Compwers & Strucrures Vol. 48, No. 6. pp. 10574071. 1993 004%7949/93 s6.00 + 0.

00
Printedin Great Britain. 0 1993 Peqamon Press Ltd

COMPARISON OF SHELL THEORIES IN THE ANALYSIS

OF CYLINDRICAL SHELLS WITH DISCONTINUITY
IN THE THICKNESS
A. JOSEPHSTANLEYand N. GANESAN
Machine Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras-600 036, India

(Received 14 July 1992)

Abstraet4ylindrical shells with discontinuity in the thickness and that are subjected to axisymmetric
loading have been analysed. Two types of finite elements are used: the first is based on thin shell theory
and the second on thick shell theory. The loadings considered are a uniform internal pressure and a
circular ring load at the mid-section. The effect of these loads for various end conditions and various
step-ratios in the thickness have been analysed. Numerical results are presented and compared for both
the theories. It has been shown that the transverse normal stress acting along the thickness direction is
not negligible compared to other stresses at places of discontinuity either in the thickness or in the loading.
The weight of the shell is kept constant for various step-ratios.

1. INTRODUCTION
Circular cylindrical shells have been used in all
branches of engineering because of their simplicity
in design, manufacture and analysis. These shells
are used to store high-pressure gases and liquids
for various hydraulic and pneumatic applications.
Higher thickness shells are used in air-storage tanks
for operating control systems in aircraft, automobiles,
wind-tunnel storage tanks and numerous other
applications. The storage tanks are often made from
expensive materials and so it is desirable to make
these tanks with as little material as possible. One
way of decreasing the structural weight of these tanks
is to vary the wall thickness. In [l] a theoretical
approach for the stresses in a circular cylindrical shell
of varying thickness subjected to varying lateral
pressure is given. The thickness is varied in step form
and pressure variation is linear over an element. In [2]
a conical shell subjected to uniform internal pressure
is analysed by the finite element displacement method.
It is shown by properly varying the thickness the
deflections and stresses can be brought down con-
siderably. In [3] it has been shown that thick shell
theory predicts deflections better than thin shell
theory. In [4] vibration of cylindrical shells with a
discontinuity in the thickness have been investigated
and the natural frequencies are predicted using thin
conditions. The loadings considered are uniform
internal pressure (UIP) and circular ring load at the
mid-section (CRLM). The end conditions considered
are clamped-clamped (C-C), simply-supported (SS),
and clamped-free (C-F). The above loadings for all
end conditions are analysed for both short and long
shells as defined by the decay length in [8]. Results are
presented in the form of tables and figures for stresses
and radial displacement. The discontinuity in the
thickness is considered for various step-ratios and
the corresponding maximum stresses are given in the
tables. The comparisons between the two finite el-
ements are shown in the figures. It has been shown
that for certain load cases such as CRLM, the
variation of thickness in a step-wise manner can also
reduce the maximum stress. It is also easier to
manufacture shells with discontinuity in the thickness
rather than continuous variation of thickness.
2. FORMULATION
2.1. Thin shell finite element
The circular cylindrical shell element is shown in
Fig. 1. The strain components for a cylinder are given
by the following expression [7]

z/!Ej@
shell finite elements. In [5] a thick shell finite element
based on the Reissner-Naghdi shell theory [6] incor-
porating the effects of transverse normal strain and
shear deformation has been developed and used for
vibration analysis.
In this paper both the above thin and thick shell
finite elements were used to study the effect of
discontinuity in the thickness of cylindrical shells,
I- 1

subjected to axisymmetric loading with various end Fig. 1. Circular cylindrical shell element.

1057
1058 A. JOSEPHSTANLEYand N. GANESAN

du
;i;;
1 dv
-- +w
rd4 r

1 du
--++
rdtj dx
= . (1)
d2w
--
dx2
1 d2w 1 dv
---+--
r2d4’ r2d$
1 dv
+rdx
The internal stress resultants are related to the strains
by the following expression

(2)

where

Iv0 00

VlO 00
I
Et ooyo 0
[D]=(1-v2) 0 0 0 t2 vt2
Er2
t2
00 0 c
12 12
(v - 1)t’
1 000 00
24
(3
and where E, t, v are modulus of elasticity, thickness
and Poisson’s ratio, respectively. If the loads are
expressed in the circumferential direction in the
Fourier series. the mid-surface displacements will
take the following form

u = u”(x)cos(n~)

v = v”(x)sin(r$)

w = w~(x)cos(nf$). (4)
If u, v, w are represented by the following poly-
nomials
u = CC,+ CQX

v = a, + UdX

w = a5 + a6x + a7x2 + a8x3 (5)

and if ri, fi, I?‘,p are the nodal displacements, by using
appropriate shape functions the [B] matrix can be
obtained as follows [8]:
 Analysis of cylindrical shells with discontinuity in the thickness 1059

where c = x/l and the stiffness matrix of the element

is obtained from

[k] = [B]T[D][E]R d4 dx. (7)

By properly summing up the individual stiffness (10)

matrix elements of all the elements of the structure,
the structural stiffness matrix [K] can be obtained. where r is the reference surface radius at any point.
The result can be written as The strain and kinetic energies are represented by

PI = [Kl@l. (8) I
strain energy = i E’DE dv, (11)
5V
Equation (8) is solved, together with the prescribed
boundary conditions, to get the nodal displacements where cT = {L,,L~,L~,Y~~,Y~~,Y~*}and D is the
{S }. Stress resultants are obtained from eqn (2). From three-dimensional elastic constant.
the stress resultants we can calculate the stresses at a A three-noded isoparametric semi-analytical finite
required point by appropriate stress-strain relations. element with 21 degrees of freedom is used to solve
the problem. This element is discussed by Weaver and
2.2. Thick shell jnite element Johnston [9]. The coordinate in the axial direction is
To accommodate the thickness normal strain, the represented by
displacements in the length (x), circumferential (4) 3
and radial directions from the reference surface (z) x = c Nix,, (12)
are represented by i-l

where Ni are the shape functions and are given by

4x7 4. z) = uo(x, 4) + zw9 9)

4x9 4, z) = m, #J)+ zv’k 4) N

w(x+#%z)=%(x,~)+zw~(x,~)+~w~~(x,~).
The general straindisplacement relations in linear
elasticity in orthogonal shell coordinate system
are given by Kraus [6]. Particularizing the strain-
displacement relations for cylindrical coordinate,
axial length (x), circumferential length (4) and radial
length from the reference surface (outward) (z). and
substituting the displacement functions [eqn (911 we
get
I
=e’_ &=1_(=, N3=e2+e
-3
2 2
(9)
where t is the isoparametric axial coordinate.
Similarly we can represent the seven dependent
variables a,,, v,,, w,, II’, v’, w’, and w” in terms
of shape functions and nodal quantities. Fourier
expansions are used in circumferential direction.
Strain matrix {c} can be represented by
{cjT= {c,, $3 cs, Y,+. Yx61Y&+6)
= &0 (13)
where qeis the displacement vector (nodal quantities).
Substituting eqn (13) into (1 l), the yield strain
energy (SE) of an element is given by

where K, is the stiffness matrix of jth element and is

given by

K, = B’DB dV, (14)

sV

D is the stress-strain relation matrix.

au, ad 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Yx@=ax +z-&
The dimensions of the shell and properties of the
material used are: diameter of the shell = 400 mm,
length to diameter ratios (L/D) considered are 0.5 for
a short shell and 1.0 for a long shell. In the case of
a constant thickness shell the thickness is 20mm.
1060 A. JOSEPHSTANLEY and N. GANESAN

Table I. Maximum deflection, meridional stress and hoop stress given by thin shell theory for UIP
%,mu %mu W QX.rnaX uAmu
H, If4 ( x !k&m) (N/mm*) (N/mm21 (x l&m) (N/mm21 (N/mm2 )
UIP, C-C, L/D = 0.5 L/D = 1.0
1.0 0.8327 - 16.76 10.67 0.9766 - 14.48 10.72
1.5 0.9233 - 16.28 12.02 1.2180 -12.18 13.23
2.3 1.0787 - 15.86 14.43 1.6110 -11.17 17.65
3.0 I .2735 - 16.93 17.24 1.9380 -11.01 21.25
4.0 I .6887 -29.25 22.74 2.4339 - 10.91 26.53
UIP, ss, L/D = 0.5 LID = 1.0
I.0 1.0428 7.77 12.32 0.9785 8.25 Il.13
1.5 1.2630 9.10 15.05 1.1867 5.80 13.00
2.3 1.5792 10.23 18.77 1.5808 6.98 17.40
3.0 1.8155 11.60 21.64 1.9045 8.64 21.00
4.0 2.1864 14.57 26.23 2.3959 11.53 26.28
UIP, C-F, L/D = 0.5 LID = 1.0
1.0 1.1447 - 17.69 11.44 1.2103 - 16.86 12.08
1.5 1.4801 -15.04 14.79 1.5421 - 13.97 15.38
2.3 2.0233 - 13.76 20.22 2.1156 -11.71 21.08
3.0 2.4632 - 13.47 24.62 2.5927 - 10.77 25.82
4.0 3.1091 - 13.26 31.06 3.3374 -9.98 35.07

Young’s modulus is E = 0.2 MN/mm2 and Poisson’s
ratio = 0.3. The yield strength = 250 N/mmz. The
loadings considered are: uniform internal pressure =
10 bar, circular ring load at mid-section = 80 N/mm.
Four types of configurations are considered: H, is the
higher thickness and ffr is the lower thickness. In the
following CT and ST are constant and step thickness,
respectively
STl: X/L = 0.0-0.25 and 0.75-1.0, thickness = Hi
X/L = 0.25-0.75, thickness = Hz
ST2: X/L = 0.0-0.25 and 0.75-1.0, thickness = Hz
X/L = 0.25-0.75, thickness = HI
ST3: X/L = 0.0-0.5, thickness = H,
X/L = 0.5-1.0, thickness = Hz
ST& X/L = 0.0-0.75, thickness = H,
X/L = 0.75-I .O, thickness = Hz.
The results are presented for values of H,/H, =
1.o-4.0.
The tables and figures show that the radial deflec-
tion given by thick shell theory is higher than that
given by thin shell theory for all end conditions and
step ratios of both long and short shells, as predicted
in 131.
3.1. Shells with C-C end conditions
The configuration analysed for UIP is STI.
Tables 1 and 3 and Figs 2-5 show the variation of
radial displacement and stresses for short and long
shells. The maximum meridional stress given by thin
shell theory is higher than that of thick shell theory
for short shells. The maximum meridional stress occurs
at the support up to a step ratio of 2.3 and at the
di~ntinuity for higher step ratios. For a long shell,

Table 2. Maximum deflection, meridional stress and hoop stress given by thin shell theory for CRLM
WmaX %,maX UQJllpx W %,**X a*.nI,,
HziH2 (xl@mm) (N/mm2) tN/mm2) (x l&m) (N/mm21 (N/mm*)
CRLM, C-C, L/D = 0.5 L/I) = 1.0
1.0 0.7290 16.28 12.17 0.7869 15.25 12.44
1.5 0.6115 12.80 9.96 0.6171 11.62 9.66
2.3 0.5240 9.85 8.19 0.5082 9.38 7.89
3.0 0.4952 8.40 7.47 0.4653 8.57 7.22
4.0 0.4753 7.05 6.87 0.4274 7.87 6.63
CRLM, SS, L/D --OS L/D = 1.0
1.0 0.8018 15.75 12.74 0.7893 15.25 12.46
1.5 0.6500 12.21 10.16 0.6192 11.62 9.68
2.3 0.5468 9.35 8.27 0.5090 9.38 7.90
3.0 0.5110 8.04 7.50 0.4657 8.57 7.22
4.0 0.4839 6.86 6.90 0.4275 7.87 6.63
CRLM, C-F, L/D = 0.5 L/L)= 1.0
1.0 0.8127 15.35 12.73 0.8079 14.60 12.46
1.6 0.708 1 13.25 11.05 0.7087 12.70 10.90
2.1 0.6676 12.21 10.31 0.6683 11.94 10.27
3.0 0.6353 11.11 9.62 0.6321 11.29 9.71
4.0 0.6210 10.41 9.24 0.6120 10.95 9.40
ZE-002 3E-002
wuHl/H2-, -HI/H2=1
---HI/H2:4 -HI/H2-4 I
1 r. -Hl/H25I

2E-002

I .o 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6

X/L X/L X/L
L/D=0.5,UIP,C-C L/D=0.5,UIP,55 L/D=0.5, UIP,C-F

3E-002 3E-002 4E-002

aeMHI/HZ=I -HI/H2: I
*- HI/H214 -HI/H2:4 ---HI,H2:4

JE-002
!
SE-002 /

<
E
= 2E-002
0

9
6

I E-002 -

I, OEtOOO
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 I.0 I.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 I.0

X/L X/L X/L

L/D= I .O,UIP,C-C L/D = l.O,UIP,S-S L/D- l.O,UIP,C-F
-+. Thick shell theory
-*- Thick shell theory - Thin shell theory
Fig. 2. Variation of radial displacement for UIP.

- - .” - _ __ - -- -
1062 A. JOSEPHSTANLEYand N. GANESAN

ssar1s ~ouo!p!JaW

ssaJ>s louo!p!Jaly SSOJ)S louo!p!Jafl

 Analysis of cylindrical shells with discontinuity in the thickness 1063

SSaJ~S doOH SsaJJs dooH

SSallS dOOH SSSJ)S dOOH

 IE+OOl
-- n,m1. I - “,I”I.,

z ;I:1::”
- H,,“?.*.
2E+OOl

-4E+OOO --IE+OOl
2E+OO!
1

-6E+OOO- 1 mrmrr~rrrrrrm WVTlTfTTr -2E+OOl

0 02 04 06 0.6 IO 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 I 0 0.2 04 06 0.6
X/L X/L X/L
L/D=O.5,UIP, c-c L/D=O.S,UIP,S-S L/D =O.S,UIP,C-F

I Et001
“,,“I,,
.*.-* )I ,, Hz. Lf
--~“,,w.*s
-- d
.-
0
z
-SE+000

--IE+OOl --IE+OOl --IE+OOl

1
-1

-2E+OOl1 2E+OOl -2EtOOl

0 02 0.4 06 0.6 02 0.4 0.6 0.6 I .o 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 I .o
X/L X/L X/L
L/D= I ,UIP,C-C L/D=l,UIP,S-S L/D=I,UIP,C-F

--. Thick shell theory Thin shell theory

**“- Thick shell theory

Fig. 5. Variation of radial stress for UIP.

 Table 3. Maximum radial deflection and maximum stress given by thick shell theory for UIP
W ~X.maX ~&llax ~ZJIUX %,lM WmaX %,ma% ~*.uwX U:JW %.,,
H, /Hz ( x lO%m) (N/mm* ) (N/mm’) (N/mm* ) (N/mm*) (x lO*mm) W/mm*) (N/mm*) (N/mm*) (N/mm* )
UIP, C-C, L/D =O.S L/D = 1.0
1.0 0.8718 - 16.28 10.22 -6.98 3.64 0.9887 - 14.00 10.14 -6.00 2.83
1.5 0.9770 - 15.86 12.08 -6.80 3.67 1.2406 - 11.85 13.07 -5.08 2.38
2.3 1.1562 - 15.44 15.64 -6.62 3.79 1.6538 - 10.97 18.56 -4.70 2.13
3.0 1.3631 - 16.20 19.60 -7.83 3.75 1.9964 - 10.83 23.32 5.03 2.08
4.0 1.7875 - 28.25 27.25 -13.0 5.73 2.5164 15.40 30.93 9.84 3.37
UIP, SS, L/D = 0.5 L/D = 1.0
1.0 1.1354 5.79 11.86 0.045 0.75 1.0764 5.85 10.66 0.23 0.94
1.5 1.3850 6.93 15.01 0.305 0.35 1.3127 3.66 12.94 0.72 0.64
2.3 1.7430 7.57 19.77 2.650 0.33 1.7574 3.82 18.39 2.69 0.41
3.0 2.0077 9.47 23.77 4.970 0.43 2.1204 5.68 23.16 5.13 1.68
4.0 2.4179 13.72 30.60 9.700 0.54 2.6694 - 12.26 30.79 9.82 3.28
UIP, C-F, L/D = 0.5 L/D = 1.0
1.0 1.1212 - 17.70 10.62 -7.59 4.04 1.1526 - 17.54 10.89 -7.52 3.47
1.5 1.4742 - 14.87 14.65 -6.37 3.62 1.4853 - 14.20 14.75 -6.08 3.03
2.3 2.0625 - 13.46 22.08 6.47 3.39 2.0712 -11.67 22.18 6.61 2.67
3.0 2.5517 -13.10 28.85 11.98 3.34 2.5696 - 10.65 29.86 12.19 2.52
4.0 3.2974 - 12.79 40.17 23.28 3.31 3.3671 -9.79 40.94 23.57 2.38

Table 4. Maximum radial deflection and maximum stress given by thick shell theory for CRLM

%.tIUi ~#,ill,X 9,ax ~X,maX WInaX ~X.WX ~&lilXS ~Xtl,X %.llW

H, lH2 ( x l%m) (N/mm*) (N/mm*) (N/mm’) (N/mm’) (x 102mm) (N/mm*) (N/mm*) (N/mm*) (N/mm?
CRLM, C-c, L/D = 0.5 L/D = 1.0
1.0 0.7945 17.15 14.16 5.78 -1.47 0.8510 15.25 12.99 2.31 1.22
1.5 0.6667 13.64 11.79 5.58 - 1.23 0.673 1 11.77 10.37 2.63 1.03
2.3 0.5713 10.64 9.88 5.27 - 1.34 0.5574 9.72 8.70 2.84 0.88
3.0 0.538 1 9.21 9.08 5.11 - 1.38 0.5121 8.95 8.06 2.91 0.83
4.0 0.5136 7.86 8.39 4.94 - 1.41 0.4720 8.29 7.49 2.96 0.77
CRLM, SS, L/D =0.5 L/D = 1.0
1.0 0.9060 15.65 14.78 5.78 - 1.41 0.8709 14.45 13.00 2.31 1.22
1.5 0.7322 12.36 12.04 5.58 - 1.23 0.6860 11.38 10.38 2.63 1.03
2.3 0.6133 9.62 9.98 5.28 - 1.34 0.5650 9.46 8.70 2.84 0.88
3.0 0.5707 8.38 9.15 5.11 -1.38 0.5177 8.75 8.05 2.91 0.83
4.0 0.5368 7.27 8.44 4.94 - 1.41 0.4761 8.13 7.49 2.96 0.77
CRLM, C-F, L/D = 0.5 L/D = 1.0
1.0 0.8743 16.34 14.68 5.78 -1.37 0.8708 14.44 13.00 2.31 1.48
1.5 0.7656 14.22 12.97 5.70 -1.18 0.7677 12.74 11.54 2.49 1.28
2.1 0.7211 13.18 12.22 5.65 -1.15 0.7254 12.06 10.95 2.56 1.19
3.0 0.6857 12.09 11.51 5.59 -1.20 0.6876 11.47 10.43 2.63 1.11
4.0 0.6692 11.41 11.11 5.55 -1.23 0.6665 11.15 10.14 2.67 1.07
 ____._ -- IE-002
+..+a HI/HZ= I e+..oHI/H2rI
- Hl/H2:4 -HI/H2=4
- HI/H2: I
BE-00:
- HI/ H2=4
BE-003
6E-002
2 6E-00:

3 s
6E-003
E 4E-00:
iz -z
4E-00: E”
z E
s
0 2E-00:
tz 8 4E-003

P P ii
6 b a 9E-01s
PE-003
2E-003
-2E-00:

OE +000 r-pa ( ,
0%I I I I I * , ,mm -4E-00:
02 0.4 0.6 0.6 / 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
X/L X/L X/L
L/D=0,5,CRLM,C-C L/D=0.5,CRLM, S-S L/D-O.S,CRLM,C-F

I E-002 1E-002
-HI/H2c I
- HI/HP=4
A
SE-003 BE-003

6E-003 $ 6E -003

4E-003 s
t 4E -003

8
2E-003 ,o 2E-003

::
a
9E-019 9E-019

-2E-003 -2E-003 - --2E-003

x
1
-4E-003 -4E-003 L---,--w -4E-003
0 02 0.4 0.6 06 0 02 0.4 06 08 0 02 0.4 0.6 08
X/L X/L X/L
L/D=I.O,CRLM,C-C L/D-0.5,CRLM, S-S L/D=I.O,CRLM,C-F

- Thick shell theory - Thin shell theory

*--j Thick shell theory

Fig. 6. Variation of radial displacement for CRLM.

 Analysis of cylindrical shells with discontinuity in the thickness 1067

ssa1p louo!p!Jafi

--o

I I

ssaJ*s louo!p!~a(~

SSJJ)S lOUO!p!Je(N ssaJ3s louo!p!Jaw

CAS 48,6-H
1068 A. JOSEPHSTANLEYand N. GANFSAN

I I
SS~JJS dOoH SsaQs dOOH

ssalas dooH

m
d
0

ssalis dmH SSaJ)S dOOH

 6E + 000 6E+OOO
--1 “,I”** I
- “,,W?.~L.3
.“I “,,“$?*I
. “,,“I‘. 4E+OOO
4EtOOO
4E+OOO

2E +OOO 2E+OOO
% z
3 2EtOOO ?!
L
s” b %
n
3E-OIS ‘0 3E-013
G d
5 G
x
% B SE-016 (L
-2E+OOO -2E+OOO

-2E+OOO
-4EtOOO -4E+OOO

-6E+OOO mrrrrnrr7rrrrrrrrr -4E+OOO -6E+OOO -m

0.2 0.6 o:a - 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 ---T!T-
04X/L X/L X/L
L/D=OS,CRLM,C-C L/D=0.5,CRLM,S-S L/D-O.S,CRLM,C-F
..
3EtOOC 3EiOOC

2E +OOC 2EtWC

I E+0OC I E +OOC
%
e
&
IE-015 I E-01:
s
e
IF
- IE +OOC - IE+OOC

-2E+000 - 2E+ OOC

-3E +000 - 3E+OOO

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 I .o O 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6
X/L X/L X/L
L/D=l,CRLM,C-C L/D= I, CRLM,S-S L/D=, I CRLM,C-F
- Thick shell theory - Thin shell theory
“- Thick shell theory

Fig. 9. Variation of radial stress for CRLM.

1070 A. JOSEPHSTANLEY and
the maximum meridional stress given by thin shell
theory is higher than that of thick shell theory up to
a step ratio of 3.0 and occurs at the support. For a
step ratio of 4.0 the maximum meridional stress given
by thick shell theory is higher than that of thin shell
theory and occurs near the centre. The maximum
hoop stress given by thin shell theory is higher than
that of thick shell theory for constant thickness shell
and for shell with discontinuity thick shell theory
gives higher hoop stress and the maximum hoop stress
always occurs at the centre. The maximum deflection
and maximum stress increases as the step ratio
increases. The maximum transverse normal stress (a,)
for a constant thickness cylinder is 43% of the maxi-
mum meridional stress and occurs at the support for
short and long shell. The maximum occurs at the sup-
port up to a step ratio of 2.3 and at the discontinuity
for higher step ratios in the case of a short shell and
near the centre in the case of a long shell. For a step
ratio of 4.0 the transverse normal stress is 46% of the
maximum meridional stress for a short shell and 64%
for a long shell. The maximum shear stress (tX,) is
22% of the maximum meridional stress for constant
thickness short shell and occurs at the support. It is
about 20% for a step ratio of 4.0 and occurs at the
discontinuity. For a long shell it is 22% and occurs
at the support.
For CRLM the configuration analysed is ST2.
Tables 2 and 4 and Figs 6-9 show the radial displace-
ment and stresses. The maximum meridional stress
and the maximum hoop stress given by thick shell
theory is higher than that of thin shell theory and
occurs at the point of application of load for both
short and long shells. For a step ratio of 4.0 the
maximum meridional stress decreases by 54.2% for
a short shell and by 45.6% for a long shell. The
maximum hoop stress decreases by 40.7% for a short
shell and by 42.3% for a long shell. The transverse
normal stress is 33.7% of the maximum meridional
stress for a short shell and 15.1% for a long shell of
constant thickness. The maximum shear stress is 8%
of the maximum meridional stress for both short and
long shells.
3.2. Shells with SS end conditions
For UIP the ST1 configuration is analysed.
Tables 1 and 3 and Figs 2-5 show the variation of
radial displacement and stresses for short and long
shells. The maximum meridional stress given by thin
shell theory is higher than that of thick shell theory
for a short shell and for a long shell up to a step ratio
of 3.0 and occurs at the centre. For a long shell of step
ratio 4.0, the maximum meridional stress occurs at
the discontinuity and is higher than that given by thin
shell theory. The maximum hoop stress given by the
thin shell theory is higher than that of thick shell
theory up to a step ratio of 1.5; above that the thick
shell theory gives higher values for both short and long
shells. The maximum transverse stress is negligible in
N. GANESAN
the case of constant thickness short and long shells.
But for a step ratio of 4.0 it is about 32% of the
maximum hoop stress for short and long shells.
The maximum shear stress is about 10.6% of the
maximum hoop stress for a long shell at a step ratio
of 4.0 and is negligible for a short shell.
For CRLM the configuration analysed is ST2.
Tables 2 and 4 and Figs 6-9 show the radial displace-
ment and stresses. The maximum meridional stress
given by thin shell theory is higher than that of thick
shell theory for constant thickness short and long
shells. For shells with discontinuity, the values given
by thick shell theory are marginally higher than
values for thin shell theory. The maximum hoop
stress given by thick shell theory is higher than that
of thin shell theory for both short and long shells.
The maximum transverse normal stress is 36.6% of
the maximum meridional stress for short shells and
36.4% for long shells of step ratio 4.0. The maximum
shear stress is negligible for both short and long
shells. As the step ratio increases the maximum
meridional and hoop stress decreases. For a step ratio
of 4.0, the maximum meridional stress decreases by
53.5% for a short shell and by 43.7% for a long shell.
The maximum hoop stress decreases by 42.9% for a
short shell and by 42.4% for a long shell.
3.3. Shells with C-F end conditions
For C-F end conditions, since the stresses are
higher at the fixed end, higher thicknesses are given
at the fixed end. The ST3 shell configurations for UIP
and ST4 for CRLM were analysed. Tables 1 and 3
and Figs 2-5 show the variation of radial displace-
ment and stresses for UIP. The maximum meridional
stress given by thin shell theory is higher than that of
thick shell theory for both short and long shells. The
maximum hoop stress given by thin shell theory is
higher up to a step ratio of 2.3 and above that thick
shell theory values are higher for both short and long
shells. The maximum transverse normal stress is 58%
of the maximum hoop stress for both short and long
shells. The maximum shear stress is 38% of maxi-
mum hoop stress for short shell and 31.8% for long
shell.
Tables 2 and 4 and Figs 6-9 show the radial
displacement and stresses for CRLM. The maximum
meridional stress and hoop stress given by thick
shell theory is higher than that of thin shell theory.
The maximum transverse normal stress is 35.4% of
the maximum meridional stress for a short shell
and 23.9% for a long shell. The maximum shear
stress is about 8% of the meridional stress for both
short and long shells. As the step ratio increases the
maximum meridional stress and the maximum hoop
stress decreases. The maximum meridional stress
decreases by 30.2% for a short shell an by 22.8%
for a long shell. The maximum hoop stress decreases
by 24.3% for a short shell and by 22% for a long
shell.
 Analysis of cylindrical shells with discontinuity in the thickness
4. CONCLUSIONS
From the tables and figures presented and by
the above results and discussions the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. The radial deflection given by thick shell theory
is higher than that given by thin shell theory.
2. The stresses given by thick shell theory at the
discontinuities either in the thickness or in the loading
are higher than that given by thin shell theory.
3. The transverse normal stress is not negligible
as compared to other stresses and increases sharply
at discontinuities in the thickness as well as loading.
4. The shear stress is also not negligible as com-
pared to other stresses at the fixed ends of the shells.
5. The increase of stresses at the discontinuity is
higher for short shell than for long shell.
6. For UIP, the constant thickness shell gives less
stresses than shells with discontinuity.
7. For CRLM, the maximum meridional stress
and the maximum hoop stress decrease considerably
for the configuration ST2 for CC and SS end
conditions and ST4 for C-F end conditions.
1071
REFERENCES
1. C. T. F. Ross, Axisymmetric deformation of varying
thickness cylinder under varying lateral pressure. Trans.
North East Coast Inst. Engng Ship Build 87, 13-16
(1970).
2. B. S. K. Sundara Siva Rao and N. Ganesan, Deform-
ation of varying thickness conical shells subjected to axi-
symmetric loading with various end conditions. Engng
Fract. Mech. 39, 1003-1010 (1991).
3. J. M. Klosner and H.S . Levine, Further comparison
of elasticity and shell theory solutions. AIAA Jnl 4,
467-480 (1966).
4. G. B. Warburton and A. M. J. Al-Najafi, Free
vibration of thin cylindrical shells with a dis-
continuity in the thickness. J. Sound Vibr. 9, 373-382
(1969).
5. K. R. Sivadas and N. Ganesan, Vibration analysis
of thick composite clamped conical shells of varying
thickness. J. Sound Vibr. 152, 27-38 (1992).
6. H. Kraus, Thin Elastic Shells. John Wiley (1967).
7. S. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory of
Plates and Shells, 2nd Edn. McGraw-Hill, Singapore
(1985).
8. 0. C. Zienkiewicz, The Finite Element Method in Struc-
tural and Continuum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, London
(1970).
9. W. Weaver, Jr and P. R. Johnston, Finite Elements for
Structural Analysis. Prentice-Hall (1984).