shape. Instead one might say that the
compressive stress, σ, should be
constant. If that is the case,
Figure 5. Constant stress arch

dV d dλ
ρ gt = = H ( − tan λ ) = −H sec 2 λ .
ds ds ds
and

H = σ t cos λ .
 6

Thus

ρ g ds 1 cos λ sin λ
=− = −
σ dλ cos λ 1 − sin λ cos λ
ρ g dx
= −1 .
σ dλ
ρ g ds
= tan λ
σ dλ
These can be integrated to give

ρg ⎛ cos λ ⎞
s = log e ⎜
σ ⎝ 1 − sin λ ⎟⎠
ρg
x = −λ
σ
ρg
y = log e ( cos λ )
σ
t
t= 0
cos λ

where t 0 is the thickness at the top of the

arch.

Figure 5 shows a constant stress arch or

cylindrical shell. Let us now think about
scale. If the arch is made from a weak
masonry we might have

ρ g = 25 × 10 3 N/m 3 and

σ = 0.5MPa = 0.5 × 10 6 N/m 2 . Therefore

σ
= 20m which means that if we
ρg
decided to use the part of the arch in figure Figure 6. Three arches, circular (top), constant
5 between -1.25 and +1.25 on the stress (middle) and catenary (bottom)
horizontal axis, the span would be 50m. If
we used concrete at a stress of 25MPa, the corresponding span will be 1250m, or
1.25kilometres.

Figure 6 shows a comparison of the catenary, circular and constant stress arches. They all
have the same thickness and curvature (and therefore stress) and at the top. However the
catenary will have stress increased by a factor of 2.5 at the supports. So the catenary is not a
particularly good shape for an arch or cylindrical shell, unless practical considerations mean
that it has to have a constant thickness.
 7

Membrane stresses in shells

What does this mean for shells? The answer is, possibly, nothing, because shells are
potentially so much more efficient than arches – or they can be if everything is as it should be,
which it rarely is.

Consider a cable hanging under some combination of loads (possibly horizontal as well as
vertical). If it lies in a plane, we have two equations of equilibrium, resolving horizontally and
vertically. There is only one force unknown, the tension in the cable. Thus we have effectively
one equation left over to find the shape, and this is what we did in the previous section. The
same applies to a cable in three dimensions, now we have three equations of equilibrium and
therefore two equations to determine the shape.

The equivalent to axial tension or compression in an arch are membrane stresses in a shell.
Membrane stresses correspond to forces that are tangent to the surface defining the shell.
They are usually specified as a force per unit width, so that to find the stress in the material in
2
MPa (that is N/mm ) one has to divide the membrane stress by the thickness, as we did for
the constant stress cylindrical shell. For shells with ribs, grid shells or fabrics more
complicated calculations are necessary to convert membrane stress to material stress. The
ribs may only work in one direction and for a fabric the tension per yarn is the membrane
stress divided by the number of yarns per unit width.

Shells may also experience bending and twisting moments and corresponding shear forces
perpendicular to the surface. However shells (including grid shells) are much stronger and
stiffer under membrane action than under bending and therefore shells should always be
designed to work as much as
possible using membrane action.
Chris Calladine’s book on shell
1
structures discusses these two
modes, bending and membrane
action, in detail.

A string bag (figure 7) is a shell

structure. Like fishing nets, string
bags only have strings running in
two directions. This is to allow the
squares on the surface to change
to diamond shapes, thus enabling
the surface to take up double
Figure 7 String bag
curvature. If there were a third set
of strings, the surface would be

1
Calladine, C. R., Theory of Shell Structures, Cambridge University Press 1988
 8

fully triangulated, and would not be able to take up double curvature without wrinkling.
Similarly it is not possible to flatten the skin of half a grapefruit, because the skin is effectively
triangulated. It is possible to roll it up (figure 8) and we will return to this later.

The point of this discussion

is that membrane stress
potentially involves stresses
in three directions, or two
orthogonal principal stresses
and their orientation, again
three values. In three
dimensions we have three
equations of equilibrium, one
in each of the x , y and z
directions, or alternatively,
normal to the surface and
two directions tangent to the
Figure 8. Two grapefruit half skins, one rolled-up surface. Thus we have the
same number of equations
as unknowns and this suggests that shell structures are statically determinate. If this is the
case, then all loads can potentially be taken by membrane action and are therefore funicular.

A structure is statically determinate if the internal forces and support reactions can be found
using only the equations of equilibrium. However it NOT enough to just have the right number
of equations, they also have to have a solution. In the case of shell structures the equations
are differential equations, or the equivalent algebraic equations in a computer analysis. They
are partial differential equations in which the coefficients are not constant; they vary with the
curvature of the shell.

It is not a question of whether one is clever enough to solve the equations; it is a question of
whether a solution exists at all, particularly one that satisfies the boundary conditions at the
edge of the shell.

The equations of shell structures, particularly membrane action, show a very deep level of
1
interaction between stress and curvature. Curvature has units of and it is the
length
reciprocal of the radius of curvature, the higher the curvature, the lower the radius of
curvature. Membrane stress and surface curvature are both the same sort of mathematical
objects, symmetric second order tensors. Just as there are principal stresses and a Mohr’s
circle for stress, there are principal curvatures and a Mohr’s circle for curvature. Green and
 9

2
Zerna is a wonderful book on the subject, but expect to spend a number of months doing not
much else to understand it.

The normal component of load is the ‘product’ of the membrane stresses and the curvature.
Here the ‘product’ has to take into account the directions of stresses and curvatures.

The Gaussian curvature is the product of the two principal curvatures. It is positive for a
dome-like or synclastic surface and negative for a saddle-shaped or anti-clastic surface
(horse’s saddle, not bicycle). Cylindrical shells have zero Gaussian curvature since they only
curve in one direction.

Gauss’s Theorema Egregium

Gauss’s Theorema Egregium (illustrious theorem in Latin), states that the Gaussian curvature
of a surface can be calculated by measuring lengths on the surface. In the case of the string
bag, this would correspond to measuring the diagonals of the diamonds. When the grapefruit
is rolled up one principal curvature is increased, but the other is reduced such that their
product remains constant.

Membrane stresses try and stop lengths on a surface changing. Inextensible deformation of a
surface is deformation in which lengths on the surface remain constant, and therefore the
Gaussian curvature also remains constant. A developable surface is a surface with zero
Gaussian curvature and can be made by bending a sheet of paper without changing lengths
on the paper. Developable surfaces include cylinders and cones.

Thus designing a surface to work by membrane action is equivalent to choosing a surface

which cannot be bent inextensibly. The Cohn-Vossen theorem tells us that a closed surface
with positive Gaussian curvature cannot be deformed inextensibly. This is why eggs are so
stiff and strong. On the other hand half an egg, like half a grapefruit, can be deformed
inextensibly. One might think that a cooling tower (a hyperboloid of one sheet) with its big
hole at the top can be deformed inextensibly, but it cannot. The difference between the
grapefruit and the cooling tower is that one has positive Gaussian curvature and the other has
negative.

Thus the Gaussian curvature and the boundary conditions determine whether a structure can
work by membrane action alone, in other words, be incapable of inextensional deformation.
This is a very difficult question, with no general answer. To complicate matters a shell which
works by membrane action alone still has to have sufficient bending stiffness to resist
buckling, unless it is a tension structure like a tent or sail.

If a shell can deform inextensibly, then it cannot carry all loads by membrane action, but it will
be able to carry some loads – funicular loads.

2 nd
A. E. Green and W. Zerna, 1969, Theoretical Elasticity, 2 edition, Oxford University Press
 10

Thus the mathematics is very difficult which is why people rely on computer analysis,
particularly the finite element method. The computer results will show how much the shell
relies on bending, and therefore to what extent membrane action is incapable of carrying the
load. On the other hand the computer analysis won’t tell you why the shell has to rely on
bending moments, and what to do to make things better.

Hyperbolic paraboloids
The Calgary Saddledome
(figure 9) is a hyperbolic
paraboloid (hypar) shell
and is approximately
elliptic in plan. Let us write
the surface as

z x 2 y2
= −
c a2 b2
and the plan of the
boundary as

x 2 y2
+ = 1.
A2 B2 Figure 9 The Calgary Saddledome
The shell is attached to a
ring beam and if we assume that the ring beam is only supported in the vertical direction by
the stands, then the horizontal component of membrane tension in the shell is resisted by
compression in the ring beam, a bit like a warped tennis racquet.

If F is the horizontal component of compressive thrust in the ring beam, consideration of

equilibrium of the shell and ring beam in the horizontal plane tells us that F = constant and
F
that the horizontal components of membrane stress per unit horizontal length are in the x
B
F
direction and in the y direction. Vertical equilibrium now produces a vertical load per unit
A
plan area,

2Fc ⎛ A B ⎞
w= ⎜ − ⎟.
AB ⎝ a 2 b 2 ⎠

When the engineers were designing the roof they found that their computer printouts (this
was before graphic displays) showed very high bending stresses, but they didn’t know why. It
A B
was only when they realised that they had chosen 2
= 2 that it became clear what the
a b
 11

problem was. So they lowered the mid-point of the shell (decreased a and increased b ) and
found the stresses dropped dramatically.

Figure 10 shows a shell by Milo

Ketchum made up of a number
of hyperbolic paraboloids. Each
hyperbolic paraboloid has
straight line boundaries and the
stresses in the shells are
tensions in the sagging
direction and compression in
the arching direction – exactly
what one wants. The tensions Figure 10 Hyperbolic paraboloid shell by Milo Ketchum
and compressions cancel out
in the direction perpendicular to the boundaries, but add in the tangential direction, producing
an axial force in the boundary, which goes straight down to the ground.

Shells of revolution
The simplest shell forms to analyse are shells of revolution under a radially symmetric load.
For simplicity we will consider only a load due to self-weight, ρ gt per unit surface area.

Symmetry means that we only have two, not three components of membrane stress. The
hoop stress, σ H , acts around a circle in a horizontal plane. The longitudinal stress, σ L , acts
‘up the slope’ perpendicular to the hoop stress. Membrane stresses are usually taken as
tensile positive, even in a structure we know will be predominately in compression.

The shape of the shell is described by the curve that is rotated around the z axis:

z = z (u )
r = r (u )
⎛ dz ⎞
dz ⎜⎝ du ⎟⎠
tan λ = =
dr ⎛ dr ⎞
⎜⎝ ⎟⎠
du
2 2
ds ⎛ dr ⎞ ⎛ dz ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟
du ⎝ du ⎠ ⎝ du ⎠

in which u is a parameter.
 12

dλ
The principal curvature in the longitudinal direction is and the principal curvature in the
ds
sin λ
hoop direction is . The sin λ appears in this expression since the radius of curvature is
r
the perpendicular distance from the curve to the z axis.

The equilibrium equation in the vertical direction is

d d
2π r ρ gt = ( 2π rσ L sin λ ) or ρgtr = ( rσ L sin λ ) .
ds ds
This comes from consideration of vertical equilibrium of a horizontal ring.

In the normal direction the product of the membrane stresses and the curvatures is equal to
the normal component of load,

dλ sin λ
ρ gt cos λ = σ L + σH .
ds r
Here the principal stresses and principal curvatures are parallel so multiplying stress and
curvature is easy.

The shell is ‘funicular’, regardless of how the thickness varies, because the hoop stress can
vary to maintain equilibrium.

For a spherical shell

λ = −u
r = −Rsin λ
z = R cos λ
s = Ru
dλ 1
=−
ds R
sin λ 1
=−
r R
Here both the curvatures are negative. This is just a matter of sign convention, but their
product is positive, corresponding to the positive Gaussian curvature.

Thus

ρ gtRsin λ = R
d
ds
(
σ L sin 2 λ = −) d
dλ
(
σ L sin 2 λ )
σL + σH
ρ gt cos λ = −
R

so that, if the thickness is constant,

 13

σ L sin 2 λ = ρ gRt cos λ + constant of integration .

σ L and σ H must be equal when λ → 0 , and therefore,

ρ gRt (1 − cos λ )
σL = − .
sin 2 λ
This is negative, corresponding to compression.

Thus

⎡
σ H = − ρ gRt ⎢ cos λ −
(1 − cos λ ) ⎤ = − ρgRt ⎡ cos λ − 1 ⎤ .
⎣ sin 2 λ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 + cos λ ⎥⎦

⎡ 1 ⎤
The hoop stress is compressive until ⎢⎣ cos λ − 1 + cos λ ⎥⎦ becomes negative at λ = ±51.8º ,

or 38º above the horizontal. This causes problems for masonry domes. Things can be
improved by reducing the thickness towards the top, but the best thing to do is to change both
the thickness and the shape.

Let us suppose that the ideal shell has the membrane stresses (force per unit width)
σ L = σ H = tσ , where σ is a constant stress with units force over area. So we now have
constant stress in both directions.

Then

ρg d
rt = ( rt sin λ )
σ ds
in the vertical direction and

ρg ⎛ d λ sin λ ⎞
t cos λ = t ⎜ + ⎟
σ ⎝ ds r ⎠

in the normal direction.

The second equation can be written

ρg d λ sin λ 1 d tan λ d
cos λ = cos λ + = ( r sin λ ) = ( r sin λ )
σ dr r r dr r dz
which can be substituted into the first,

ρg d dt d
rt = sin λ ( rt sin λ ) = r sin 2 λ + t sin λ ( r sin λ )
σ dz dz dz
dt ρ g
= r sin 2 λ + rt cos 2 λ
dz σ

so that
 14

dt ρ g
= t
dz σ .
ρg
( z − z0 )
t = t0e σ

Thus the thickness increases exponentially as z decreases ( σ is negative).

The shape of the middle

surface of the shell is
determined solely by
equilibrium in the normal
direction. However, this
equation probably cannot be
solved analytically and figure
11 shows a numerical

Figure 11 constant stress shells – shell of revolution has larger solution. The smaller scale

span than cylindrical shell shell in figure 11 is the two

dimensional cylindrical shell
from figures 5 and 6. It can be seen that the shell of revolution will span roughly twice as far
for the same stress, 100m for the weak masonry and 2.5kilometres for concrete – this is if the
shell is only carrying its own weight. The thickness doesn’t come into the expression for
maximum span, but if the shell is too thin other loads will dominate the stresses and the shell
may buckle.

Buckling
Shell buckling is particularly nasty because shell structures are so efficient, almost no
deflection occurs and then suddenly there is total collapse. Paradoxically, the less efficient
the shell, in terms of shape, triangulation of the surface and boundary support, the better it
behaves in buckling. This is because bending action of shells requires much more deflection
than membrane action and therefore small irregularities in shell geometry and other initial
imperfections have little effect.

For a properly supported shell working primarily by membrane action, experiments show that
the theoretical ‘eigenvalue’ buckling load can never be reached, even when the utmost care is
taken to eliminate initial imperfections.

The analysis of shell buckling by hand calculations is effectively impossible – even eignvalue
analysis of a spherical shell is very difficult, and gives wildly optimistic answers. This means
that there is no option but to use computer analysis, but this is quite an esoteric area, and
even though many programs offer shell buckling, the results should be treated with a great
deal of circumspection. There is still a place for physical model tests for shell buckling.