HYDROSTATIC BUCKLING OF SHELLS WITH

VARIOUS BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Rodney Pinna, Beverley F. Ronalds†

Abstract

Eigenvalue buckling of cylindrical shells with various boundary conditions under hy-
drostatic load is examined, using an energy method. Results are compared to known
solutions, where these solutions exist. It is found that, for shells of intermediate length,
buckling loads for different end conditions may be determined by applying a simple,

circumferential wave number n

scalar multiplier to the pin–ended case. This does not apply to long shells, where the
3. For n  2, the ring equation may be applied to all
cases, as the boundary conditions no longer influence the solution. It is seen for the case
of a shell with one end pinned and the other end free that the buckling solution collapses
to the long shell solution, for geometries of practical interest. The effect of radial elastic
restraint at the open end is also examined, as an intermediate case between pinned and
free ends. The work has application to the design of suction caissons, where cylinder
dimensions are usually in the range of intermediate length shells.

Key words: boundary conditions, buckling, caissons, cylindrical shells, eigenvalues,

elastic restraint, finite element analysis, soil structure interaction

 Research Student, Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, U.W.A

This paper was submitted to “Journal of Constructional Steel Research”, May 1999.

† Professor of Oil & Gas Engineering; Director Centre for Oil & Gas Engineering, U.W.A
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 1 various boundary conditions

Introduction

A novel application for cylindrical shells which has found increasing use is that of the suction
caisson. These have been used as a foundation system for a number of offshore petroleum
production facilities [1, 2]. Such foundations are essentially cylinders, with one end closed
by an end cap, and the other end open. The upper closed end may range from a light steel
plate to a heavily stiffened structure, which may be idealised as providing either a pinned
or clamped end condition (for example, a caisson attached to a jacket leg, as in figure 1),
respectively, to the shell. The open end of the cylinder is effectively sealed by the sea bed.
During installation, the cylinder is subjected to varying amounts of lateral restraint from the
surrounding soil, and suction pressures which are increasing so as to continue the installation
process against rising soil resistance. Thus, while the buckling load of the shell increases,
the applied load on the shell is also increasing. To enable the economic design of the shell
structure, use may be made of the increase in buckling load provided by the surrounding soil
mass.
To assess the increase in buckling load that may be possible, this paper examines the buckling
load of a cylindrical shell with various end conditions. Lateral end restraint is provided by
means of radial Winkler springs in the case of an open–ended shell, with free and pinned
extreme cases examined. Buckling loads are found using energy functions, solved using a
variational approach. Comparisons are also made with existing results, and a number of
finite element solutions.

Buckling Analysis

The properties of the shell being considered are shown in figure 2. This shows an open–
ended cylinder, with elastic restraint around its base. The elastic restraint is provided by
a set of uniform Winkler springs, with modulus k f . Buckling analysis of the shell/spring
system is performed using an eigenvalue solution method, based on the method of variations
[3]. To do this, the second variation in the energy functional is required. This may be divided

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 2 G1440

into two parts: the contribution from the shell, and that from the elastic support. Details for
deriving these expressions may be found in a number of texts [4, 5]. The second variation of
the potential energy of the shell is given by:
 1 ν
1 2
δV  a
C
ε  ε  2νε ε 
2 2
γ dz dθ
θ1 z1 θ1

z1 zθ1
2 2 2

  N w  N a  2N w wa dz dθ
w 2
a 2 1θ 1θ
z0 1 z θ0 2 zθ0 1 z (1)
2
 a D2  κ  κ  2νκ κ  2
1  ν κ dz dθ
2
z1
2
θ1 z1 θ1 zθ1

 12 P v  v w  v w  w dz dθ
cr
2
1 1 1θ 1θ 1
2
1

where the subscript 1 denotes the post–buckled state, while 0 denotes the pre–buckled shell
state. The expression for the second variation in potential energy of the spring restraint is:

1 2
2
δ Vs  akf
2
w21 z
 L θ dz dθ (2)

Adding equations (1) and (2) leads to the final variational expression. With this equation it
is then necessary to substitute expressions for the shell displacements, strains and curvatures
after buckling. The required expressions are [5]:

εz1 

∂z u1 z θ (3)

εθ1 
  w
z θ
∂θ v1 z θ 1
(4)
∂ u
z θ
a
γzθ1  ∂ v
z θ 
z 1
θ 1
(5)
  ∂ w
z θ
a
κz1 (6)
∂ v
z θ  ∂ w
z θ 
zz 1

κθ1  θ 1 θθ 1
(7)
1 ∂ v
z θ  2∂ w
z θ 
a 2

κzθ1  2
z 1
a
zθ 1
(8)

These expressions are valid for both shallow and non–shallow shells. Substituting these into

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 3 various boundary conditions

Designation
Boundary
Conditions
w1 z   0   L
w1 z  
∂w1 z 0
∂z
 
∂w1 z L
∂z

P–P Both ends pinned 0 0 Free Free

C-C Both ends clamped 0 0 0 0
Upper edge pinned,
P–F 0 Free Free Free
lower edge free
Upper edge clamped,
C–F 0 Free 0 Free
lower edge free
Upper edge pinned,
P–E lower edge elasti- 0 Elastic Free Free
cally restrained
Upper edge clamped,
C–E lower edge elasti- 0 Elastic 0 Free
cally restrained

Table 1: Lateral displacement boundary conditions

the variational energy expressions results in an equation for the second variation in terms of
the pre–buckling membrane stresses and the post–buckled shell displacements. Hence, to
determine eigenvalues of the problem, it is necessary to have expressions for both of these.

For the following analysis, it is assumed that the pre–buckled shell stresses are adequately
described by shell membrane theory. This leads to the membrane forces per unit length of:

Nz0  Pcr a
(9)

2
Nθ0 Pcr a (10)
Nzθ0  0 (11)

The displacement functions that describe the post–buckled shape of the shell depend on the
boundary conditions that are present (see table 1). In this paper six cases are examined,
with the displacement functions shown in table 2. With one of these sets of functions in
place, the buckling load is determined using the Rayleigh–Ritz method. The total expression
for the second variation in potential energy of the system is minimised against each of the

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 4 G1440

Designation u1 v1 w1
P–P    
A1 sin nθ cos mπz
L    
A2 cos nθ sin mπz
L  
A3 sin nθ sin  
mπz
L

C–C A sin  nθ  sin   2mπz

A cos  nθ   cos   1
2mπz
A sin  nθ   cos  2mπz
 1

1 L 2 L 3 L

P–F, P–E sin  nθ  ∑ A   z i 1

cos  nθ  ∑ A    z i
sin  nθ  ∑ A   
z i

  
i i L i i j L i i 2j L

C–F, C–E sin  nθ  ∑ A  

i
z i
i L cos  nθ  ∑ A   
i i j
z i 1
L sin  nθ  ∑ A 
i i 2j
z i 1
L

Table 2: Displacement functions for various boundary conditions.

undetermined coefficients Ai , i.e.

∂Ai  1 2
2
δV  1 2
2
δ Vs   0 for i  1   2 j (12)

This produces a set of of j simultaneous equations, C1  "! A # A $ 

 "! A  A $ 
1 2j Pcr C2 1 2j
0. The eigenvalues of this equation then give the critical buckling load in terms of n and,
where applicable, m. Where m is present, the lowest buckling load is found with m  1.
Further details may be found in Pinna & Ronalds [6].

The cases of a cylinder with an open, unrestrained end (C–F and P–F) are special cases of
a cylinder with an elastically restrained end (C–E and P–E). The displacement functions for
these two end conditions are the same, with the buckling mode shapes dependent on the
values of the coefficients A j found by minimising the energy function, which in turn depend
on the value of the spring constant k f . As the end restraint becomes stiffer, the change in
curvature along the length of the shell also becomes greater. To accurately model this change
in curvature, it is necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of terms are included in the
displacement functions.

It should be noted that equations (1) and (3) to (8) are valid for all circumferential wave
numbers n. Omission of the last line of equation (1) would result in a set of equations valid
for shells under dead–loading. These equations would produce results that are accurate for
short to intermediate length shells under hydrostatic pressure loading, but inaccurate for long

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 5 various boundary conditions

% 
shells n 3 . The point where a shell becomes long is a function of both its geometry and
end conditions, as discussed in the next section.
The lateral spring stiffness k f may be non–dimensionalised by

&
kf kf
La
Eh2
(13)

The use of this factor is also discussed below.

Results

Figure 3 shows the effect of increasing end restraint on the buckling load of both P–E and
C–E shells, where the buckling load is non–dimensionalised by:

&
Pcr
L2 a
π2 D
Pcr (14)

It can be seen that there is a substantial increase in the buckling load in each case. For the
geometry shown in the figure, the fully restrained buckling loads are 19.8 and 2.10 times
the unrestrained buckling loads for the P–E and C–E cases, respectively. Also shown in this
figure are a number of results produced by finite element analysis using the ABAQUS [7]
program. Details of this analysis can be found in Pinna & Ronalds [6]. It may be seen that
for both cases, there is very good agreement between the results found using the method
outlined above, and the finite element analysis.
For the case of a shell with one end pinned and the other free, the analysis assumes that
'
buckling occurs with n 2. It is found in both the variational and finite element analyses
that other very low buckling loads may occur for this combination of end conditions, where
these modes correspond to rigid body eigenmodes. These modes can be restricted so that
buckling occurs in a circumferential mode, which reflects the situation for a suction caisson.
In the finite element analysis, this is done by fixing the shell at four nodes, around the top
of the shell, against axial displacement. Alternatively, an n  2 solution may be found by

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 6 G1440

ignoring the rigid body modes. For the installation of a suction caisson, it would be expected
that the rigid body modes would be restricted, and buckling would therefore occur with
'
n 2. This assumption is carried through this analysis. In contrast Koga & Morimatsu [8]
give a buckling load for a P–F cylinder (S3–FR in their notation) of zero, using an asymptotic
method, and with n 2. (
The variation in buckling load, as the geometry of the shell is changed, is shown for various
elastic end restraint conditions for P–E and C–E shells in figures 4 and 5. These graphs
show that the increase in buckling load shown in figure 3 is valid for a range of Z values.
One immediately apparent difference between these two figures is that, for the case of a
shell with a clamped top, there is a relatively large number of circumferential waves in the
buckling solution. In comparison, P–F shells of practical geometries (that is, of intermediate
%
length) have a buckling mode with n 2. Applying the assumption that n  2 results in a
solution identical to that for a long shell, that is [5]:

&
Pcr
π2 ) 1
3
ν2
Z
h
a
(15)

Any sufficiently long shell’s critical load will converge on equation (15), which is indepen-
dent of the shell’s end conditions. For all types of boundary conditions examined, this occurs
after the value of Z where n first equals 2. A distinguishing property of P–F shells is that they
enter this long shell mode immediately for practical geometries. However, as may be seen
in the figure 4, with the presence of some lateral restraint at the base of the shell, buckling
'
occurs with n 2, and thus the series form of the solution is required.

Figure 6 demonstrates this, showing the eigenmode for a P–F shell with no elastic restraint.
It can be seen that there are only two circumferential waves around the shell. Also, the lack
of rotational restraint at the top of the shell is evident. This circumferential mode is similar
to that which would be obtained for a much longer shell with other boundary conditions.
These results are also reflected in figure 3. The much larger increase in buckling load for the
&
P–E shell as k f increases, as compared to the C–E shell, is caused by the change in buckling
mode from a long to an intermediate shell. The C–E shell does not undergo this change, as

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 7 various boundary conditions

Designation α Published Results

P–F Not Applicable
C–F 0.58 0.58[10]; 0.6[8]
P–P 1
C–P 1.22 1.25[10]; 1.25[8]
C–C 1.5 1.5[11]; 1.5[8]

Table 3: Multipliers for various boundary conditions

it remains in the intermediate shell solution regime.

&
Bounds for these cases are found by setting the value of k f to either zero or infinity.The result
of doing this is shown in figure 7. In this figure, solid lines are those determined from the
variational analysis, while dotted lines are found using the multiplier α. The critical buckling
load is then given by:

Pcr&  αβ (16)

where β  * 
2 1
8Z
3π2
(17)

where values for α are given in table 3,and β [9] is a lower bound approximation for the
buckling value of a P–P shell. It can be seen that, for all cylinders with solutions in the
intermediate shell range, the buckling load can be arrived at by applying a multiplier to the
pin supported case. As the P–F case falls immediately into the long shell range, it is not
proportional to β, and it does not follow this multiplier rule. Table 3 also compares the
multipliers obtained here with those previously published for these bounding cases. It can be
seen that there is no difference between published results, and the results found here using
exact trigonometric displacement functions, that is, the P–P and C–C cases. Further, for the
cases where truncated series solutions are used (C–F and C–P), the agreement with published
results is also good. It should be noted that the solution arrived at by Malik et al. [10] was
by an approximate method, using a similar starting equation to that employed by Koga &
Morimatsu [8]. The α multiplier can also be used for intermediate restraint. This is shown in
figures 4 and 5, where the lateral restraint at the elastically supported end varies from none to

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 8 G1440

fully effective in each case. It can be seen that for n ' 4, the buckling load can be expressed
in terms of α.
The effect of non–dimensionalising k f in accordance with equation (13) is shown in figures
8 and 9 for P–E and C–E shells respectively. The buckling load is given in terms of the
multiplier α. These figures provide further evidence that the non–dimensional restraint factor
&
k f is appropriate over the complete range where the shell transitions from weak to near full
&
lateral support. For large values of k f , the variations in the non–dimensional buckling loads
in figure 8 are caused by restricting the value of n to an integer. The minimum buckling load
that is predicted analytically may occur for a non–integer value of n. Physically, however,
a complete number of waves must form around the shell when buckling occurs. Thus, the
minimum found with integer n, while corresponding to the physical minimum, may not
correspond to the absolute minimum that could be found. The spread of curves at low k f &

in figure 8 is caused by the restriction that n 2, as discussed above. Figure 9 also shows
the effect of allowing n to be a non–integer. It may be seen that this gives much better
convergence over a wide range of Z values.

Discussion

The set of graphs provided allow for the calculation of buckling loads for shells with various
end conditions. For the case where the shell has one of the limiting boundary conditions (C–
C, C–P or C–F), the α multiplier given in table 3 can be applied to the P–P case to arrive at
&
the buckling load. Where a cylinder has an elastically supported free end of stiffness k f , then
figures 8 or 9 can be used to determine the value of α, depending on the top end condition
(pinned or clamped). The use of a multiplier factor α is advantageous as it allows existing
design codes, which generally provide formulae for the P–P case only, to be applied to
other boundary conditions representative of suction caissons. After applying the multiplier
to the P–P case, knock–down factors for imperfections and elasto–plastic behaviour can
be included in design calculations. Such factors are provided in, for example, the “DnV
Buckling Strength Analysis” code [12]. This applies to shells in the short to intermediate

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 9 various boundary conditions

length range.

For long shells, the effects of boundary conditions may be ignored. Thus, the ring buckling
formula, equation (15), can be applied directly. It should be noted, however, that the point
where a solution enters into the long shell solution depends on both the shell geometry and
the boundary conditions. For the case of a shell with P–F end conditions, or with only small
lateral restraint, then the ring solution can be applied for all practical geometries. It is also
found in this study that a P–F shell will tend to buckle in a rigid body mode, if there is no
axial restraint present. Only a minimal axial restraint is however required to force the shell
into a circumferential buckling mode. During the installation of a suction caisson, it is likely
that the presence of even a relatively flexible end cap would be sufficient to force this mode.

Conclusions

The results presented in this paper allow the hydrostatic buckling load of cylindrical shells
with various end conditions to be found. For cylinders with elastic lateral restraint at one end,
figures 8 and 9 give the non–dimensional buckling load, based on the boundary conditions
at the other end. The non–dimensional equation for lateral elastic restraint, equation (13),
works well for shells with either pinned or clamped top ends, over all geometries where
the shell can be considered of intermediate length. For all cases a simple multiplier can be
applied to the buckling load for a pinned–pinned shell, allowing the adaptation of existing
buckling codes for offshore structures to boundary conditions relevant to suction caisson
design.

For long shells, boundary conditions have no effect on the buckling load, and equation (15)
can be applied directly to all cases. Where a shell becomes long depends on various param-

eters, and is indicated by a buckling solution with n 2. Guidance for determining where a
long shell solution can be applied is offered by existing buckling codes.

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 10 G1440

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Special Research Centre for Offshore
Foundation Systems, funded through the Australian Research Council’s Research Centres
Program.

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 11 various boundary conditions

Notation

α — buckling multipler for different boundary conditions

κz1 κθ1 κzθ1 — shell curvatures

εz1 ε γ
θ1 zθ1 — shell strains

Ai — undetermined coefficient

C — +
Eh
1 ν2
shell membrane stiffness

D — , + - shell bending stiffness

Eh3
12 1 ν2

j — number of terms in series solution

&
k f — non–dimensionalised spring constant

k f — spring foundation modulus

m n — longitudinal and circumferential wave numbers

Nz0 Nθ0 Nzθ0 — pre–buckle membrane force per unit length

&
Pcr — non–dimensionalised shell buckling load

Pcr — shell buckling pressure

u1 v1 w1 — displacements in the r θ and z directions
V — potential energy function

Z — Batdorf parameter L2
ah
) 1 ν2

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 12 G1440

References
[1] Dyvik R, Anderson KH, Hansen SB, Christophersen HP, Field tests of anchors in clay
I: Description. J. Geotech. Eng. , 1993;119(10):1515–1531

[2] Tjelta TI, Geotechnical experience from the installation of Europipe jacket with bucket
foundations. In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC7795, Hous-
ton, 1995;

[3] Courant R, Variational methods for the solution of problems of equilibrium and vibra-
tions. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 1943;49:1–23

[4] Langhaar HL, Energy Methods in Applied Mechanics. New York: Wiley, 1962

[5] Brush DO, Almroth BO, Buckling of Bars, Plates and Shells. New York: McGraw–Hill,
1975

[6] Pinna R, Ronalds BF, Eigenvalue buckling of elastically restrained cylinders under hy-
drostatic load, 1999, submitted for publication

[7] Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorenson, Inc., ABAQUS Users Manual, version 5.7. Hibbit,
Karlsson and Sorenson, Inc., Rhode Island, 1997

[8] Koga T, Morimatsu S, Bifurcation buckling of circular cylindrical shells under uniform
external pressure. AIAA J. , 1989;27(2):242–248

[9] Odland J, On the strength of welded ring stiffened cylindrical shells primarily subjected
to axial compression. Technical Report UR-81-15, Divsion of Marine Structures, The
University of Trondheim, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, 1981

[10] Malik Z, Morton J, Ruiz C, Buckling under normal pressure of cylindrical shells with
various end conditions. J. Press. Vess. Tech. , 1980;102:107–111

[11] Calladine CR, Theory of Shell Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1983

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 13 various boundary conditions

[12] Det Norsk Veritas, Buckling Strength Analysis. Det Norsk Veritas Classification As,
Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Hovik, Norway, 1995

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 14 G1440

Figure 1: Example of an effectively clamped suction caisson top

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 15 various boundary conditions

P - pressure over end cap

E - Young’s modulus of cylinder
ν − Poission’s ratio of cylinder
h - wall thickness
a

θ, v r, w

P - pressure z, u
over entire
L shell

kf

Figure 2: Suction caisson parameters

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 16 G1440

30

25 C−E
P−E
FE analysis

20
*
Pcr

15

10

0
−8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
k*
f

Figure 3: Shell buckling load as k f varies (Z  500, L

a  1  61889)

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 17 various boundary conditions

*
100 kf

Numbers indicate n values

80
1000
5
5
1
α=1
60
4
cr

α = 0.87
P*

6
5
40

7
6 0.1

α = 0.36
20
3

2 0
4

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Z

Figure 4: P–E shells with various elastic end restraint conditions . 

a
h 200 /

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 18 G1440

100 kf*

1000
Numbers indicate n values 5 5
1
80

5
60
α = 1.08
0.1
*
Pcr

7
4 0
6
40
8 4
5 α = 0.58

5
20
6

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Z

Figure 5: C–E shells with various elastic end restraint conditions . 

a
h 200 /

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 19 various boundary conditions

MSC/PATRAN Version 7.5 08-Mar-99 10:58:20

Deform: Buckle, Step1,Mode5,EigenValue=7.7359, Deformation, Displacements, (NON-LAYERED)

1.01+00

default_Deformation :
Max 1.01+00 @Nd 9737

Figure 6: Eigenmode for a P–F shell

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 20 G1440

2.0

1.5
C−C α = 1.5

C−P α = 1.22
α

1.0
P−P α=1

.5 C−F α = 0.58

P−F

.0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Z

Figure 7: Buckling loads for various end conditions

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with
G1440 21 various boundary conditions

1.2

1.0

.8
α

.6

.4
P−F

P−P
.2

.0
−8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
k*
f

% Z%
Figure 8: Buckling load for P–E boundary conditions, Z varying 50 5000 

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia
Hydrostatic Bucking of shells with R. Pinna & B. F. Ronalds
various boundary conditions 22 G1440

1.2

1.0

.8
α

.6

.4
C−F

C−P

.2

.0
−8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
k*
f

Figure 9: Buckling load for C–E boundary conditions, Z varying 250 % Z% 5000 

Geomechanics Group
The University of Western Australia