See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265824769

Elastic stress analysis of axisymmetric discontinuities in shells of revolution

by an 'effective ring' analogy model

Conference Paper · January 2003

CITATION READS

1 446

2 authors:

Werner Guggenberger Christian Linder

Graz University of Technology Stanford University
27 PUBLICATIONS   171 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   1,636 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stretchable Electronic Materials View project

Stretchability by Design - Understanding Mechanical Phenomena in Microarchitectured Soft Material Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Werner Guggenberger on 15 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ECCS International Conference – "Design, Inspection, Maintenance and Operation of
Cylindrical Steel Tanks and Pipelines", Prague, Czech Republic, 8–10 October, 2003

ELASTIC STRESS ANALYSIS OF

AXISYMMETRIC DISCONTINUITIES IN SHELLS OF REVOLUTION
BY AN “EFFECTIVE RING” ANALOGY MODEL

Werner Guggenberger1, Christian Linder2

1 Institute for Steel, Timber and Shell Structures, Graz University of Technology, Lessingstr. 25, 8010 Graz, Austria
2
Berkeley, University of California, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, USA

ABSTRACT

Technical thin–walled axisymmetric shell structures usually consist of several segments, including ring–
stiffeners, which are connected to each other at circumferential shell junctions. The stress state in the interior
of these shell segments is primarily governed by membrane action, however, additional secondary bending
stresses occur at these shell junctions due to compatibility requirements. Linear elastic stress analysis of such
meridional discontinuities in thin–walled axisymmetric shells is an important pre–requisite for the proper
design of these components, i. e. with respect to assessing the ultimate plastic limit state and the ultimate limit
states of cyclic plasticity and fatigue in particular. In this paper a general and elegant approach to the
analysis of axisymmetric stress states of arbitrary shell junctions is presented which is based on a newly
developed effective–ring analogy model. The axisymmetric elastic stiffness of this “analogous” effective ring
is equivalent to the axisymmetric elastic boundary stiffness of the related shell segment. The reference axis of
the effective ring coincides with the circumferential boundary of the original shell segment. The effective ring
has a two–point cross–section with one point located at the shell boundary and the other one located ex-
centrically above the plane of the circular boundary. The ring is capable of exactly representing the linear–
elastic static deformation behaviour due to uniform radial boundary forces and meridional boundary mo-
ments acting at the edges of “long” axisymmetric shell segments, exact in the sense of Geckeler’s approxi-
mation. This ring girder analogy represents a long–searched missing link and the resolution of a paradox.
The Geckeler approximation suggests an analogy between the edge bending effects of (long and steep)
general shell of revolution and the cylindrical shell. However, this analogy is only valid for the governing
differential equation and the fundamental solutions, but not for the boundary value problem. The effective
area model results as limiting case of the more general effective ring model by restraining the meridional
rotations, therefore, the effective area concept is naturally contained as a special case. The analysis
procedure developed in this paper is general, yet straight–forward to apply and simple enough to be used in
daily engineering work or to be included in future design codes. The effectiveness of the proposed analogy
model is demonstrated by practical examples.

INTRODUCTION

Practical thin–walled axisymmetric shell structures usually consist of several segments including ring–
stiffeners and ring beams which are connected to each other at circumferential shell junctions (Fig. 1). The
stress state in the interior of these shell segments is primarily governed by membrane action due to
continuously distributed loads, such as gravity (self–weight, snow), hydro–static pressure, internal or external
gas pressure, or bulk material pressure and friction on silo walls. Accordingly, the neccessary stiffening rings
at folded shell junctions are pre–dominantly stressed by circumferential normal forces due to global
equilibrium requirements. However, additional secondary bending effects occur at these shell junctions, due
to compatibility requirements. Therefore, linear elastic stress analysis of such discontinuities in thin–walled
shells is an important pre–requisite for the proper design of these components, i. e. with respect to assessing
the limit states of plasticity as well as cyclic plasticity and fatigue (prEN 1993–1–6, 1999; Rotter, 1983; Teng
and Rotter, 1989; Teng, 1996; Wallner, 2002; Zingoni, 1997, 2001, 2002).

r 1 r 1 r
t1
t1 1
t1 T–bar ring t1
b
t4 stiffener r1
4 4
p=γ.z p=γ.z t4 3 h h
z z t2
b
t3 t3 r2
t2 t2 45° t2 p
2
3

2 2 px
a b c d
Fig. 1. Discontinuities in general shells of revolution, a. stepped wall thickness, b. cylinder–cone transition
junction, c. heavy T–bar ring stiffener, d. lap–jointed bolted connection of the wall segments

In the following section the basic equations of general shells of revolution under axisymmetric boundary forces
are presented. Then the Geckeler approximation and the Geckeler analogy model are introduced which are of
importance in practical engineering application. The shortcomings of this analogy model, which is valid on the
level of governing differential equations only, lead to the search for a general analogy model on the level of
stiffness relations between boundary forces and boundary deformations. In the next section this structural
analogy model is explicitely developed and it is verified by application to practical examples (Fig. 1).
It turns out, that the edge bending problem of general shells of revolution can be successfully put into analogy
relation with the axisymmetric deformation behaviour of a circular ring girder under axisymmetric loading.
The effective circular ring girders exactly represent the stiffness behaviour at the boundaries of joining shell
segments, i.e. in the sense of the Geckeler approximation. Therefore this procedure enables a simple but
accurate analysis of arbitrary discontinuities in complex axisymmetric shell structures by simple cross–
sectional calculations of the effective circular ring girders. A first attempt in searching for such a simple
analogy model, however restricted to a more specific situation of a ring–stiffened cylindrical shell junction,
has been presented by Chen and Rotter (1998).
revolution
axis of revolution

t
axis of

t Q, coW*
sθ
=W
r ~ konst.
T,W*
.
konst M
R20 , β R20
.
R 20 ~
r = R = R20 T,W θ ~ konst.

M , β.r
r
a b
Fig. 2. Geometry and notation, boundary forces and displacements of a “long”
a. circular cylindrical shell, b. general shell of revolution
REISSNER MEISSNER EQUATIONS

The basic equations of linear shell theory for the axisymmetric edge–bending problem of general shells of
revolution are represented in most compact form by the set of the two Reissner–Meissner equations which can
be assembled from the general set of shell equations by applying suitable but otherwise straightforward
transformations. If the derivatives are expressed with respect to the meridional arc–length S10 instead of the
non–dimensional normal angle θ of the shell midsurface the Reissner–Meissner differential operator L( )
adopts its simplest possible form (Eqn 1). Assuming constant wall thickness t, membrane stiffness D 0 = Et and
bending stiffness K = Et 3 ⁄ ( 12 ( 1 – ν 2 ) ) this concise form, which has similarly been derived by Calladine (1984),
is completely equivalent to the more complicated representations, which are given in many shell text books.

tan θ tan θ 2 ∂
L( ) = R 20  ( )'' – ----------- ( )' –  ----------- ( )
  R 20  
with ( )' = ∂ ( ) = -------------
-( ) (1)
R 20 ∂ S 10 R 10 ∂θ

The set of two Reissner–Meissner equations represents a rather strange combination of system equations, that
is firstly an equilibrium equation, i.e. the meridional moment equilibrium condition and secondly a kinematical
equation, i.e. the meridional normal hypothesis, both of them expressed in terms of a deformation parameter,
i.e. the meridional angle of rotation β, and a force parameter, i.e. the scaled global radial shell section force
T̃ = r ⋅ T . The radial section force is related to the meridional transverse shear force by T = Q ⁄ cos φ . This most
elegant set of equations (coupled linear ordinary differential equations with variable coefficients) can be
written in concise matrix differential operator notation and serves as the starting point for profound
mathematical solution for many shell forms (Flügge, 1973)

ν 1
L ( ) – -------
- – ---- β 0
R 10 K
⋅ = (2)
ν
D0 L ( ) + -------
- T̃ 0
R 10

For the basic case of the cylindrical shell ( R 20 = r = constant , R 10 → ∞ and tan φ = 0 ) the Reissner–Meissner
matrix differential equation condenses down to a unique differential equation of fourth order with constant
coefficients which is valid for any of the unknowns, e.g. for the radial displacement W (Eqn 3). The analytical
solution exhibits a characteristic exponential decay away from the boundaries which is vividly described by
the notion of “length of decay” or “effective length” Leff (Eqn 3). For “long” shells per definition the two
decaying boundary solutions become fully uncoupled (Eqn 4).

4 4 2 4
d D0 d 12 ( 1 – ν ) d 1 rt
LL( ) =
4
W + --------
4 2
-W = 4
W + ------------------------
2 2
-W = 4
W + 4χ W = 0 with χ = --------- and L eff = --------------------------
-
L eff 2
dX r K dX r t dX 4
3(1 – ν ) (3)

X
– ---------
L eff 
C 1 sin --------- + C 2 cos --------- = C 1 f 1 ( ξ ) + C 2 f 2 ( ξ )
– χX – χX X X
W = C1e sin χX + C 2 e cos χX = e (4)
 L eff L eff 

GECKELER APPROXIMATION

The characteristic behaviour of strongly (i.e. exponentially) decaying solutions observed in cylindrical shells
serves as a motif then also for more general meridional shapes. This analogy remains valid as long as the shell
is sufficiently “slender” and “steep”, near the circumferential boundaries of interest in particular. Then the
following proportions of the orders of magnitude O() of the relevant shell parameters hold with reasonable
accuracy (Eqn 5a). For typical slender steel shell structures with R20/t ≈ 100 ... 1000 ... 10000 the validity of
this comparison of orders of magnitude is directly apparent for such geometries. If the effective length is
introduced in an analogous way, it can be seen from Eqn 5.b that three markedly different length scales have
to exist accordingly to guarantee the validity of the foregoing relationships. Eqn 5.c tells that the normal angle
is restricted to a range of about plus/minus 60 degrees which is a really very wide range in practice.
 R 20 R 20 R 10
O  -------- » O  -------
- » O(1) and O  -------
- » O(1) ( 5.a )
 t   t  t 

R t
O (R 10,R 20) » O ( L eff ) » O ( t ) 20
with L eff = --------------------------
- ( 5.b )
2
4
3(1 – ν )

O ( tan φ ) = O ( 1 ) ( 5.c )
R20/t and R10/t are the non–dimensional principal radii of curvature of the shell midsurface in circumferential
and meridional direction respectively, and θ is the angle of the shell normal measured with respect to the
horizontal plane, orthogonal to the axis of revolution (e.g. θ = 0 for cylindrical shells).

In the cases described above (“slender” and “steep” boundary zones of shells of revolution), which cover a
wide range of practical shell configurations, in many fields of engineering application, the basic equations can
be greatly simplified by introducing the comparisons of orders of magnitude as outlined in Eqns 5.a – c and
assuming a decay–type solution analogous to Eqn 4. This kind of approximation for general meridional shapes
was introduced by Geckeler (1926 and 1930) for the first time. Then approximate governing differential
equations and according solutions result analogous to the exact ones for the cylindrical shell (Eqns 3 and 4).
There the axial coordinate X and the radius r have to be replaced by the meridional coordinate S10 and the
circumferential radius of curvature R20 respectively. This close relationship between a general shell of
revolution with circumferential radius of curvature R20 at the boundary and a cylinder with radius ranalogue =
R20 is known as Geckeler analogy, i.e. an analogy between the governing differential equations and the
fundamental solutions of the two related problems. We call this an ‘internal analogy’. However, it turns out
that the present analogy is not complete, in the sense, that it does not carry over to the solutions of the
axisymmetric boundary value problems (BVP) of general shells of revolution and cylindrical shells. Such an
extension to a ‘complete analogy’ could only be achieved at the price of introducing modified, but otherwise
artificial, displacement and related force quantities at the shell boundaries (see analogy table below, TAB. 1).
Concluding, this means that the Geckeler analogy can never be fully established, opposite to the well–known
torsion–membrane analogy, for example. The torsion–membrane analogy is governed by the Laplace equation
and holds for the governing differential equations, the fundamental solutions and the related boundary value
problems as well. Therefore, an independent complementary analogy model has to be searched for. The
presentation of this long–searched ‘external analogy’ is the main purpose of the present paper (‘complete
analogy’). It turns out, as a result of this search, that the edge bending problem of general shells of revolution,
i.e. the stiffness relations between boundary forces and boundary deformations in particular, can be
successfully put into relation with the axisymmetric deformation behaviour of a circular ring girder under
axisymmetric loading and eventually the long–missing ‘external analogy’ can be effectively established.

Analytical solution of the edge bending problem

Within this framework of approximate analysis all relevant system parameters have to be introduced with
constant values (R20, r, t, θ; ν, D0, K), i.e. usually these are the values at the specific circumferential boundary
of the shell segment considered. W* denotes the radial displacement component which serves as fundamental
unknown; βφ is the dependent meridional angle of rotation of the shell normal. It is important to note that the
meridional radius of curvature R10 does no longer explicitely appear (!). The equlibrium condition in radial
(not normal) direction is expressed in terms of the radial displacement W* (Eqns 6.a, b).
The detailed derivation of Geckeler’s approximation starting from the basic equations is comprehensively
described by Linder (2001) but must be omitted here due to limited space.
4 R t
d 1 and
4
*
W + 4χ W = 0
4 *
with χ = --------
L eff
- 20
L eff = --------------------------
- ( 6.a )
2
d S 10 4
3(1 – ν )

4
d * * S 10 d d
W + 4W = 0 with ξ = --------
- and ( ) = L eff ⋅ ( 6.b )
dξ
4 L eff dξ d S 10
The fundamental solutions of the general differential equation (Eqns 6) are the same as for the cylinder (Eqn
4) if parameters are suitably interchanged. By appropriate linear combination, shape functions are created
which correspond to unit boundary deformation states (Fig. 2) W*=1 and β=1 (Eqn 7). The fundamental
solutions and their derivatives are plotted over the non–dimensional coordinate ξ = S10/Leff by introducing the
problem–specific “effective length” as a reference value (Fig. 3). This nondimensional treatment is the crucial
point of the following derivation. Next the shell boundary forces T and M which are work–conjugate to the
boundary deformations are specified (Eqns 8.a, b). The values at the boundary are obtained by letting x = 0,
according to Fig. 3, and this yields the final stiffness relationship (Eqn 8.c). Carrying out certain parameter
substitutions: A*= tLeff, r = cosθ.R20, and h* = cosθ.Leff, the equivalence with the circular ring girder behaviour
(Eqn 10) becomes directly apparent. Further system quantities which are back–calculated are given in (Eqn 9).

1 *
1 *
W ( ξ ) = ------------ W ( ξ ) = ------------
cos θ
f 2(ξ) + f 1(ξ) ; – ( L eff cos θ ) f 1 ( ξ ) ⋅ W (7)
cos θ β

Q(ξ) M' ( ξ ) K W ( ξ )''' 2K *

T ( ξ ) = ------------ = -------------- = --------------------- = ---------------------------
- 2 f 2(ξ) ; – ( cos θ L eff ) ( f 2 ( ξ ) + f 1 ( ξ ) ) ⋅ W ( 8.a )
cos θ cos θ cos θ ( cos θ ) L eff
2 3
β

–2 K *
M ( ξ ) = K W ( ξ )'' = --------------------
2
- f 2(ξ) – f 1(ξ) ; – ( cos θ L eff ) f 2 ( ξ ) ⋅ W ( 8.b )
cos θL eff β

* 2K 2 – cos θ L eff 2K E ( tL )
v = W ; T = r = K⋅v ⇒ K = ---------------------------
2 3
- with --------------------------- eff
- ( 8.c )
- = ------------------------------
( cos θ ) L eff – cos θ L eff ( cos θ L eff ) 2
2 3 2
β M ( cos θ ) L eff 2 ( cos θR 20 )

β ( ξ ) = – W ( ξ )'

Q ( ξ ) = M' ( ξ ) = cos θ T ( ξ ) 

 ..... back–calculation of angle of rotation and further section forces (9)
M φ ( ξ ) = νM ( ξ ) – K sin θ β ( ξ ) ≈ νM ( ξ ) 
W (ξ)
*
E ⋅ A∗ 
N φ ( ξ ) = D 0 ⋅ --------------- = --------------- ⋅ W ( ξ ) 
r R 20

1
Fw,1=FM,2 –ξ
f 1 = e sin ξ ⇒ f 1(0) = 0
0,8 FN,1 –ξ
f 2 = e cos ξ ⇒ f 2(0) = 1
–ξ
0,6 FN,2=FQ,1 f 3 = e ( cos ξ – sin ξ ) = f 2 – f 1 ⇒ f 3(0) = 1
–ξ
Fw,2=FM,1=FQ,2 f 4 = e ( cos ξ + sin ξ ) = f 2 + f 1 ⇒ f 4(0) = 1
0,4
The derivatives of the fundamental
solutions are expressible as linear
0,2 combination of themselves as follows:
df1
= f3 = f2 – f1
0 dξ
df2
= –f4 = – f2 – f1
dξ
-0,2
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
ξ =S10/Leff [–]
Fig. 3. Fundamental solutions of the Geckeler approximation and their derivatives
CIRCULAR RING GIRDER ANALOGY MODEL

The effective ring has a two–point meridional cross–section. One of the two cross–sectional points is always
located at the end of the shell segment to which it belongs (boundary circles in Fig. 4). The total ring cross–
sectional area equals to the well–known effective area for such type of problems. One half of this area
respectively is located at each of the two cross–sectional points. The ring axis is co–incident with the axis of
revolution of the shell. The cross–sectional points of the effective section are located at a vertical distance h*
from each other which is equal to the effective length for cylindrical shells (Fig. 4.a) and equal to its vertical
projection for general axisymmetric shells (Fig. 4.b). The essential and distinguishing feature of this effective
ring is that it is capable of exactly representing the linear–elastic static behaviour at the circumferential boun-
daries of “long” axisymmetric shell segments with respect to imposed radial boundary forces and meridional
boundary moments. Therefore this new concept represents a straightforward and consistent extension of the
traditional and well–known effective area concept which is capable of representing the static behaviour of the
axisymmetric shell with respect to imposed boundary forces only. The stiffness matrix and the stiffness re-
lationship for this equivalent ring girder is resented in Eqn 10. In fact, the effective area model turns out to be
a consistent limiting case of the effective ring model if the accompanying meridional rotations are restrained.

t
h* = 2e* =
axis of revolution
axis of revolution

h* = 2e* = Leffcosθ
T = Q; Leff
= Leff
W = W* t Q; W* = W
cosθ
r = R20 boundary circle
boundary circle r ~ konst. st. Q
M ; β.r R 20 ~
kon M ; β.R T = cosθ ; W*
R20 20
r θ ~ konst.

a b
Fig. 4. Construction of the analogy model — axisymmetric circular ring girder with two–point cross–section,
a. for “long” cylinders, b. for general shells of revolution

EA ∗ 1 ± h∗ ⁄ 2 T *
RING
-⋅
K RING = ---------------------
2
⇒ = r RING = K RING ⋅ v RING = K RING ⋅ W ( 10 )
r ± h∗ ⁄ 2 h∗ ⁄ 2
2 M RING β RING

TABLE 1. Analogy table

ORIGINAL PROBLEM — ANALOGOUS PROBLEM —
BVP of “long” general shells of revolution BVP of “long” circular cylindrical shells
parameter symbol symbol parameter
circumferential radius of curvature R20 R radius

shell thickness t t Dicke

poisson ratio ν ν Querdehnzahl
transverse boundary shear force Q = Tcosθ Q=T global horizontal boundary section force
meridional boundary moment M/R20 M/R meridional boundary moment

modified boundary displacement W = W*/cosθ W = W* horizonal (radiial) boundary displacement

meridional angle of rotation β R20 βR meridional angle of rotation

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE

A hydrostatically loaded cylinder–cone transition junction is analyzed. The following parameter values hold
(Figs 1.b and 5): γ = 10 kN/m3; liquid level above the joint z = 1000 cm, elastic modulus E = 21000 kN/cm2,
Poisson ratio ν = 0.3; radius r = 400 cm, cone angle α = 45 deg, wall thicknesses t1 = t2 = 1.2 cm, t3 = 1 cm.
The analysis is easily carried out by hand, in five distinct steps which are largely self–explanatory, as follows:

TABLE 2. Geometrical data

geometrical shell segment No. “ i ”
formula
parameter No. 1 and 2 No. 3 No. 4 ( = ring)
Leff,i [cm] 0.778 Rt 17.044 18.503 28.266
Ai* [cm2] Leff,i.ti 20.453 18.503 70.664
*
ei [cm] Leff,i.cosαi/2 8.5520 6.5419 —

Step 1: Membrane boundary displacements at the junction (these serve as approximate particular solutions):

* 0.063492cm 0.089466cm
v M, i = W M, i ; v M, 1 = , v M, 2 = 0.010774 cm , v M, 3 = ( 11 )
β M, i – 6.39492 ⋅ 10
–5 0 –5
27.863 ⋅ 10

Step 2: Equilibrium for a single shell segment no. “i”:

stiffness matrices of the shell segments (= stiffness matrices of the effective circular ring girders), Eqn 10.

EA ∗ 1 ± e i∗
K i ⋅ ( v i – v M, i ) = r ext, i ⇒ K i ⋅ v i = r M, i + r ext, i = r i with r M, i = K i ⋅ v M, i and K i = -----------
2
i
-⋅ ( 12 )
± e i∗ 2e i∗
2
r

K 1, 2 = 2.6845 ± 22.878 , K3 = 2.4285 – 15.887 , EA R

-⋅
K 4, RING = ----------
1 0
= 9.2747 0 ( 13 )
± 22.878 389.93 – 15.887 207.86 r
2 2
0 t R ⁄ 12 0 4.8306

Step 3: Global solution of the overall system by the matrix–displacement method:

3

global load vector: r M = T

M M
= ∑r M, i = 0.16899 + 0.028922 + 0.21285 = 0.41080
1.4278 – 0.24648 – 1.3634 – 0.18214
( 14.a )
1

r0 = T
M 0
= ∑r
i=3
0, i = – 2.2625
0
⇒ r = T = r M + r0 =
M
– 1.8517
– 0.18214
( 14.b )

∑K
*
global equilibrium: v = W = K ⋅ r = – 0.1028 cm with 2.4285 – 15.887
–1
K = i = ( 15 )
β 0.0019487 1
– 15.887 207.86

Step 4: Back calculation of the boundary forces and boundary moments (Eqn 8.c) for postprocessing purposes:

Ti
ri = = K i ⋅ ( v – v M, i ) = K i ⋅ v – r M, i ( 16.a )
Mi

r 1 = – 0.50961 , r 2 = – 0.28038 , r 3 = – 0.44970 , r 4, RING = 1.2397 ( 16.b )

– 4.7105 2.0095 2.7104 – 0.009413
 Step 5: Based on the boundary forces of each shell segment (Eqn 16.a, b) the internal force distributions are
obtained. The meridional bending moment distributions, i.e the related bending stresses, are shown in Fig. 5.

1 r=400 cm r=R

+1
t1=1.2 -5.790

6.
beff,4

+19.63
26
-6.355 -5.790
beff,2 beff,1
be
4 +H

ff,
p=γ.z

+8.370
z=1000
t2=1.2 t3=1.0 +M

-4
45°
σΘ σx,b

.8
30
3

2 [kN/cm2] [kN/cm2]

a b c d
Fig. 5. a. cylinder–cone transition junction, b. effective ring cross–sections, c. membrane hoop stresses, and
d. meridional bending stresses in the shell segments

CONCLUSION

In this paper an elaborate analysis has been presented in which a novel, long–missed analogy model has been
successfully established, i.e. between the axisymmetric edge–bending of “long and steep” segments of shells
of revolution and a circular ring girder. The simplicity and elegance of this model is presented by an example.

REFERENCES

Calladine, C.R. (1985). Theory of Shell Structures, Cambridge University Press.

Chen, J.F., Rotter, J.M. (1998). Effective cross sections of asymmetric rings on cylindrical shells, J. Struct.
Eng., Vol. 24, No. 9, 1074–1080.
Flügge, W. (1973). Stresses in shells, 2nd. Ed., Springer.
Linder, Ch. (2001). Theory of general shells of revolution and development of an analogy model for the
efficient computation of axisymmetric edge bending effects, Diploma thesis, Institute of Steel, Timber and
Shell Structures, Graz University of Technology, September 2001, 346 p.
prEN 1993–1–6 (1999). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.6: General Rules: Supplementary
Rules for Shell Structures, Annex B, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels.
Rotter, J.M. (1983). Effective Cross Sections of Ringbeams and Stiffeners for Bins, Proc.Int.Conf. Bulk
Material Storage Handling and Transportation, Inst. of Eng., New Castle, Australia, August, pp 329–334.
Teng, J.G. Rotter, J.M. (1989). The Strength of Silo Transition Rings and Hoppers, Transact. of Mech. Eng.,
Vol. ME14, No. 3, pp 170–177, Inst. of Eng., Australia.
Teng, J.G. (1996). The effective area method for collapse strength prediction of complex metal shell
intersections, Int.Conf. Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong, China, Dec 11–14.
Wallner, S. (2002). Modelling and plastic carrying capacity of discretely supported steel silo structures with
special consideration of stringer stiffeners above the supports, PhD thesis, submitted, Institute of Steel,
Timber and Shell Structures, Graz University of Technology, April 2002, 632 p.
Zingoni, A. (1997). Shell structures in civel and mechanical engineering — theory and closed–form
analytical solutions, Thomas Telford, London.
Zingoni, A. (2001). Stresses and deformations in egg–shaped sludge digestors: membrane effects,
discontinuity effects, Eng. Struct., Vol. 23, 1365–1372 and 1373–1382.
Zingoni, A. (2002). Discontinuity effects at cone–cone axisymmetric shell junctions, Thin–Walled Struct.,
Vol. 40, 877–891.

View publication stats