KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 24(3):913-921 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-020-1464-5 www.springer.com/12205

Structural Engineering

Numerical Study on Failure of Thin Composite Conoidal Shell Roofs

Considering Geometric Nonlinearity

Kaustav Bakshia and Dipankar Chakravortyb

a
Civil Engineering Discipline, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore 453552, India
b
Civil Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 16 August 2019 Thin laminated composite conoidal shell roofs are popular among civil engineers due to its
Revised 24 December 2019 stiff, singly ruled and aesthetically appealing geometry. Such surfaces may undergo large
Accepted 5 January 2020 displacements under transverse static overloading. Since no researchers reported failure of
Published Online 14 February 2020 laminated conoids using nonlinear strains the authors aim to fill the void in the literature. A
finite element code is proposed considering von-Karman nonlinearity. The study of linear and
KEYWORDS nonlinear failure loads clearly indicates that the linear formulation wrongly overestimates the
failure loads and hence, not acceptable from practical engineering standpoint. Moreover,
Conoidal shells displacements at failure, the coordinate locations from where the failure initiates and the
Failure initiation lamina stress initiating failure in the shell are also studied.
Failure modes/tendencies
Geometrically nonlinear strains
Finite element method

1. Introduction industrially important relative performances of laminated conoidal

A conoidal shell surface is stiff, aesthetically pleasing singly ruled
surface which is used as roofs in civil engineering applications
like shopping malls, car parking lots, aircraft hangers and
auditoriums. Such shell roof allows natural ventilation from
opposite ends which is the choice in chemical, automobile,
pharmaceutical and nutrition industries. The singly ruled surface
is easy to construct and hence, attractive to practicing engineers.
Since later part of the last century, laminated composite was used
to fabricate the shell roofs due to the advantages of the material.
High strength/stiffness to weight ratio, less probability to be
damaged by moisture and superior fatigue resistance are some of
the advantages of laminated composites. Thus, the laminated
composites are popular in weight sensitive engineering applications
including civil engineering structures. The composite conoids
yield lesser dead weight and seismic forces to great extent than
the conventional reinforced concrete ones. Additionally, the
laminated composite allows the engineer to optimize material
stiffness by changing fiber directions and lamina stacking orders
which makes the laminated conoids a lucrative option to the
practicing structural engineers.
Naturally researchers became interested to study different
shells. Nayak and Bandyopadhyay (2002, 2005, 2006) reported
fundamental frequencies and transient vibrations of conoids. Das
and Chakravorty (2007, 2009, 2010) studied bending response of
the shell with and without stiffeners. Kumari and Chakravorty
(2010, 2011) worked on delaminated conoids though the authors
did not work on damage detection in the shell. Pradyumna and
Bandyopadhyay (2008) studied bending and vibration responses
of laminated conoids using higher order shear deformation theory
and Pradyumna and Bandyopadhyay (2011) later worked on
instability behaviors of such shell roofs. Chaubey et al. (2018)
studied static deflections and stress resultants of thick and moderately
thick conoidal shells for different boundary conditions.
A parallel review in the field of failure of laminated composites
by Singh and Kumar (1998), Akhras and Li (2007) and Ganesan
and Liu (2008) reveal that the composite material fails progressively
which initiates in the weakest ply (first ply failure) and the
weaknesses accumulate to cause ultimate ply failure. Such damages
may initiate within the laminate and if remain undetected and
unattended, it ultimately leads to sudden catastrophic collapse of
the shell. The composite shells subjected to static overloading
may undergo moderate to large deflection at failure. Hence, the
nonlinear formulation should be adopted to study failure of thin

CORRESPONDENCE Kaustav Bakshi bakshi.kaustav@gmail.com Civil Engineering Discipline, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore 453552, India
ⓒ 2020 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
914 K. Bakshi and D. Chakravorty
shell roofs. Reddy and Reddy (1992) adopted the geometrically
nonlinear strains to report failure initiation in laminated composite
plates. Kam and Jan (1995), Kam and Sher (1995) and Kam et al.
(1996) numerically predicted failure in composite plates and
compared the findings with experimental results. The numerical
methods adopted by the authors were Ritz method (Kam and
Jan, 1995), layerwise linear displacement theory (Kam and Sher,
1995) and finite element method (Kam et al., 1996). Kumar and
Srivastava (2003) worked on laminated stiffened plates and Lal
et al. (2012) studied stochastic failure in composite plates under
transverse loading using nonlinear theory. Failure of laminated
composite doubly and singly curved shells were studied by
Prusty et al. (2001), Adali and Cagdas (2011), Sengupta et al.
(2015) and Ghosh and Chakravorty (2018). These authors predicted
the failure loads of shell panels using geometrically linear strains.
The review clearly reveals that static and vibration characteristics
of laminated conoids were extensively studied by the researchers.
The failure of laminated plates was reported in several research
reports where the failure prediction is carried out numerically
and experimentally. A few of those reports adopted the geometrically
nonlinear approach. Similar reports on shell structures are mostly
limited to simple cylindrical and spherical forms considering
geometrically linear approach. Failure initiation in doubly curved,
aesthetically appealing conoidal shell configurations were studied
by the present authors (Bakshi and Chakravorty, 2013, 2014,
2015) using linear strains. The moderately thin shell roofs subjected
to transverse overloading may undergo large displacements at failure
and hence, the geometrically nonlinear strains should be taken up
while predicting failure of such structures. Since no research
reports reported failure of laminated conoidal shell roofs considering
geometric nonlinearity the authors aim to fill the void in the
literature. A modified finite element code is proposed here
considering von-Karman nonlinear strains. The code is used to
solve failure problems of laminated conoids in order to popularize
its use further in industrial applications. The application of von-
Fig. 1. A Typical Laminated Composite Conoidal Shell under Uniform Surface Pressure
Karman nonlinear strains and first order shear deformation theory to
predict failure in laminated conoids is the novelty of this paper.
The paper reports the failure loads, locations on the shell surface
from where the failure initiates and the lamina stress that governs
failure initiation for varying curvature and aspect ratio of the shell.
The study concludes with post-processing of results for suggesting
design guidelines to the practicing engineers which are extracted
keeping the serviceability requirements in consideration.
2. Mathematical Formulation
2.1 Finite Element Formulation
Figure 1 shows the composite conoid of thickness ‘h’ and radii
of curvatures ‘Ryy’ and ‘Rxy’. The thickness consists of laminae
with fiber angle ‘θ’. The individual lamina thickness of the
composite shell is described as ‘Zk – Zk-1’. The span of the shell
along its beam direction is ‘a’ and that along arch direction is ‘b’.
The minimization of total potential energy (π) is carried out to
arrive at the governing differential equation of the shell.
∂π
=ψ (1)
∂{d }
∂ ⎛1 T T ⎞
{ε } {σ }dv − ∫ ∫ {d } {q} dA ⎟⎟ = ψ
∂{d } ⎜⎝ 2 ∫v
⎜ (2)
A ⎠
Where,
A = area of the shell.
v = volume of the shell.
{q } = {0 0 qz 0 0}
T
(3)
where ‘qz’ is transverse load intensity on the shell.
‘Ψ’ denotes the residual unbalanced forces which is zero for
the linear formulation. For nonlinear formulation ‘Ψ’ minimizes
progressively following Newton – Raphson iterative approach.
The iterations terminate when the equilibrium condition i.e., Ψ =
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 915

Equation (5) can be written as:

{ε } = [B]{d } (8)
where,

[B ] = [B ]L + 1 [B ]NL (9)
2
The strain-displacement matrix for linear strains [B]L is the
same as reported by Das and Chakravorty (2007). The nonlinear
strain-displacement matrix [B]NL for the conoid is given as follows:
⎡ ⎤
Fig. 2. An Eight Noded Curved Element and Interpolation Functions ⎢ ∂w0 ⎥ 0
⎢ ∂x ⎥ ⎡0 ∂N i ⎤
0 0 0⎥
⎢ ∂w0 v ⎥⎢ ∂x
[B ]NL =⎢ 0 − ⎢ ⎥
0 is achieved. ∂y R yy ⎥ ⎢0 − N i ∂N i
0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
A linear laminate constitute relationship is taken up in the ⎢ ∂w0 − v ∂w0 ⎥ ⎣⎢ R yy ∂y ⎦⎥
present formulation following the guidelines reported by Das and ⎢ ∂y R ∂x ⎥
⎣ yy ⎦
Chakravorty (2007). While obtaining the shear stress resultants,
i = 1 to 8 (10)
proper shear correction factors (as used by Das and Chakravorty,
2007) are applied. The governing differential equation given in Eq. (2) takes the
Figure 2 shows the element along with its shape functions following form using Eq. (8) and interpolation functions [Ni].
adopted in the present finite element code. The degrees of
∂{ε }
T
ne ne ⎛ 8 T ⎞
freedom shown in Fig. 1 are described as the following: ∑ ψ i = ∑ ⎜⎜ ∫∫ [D]{ε }dxdy − ∑ ∫ ∫ {N i } {q}dxdy ⎟⎟ (11)
i=1 ⎝A
i= ∂{d }
1 i= 1 A ⎠i
{d } = {u v w α β}
T
(4)
where ne = number of elements.
The midsurface strains {ε} are expressed in Eq. (5), From Chattopadhyay et al. (1995),
∂{ε }
2 T
⎧ ⎫
⎪
∂u0 1 ⎛ ∂w0 ⎞
+ ⎜ ⎟ ⎪ (
= [B ]L + [B ]NL )T
and [B ] = [B ]L + [B ]NL (12)
∂x 2 ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂{d }
⎪ 2
⎪
⎧ ε x0 ⎫ ⎪⎪ ∂v0 w0 1 ⎛⎜ ∂w0 v ⎞⎟ ⎪
⎪
Equation (11) is written as:
⎪ 0⎪ ⎪ − + −
ε ∂y R yy 2 ⎜⎝ ∂y R yy ⎟⎠ ⎪ ne ne ⎛ ⎞
⎪ ⎪
∑ ∑ ⎜ ∫∫ [B ] [D]{ε }dxdy − {Q}⎟
y T
ψ =
{ε } = ⎪⎨γ xy0 ⎪⎬ = ⎪⎨ ∂u0 + ∂v0 − 2 w0 + ⎛ ∂w0 ⎞⎛⎜ ∂w0 − v ⎞⎟⎪⎬ (5) i ⎜
i =1 ⎝ A
⎟
⎠i
(13)
⎪γ 0 ⎪ ⎪ ∂y ⎜ ⎟ i =1
∂x Rxy ⎝ ∂x ⎠⎜⎝ ∂y R yy ⎟⎠ ⎪
⎪ xz0 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ The external force is as follows:
⎪⎩γ yz ⎪⎭ ⎪ ∂w0 ⎪
α+
⎪ ∂x ⎪ 8

⎪ ∂w0 ⎪ {Q} = ∑ ∫ ∫ [N i ]T {q}dxdy (14)

⎪ β+ ⎪ i =1 A
⎩ ∂y ⎭ and internal force is as follows:
The nonlinear strains are as follows: {Pn } = ∫∫ [B ]T [D]{ε }dxdy (15)
T A
2
⎧ 2
1 ⎛⎜ ∂w0 v ⎞⎟ v ⎞⎟ ⎫⎪
⎪ 1 ∂w ⎛ ∂w0 ⎞⎛⎜ ∂w0
{ε}NL = ⎨ ⎛⎜ 0 ⎞⎟ − ⎜ ⎟⎜ − ⎬
Equation (13) is solved using Newton – Raphson iterative
⎪⎩ 2 ⎝ ∂x ⎠ 2 ⎜⎝ ∂y R yy ⎟⎠ ⎝ ∂x ⎠⎝ ∂y R yy ⎟⎠ ⎪ approach (Fig. 3). The stiffness matrices ([KT] and [Ks]) are
⎭
(6) expressed below:

The mid-surface curvatures of the shell are denoted by: [KT ] = [K L ] + [KQ ]+ [Kσ ] (16)
where,
⎧ ∂α ⎫
⎪ ⎪
[K L ] = ∫∫ ([B ]L ) [D ][B ]L dxdy
T
⎧ k x ⎫ ⎪ ∂x ⎪ (17)
⎪ k ⎪ ⎪ ∂β ⎪ A
⎪⎪ y ⎪⎪ ⎪ ∂y ⎪
⎨k xy ⎬ = ⎨ ∂α ∂β
⎪k ⎪ ⎪ +
⎬
⎪
(7) ⎡⎣ K Q ⎤⎦ = ∫∫ [ B ]
A
( L T
) [ D ][ B ]
NL
(
dxdy + ∫∫ [ B ]
A
)
NL T
[ D ][ B ]
L
dxdy
⎪ xz ⎪ ⎪ ∂y ∂x ⎪
⎪⎩k yz ⎪⎭ ⎪
⎪
0
0
⎪
⎪ + ∫∫ [ B ] ( NL T
) [ D ][ B ]
NL
dxdydy (18)
⎩ ⎭ A
916 K. Bakshi and D. Chakravorty

strains in a lamina following the process elaborated by the

present authors (Bakshi and Chakravorty, 2015). Those stresses
and strains are applied to the failure theories to obtain the failure
index (FIN). Depending on the failure index (FIN) the external
load is modified following the guidelines suggested by Pandey
and Reddy (1987) in order to optimize the first ply failure load
upto fourth decimal place. The nonlinear shell problem solution
technique is elaborated as a flow chart in Fig. 7. The failure
modes are identified using the methods descried by the authors
in Bakshi and Chakravorty (2015).

3. Numerical Problems

Benchmark problems are solved to check correctness of the

proposed finite element code. The first problem solves static
displacement of an isotropic conoidal shell and furnishes the
results in Fig. 4. This problem was earlier solved by Hadid
Fig. 3. The Newton-Raphson Method (1964). Fig. 4 compares the results obtained from the proposed
code with the values predicted by Hadid (1964). The figure
s T ⎡ N1 N6 ⎤ also contains the elastic properties and dimensions of the
[Kσ ] = ∫∫ [G ] ⎢N [G ]dxdy
N 2 ⎥⎦
(19) isotropic shell.
A ⎣ 6 The second problem computes failure loads of a partially
N1, N2 and N6 are inplane stress resultants as described by Das
and Chakravorty (2007).

[ K s ] = ∫∫ ([ B ] ) [ D][ B] ( ) [ D][ B ]
L T L 1 L T NL
[ B]
2 ∫∫
dxdy + dxdy
A A

( ) [ D][ B]
NL T 1
( ) [ D][ B]
L NL T NL
+ ∫∫ [ B ] [ B]
2 ∫∫
dxdy + dxdydy
A A

(20)
A reduced numerical integration, 2 × 2 Gauss quadrature rule,
is used to compute all terms of the stiffness matrices ([KT] and
[Ks]) and external load vector {Q}. The curved geometry of the
conoid is considered while global matrices are obtained from the
element ones. The guidelines reported by Chattopadhyay et al.
(1995) are following to check convergence of the iterative approach. Fig. 4. Deflection Profile of Isotropic Conoid under Uniformly Distributed
The shell displacements are utilized to compute stresses and Load along y = 0.5

o o
Table 1. Comparison of First Ply Failure Loads in Newton for a ( 02 ⁄ 90 ) Plate
Failure loads Experimental failure load Failure loads
Failure criteria Side/thickness
(Kam et al., 1996) (Kam et al., 1996) (present formulation)
Maximum stress 105.26 108.26L 157.34 112.14L
147.61N 135.94N
Maximum strain 122.86L 128.56L
185.31N 218.10N
Hoffman 106.45L 98.40L
143.15N 133.21N
Tsai-Wu 112.77L 110.50L
144.42N 134.50N
107.06L 104.40L
Tsai-Hill
157.58N 134.91N
Note 1: Length = 100 mm, ply thickness = 0.155 mm, load details = central point load.
Note 2: Lrepresents linear results and Nrepresents nonlinear results.
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 917

Fig. 5. The First Ply Failure Loads for Different Cross-Ply Conoidal Shells: (a) Failure Loads for 0o/90o Shell, (b) Failure Loads for 0o/90o/0o Shell, (c) Failure
Loads for 0o/90o/0o/90o Shell, (d) Failure Loads for 0o/90o/90o/0o Shell

Fig. 6. The First Ply Failure Loads for Different Angle-Ply Conoidal Shells: (a) Failure Loads for 45o/-45o Shell, (b) Failure Loads for 45o/-45o/45o Shell,
(c) Failure Loads for 45o/-45o/45o/-45o Shell, (d) Failure Loads for 45o/-45o/-45o/45o Shell
918 K. Bakshi and D. Chakravorty

Table 3. Geometric Dimensions of the Conoidal Shell

Conoidal shell dimensions Values
Length (a) 1,000 mm
Width (b) 1,000 mm
Thickness (h) 10 mm
Higher height (hh) 200 mm
Lower height (hl) 50 Mm

Table 4. First ply Failure Loads in MPa of Clamped Conoids for Varying
a/b Ratio
Lamination
Failure theory a/b = 0.5 a/b = 1.0 a/b = 2.0
(degree)
0/90/0 Maximum stress 1.6149 1.0540 0.7869
Maximum strain 1.5746 1.0423 0.7689
Hoffman 1.6147 1.0539 0.7689
Tsai-Hill 1.6167 1.0545 0.7689
Tsai-Wu 1.6155 1.0542 0.7689
45/-45/45/-45 Maximum stress 0.7894 0.4942 0.3164
Maximum strain 0.7961 0.4996 0.3164
Hoffman 0.7844 0.4922 0.3164
Tsai-Hill 0.7878 0.4935 0.3164
Tsai-Wu 0.7849 0.4925 0.3164
Note: a = 1,000 mm, a/h = 100, hl/hh = 0.25

Fig. 7. The Flow Chart Describing Solution Technique
clamped plate under centrally applied point load using linear and
nonlinear theories. Kam et al. (1996) first solved this problem
and reported the failure loads through experimental and numerical
investigations. Table 1 compares the proposed values with the
results furnished by Kam et al. (1996).
The present code is used to predict failure initiation in clamped
conoids under static uniform surface pressure. The failure loads
are studied for varying curvature (expressed using hl/hh ratio) of
the shell and are furnished in Figs. 5 and 6. Fig. 5 depicts the
failure loads for cross-ply shells and Fig. 6 shows the same for
angle-ply ones. The nonlinear failure loads for different aspect
ratios (a/b ratio) are furnished in Table 4. The failure loads,
deflection at failure, the lamina first failed and the lamina stress which
initiates failure obtained using the nonlinear theory are reported in
Table 5. The laminae are counted downward the laminate i.e., the
topmost lamina is the first one. Material properties, permissible
stresses and strains of the laminated composite are reported in Table
2. The dimensions of the conoid are reported in Table 3.
4. Results and Discussion
Figure 4 and Table 1 shows correctness of the present finite
element code. The spatial variation of static displacements
obtained using the present code is furnished in Fig. 4 which

Table 2. Material Properties of Graphite-Epoxy (Q-1115)

Material constants Strengths Permissible strains
E11 142.5 GPa XT 2193.5 MPa Xεt 0.01539
E22 9.79 GPa XC 2457.0 MPa Xεc 0.01724
E33 9.79 GPa YT = ZT 41.30 MPa Yεt = Zεt 0.00412
G12 = G13 4.72 GPa YC = ZC 206.80 MPa Yεc = Zεc 0.02112
G23 1.192 GPa R 61.28 MPa Rε 0.05141
ν12 = ν13 0.27 S 78.78 MPa Sε 0.01669
ν23 0.25 T 78.78 MPa Tε 0.01669
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 919

Table 5. First Ply Failure Loads, Locations, Modes/Tendencies of the Clamped Shells
Lamination Failure load Deflection
Failure theory First failed ply Failure mode/tendency
(degree) (MPa) (mm)
0/90/0 Maximum stress 1.0540 13.73 2 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Maximum strain 1.0423 13.13 2 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Hoffman 1.0539 13.72 2 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Tsai-Hill 1.0545 13.75 2 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Tsai-Wu 1.0542 13.73 2 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
45/-45/45/-45 Maximum stress 0.4942 11.27 1 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Maximum strain 0.4996 11.74 1 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Hoffman 0.4922 11.11 1 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Tsai-Hill 0.4935 11.21 1 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Tsai-Wu 0.4925 11.13 1 Transverse tensile matrix cracking
Note: a = 1,000 mm, a/h = 100, a/b = 1, hl/hh = 0.25

shows very good match with the values reported by Hadid
(1964). This figure confirms correctness of the conoidal shell
formulation. The material properties are carefully adjusted to
simulate the isotropic shell in the code developed for laminated
composite ones.
Table 1 confirms that the failure formulation is correctly
carried out in the present code as the failure loads obtained using
the code are in close match with the numerical and experimental
results reported by Kam et al. (1996). Table 1 contains the
dimensions of the composite plate and elastic constants are
reported in Table 2.
The failure criteria reported by Reddy and Reddy (1992) are
adopted by the present authors to predict failure initiation in
clamped composite conoidal shells. These theories are maximum
stress, maximum strain, Tsai-Hill, Tsai-Wu and Hoffman failure
criterion. The minimum value among the five failure loads for a
given laminate obtained using linear theory is designated as the
linear failure strength. The same obtained using nonlinear theory
is called the nonlinear failure strength. The linear and nonlinear
failure strength values are furnished in Figs. 5 and 6, for cross
and angle-ply laminations, respectively. For a constant lamination,
the failure strength values are furnished in these figures for
changing truncation ratios (hl/hh ratio) of the conoid. A full
conoidal shell is the one with hl/hh = 0.0 and the other shell
configurations with different hl/hh ratios are designated as
truncated conoids with different degrees of truncation. The
figures clearly indicate that the practicing engineers must prefer
the truncated shell configurations over the full ones as both the
linear and nonlinear failure strength values increase monotonically
when hl/hh ratio changes from 0.0 to 0.25. The shell with
maximum truncation (hl/hh = 0.25) shows the highest failure
strength values. From practical engineering standpoint, a truncated
conoid is the preferred choice in chemical, automobile and food
processing industries because these forms allow natural ventilation
from both the ends. The fact that the truncated conoids are stiffer
than the full ones will encourage use of these truncated forms in
the abovementioned industrial applications.
It is interesting to note from Figs. 5 and 6 that the linear and
nonlinear failure strength values vary following near straight line
configuration for changing hl/hh ratios and it is more prominent
in case of the nonlinear failure strength. This enables one to
establish equations of straight lines connecting these two variables
which are furnished with these figures. These working equations
will enable a practicing engineer to estimate the failure loads for
any hl/hh value on the range of 0 to 0.25.
It is important to note from Figs. 5 and 6 that for a given hl/hh
ratio, the linear theory yields higher failure strength compared to
what is obtained using nonlinear theory. It indicates that linear
simplification of the failure problem will mislead us to wrongly
overestimated failure load values.
Figure 5 shows that the difference between linear and nonlinear
failure strength is the highest for 0o/90o laminate (Fig. 5(a)). The
difference decreases with repetition of the antisymmetric unit
(0o/90o) and the 0o/90o/0o/90o laminate (Fig. 5(c)) shows smaller
difference compared to what is obtained for the 0o/90o one. The
symmetric stacking sequences show smaller difference than the
antisymmetric ones. The 0o/90o/0o laminate (Fig. 5(b)) shows the
smallest difference considering all the cross-ply laminations
taken up here. The failure strength of angle-ply laminations
furnished in Fig. 6 follow a different pattern then the cross-ply
ones where the 45o/-45o laminate (Fig. 6(a)) yields the minimum
difference between linear and nonlinear failure loads.
The differences among linear and nonlinear failure loads
change with hl/hh ratio of the conoid. For a given lamination,
such difference decreases when the shell approaches a full
conoid configuration with changing hl/hh ratio from 0.25 to 0.0.
The full conoid shows the minimum difference where the linear
load is 41% higher than the nonlinear one. This difference is
sufficiently higher which leads to the conclusion that the nonlinear
theory, though more involving being implemented, is recommended
for correct prediction of failure loads of the composite conoidal
shells.
For a constant truncation ratio of cross-ply shells, Fig. 5
shows that the highest linear failure load is obtained from 00/900/
0o/90o laminate (Fig. 5(c)). The 0o/90o/0o laminate (Fig. 5(b))
shows the highest nonlinear failure load. Fig. 6(b) shows that the
920 K. Bakshi and D. Chakravorty

45o/-45o/45o laminate shows the maximum linear failure load and Table 6. Loads Corresponding to 4 mm Deflection of the Shell and
the 45o/-45o/45o/-45o laminate (Fig. 6(c)) shows the maximum FOS Values
nonlinear failure load for a given hl/hh ratio. These observations Lamination Load in FOS to be applied on nonlinear
clearly indicate that linear theory not only overestimates the (degree) N/mm2 failure load
failure load but also fails to predict the correct relative performances 0/90 0.3725 1.13
of different laminations. Since, the deformed shape of the shell is 0/90/0 0.6504 1.60
taken into consideration in geometrically nonlinear formulation 0/90/0/90 0.5535 1.26
and is a more accurate treatment of the present problem and this 0/90/90/0 0.5842 1.67
theory shows lower values of first ply failure loads which are 45/-45 0.2410 1.32
acceptable from engineering standpoint, the 0o/90o/0o and 45o/ 45/-45/45 0.2838 1.42
-45o/45o/-45o laminations are typically selected for further study 45/-45/45/-45 0.3155 1.56
where the nonlinear failure loads are studied for varying aspect 45/-45/-45/45 0.3106 1.48
ratio of the shell.
The failure loads for different aspect ratio (a/b values) are
reported in Table 4. The minimum value for a particular laminate cross and angle-ply laminates the maximum deflections at failure
is highlighted in bold letters in the table. The practical civil exceed that limit. A further nonlinear analysis is carried out to
engineering often demands for rectangular plan areas to be find out load values for 4 mm deflection of 0o/90o/0o and 45o/-45o/
covered by repeating modular shell units. Table 4 should be 45o/-45o shells. These load values are termed as working loads
helpful to practicing engineers to select an optimum orientation and are reported in Table 6.
for the modular units where the failure load can be maximized The results reported in Figs. 5, 6 and Table 5 are post-
for a constant material consumption. The a/b ratio is varied by processed to compute the factor of safety (FOS) values to be
keeping the span along the arch direction (b) as constant. Thus, applied on the nonlinear failure loads to obtain their working
the shell with a/b = 0.5 has the smaller span along the beam values. These factors are furnished in Table 6. It is a usual practice to
direction and the one with a/b = 2.0 has the longer span along the propose a single value of safety factor for all the laminations. Thus,
beam direction. The conoid is stiffer along its arch direction by a factor 1.67 is applicable on all the shell options taken up in
virtue of the curved geometry. Hence, the shell is expected to Table 6. The factor of safety values are usually proposed as
become flexible when the beam direction has greater span than that integers or half an integers in design codes of practices. Thus a
along the arch direction. Table 4 exactly reflects this phenomenon by practical FOS of 1.75 may be proposed to be applied on the
showing the highest nonlinear failure loads when the a/b ratio is 0.5. nonlinear failure loads to arrive at the working loads acceptable
The failure loads decrease continuously when the aspect ratio from serviceability criterion.
increases from 0.5 to 2.0. Hence, it can be concluded from this
observation that the longer span of the conoid should be oriented 5. Conclusions
along its arch direction to achieve the maximum failure load.
Apart from the nonlinear failure loads, deflections at failure, The following conclusions are drawn from the present study:
first failed ply and modes/tendencies of failure for the 0o/90o/0o 1. The solutions of the benchmark problems show that the
and 45o/-45o/45o/-45o shells are studied and reported in Table 5. proposed code is capable to correctly predict the failure
The 0o/90o/0o shell shows the relatively best performance by initiation in clamped laminated conoids using linear and
showing higher failure load. The transversely loaded shell supported nonlinear theories.
along four edges deforms along its plan directions. Hence. the 2. The practicing civil engineers are recommended to apply
governing forces and moments also act along same directions. the nonlinear theory to realistically estimate failure loads of
The stiff fibers of cross-ply laminate are oriented along x and y clamped laminated conoidal shells. The linear theory, though
directions of the shell whereas in angle-ply laminate, the fibers run relatively simpler to implement mathematically, should be
along the diagonal directions. Since a lamina is stiffer in its fiber avoided as that leads to unsafe design of the shell.
direction then along the transverse direction the failure loads are 3. The 0o/90o/0o laminate is recommended for fabrication of
higher for cross-ply laminate. Both the laminates in Table 5 fail conoidal shells as it shows the highest first ply failure load
when the normal stress perpendicular to the fiber tend to exceed considering all the shell options taken up in the present
its permissible limit. The cross-ply shell (0o/90o/0o) fails at the study. The shell must be fabricated with hl/hh = 0.25 to
middle lamina and the angle-ply one (45o/-45o/45o/-45o) fail from maximize the failure load for a constant quantity of material
the topmost lamina. consumption. A full conoid should preferably be avoided if
Since a civil engineering shell has to satisfy the serviceability there is no practical compulsion.
requirement along with material failure the maximum deflections of 4. A conoidal shell roof covering rectangular plan-form should
the conoid at failure are studied. If the serviceable limit is have its longer span along the arch direction to achieve
considered as span/250 = 4 mm here then Table 5 shows that for greater load carrying capacity.

Acknowledgements
Not Applicable
ORCID
Not Applicable
References
Adali S, Cagdas IU (2011) Failure analysis of curved composite panels
based on first-ply and buckling failures. Procedia Engineering
10:1591-1596, DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.04.266
Akhras G, Li WC (2007) Progressive failure analysis of thick composite
plates using the spline finite strip method. Composite Structures
79(1):34-43, DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.11.035
Bakshi K, Chakravorty D (2013) First ply failure study of composite
conoidal shells used as roofing units in civil engineering. Journal of
Failure Analysis and Prevention 13:624-633, DOI: 10.1007/s11668-
013-9725-y
Bakshi K, Chakravorty D (2014) First ply failure study of thin composite
conoidal shells subjected to uniformly distributed load. Thin Walled
Structures 76:1-7, DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2013.10.021
Bakshi K, Chakravorty D (2015) First ply failure loads of composite
conoidal shell roofs with varying lamination. Mechanics of Advanced
Materials and Structures 22:978-987, DOI: 10.1080/15376494.
2014.884660
Chaubey AK, Kumar A, Chakrabarti A (2018) Novel shear deformation
model for moderately thick and deep laminated composite conoidal
shell. Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines 46:650-
668, DOI: 10.1080/15397734.2017.1422433
Chattopadhyay B, Sinha PK, Mukhopadhyay M (1995) Geometrically
nonlinear analysis of composite stiffened plates using finite elements.
Composite Structures 31:107-118, DOI: 10.1016/0263-8223(95)00004-6
Das HS, Chakravorty D (2007) Design aids and selection guidelines for
composite conoidal shell roofs – A finite element application.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 26(17):1793-1819,
DOI: 10.1177/0731684407081380
Das HS, Chakravorty D (2009) Finite element application in analysis
and design of point supported composite conoidal shell roofs suggesting
selection guidelines. The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering
Design 45(3):165-177, DOI: 10.1243/03093247JSA582
Das HS, Chakravorty D (2010) Bending analysis of stiffened composite
conoidal shell roofs through finite element application. Journal of
Composite Materials 45(5):525-542, DOI: 10.1177/0021998310376096
Ganesan R, Liu DY (2008) Progressive failure and postbuckling response
of tapered composite plates under uni-axial compression. Composite
Structures 82(2):159-176, DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.12.014
Ghosh A, Chakravorty D (2018) First-ply-failure performance of composite
clamped spherical shells. Mechanics of Composite Materials 54:
191-206, DOI: 10.1007/s11029-018-9731-y
Hadid, HA (1964) An analytical and experimental investigation into the
bending theory of elastic conoidal shells, PhD Thesis, University of
Southampton, Southampton, UK
Kam TY, Jan TB (1995) First ply failure analysis of laminated composite
plates based on the layerwise linear displacement theory. Composite
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 921
Structures 32(1-4):583-591, DOI: 10.1016/0263-8223(95)00069-0
Kam TY, Sher HF (1995) Nonlinear and first ply failure analyses of
laminated composite cross ply plates. Journal of Composite Materials
29(4):463-482, DOI: 10.1177/002199839502900403
Kam TY, Sher HF, Chao TM, Chang RR (1996) Predictions of deflection
and first ply failure load of thin laminated composite plates via the
finite element approach. International Journal of Solids and Structures
33(3):375-398, DOI: 10.1016/0020-7683(95)00042-9
Kumari S, Chakravorty D (2010) On the bending characteristics of
damaged composite conoidal shells – A finite element approach.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 29(21):3287-3296,
DOI: 10.1177/0731684410372691
Kumari S, Chakravorty D (2011) Bending of delaminated composite
conoidal shells under uniformly distributed load. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 137(10):660-668, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-
7889.0000275
Kumar YVS, Srivastava A (2003) First ply failure analysis of laminated
stiffened plates. Composite Structures 60(3):307-315, DOI: 10.1016/
S0263-8223(02)00350-1
Lal A, Singh BN, Patel D (2012) Stochastic nonlinear failure analysis of
laminated composite plates under compressive transverse loading.
Composite Structures 94(3):1211-1223, DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.
2011.11.018
Nayak AN, Bandyopadhyay JN (2002) Free vibration analysis and
design aids of stiffened conoidal shells. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 128(4):419-427, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)
128:4(419)
Nayak AN, Bandyopadhyay JN (2005) Free vibration analysis of
laminated stiffened shells. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131(1):
100-105, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:1(100)
Nayak AN, Bandyopadhyay JN (2006) Dynamic response analysis of
stiffened conoidal shells. Journal of Sound and Vibration 291(3-5):
1288-1297, DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2005.04.035
Pandey AK, Reddy JN (1987) A first-ply failure analysis of composite
laminates. Computers and Structures 25(3):371-393, DOI: 10.1016/
0045-7949(87)90130-1
Pradyumna S, Bandyopadhyay JN (2008) Static and free vibration
analyses of laminated shells using a higher order theory. Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites 27(2):167-186, DOI: 10.1177/
0731684407081385
Pradyumna S, Bandyopadhyay JN (2011) Dynamic instability behavior
of laminated hypar and conoid shells using a higher-order shear
deformation theory. Thin-Walled Structures 49(1):77-84, DOI:
10.1016/j.tws.2010.08.008
Prusty BG, Ray C, Satsangi SK (2001) First ply failure analysis of
stiffened panels-A finite element approach. Composite Structures
51(1):73-81, DOI: 10.1016/S0263-8223(00)00126-4
Reddy YSN, Reddy JN (1992) Linear and nonlinear failure analysis of
composite laminates with transverse shear. Composites Science and
Technology 44(3):227-255, DOI: 10.1016/0266-3538(92)90015-U
Sengupta J, Ghosh A, Chakravorty D (2015) Progressive failure analysis of
laminated composite cylindrical shell roofs. Journal of Failure Analysis
and Prevention 15:390-400, DOI: 10.1007/s11668-015-9951-6
Singh SB, Kumar A (1998) Postbuckling response and failure of
symmetric laminates under inplane shear. Composites Science and
Technology 58(12):1949-1960, DOI: 10.1016/S0266-3538(98)00032-3