Original Article

J Strain Analysis
1–13
Ó IMechE 2020
A numerical study on nonlinear Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
bending performance of transversely DOI: 10.1177/0309324720977415
journals.sagepub.com/home/sdj

loaded composite singly curved

stiffened surfaces

Kaustav Bakshi

Abstract
The review of recent literature shows that the bending performances of transversely loaded laminated composite singly
curved stiffened surfaces are not studied in detail using the geometrically nonlinear strains. The present paper aims to fill
that void and proposes an isoparametric C° finite element formulation combining von-Karman nonlinearity and Sanders’
first approximation theory. The curved surfaces are simulated using nonlinear strains. The stiffeners are formulated using
geometrically linear and nonlinear strains. The correctness of the proposed approach is confirmed through solution of
benchmark problems. The relative performances of stiffened curved surfaces in terms of maximum transverse displace-
ments are studied for industrially important parametric variations like boundary conditions, laminations, stacking
sequences, and number, orientations, eccentricities, and depth of stiffeners. The results are critically discussed and it is
concluded that the clamped 0°/90°/0° shell with curved stiffeners (y-stiffener) located below the mid-surface shows the
greatest bending stiffness. The nonlinear approach is essential for both shell and stiffener for correct prediction of the
transverse displacements. The relatively simpler linear approach can be considered for single x-stiffener only.

Keywords
Laminated composites, singly curved shell roof, stiffened curved surfaces, von-Karman geometric nonlinearity, isopara-
metric finite element formulation

Date received: 14 June 2020; accepted: 27 October 2020

Introduction property enable to engineers to fabricate the cylindrical

The advent of laminated composites in weight sensitive
engineering applications inspired researchers to investi-
gate behavioral aspects of composite curved surfaces
under practical industrial conditions. The high
strength/stiffness to weight ratio, lesser susceptibility to
be damaged by weathering actions, better resistance
against fire and flexibility to tailor the rigidity by alter-
ing fiber alignments, and stacking are attributed to the
popularity of laminated composites. The practicing
civil engineers apply the composite shell roofs to cover
large unsupported spaces found in car parking lots, sta-
diums, auditoriums, aircraft hangers, and shopping
malls. Such composite curved roofs significantly reduce
the seismic and foundation forces of civil engineering
structures compared to the reinforced concrete ones.
Among different shell forms studied by researchers, the
thin singly curved cylindrical ones are applied in many
civil engineering projects due to its enhanced rigidity
and aesthetic appeal. Moreover, the singly ruled
shells easily and rapidly which is preferred in industrial
applications. Additionally, the cylindrical roofs allow
natural ventilation both ends which are the require-
ments of medicine, food processing, and automobile
industries.
Naturally, a number of researchers studied static
and dynamic responses of composite cylindrical shell
roofs using geometrically linear finite element formula-
tion. Free vibration of such curved surfaces was studied
by Chakravorty et al.,1 Bardell et al.,2 and Dogan and
Arslan.3 Acharyya et al.4 worked on delaminated
Discipline of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore,
Simrol, Madhya Pradesh, India
Corresponding author:
Kaustav Bakshi, Discipline of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Indore, Khandwa Road, Simrol, Madhya Pradesh 452020,
India.
Emails: Bakshi.kaustav@gmail.com; Kaustav.bakshi@iiti.ac.in
2 Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)
surfaces and reported fundamental frequencies and
mode shapes. The forced vibration responses of cylind-
rical panels was studied by Prusty and Satsangi,5
Turkmen,6 and Lee and Han.7 The geometrically non-
linear approach was adopted by Nanda and
Bandyopadhyay8 to report free vibration of cylindrical
panels while Ribeiro,9 Ribeiro and Stoykov10 worked
on forced vibration of shallow and deep shells. The
dynamic responses of composite cylindrical shallow
panels under hygrothermal load was reported by
Biswal et al.11 using nonlinear formulation. Chaubey
et al.12 worked on free vibration of laminated compo-
site cylindrical shells with cutouts using linear formula-
tion. The free and forced vibration behaviors of
functionally graded shells were studied by Chakraborty
et al.13 and Arani et al.14
The thin cylindrical roofs may undergo large defor-
mations particularly when subjected to static overload-
ing. Liao and Reddy15 reported that the bending
performances of such shell roofs can be greatly
improved by stiffeners. The authors adopted geometri-
cally nonlinear strains and studied the load-deflection
curves of cylindrical roofs with and without stiffeners.
Since then a number of researchers worked on stiffened
shell configurations. The static deflections and stress
resultants of laminated composite and isotropic cylind-
rical shell panels were reported by Goswami and
Mukhopadhyay16 and Sinha and Mukhopadhyay17
using linear strains. Realizing the importance of non-
linear strains for thin walled curved panels under trans-
verse loading, Goswami and Mukhopadhyay18
reported the nonlinear load-deflection curves of isotro-
pic and only for 90°/0°/90°/0° composite cylindrical
shells. Samanta and Mukhopadhyay19 studied stiffened
isotropic circular cylinders using the nonlinear strains.
Prusty and Satsangi20 worked on laminated composite
shell panels under axial compression and in-plane
shear. The authors adopted ‘‘L’’ and ‘‘T’’ shaped com-
posite stiffeners. Prusty21 later worked on ‘‘hat,’’ ‘‘rec-
tangular,’’ and ‘‘T’’ stiffeners and studied shells under
axial compression, in-plane shear, and combination of
bi-axial compression and in-plane shear. Bich et al.22
worked on functionally graded cylindrical panels and
reported nonlinear dynamic buckling behavior. The
nonlinear static and free vibration responses of stif-
fened cylindrical panels were studied by Li et al.23 using
layerwise theory. The authors reported the maximum
deflections and deformed shapes for varying stiffener
orientations. Ou et al.24 conducted nonlinear dynamic
analysis of composite stiffened cylindrical shells while
Temami et al.25 studied the effect of boundary condi-
tions on the behavior of stiffened and un-stiffened iso-
tropic cylindrical shells.
The review of literature clearly shows that the
researchers studied the static and dynamic responses of
the un-stiffened cylindrical shells in detail. The bending
behavior of stiffened composite surfaces under trans-
verse load didn’t received the due attention, specially
using the geometrically nonlinear strains. Although
Goswami and Mukhopadhyay18 and Li et al.23 worked
on this area, but the study on bending of laminated
composite stiffened cylindrical shell roofs are still far
from complete. Specifically none reported the bending
performances of stiffened composite cylindrical shells
for industrially important parametric variations like
boundary conditions, laminations, stacking sequences,
and number, orientations, eccentricities, and depth of
stiffeners. Thus, the present paper aims to fill that void
and proposes an isoparametric C° finite element code.
The code formulates the composite cylindrical shell
using geometrically nonlinear strains and the stiffeners
using linear and nonlinear strains. The maximum trans-
verse displacements obtained using the linear and non-
linear formulations are thoroughly studied for
important parametric variations and the paper finally
concludes by suggesting design guidelines to the practi-
cing engineers regarding practical post processing of
the relative bending performances.
Mathematical formulation
Governing equations
A uniformly loaded, stiffened, laminated composite
cylindrical shell roof (Figure 1) is taken up for this
study. The uniform shell thickness ‘‘h’’ can be fabricated
using any number of thin laminae where the fibers are
aligned at an angle ‘‘u’’ with the global x-axis (Figure
1). The reference axes are taken at the mid-surface of
the shell roof which has sides ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’ along the glo-
bal x and y-axes, respectively. The radius of curvature
of the cylindrical roof is Ryy. Rectangular laminated
composite beams are taken as stiffeners having width
‘‘bst’’ and depth ‘‘dst.’’ Single layered laminates with
fibers aligned along the longitudinal axis are considered
for the stiffeners. Such stiffeners are oriented either
along x-axis or y-axis or bi-axially.
Total potential energy (p) of the cylindrical roof is
furnished in equation (1):
ð ðð T
1 T
p= feg fsgdv  fdg fqg dA ð1Þ
2
v A
where fqg = f 0 0 qz 0 0 gT and qz = transverse
load intensity, v = volume of shell, A = cross-sectional
area, and {s} = shell stress resultants.28
The first and second integrals of equation (1) depict
strain energy and work potential, respectively for the
shell roof. The governing equation of shell bending is
furnished in equation (2) where the total potential
energy (p) is minimized with respect to shell deforma-
tions {d}.
∂p
=D ð2Þ
∂fdg
ð ðð
∂feg T
fsgdv  fqgdA = D ð3Þ
∂fdg
v A
Bakshi 3

Figure 1. A uniformly loaded stiffened laminated composite cylindrical shell roof.

ð ðð
 T   ∂feg where
B fsgdv  fqgdA = D where B = ,
∂fdg 8 9
v A 8 9  
1 ∂w0 2
> ∂u0
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> 2 ∂x >
>
½B = ½BL + ½B NL
>
>
∂x
>
> >
>  2 >
>
>
>
∂v0
 Rwyy0 >
> >
> 1 ∂w0 >
>
ð4Þ >
< ∂y >
= >
< 2 ∂y  Rvyy >
=
fe gL = ∂u0 ∂v0
∂y + ∂x >, feg
NL
= ∂w0 ∂w0 
  >
> > >
>  Rvyy >>
where B = ∂∂ffdegg , ½B = ½BL + ½BNL >
>
> a + ∂w 0 >
>
>
>
>
>
∂x ∂y >
>
>
>
> ∂x >
> >
> 0 >
>
‘‘D’’ in equation (4) is the residual of external and >
: b + ∂w0 ; > >
> >
>
: ;
internal forces. The residual is progressively minimized ∂y 0
8 9 8 9
using the Newton-Raphson iterative approach. The > kx > >
>
∂a
>
>
iteration converges when the shell follows the equili- >
> >
> > > ∂b >
> ∂x
>
>
> >
> > >
>
brium condition that is, D = 0. < ky >
> = > < ∂y > =
and kxy = ∂a + ∂b
>
> >
> > > ∂y ∂x >
>
>
> kxz >> >
> >
>
>
> >
> > >
> 0 >
>
Finite element formulation : ; : >
;
kyz 0
The shell element. An eight noded curved quadratic ele-
ment (Figure 2) with C° continuity is taken up to for- The linear {e}L and nonlinear strains {e}NL are related
mulate bending stiffness of the shell roof. The to the nodal degrees of freedom {di} using [B]L and
isoparametric interpolation functions of the element [B]NL, respectively. The ½B, [B]L, and [B]NL matrices
are shown in Figure 2. There are five degrees of free- are the same as reported in Bakshi and Chakravorty.28
dom assigned to each node of the element which are u,
v, w, a, and b as shown in Figure 1. Sanders’ nonlinear
strain–displacement relations (Sanders26) are combined The stiffener element. The stiffeners are considered along
with von-Karman type geometric nonlinearity the element boundaries only. Three noded isopara-
(Reddy27) to obtain the mid-surface strains (e) of the metric beam elements (Figure 3) are taken up to formu-
shell roof. A constant shear strain along with proper late the stiffeners. The curved elements are adopted for
shear correction factors are assumed in the strain– stiffeners along arch direction (y) of the shell. The
displacement relations of the moderately thin shells. straight ones are taken up for stiffeners along x-direc-
The von-Karman type geometric nonlinearity considers tion. These elements and the corresponding isopara-
small strain moderate rotations applicable for the metric interpolation functions are shown in Figure 3.
transversely loaded shells taken up here. The stiffener elements have the following degrees of
n o freedom at each node.
feg = e0x e0y g0xy kx ky kxy g0xz g 0yz x-stiffener:
ð5Þ
feg = fegL + fegNL fdsx g = ½Nji fdsxi g
4 Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)

Figure 2. The eight noded shell element and interpolation functions [Ni].

Figure 3. The three noded beam elements for (a) x-stiffener and (b) y-stiffener.

8   9
where fdsxi g = f usxi wsxi asxi bsxi gT i = 1–3 >
> 1 ∂wsx 2 >
>
>
> 2 ∂x >
>
y-stiffener: < =
NL 0
   fesx g =
> 0 >
> >
dsy = Nhi dsyi >
> >
>
: ;
  T 0
where dsyi = usyi wsyi asyi bsyi i = 1–3 2 38 9
∂Nsx
0 i
0 0 > usx >
The mid-surface strains for the stiffeners are furn- ∂x
7>> >

 3 6
1 ∂wsx X 60 <w > =
ished below, 6 0 0 077 sx
=
x-stiffener: 2 ∂x i = 1 6
40 0 0
7> a >
0 5> sx >
>
: >
;
8 9
8   9 0 0 0 0 bsx
∂usx
> > 1 ∂wsx 2 >
>
>
> ∂x >
> >
>
2 ∂x >
> 1
>
< ∂asx >
< >
= >
= = ½Bsx NL fdsxi g
∂x 0 2
fesx g = +
>
>
∂bsx >
> > > 0 > > ð6Þ ð8Þ
>
> ∂x >
> >
> >
>
: ∂wsx ; : ;
asx + ∂x 0 By applying equations (7) and (8), we get the following
L
= fesx g + fesx g NL from equation (6):
8 9 1
>
>
∂usx
∂x >
> fesx g = ½Bx fdsxi g where ½Bx = ½Bsx L + ½Bsx NL
>
> >
> 2
< ∂asx =
fesx gL = ∂x ∂fesx gT
>
>
∂bsx >
> = ½Bx where ½Bx = ½Bsx L + ½Bsx NL
>
> ∂x >
> ∂fdsxi g
: ∂wsx ;
asx + ∂x
2 sx 38 9 y-stiffener:
Ni :x 0 0 0 > usx > 8 9
> > 8 
X3 6
Nsx 7<> >
= > ∂vsy w
 Ryysy > 2 9
6 0 0 i :x 0 7 wsx >
> ∂y >
> >
>
1 ∂wsy vsy >
>
= 6 7 >
>
>
>
>
> 2 ∂y  Ryy
>
>
>
>
>
>
4 0 0 0 Nsx 5> asx >
i :x > > < ∂bsy< = =
i=1 >
: >
;  ∂y 0
0 Nsx Nsx 0 esy = +
i :x i bsx > ∂asy > > >
>
> >
> >
> 0 >
> ð9Þ
L
= ½Bsx  fdsxi g >
> ∂y >
> >
> >
>
>
: b + ∂wsy ; > : ;
sy
0
ð7Þ ∂y
 L  NL
= esy + esy
Bakshi 5

8 9
>
>
∂vsy w
 Ryysy >
> where Q11 = ð1  n12 n21 Þ1 E11 , Q66 = G12 , Q44 = G13 ,
>
>
∂y >
>
>
> ∂bsy >
> Q16 = 0. E11 = Elastic modulus along fiber. G12,
 L < =
∂y G13 = Shear moduli, n12 = n21 = Poisson’s ratios. The
esy =
>
> ∂asy >
> fiber direction is referred as ‘‘1’’ and perpendicular to
>
> ∂y >
>
>
> >
> that direction is ‘‘2.’’ The shear correction factor (K44)
:
bsy + ∂y
∂wsy ;
is taken as 5/6.31
2 sy 38 9
Ni :y  RNyyi 0 0 vsy > ssx
x is the normal stress along the longitudinal axis of
>
> >
6 7>< wsy >= the x-stiffener and t sx sx
xy , t xz are the shear stresses.
X3 6
Nsy 0 7
= 6 0 0 i :y 7 The stress resultants are as follows:
6 7> asy >
i=1 4 0 0 0 Nsy
i :y 5>> >
> 8 9 8 9
: ; bsx > ssx >
0 Nsy Nsy 0 b >
> N >
> + dsx
+ >
> x >
>
i :y sy sxx ð2 ð2 <
i < = s sx
z =
 L  Msxx  x 
= Bsy dsyi i = dydz ð14Þ
>
> T > > t sx sx
xy z  t xz y >
: sxx > ; dsx bsx
>
>
:
>
>
;
ð10Þ Qsxxz 2 2 ks t zx
xz
8   9 8 9
>
> 1 ∂wsy vsy 2 >
> > Nsxx >
> 2 ∂y  Ryy >
> > >
>
<
>
>
>
< >
= Msxx =
NL
fesx g = 0
> > > Tsxx >
> >
>
> 0 >
> >
: >
;
>
> >
> Qsxxz
: ;
0 2 3
2 3 A11 bsx B11 bsx B12 bsx 0
∂Nsx
 RNyyi i
0 0 6B b 0 7

 3 6 ∂x
7 6 11 sx D11 bsx D12 bsx 7
1 ∂wsy vsy X 6 0 0 0 07 =6 7
=  6 7 4 B12 bsx D12 bsx 16 ðQ44 + Q66 Þdsx b3sx 0 5
2 ∂y Ryy i = 1 6
4 0 0
7
0 05 0 0 0 bsx S11
0 0 0 0 8 9
> usx >
8
vsy >
9  > <w >
> >
=
>
> > L 1 NL sx
< wsy >
> = ½Bsx  + ½Bsx 
1  NL  2 >
> asx >>
= Bsy dsyi >
: >
;
>
> a >
sy > 2 bsx
>
: >
;
bsy ð15Þ
ð11Þ fFsx g = ½Esx ½Bx fdsxi g ð16Þ
By applying equations (10) and (11), we get the follow- where fFsx g = f Nsxx Msxx Tsxx Qsxxz gT , 3½Esx  =
ing from equation (9): 2
A11 bsx B11 bsx B12 bsx 0
   L 6 B11 bsx D11 bsx D b 0 7
1  NL 6 12 sx 7
esy = ½By dsyi where ½By = Bsy + Bsy 4 B12 bsx D12 bsx 1 ðQ44 + Q66 Þdsx b3 0 5
2 6 sx
0 0 0 bsx S11
 T
∂ esy     y-stiffener:
 = ½By where ½By = Bsy L + Bsy NL The stress-strain relationship for a given lamina of
∂ dsyi
the laminated composite stiffener is given as the
following:
8 sy 9 2 38 9
Laminate constitute relationship < sy = Q22 Q26 0 < ey =
The constitutive relationship of the laminated compo- t sy = 4 Q26 Q66 0 5 g yx ð17Þ
: tyxsy ; :g ;
site cylindrical shell is as follows: yz 0 0 K Q
55 55 yz


1 Q22 = ð1  n12 n21 Þ1 E22 , Q66 = G12 ,Q55 = G23 , Q26 = 0.
fFg = ½E ½BL + ½BNL fdi g ð12Þ E22 = Elastic modulus along fiber. G12, G23 = Shear
2
moduli, n12 = n21 = Poisson’s ratios. The shear correc-
The laminate stress resultants {F} and constitutive rela- tion factor (K55) is taken as 5/6.31
tionship matrix [E] of the shell are adopted here from ssy
y is the normal stress along the longitudinal axis of
Chakravorty et al.1 the y-stiffener and tsy sy
xy , t xz are the shear stresses.
x-stiffener: The stress resultants are as follows:
The stress-strain relationship for a given lamina of 8 9 8 9
the laminated composite stiffener is the following: N bsy > ssy >
>
> syy >
> +
dsy
ð2 ð2 >
+ > y >
>
< = < ssy
y z
=
8 sx 9 2 38 9 Msyy  
< sx = Q11 Q16 0 < ex = = sy sy dydz ð18Þ
>
> Tsyy >
> >
> t zt y >
t sx = 4 Q16 Q66 0 5 gxy ð13Þ : ; dsy bsy : > yx sy yz > >
;
: xy ; : ; Qsyyz 2 2 ks t yz
t sx
xz 0 0 K Q
44 44 g xz
6 Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)

8 9
> Nsyy > The constitutive relationship matrix [Esy] reported in
>
> >
<M > = equation (20) is modified in the following manner:
syy

> Tsyy >

> >  =
>
: >
; Esy =
Qsyyz 2 3
2 3 A22 bsy B= 22 bsy B= 12 bsy 0
A22 bsy B22 bsy B12 bsy 0
6 = 1 7
6B b 1 7 6 B 22 bsy 6 (Q44 + Q66 )bsy D= 12 bsy 0 7
6 22 sy 6 (Q44 + Q66 )bsy D12 bsy 0 7 6 7:
=6 7 6 = 7
4 B12 bsy D12 bsy D11 dsy b3sy 0 5 4 B 12 bsy D= 12 bsy D= 11 dsy b3sy 0 5
0 0 0 bsy S22 0 0 0 bsy S22
8 9
> vsy > ð22Þ
 >
> >
>
 L 1  NL < wsy = = =
Bsy + Bsy where Dij = Dij + 2eBij + e2 Aij , Bij = Bij + eAij ,
2 > asy >
> > esy = Eccentricity of the y-stiffener measured from
>
: >
;
bsy mid-surface of the shell roof.
ð19Þ Equation (20) can be modified as the following:
   
Fsy = Esy ½By dsyi ð20Þ   =  
Fsy = Esy ½By Tsy fdi g ð23Þ
  T  
where Fsy = Nsyy Msyy Tsyy Qsyyz , Esy = 2 3
2 3 1 0 0 0 0
A22 bsy B22 bsy B12 bsy 0 6 0 1 + Resy
6 B22 bsy 1 (Q44 + Q66 )bsy 0 0 07
6 D12 bsy 0 7 7
  6 yy 7  
4 B12 bsy
6 where Tsy = 6 60 0 1 0 0773 Tshy and
D12 bsy 3
D11 dsy bsy 0 5 40
0 0 0 bsy S22 0 0 1 05
8 9 0 0 0 0 1
> ui >
>
> >
>
Shell to stiffener compatibility < vi >
> =
The radius of curvature for the shell and stiffener are fdi g = wi i = 1–8
>
> >
> ai >
> >
different from each other. Hence, the following modifi- : > ;
cations are carried out following the guidelines recom- bi
mended by Goswami and Mukhopadhyay.16
x-stiffener:
The x-stiffener is laid along the straight direction of Solution procedure
the cylindrical roof. Hence, the effect of curvature is Equation (4) can be written in the following form using
not considered to obtain the stiffness matrix of the x- equation (12),
stiffener. The stiffener displacements at node points are
ð   ðð
transferred to the shell nodal points following the rela- T 1
½B ½E ½BL + ½BNL dxdy fdi g  fqgdA = D
tionship furnished below, 2
A A

X
3 X
8 ð24Þ
dsxi = Ni ½Ifdi g = ½Tshx fdi g
1 1 Equation (24) is solved using Newton-Raphson
Equation (16) is modified as the following: method. The systematic steps to formulate the tangent
[KT] and secant [Ks] stiffness matrices and calculation
fFsx g = ½Esx ½Bx ½Tsx fdi g, where ½Tsx  = ½Tshx  ð21Þ of nodal displacements for the composite cylindrical
shell roof is furnished in Bakshi and Chakravorty.28
y-stiffener:
The similar steps can be applied to obtain the stiffness
The following transformation is adopted for the
matrices of the stiffeners once the constitutive rela-
curved y-stiffener,
tionship matrices ([Esx] and [Esy]/) and strain–


esy displacement matrices (½Bx , ½Bx and ½By , ½By ) are
usyi = ui , vsyi = 1 + vi , wsyi = wi , obtained for the x and y-stiffeners. The stiffness
Ryy
matrices and forces are calculated at the element level
asyi = ai , bsyi = bi:
using a reduced integration technique which is 2 3 2
The nodal stiffener displacements are transferred to the Gauss quadrature rule. The reduced integration is
shell nodal points following the relationship furnished adopted for all terms of the stiffness matrix. The ele-
below, ment solutions are assembled afterwards to get the
global solution and convergence of Newton-Raphson
X
3 X
8   method is checked following the guidelines recom-
dsy i = Ni ½Ifdi g = Tshy fdi g
mended by Chattopadhyay et al.29
1 1
Bakshi
Figure 4. Load–displacement curves of cylindrical shell panel.
Numerical problems
The correctness of the proposed formulation is con-
firmed through solutions of benchmark problems. The
first benchmark problem concentrates on transversely
loaded isotropic cylindrical shell panel. The load-
displacement curve of the isotropic shell obtained using
the proposed code is furnished in Figure 4 where the
dimensions and material properties of the isotropic
shell are also reported. The figure compares the present
results with the values reported by Palazotto and
Dennis.30 The comparison shows that the results are in
excellent agreement which confirms correctness of the
proposed nonlinear code applicable to cylindrical shell
surfaces.
The next benchmark problem aims on a transversely
loaded simply supported laminated composite square
plate with a stiffener along the x-axis. The material
properties of the plate and stiffeners are, E11 = 25E22,
E22 = 7031 N/mm2, G12 = G13 = 0.5E2, G23 = 0.2E2,
n12 = 0.25, and ds = 20. The stacking in the stiffener is
horizontal with laminations, (u°/2u°). The load–
displacement curves of the stiffened plate obtained
using the proposed code are compared with those
reported by Patel31 in Figures 5 and 6 for u = 45° and
90°, respectively. The comparisons show that the pres-
ent results are very close to what was reported by
Patel31 which confirms that the stiffeners are correctly
formulated in the proposed code using geometrically
linear and nonlinear strains.
Once, correctness of the proposed code is confirmed,
it is further applied to solve bending problems of lami-
nated composite stiffened cylindrical shells for varying
boundary conditions, laminations, and stacking
sequences. The uniformly loaded shells have varying
stiffener properties like number, eccentricities, orienta-
tions, and depth of stiffeners. The stiffeners are formu-
lated using linear and nonlinear strains while the
cylindrical shells are formulated using the nonlinear
strains only. The elastic moduli, shear moduli, and
Poisson’s ratio of the stiffener and shell are,
7
Figure 5. Load-displacements curves for (90°/290°) stiffened
laminated composite plate.
Figure 6. Load-displacements curves for (45°/245°) stiffened
laminated composite plate.
E11 = 142.5 GPa, E22 = 9.79 GPa, G12 = G13 = 4.72 GPa,
G23 = 1.192 GPa, n12 = 0.27, respectively. The stiffeners
are considered as single layered laminates having fiber
orientation along the longitudinal axis. The maxi-
mum non-dimensional displacements are furnished in
Tables 1 to 3. The dimensions of the cylindrical shells
and stiffeners are also furnished with the tables as
footnotes.
Results and discussion
Table 1 reports the non-dimensional (w  = wE22 h3 /
4
qa ) critical (numerically maximum) linear and non-
linear transverse displacements for symmetric and anti-
symmetric stacking orders of cross and angle-ply shell
roofs. The two, three, and four layered laminates are
taken up for the symmetric and anti-symmetric stack-
ing sequences. The clamped and simply supported shell
roofs are studied in Table 1 for three different stiffener
orientations illustrated in Figure 7. For each orienta-
tion, concentric, and eccentric (at top and bottom) stif-
feners are taken up. The critical displacements are
systematically studied for different industrially impor-
tant parametric variations.
 8
Table 1. Maximum non-dimensional downward deflections (
w 3104 ) of laminated composite cylindrical shells for varying orientations of concentric and eccentric (top and bottom) stiffeners.

Boundary Lamination Stiffener along x-direction (0°) Stiffener along y-direction (90°) Stiffener along both plan directions
condition (degree)
e=0 e = et e = eb e=0 e = et e = eb e=0 e = et e = eb

CCCC 0/90 0.231L 0.232L 0.231L 0.214L 0.231L 0.227L 0.227L 0.229L 0.231L
0.230N 0.219N 0.221N 0.166N 0.201N 0.161N 0.171N 0.203N 0.174N
0/90/0 0.141L 0.142L 0.141L 0.141L 0.142L 0.141L 0.141L 0.142L 0.141L
0.139N 0.132N 0.131N 0.123N 0.123N 0.122N 0.122N 0.127N 0.128N
(0/90)2 0.148L 0.149L 0.148L 0.148L 0.149L 0.149L 0.149L 0.148L 0.149L
0.145N 0.155N 0.157N 0.145N 0.147N 0.143N 0.151N 0.161N 0.157N
(0/90)s 0.178L 0.179L 0.178L 0.178L 0.179L 0.178L 0.179L 0.179L 0.179L
0.176N 0.165N 0.164N 0.152N 0.153N 0.151N 0.147N 0.148N 0.151N
45/245 0.506L 0.501L 0.506L 0.503L 0.506L 0.505L 0.507L 0.503L 0.505L
0.445N 0.409N 0.434N 0.339N 0.414N 0.325N 0.336N 0.375N 0.328N
45/245/45 0.326L 0.327L 0.327L 0.325L 0.326L 0.326L 0.327L 0.325L 0.325L
0.318N 0.321N 0.325N 0.295N 0.325N 0.291N 0.297N 0.319N 0.301N
(45/245)2 0.331L 0.332L 0.331L 0.329L 0.331L 0.331L 0.331L 0.330L 0.331L
0.323N 0.322N 0.330N 0.294N 0.318N 0.286N 0.293N 0.313N 0.291N
(45/245)s 0.334L 0.335L 0.334L 0.333L 0.334L 0.334L 0.334L 0.334L 0.334L
0.325N 0.321N 0.331N 0.294N 0.323N 0.288N 0.292N 0.316N 0.291N
SSSS 0/90 10.54L 10.57L 10.56L 10.53L 10.55L 10.53L 10.53L 10.56L 10.56L
10.42N 10.31N 10.29N 5.822N 7.051N 5.583N 5.711N 6.933N 5.206N
0/90/0 2.665L 2.666L 2.666L 2.647L 2.664L 2.661L 2.664L 2.666L 2.667L
2.631N 2.627N 2.623N 1.699N 1.862N 1.666N 1.699N 1.883N 1.672N
(0/90)2 6.839L 6.988L 6.921L 6.825L 6.909L 6.868L 6.835L 6.913L 6.933L
6.806N 6.791N 6.782N 2.467N 3.448N 2.345N 2.429N 3.418N 2.261N
(0/90)s 2.786L 2.787L 2.786L 2.762L 2.784L 2.782L 2.784L 2.786L 2.786L
2.754N 2.762N 2.751N 1.703N 1.914N 1.656N 1.705N 1.936N 1.662N
45/245 11.71L 11.76L 11.75L 11.71L 11.73L 11.72L 11.72L 11.75L 11.76L
11.06N 10.98N 11.06N 6.721N 8.671N 6.461N 6.431N 8.464N 5.936N
45/245/45 6.915L 6.995L 6.995L 6.919L 6.982L 6.961L 6.945L 7.002L 6.999L
6.862N 6.943N 6.855N 1.960N 4.325N 1.676N 1.885N 3.982N 1.609N
(45/245)2 7.471L 7.534L 7.528L 7.456L 7.521L 7.489L 7.463L 7.531L 7.524L
7.332N 7.414N 7.328N 1.948N 4.256N 1.699N 1.885N 4.017N 1.654N
(45/245)s 6.715L 6.791L 6.790L 6.701L 6.766L 6.739L 6.714L 6.786L 6.784L
6.643N 6.727N 6.629N 1.832N 3.914N 1.625N 1.799N 3.651N 1.574N

a/b = 1, b = 1.0 m, a/h = 100, Ryy = 750 mm, q = 0.5 MPa, bst = h, dst/bst = 2.
L
Indicates maximum non-dimensional deflections obtained through linear stiffener formulation.
N
Indicates maximum non-dimensional deflections obtained through nonlinear stiffener formulation.
Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)
Bakshi
Figure 7. Stiffener orientations for the cylindrical roof: (a) bare shell roof, (b) shell roof stiffened along x-direction, (c) shell roof
stiffened along y-direction, and (d) shell roof stiffened along both plan directions.
The effect of boundary condition and lamination on
critical displacements
Table 1 clearly shows that the practicing engineers must
adopt the clamped stiffened shell surfaces to cover a
given plan area as these surfaces offer significantly
lower values of critical displacements than the simply
supported ones for any given stiffener arrangement
(orientation and eccentricity) and lamination. The
clamped shells have more numbers of support move-
ments locked and this is why these are stiffer than the
simply supported ones. For any of the sacking
sequences taken up in Table 1, the cross-ply lamina-
tions show lower critical displacements than the angle-
ply ones. Hence, the practicing engineers are recom-
mended to adopt the clamped surfaces with cross-ply
laminations to achieve the maximum bending stiffness
of stiffened cylindrical shells.
Table 1 further shows that in almost all the cases the
linear approach predicts greater values of the critical
displacements. Though, there is an exception where the
nonlinear approach predicts marginally higher critical
displacements of the 0°/90°/0°/90° (referred as (0/90)2
in Table 1) shells for one x-stiffener and a pair of biax-
ial stiffeners, it can generally be concluded that the lin-
ear approach predicts higher critical displacements. The
differences between linear and nonlinear critical displa-
cements depend on active support movements as Table
1 shows that the clamped shells (29%) show smaller
9
differences than those obtained for the simply sup-
ported ones (47%) for a constant lamination and stif-
fener arrangement. For any given stacking sequence
adopted in that table, the cross-ply laminations show
the lesser differences than the angle-ply ones.
The effect of stiffener orientations on critical
displacements
The stiffener orientations (Figure 7) can be divided into
single stiffeners and a pair of biaxial stiffeners where
the single stiffeners can be aligned as x or y-stiffeners.
The y-stiffener is oriented along arch direction of the
cylindrical panel. Owing to the curved geometry, the y-
stiffener is stiffer than the x-stiffener. This is why Table
1 shows that for any specific lamination of the clamped
and simply supported shells, the shells having y-stif-
fener yield the lower critical displacements. Though,
the 45°/245° clamped shell shows marginally lower
( \ 1%) critical displacements for the x-stiffener than
that obtained using the y-stiffener, it can be concluded
that if a practicing engineer has to adopt only one stif-
fener, it should be the y-stiffener in order to maximize
the bending stiffness of cylindrical shells for constant
cost of fabrication. Among the single stiffener orienta-
tions, the y-stiffener shows higher differences between
the linear and nonlinear critical displacements than
those obtained for the x-stiffener. Such higher
10 Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)

w 3104 ) of 0°/90°/0° clamped shell for varying numbers of stiffeners.

Table 2. Maximum non-dimensional downward deflections (

nx! 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ny#

0 0.1419 0.1418L 0.1418L 0.1418L 0.1418L 0.1418L 0.1418L 0.1418L

0.1399N 0.1398N 0.1406N 0.1405N 0.1386N 0.1381N 0.1387N
1 0.1412L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L
0.1220N 0.1224N 0.1272N 0.1194N 0.1361N 0.1294N 0.1169N 0.1171N
2 0.1408L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L
0.1208N 0.1243N 0.1287N 0.1184N 0.1360N 0.1305N 0.1159N 0.1158N
3 0.1407L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L
0.1158N 0.1243N 0.1286N 0.1131N 0.1356N 0.1304N 0.1105N 0.1098N
4 0.1405L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L
0.1179N 0.1226N 0.1270N 0.1159N 0.1356N 0.1292N 0.1140N 0.1135N
5 0.1396L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L
0.1150N 0.1237N 0.1281N 0.1085N 0.1352N 0.1301N 0.1096N 0.1097N
6 0.1389L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L
0.1165N 0.1249N 0.1291N 0.1015N 0.1358N 0.1307N 0.1035N 0.1033N
7 0.1387L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L 0.1416L
0.1087N 0.1145N 0.1173N 0.1011N 0.1220N 0.1181N 0.1026N 0.1022N

a/b = 1, b = 1.0 m, a/h = 100, Ryy = 750 mm, q = 0.5 MPa, bst = h, dst/bst = 2.
L
Indicates maximum non-dimensional deflections obtained through linear stiffener formulation.
N
Indicates maximum non-dimensional deflections obtained through nonlinear stiffener formulation.

w 3104 ) of 0°/90°/90°/0° simply supported shell for varying number of

Table 3. Maximum non-dimensional downward deflections (
stiffeners.

nx! 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ny#

0 2.7531 2.7870L 2.8015L 2.7870L 2.8031L 2.7968L 2.7905L 2.7870L

2.7559N 4.1799N 2.5407N 12.919N 3.4279N 2.6122N 2.3502N
1 2.7825L 2.7870L 2.8044L 2.7866L 2.8138L 2.8050L 2.7945L 2.7868L
1.6567N 1.6625N 1.7573N 1.5143N 1.8125N 1.7119N 1.5192N 1.4417N
2 2.7813L 2.7870L 2.8048L 2.7864L 2.8150L 2.8060L 2.7947L 2.7864L
1.6259N 1.6148N 1.6905N 1.4299N 1.7295N 1.6608N 1.4325N 1.3076N
3 2.7821L 2.7866L 2.8046L 2.7866L 2.8158L 2.8062L 2.7943L 2.7868L
1.1762N 1.1777N 1.1907N 1.1257N 1.2057N 1.1817N 1.1204N 1.1059N
4 2.7825L 2.7864L 2.8041L 2.7864L 2.8164L 2.8076L 2.7950L 2.7866L
1.5721N 1.5595N 1.6365N 1.2950N 1.6657N 1.6060N 1.2987N 1.1554N
5 2.7817L 2.7862L 2.8041L 2.7866L 2.8178L 2.8089L 2.7958L 2.7864L
1.1497N 1.1429N 1.1687N 0.9443N 1.1813N 1.1613N 0.9508N 0.8556N
6 2.7813L 2.7864L 2.8037L 2.7868L 2.8174L 2.8084L 2.7954L 2.7864L
0.7474N 0.7464N 0.7574N 0.7583N 0.7532N 0.7536N 0.7550N 0.7558N
7 2.7819L 2.7866L 2.8035L 2.7866L 2.8166L 2.8080L 2.7952L 2.7868L
0.7360N 0.7339N 0.7436N 0.7435N 0.7397N 0.7397N 0.7405N 0.7411N

a/b = 1, b = 1.0 m, a/h = 100, Ryy = 750 mm, q = 0.5 MPa, bst = h, dst/bst = 2.
L
Indicates maximum non-dimensional deflections obtained through linear stiffener formulation.
N
Indicates maximum non-dimensional deflections obtained through nonlinear stiffener formulation.

differences clearly indicate that the linear theory,
though simpler to be implemented, is unable to cor-
rectly predict the bending stiffness of curved y-
stiffeners.
Although the shell surfaces with biaxial stiffeners
are expected to perform relatively better than those
having single stiffeners but Table 1 shows that it is not
true for the clamped surfaces. Considering all lamina-
tions taken up Table 1, the clamped shells show the
minimum values of critical displacements for y-stiffener
except for the 0°/90°/90°/0° (referred as (0/90)s in Table
1) shell. The 0°/90°/90°/0° shell shows the minimum
nonlinear displacements for the pair of biaxial stiffen-
ers. This observation proves that the contribution of
lamination to determine the overall stiffness of cylindri-
cal stiffened surfaces is no less important than the stif-
fener arrangements. Unlike clamped shells, the simply
supported ones show the minimum critical displace-
ments for biaxial stiffeners. The minimum differences
between linear and nonlinear critical displacements is
obtained for the x-stiffener which is true for both
boundary conditions adopted in Table 1. The maxi-
mum difference for clamped shells are obtained for the
pair of biaxial stiffeners except for the (0°/90°)2 and
Bakshi
(0°/90°)s shells. The simply supported shells show the
maximum differences for biaxial stiffeners. Such differ-
ences for different stiffener orientations simply indicate
that the linear approach can be adopted for shells with
one x-stiffener. However, for y-stiffener and biaxial
stiffeners the nonlinear approach is essential to cor-
rectly predict the transverse displacements of shells.
The effect of stiffener eccentricities on critical
displacements
Table 1 reports the linear and nonlinear critical displa-
cements for three eccentric positions of the stiffeners.
The eccentricity is measured from mid-surface of the
cylindrical shell to the mid-surface of stiffeners. The
eccentric positions are concentric (e = 0), eccentric at
top (et), and eccentric at bottom (eb). The curvature of
the y-stiffener is more for eccentric at bottom position.
Moreover, the eccentric stiffeners add moment of iner-
tia to the shell roof. Naturally, the cylindrical roofs are
expected to exhibit lower critical displacements when
the y-stiffeners are located below the shell mid-surface.
Perfectly in tune with the observation, Table 1 shows
that for any given laminate the minimum nonlinear
critical displacements of clamped and simply supported
shells are obtained for eccentric at bottom position of
the y-stiffeners. Hence, practicing engineers must locate
the y-stiffener below the shell surface to minimize the
transverse displacements under service conditions. The
linear displacements, however, attain the minimum val-
ues for concentric stiffeners. This observation proves that
the linear theory fails to predict the correct relative per-
formances of cylindrical shells for different stiffener posi-
tions. The differences between linear and nonlinear
critical displacements of clamped and simply supported
shells is the highest for eccentric at bottom stiffeners.
Since the nonlinear theory adopts deformed shape of the
stiffened shells and a more accurate treatment to the
present problem the practicing engineers should adopt
the nonlinear approach to correctly predict the maximum
displacements of eccentrically stiffened cylindrical shells.
The effect of number of stiffener on critical
displacements
Table 1 reveals that among clamped shells, the 0°/90°/
0° one shows the minimum linear and nonlinear critical
displacements considering all laminates. The 0°/90°/
90°/0° laminate show such best bending performance
among the simply supported shells. So, the 0°/90°/0°
clamped and 0°/90°/90°/0° simply supported shells are
typically selected for further bending studies which
include variations of critical displacements for different
number of stiffeners along x and y-directions of the
cylindrical surface. The number of stiffeners are varied
from 0 to 7 along x (nx) and y (ny)-directions. The stif-
feners located below the shell surface are taken up for
additional bending studies as such eccentric stiffeners
11
performed best among different stiffener arrangements
studied in Table 1. The results are reported in Tables 2
and 3 for the 0°/90°/0° and 0°/90°/90°/0° shells, respec-
tively. The tables are expected to help the practicing
engineers to choose the best combination of x and y-
stiffeners which yields the minimum displacement.
Table 2 shows that the bare shell shows the highest
displacement as expected. The critical displacement of
the bare shell is obtained using nonlinear strains. For
any given nx (1–7), the minimum critical displacements
are obtained for ny = 7. For any ny (1–4), nx = 7 shows
the minimum critical displacements. However, for ny
. 4, the minimum values are obtained for nx = 3.
Considering all the shell options studied in Table 2 the
best performance in terms of minimum linear and non-
linear transverse displacements is obtained for nx = 3,
ny = 7. The differences between linear and nonlinear
critical displacements are greater when ny is varied (1–7)
for any given nx compared to the condition where nx is
varied (1–7) in the similar manner for constant ny. This
observation indicates that not only the linear approach
fails to correctly predict the displacements for y-stiffen-
ers but also the error increases for greater number of
the curved stiffeners. Thus, the practicing engineers
must adopt the nonlinear approach when multiple stif-
feners are applied on shells to cover a given plan area.
Table 3 interestingly depicts that the 0°/90°/90°/0°
simply supported shell performs in a different manner
than the 0°/90°/0° clamped one for similar variation of
stiffeners reported in Table 2. The linear approach pre-
dicts critical displacements of stiffened surfaces which
are higher than that of the bare shell which is highly
unlikely. Such predictions simply confirm the inade-
quacy of the linear approach for correct prediction of
transverse displacement of simply supported shells. The
nonlinear approach, though, correctly predicts that the
critical displacement of stiffened surfaces are lower
than that for the bare shell, specifically when ny is var-
ies from 1 to 7 for constant nx. Considering the fact
that nonlinear approach leads to correct solution of
bending problem for cylindrical shells, the best combi-
nation of stiffeners for the 0°/90°/90°/0° simply sup-
ported shell is taken as nx = 1, ny = 7. The differences
between linear and nonlinear critical displacements of
the 0°/90°/90°/0° simply supported shell is the highest
for nx = 4, ny = 0. However, for ny greater than unity
the differences are higher for greater numbers of y-
stiffeners.
The effect of depth of stiffener on critical
displacements
The linear and nonlinear critical displacements of the
0°/90°/0° clamped and 0°/90°/90°/0° simply supported
shells are studied in Figures 8 and 9 for varying depth
of stiffener to shell thickness (dst/h) ratio. The dst/h ratio
is varied from 0 to 10. The bending performance of the
0°/90°/0° shell is studied for nx = 3, ny = 7 stiffener
12
Figure 8. Variation of linear and nonlinear critical
displacements of the 0°/90°/0° clamped shell with stiffener
depth to shell thickness ratio for biaxial stiffener arrangement,
nx = 3, ny = 7.
combination. The nx = 1, ny = 7 stiffener combination
is adopted for the 0°/90°/90°/0° simply supported shell.
The figures show that the linear critical displacement of
both shell options show minimal variation for varying
dst/h values. In contrast to the linear displacements, the
nonlinear ones continuously decrease in value for
greater depth of stiffeners. The minimum nonlinear dis-
placement is obtained for dst/h = 10. The minimum
value for the 0°/90°/0° shell is 23.05% lesser than the
nonlinear displacement obtained for dst/h = 1. The min-
imum displacement for 0°/90°/90°/0° shell is 83.49%
smaller than what was obtained for depth of stiffener
equal to shell thickness. Though the simply supported
shell perform better than the clamped one for dst/h = 10
it is important to note here that the minimum displace-
ment of the clamped shell is still less than half of what
is obtained from the simply supported one. This is why
the 0°/90°/0° shell should be preferred over the 0°/90°/
90°/0° shell. Figures 8 and 9 show that the nonlinear
displacements are significantly lower than the linear
ones even for dst/h = 1. The differences between critical
linear and nonlinear displacements continue to increase
as the stiffener gets deeper and the maximum values are
obtained for dst/h = 10. The simply supported shell
shows greater difference than the clamped one. The
present study recommends dst/h = 10 for stiffeners to
obtain greater bending stiffness of the shell. The non-
linear approach must be adopted for correct predictions
of the transverse displacements.
Conclusions
The finite element code proposed here is capable to
correctly predict the linear and nonlinear transverse
displacements of stiffened cylindrical shells as is evident
from the solutions of benchmark problems. Among the
shell options considered here the cross-ply laminations
Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)
Figure 9. Variation of linear and nonlinear critical
displacements of the 0°/90°/90°/0° simply supported shell with
stiffener depth to shell thickness ratio for biaxial stiffener
arrangement, nx = 1, ny = 7.
of clamped ones turned out to be the best option for
the practicing civil engineers to achieve the minimum
displacement within a given cost of fabrication. The 0°/
90°/0° shell shows the best performance considering all
the shell options studied here. If the practicing engi-
neers adopt only one stiffener for the shell roof, then
that should be oriented along the arch direction (y-stif-
fener) to achieve the minimum transverse displace-
ments. The single pair of biaxial stiffeners can be
considered for simply supported shells. The multiple
stiffeners yield greater bending stiffness than the single
ones as expected. The best set of multiple stiffeners for
the 0°/90°/0° clamped shell is nx = 3, ny = 7 as the par-
ticular combination reduces the minimum nonlinear
displacement by 17% than that obtained for single y-
stiffener. In case of the 0°/90°/90°/0° simply supported
shell such best stiffener combination is nx = 1, ny = 7.
The present study further recommends the eccentric at
bottom position and dst/h = 10 as the optimum stif-
fener parameters to achieve the maximum bending
stiffness. The practicing engineers may adopt the sim-
pler linear approach for the single x-stiffeners. The
nonlinear approach must be implemented for all other
stiffener arrangements considered in the present study.
In any case, the shell should be formulated using non-
linear strains.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Bakshi
ORCID iD
Kaustav Bakshi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0443-6939
References
1. Chakravorty D, Sinha PK and Bandyopadhyay JN.
Finite element free vibration analysis of point supported
laminated composite cylindrical shells. J Sound Vib 1995;
181(1): 43–52.
2. Bardell NS, Dunsdon JM and Langley RS. Free and
forced vibration analysis of thin laminated cylindrically
curved panels. Compos Struct 1997; 38(1–4): 453–462.
3. Dogan A and Arslan HM. Effects of curvature on free
vibration characteristics of laminated composite cylindri-
cal shallow shells. Sci Res Essays 2009; 4(4): 226–238.
4. Acharyya AK, Chakravorty D and Karmakar A. Natu-
ral frequencies and mode shapes of composite cylindrical
delaminated shells by finite element. J Reinf Plast Comp
2010; 29(2): 226–237.
5. Prusty BG and Satsangi SK. Finite element transient
dynamic analysis of laminated stiffened shells. J Sound
Vib 2001; 248(2): 215–233.
6. Turkmen HS. Structural response of laminated compo-
site shells subjected to blast loading: comparison of
experimental and theoretical methods. J Sound Vib 2002;
249(4): 663–678.
7. Lee WH and Han SC. Free and forced vibration analysis
of laminated composite plates and shells using a 9-node
assumed strain shell element. Comput Mech 2006; 39(1):
41–58.
8. Nanda N and Bandyopadhyay JN. Geometrically non-
linear transient analysis of laminated composite shells
using the finite element method. J Sound Vib 2009; 325:
174–185.
9. Ribeiro P. Forced large amplitude periodic vibrations of
cylindrical shallow shells. Finite Elem Anal Des 2008; 44:
657–674.
10. Ribeiro P and Stoykov S. Forced periodic vibrations of
cylindrical shells in laminated composites with curvilinear
fibres. Compos Struct 2015; 131: 462–478.
11. Biswal M, Sahu SK and Asha AV. Vibration of compo-
site cylindrical shallow shells subjected to hygrothermal
loading-experimental and numerical results. Compos B
Eng 2016; 98: 108–119.
12. Chaubey AK, Kumar A and Chakrabarti A. Vibration of
laminated composite shells with cutouts and concentrated
mass. AIAA J 2018; 56(4): 1662–1678.
13. Chakraborty S, Dey T and Kumar R. Stability and
vibration analysis of CNT-reinforced functionally graded
laminated composite cylindrical shell panels using semi-
analytical approach. Compos B Eng 2019; 168: 1–14.
14. Arani AG, Kiani F and Afshari H. Free and forced
vibration analysis of laminated functionally graded CNT
reinforced composite cylindrical panels. J Sandw Struct
13
Mater. Epub ahead of print February 2019. DOI:
10.1177/1099636219830787.
15. Liao CI and Reddy JN. Analysis of anisotropic, stiffened
composite laminates using a continuum-based shell ele-
ment. Comput Struct 1990; 34(6): 805–815.
16. Goswami S and Mukhopadhyay M. Finite element anal-
ysis of laminated composite stiffened shell. J Reinf Plast
Comp 1994; 13: 574–616.
17. Sinha G and Mukhopadhyay M. Static, free and forced
vibration analysis of arbitrary non uniform shells with
tapered stiffeners. Comput Struct 1997; 62(5): 919–933.
18. Goswami S and Mukhopadhyay M. Geometrically non-
linear analysis of laminated composite stiffened shells. J
Reinf Plast Comp 1995; 14: 1317–1336.
19. Samanta A and Mukhopadhyay M. Finite element large
deflection static analysis of shallow and deep stiffened
shells. Finite Elem Anal Des 1999; 33: 187–208.
20. Prusty BG and Satsangi SK. Finite element buckling
analysis of laminated composite stiffened shells. Int J
Crashworthiness 2001; 6(4): 471–484.
21. Prusty BG. Free vibration and buckling response of hat-
stiffened composite panels under general loading. Int J
Mech Sci 2008; 50: 1326–1333.
22. Bich DH, Dung DV and Nam VH. Nonlinear dynamical
analysis of eccentrically stiffened functionally graded
cylindrical panels. Compos Struct 2012; 94: 2465–2473.
23. Li D, Qing G and Liu Y. A layerwise/solid-element
method for the composite stiffened laminated cylindrical
shell structures. Compos Struct 2013; 98: 215–227.
24. Ou X, Yao X, Zhang R, et al. Nonlinear dynamic
response analysis of cylindrical composite stiffened lami-
nates based on the weak form quadrature element
method. Compos Struct 2018; 203: 446–457.
25. Temami O, Ayoub A, Hamadi D, et al. Effect of bound-
ary conditions on the behavior of stiffened and un-stif-
fened cylindrical shells. Int J Steel Struct 2019; 19(3):
867–878.
26. Sanders JL Jr. Nonlinear theories for thin shells. Q Appl
Math 1963; 21(1): 21–36.
27. Reddy JN. An introduction to nonlinear finite-element
analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
28. Bakshi K and Chakravorty D. Geometrically linear and
nonlinear first-ply failure loads of composite cylindrical
shells. J Eng Mech 2014; 140(12): 04014094.
29. Chattopadhyay B, Sinha PK and Mukhopadhyay M.
Geometrically nonlinear analysis of composite stiffened
plates using finite elements. Compos Struct 1995; 31: 107–
118.
30. Palazotto AN and Dennis ST. Nonlinear analysis of shell
structures. Washington, DC: AIAA Education Series,
1992, pp.195–232.
31. Patel SN. Nonlinear bending analysis of laminated com-
posite stiffened plates. Steel Compos Struc 2014; 17(6):
867–890.