Buckling and collapse of cylinders with one end simply supported and

one end open with variable axial and flexural support, under lateral load
Rodney Pinna
The School of Oil & Gas Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia

ABSTRACT: Cylinders with open end simply supported and open and unsupported (SF boundary conditions)
have buckling loads which are lower than those of cylinders with more usual boundary conditions. SF cylin-
ders also have collapse loads which are above their eigenvalue buckling load. This work examines the effect
on the buckling and collapse load of varying the axial and flexural restraint at the closed end of the cylinder,
for lateral load conditions. It is shown that as the restraint at the supported end is increased, the eigenvalue
buckling load increases, while the collapse behaviour of the cylinder reverts to a more typical cylindrical shell
behaviour, with the collapse load being sensitive to the presence of imperfections in the initial geometry.

1 INTRODUCTION − The caisson is evacuated, allowing the ambient

Cylinders with one end open and the other end sim-
ply supported have been shown (Pinna, 2003) to
have behaviour which is relatively unusual. The
buckling load of shells with these boundary condi-
tions may be considerably lower than that of cylin-
ders with more typical boundary conditions, how-
ever, more unusually, the collapse load of such
cylinders may be above their eigenvalue buckling
load.
One such system where such boundary conditions
may occur is that of the suction caisson. These are a
form of foundation system used for offshore struc-
tures (Pinna, 2001, Tjelta, 2001). These essentially
consist of a cylinder, with one end open and the
other end closed. The closure may range from a very
stiff top plate, typically employed when the caisson
is used as a foundation for a jacket structure, to a
much more flexible structure, when the caisson is
used as an anchor for a catenary mooring system.
In the first of these cases, the boundary conditions
on the closed end of the cylinder may be approxi-
water pressure to force the foundation into the
seabed.
Due to this installation sequence, the foundation
may be susceptible to buckling failure during both
stages of the installation sequence; during both the
self weight penetration when loading is predomi-
nately axial and during the pressure installation
phase, when combined loading with axial and lateral
components is present.
The combination of boundary conditions on a cyl-
inder of a simply supported end and an open end has
not received much attention previously. Previous
work has explored cylinders with such boundary
conditions under axial, combined and lateral loading
(Ronalds & Pinna 20003, Pinna & Ronalds, 2003)
1.E+04
1.E+02
SS cyl.
kh

mated by a fully built in end. In the later case, the

restraint at the open end will be somewhat less and 1.E+00 SF cyl. Plate
will tend towards a simple support as a lower bound. solution
The major attraction of the suction caisson is the
Long shell
ease of its installation. Installation is essentially a 1.E-02
three step process: 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07
− The caisson touches down on the sea bed
Z
− The caisson penetrates the seabed under self Figure 1. Comparison of buckling loads for SS and SF cylin-
weight, this typically penetrates the foundation to ders against standard solutions.
between 5% and 30% of its length
Table 1. Various definitions for a simply supported end for a
cylindrical shell., where u, v, and w are the displacements com-
ponents in the radial, circumferential and axial directions re-
spectively. Nxx and Nxθ are stress resultant terms. The designa-
tion follows that of Hoff and Soon (1965).
Designation Restrained degree of freedom
S1 w = ∂ 2 w ∂x 2 = N xx = N xθ = 0
S2 w = u = ∂ 2 w ∂x 2 = N xθ = 0
S3 w = ∂ 2 w ∂x 2 = N xx = v = 0
S4 w = ∂ 2 w ∂x 2 = u = v = 0
and for the axial load case with varying amounts of
axial restraint at the supported end (Pinna, 2003a, b).
In the former case, it was shown that simply support
– free cylinders buckle at lower than usual loads
(Fig. 1). From this Figure, it may also be seen that
SF cylinders behave in a qualitatively different way
to SS cylinders; while SS cylinders diverge from the
long shell solution at Z ≈ 1×105, where Z is defined
in equation (1) below. SF cylinders follow the long
shell solution until much lower values of Z and only
diverge away for very short shells.
In Pinna (2004), it was shown that as the amount
of axial restraint is increased, the buckling load in-
creases dramatically, but the unusual imperfection
sensitivity which is present for the SF cylinder with
no additional restraint is found to disappear.
The present work extends this analysis by exam-
ining the theoretically important case of lateral load-
ing when the supported end has varying axial re-
straint. This paper also examines the influence of
varying flexural restraint on the buckling and col-
lapse behaviour. Results are found using nonlinear
finite element analysis.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Finite element model
Results in this paper were found from finite element
analysis, using ABAQUS/STANDARD (Hibbert et
al. 2003). The cylinders were modelled using
meshes consisting of 9 noded, thin shell elements,
employing reduced integration, i.e. S9R5 elements
in ABAQUS notation. These elements enforce the
Kirchoff constraints numerically, and are appropri-
ate for small strains, but large deformations and rota-
tions. They employ strain measures which are ap-
proximations to Koiter–Sanders theory strains.
Eigenvalues are calculated from an initially unper-
turbed state. To verify the results from the S9R5 ele-
ments, a number of eigenvalues were also found
from models using solid elements. Results have also
been compared to those from a variational solution
using the Donnell equations and show the S9R5
elements performs well (Pinna & Ronalds, 2003).
Two types of analysis were carried out; first, an
elastic eigenvalue analysis of the soil/structure sys-
tem was performed to determine the critical buckling
mode of the system. This eigenmode was then im-
posed on the geometry of the perfect structure, and a
nonlinear Rik’s analysis undertaken. Nonlinear be-
haviour was allowed for in both the material proper-
ties and by accounting for the deformed geometry of
the system. An imperfection in the shape of the criti-
cal eigenmode generally results in the largest de-
crease in peak load (Guggenberger, 1995). The ei-
genmode was scaled such that the maximum lateral
deviation was equal to the shell thickness.
2.2 Boundary conditions
Unlike beams, a number of definitions of a simply
supported end are possible for a cylindrical shell.
These are shown in Table 1. The set of boundary
conditions matches the definition of a “classical”
simple support for a cylinder, and is the definition
used in this article when such a boundary condition
is referred to.
To model the pinned end of the shell, the dis-
placement components in the radial and tangential
directions are fixed, as are rotations about the radial
and axial directions. The varying restraint at the
supported end was modelled using either axial or ro-
tational springs, with linear behaviour.
2.3 Loading
Loading was applied to the cylinder as a lateral load,
using the ABAQUS DLOAD routine. This load rou-
tine in ABAQUS includes follower load effects,
which are important for buckling in modes with a
low number of circumferential waves (n).
2.4 Materials
Typical high strength steel properties were used in
the finite element model, with E=210 GPa, ν=0.3
and σyield=340 MPa. The yield strength of the steel
was modelled using a von Mises criterion.
2.5 Geometry
The geometry of cylindrical shells is commonly de-
scribed using the nondimensional Batdorf Z parame-
ter, where:
L2
Z= 1 −ν 2 (1)
rt
In the present analysis, eigenbuckling loads are
found for cylinders with Z=10, 100 and 1000, while
nonlinear collapse analysis is carried out on the cyl-
inder with Z=100. This represents a cylinder of in-
termediate length. For all cylinders, r/t=100.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Bifurcation analysis
Bifurcation buckling results from the present analy-
sis are shown in Figure 2, for varying amounts of ax-
ial restraint, and in Figure 3 for varying flexural re-
straint . It may be seen that in both cases, increasing
the restraint at the closed end results in a significant
increase in the buckling strength of the cylinder.
Both graphs show three results: the result for the
SF cylinder with varying restraint, and the solutions
for a SS and CF cylinder. The solutions for all these
cylinders are expressed in terms of the buckling co-
efficient, which is related to the buckling stress by:
16.00
SS cylinder
12.00
kh
L2 h
kh = σh (2)
π 2D
where D is the usual expression for the bending
stiffness of the cylinder.
It is known that for most sets of boundary condi-
tions the buckling loads of intermediate length cyl-
inders with differing boundary conditions may be re-
lated to the SS case through a constant multiplier
(Ronalds & Pinna, 2003). For a CF cylinder, the
buckling load is 0.58 times that of an SS cylinder.
From the figures, it may be seen that axial re-
straint has the largest influence on the bifurcation
load. With “fully effective” axial restraint, the bifur-
cation load approaches that of the CF cylinder. This
behaviour is similar to that of a SF cylinder under
axial load, with axial restraint. For that case, it has
also been shown that the buckling load approaches
that of a semi-infinite cylinder with one free end
(Pinna, 2004).
Restraining the flexural degree of freedom has
less effect on the cylinder buckling load. This re-

8.00 CF cylinder

4.00 SF cylinder

0.00
1.E-01 1.E+02 1.E+05 1.E+08 1.E+11
Spring restraint (N/m)
Figure 2. Variation in eigenvalue buckling load with changing
axial spring stiffness.

16.00

SS cylinder
12.00
kh

8.00 CF cylinder

4.00
SF cylinder

0.00
1.E-01 1.E+02 1.E+05 1.E+08 1.E+11
Spring restraint (Nm/rad)

Figure 4. Effect on varying the degree of axial restraint on the

Figure 3. Variation in eigenvalue buckling load with changing cylinder buckling mode. Restraint values are 0, 1×108 and
flexural spring stiffness. 1×1013 N/m.
Table 2. The effect of varying axial and flexural restraint on 1.6
buckling load and mode.
Axial spring restraint kh n 1.4
1×10-1 0.639 2
1×100 0.639 2 1.2 0
1×101 0.639 2
1×102 0.639 2 1
1×108

P/Pcr
1×103 0.647 2 0.8
1×104 0.721 2
1×105 1.277 3 0.6
1×106 1.820 3 1×1012
1×107 2.939 4 0.4
1×108 4.699 6
1×109 5.821 6 0.2
1×1010 6.227 6 0
1×1011 6.280 6
1×1012 6.286 6 0 10 20 30
wo

Flexural spring restraint kh n

1×10-1 0.639 2 1.6
1×100 0.639 2
1.4
1×101 0.639 2
1×102 0.639 2 1.2
1×103 0.645 2 0
1×104 0.699 2 1
1×105 1.065 2
P/Pcr
1×106 1.603 3 0.8
1×107 1.910 3
1×108 2.074 3 0.6 1×108
1×109 2.124 3 0.4
1×1010 2.141 3
1×1011 2.149 3
1×1013
0.2
1×1012 2.150 3
0
flects what is know for SS cylinders under lateral 0 10 20 30
wo
load, where the largest influence on buckling is the
degree of restraint on the axial freedom. Figure 5. Behaviour of cylinders in terms of the normalised
The influence on the behaviour of the cylinder is lateral load acting on the cylinder. The upper plot shows vary-
also shown in Figure 4, where the buckling mode of ing flexural restraint, while the lower plot shows varying axial
the cylinder is shown for varying amounts of axial restraint. The value next to each curve denotes the spring con-
restraint. In particular, it may be seen that the degree stant used for the analysis.
of axial deflection decreases substantially as the Chapman, 1991). This reflects that under lateral
amount of restraint is increased. These results are load, the SF cylinder is able to resist buckling
also summarised in Table 2, where results for vary- through its torsional rigidity. In contrast, under axial
ing flexural restraint are also given. It may be seen load, SF cylinders act as a mechanism and continue
that the change in the number of circumferential to follow the long shell solution, which is much
buckling waves (n) is much less, reflecting the lower than the value that low Z SS cylinders asymp-
smaller influence that this restraint has on the buck- tote towards.
ling load.
These results show that the buckling strength of
the cylinder increase 9.83 times going from none to 3.2 Collapse results
fully effective axial restraint, and by 3.36 times for The results from the nonlinear collapse analysis
flexural restraint. This difference is not as great as conducted on the cylinders is shown in Figure 5 for
that for SF cylinder under axial load, where the dif- cylinders with both axial and flexural restraint, un-
ference may be in the order of two magnitudes. This der lateral load. This Figure shown the results in
difference may be explained by the difference in be- terms of the lateral load normalised by the buckling
haviour of SF cylinders with and without an axial load of the cylinder. The load is plotted against the
load component. maximum inwards lateral displacement of the cylin-
SF cylinders without an axial load component, der, which has been normalised by the shell wall
that is under pure lateral load, asymptote towards a thickness.
buckling load of kh=0.426, as Z tends towards 0. From these results it may be seen that the in-
This corresponds to the solution for a hinged out- fluence of varying either axial or flexural restraint
stand under uniform axial compression (Ronalds & is similar, in that for both situations the imperfec-
tion sensitivity of the system increases as the re-
straint is increased. This sensitivity is also shown
3.E+05
in Figure 6, where the P/Pcr is plotted against the
varying spring stiffness value. The typical knock- 1×1012
3.E+05
down factor of 0.6 which is used for laterally
loaded cylinders is also plotted in this Figure. 1×108
2.E+05
In these plots, it may be seen that as the stiff-

P (N)
ness increases, and the eigenbuckling mode moves
2.E+05
away from the n = 2 value, sensitivities change
from showing a collapse load above the eigen-
1.E+05 0
value buckling load to returning to more usual
values. For large restraint, where the eigenvalue
5.E+04
buckling load is closer to that of cylinders with
stiffer restraint and n > 2, the sensitivity returns to
0.E+00
values which are typically associated with cylin-
ders which have a lateral load component. 0 10 wo 20 30
The collapse strength may also be plotted in
terms of the absolute load applied to the cylinder,
as is done in Figure 7. From this Figure, it my be 7.E+05

6.E+05
1.6
5.E+05
1.4
1×1013
P (N)
1.2 4.E+05

1 3.E+05
1×108
P/Pcr

0.8 2.E+05
0.6 1.E+05
0
0.4
0.E+00
0.2 0 10 20 30
wo
0
1.0E-02 1.0E+01 1.0E+04 1.0E+07 1.0E+10 Figure 7. Behaviour of cylinders in terms of the total lat-
eral load acting on the cylinder. The upper plot shows
Spring restraint (N/m) varying flexural restraint, while the lower plot shows vary-
ing axial restraint. The value next to each curve denotes the
spring constant used for the analysis. The order of the Fig-
ures corresponds to Figure 5.
1.6
seen that in terms of absolute load SF cylinders
1.4
with stiff restraint collapse at loads which are
1.2 much greater than those of SF cylinders. This re-
1
flects that the buckling load for SF cylinders is
relatively low, so that even with a “knockdown”
P/Pcr

0.8 factor greater than 1 applied to the load, it is still

0.6
relatively small.
The behaviour of the SF cylinder with no re-
0.4 straint may be seen to be somewhat different to
0.2 that of the other two cylinders; rather than reach-
ing a clear peak and then falling away, it instead
0 steadily increases to a maximum point. While it is
0.01 10 10000 1E+07 1E+10 1E+13 difficult to see from the plot, some reduction in
load from the peak is present before the analysis
Spring restraint (Nm/rad)
terminates.
The sensitivity of a SF cylinder with no axial
or flexural restraint is studied in Figure 8. In this
Figure 6. Sensitivity of cylinder against changing spring plot the size of the initial imperfection has been
restraint value. Upper plot for varying axial restraint, lower
plot for varying flexural restraint varies from 0.1 of the wall thickness to 5 times the
wall thickness. From this result it can be seen that
 sociated with a change in the location of buckling
1.6 waves around the cylinder. Collapse remains in an
1.4 n = 2 mode.
0.5
1.2
0.1
1 4 CONCLUSIONS
P/Pcr

0.8 Buckling of intermediate length SF cylinders with

1 no additional axial or flexural restraint at the simply
0.6
supported end have been shown to have a number of
0.4 5 features in common cylinders with the same bound-
ary conditions under other load conditions. In par-
0.2 ticular, these features are low bifurcation buckling
0 loads, and an insensitivity to the presence of initial
0 10 20 30 geometric imperfections. In the case of SF laterally
wo loaded cylinders, the reduction in buckling load is
Figure 8. Load deflection plots of cylinders with varying not as great as that for SF cylinders under loading
imperfection size. Numbers next to each trace indicate the with an axial component, as the lateral load is able to
imperfection as a multiple of the cylinder wall thickness. be resisted through the torsional stiffness of the cyl-
1.6 inder.
As with other loading conditions, it is shown that
1.4 increasing restraint at the simply supported end re-
sults in an increase in the buckling load. For the pre-
1.2
sent case, with “fully effective” axial restraint, the
1
buckling load approaches that of an open ended cyl-
inder with a clamped end. With increasing restraint
0.8 it is shown that the imperfection sensitivity returns
P/Pcr

to levels the same as those of shells with traditional

0.6
0.4
0.2
0 fect cylindrical shells under external pressure. Thin Walled
0 1 2 3
Imperfection size w 0
Figure 9. Sensitivity of collapse load of a SF cylinder as the
initial imperfection size is varied.
the collapse load of an SF cylinder is not sensitive
to the magnitude of the initial imperfection. This
result is also suggest by the shape of the load de-
flection curve in Figure 7. The relatively “soft”
collapse behaviour is typically associated with
low sensitivity to initial geometric imperfections.
A plot of the load deflection behaviour for a PF
cylinder with no axial or flexural restraint is
shown in Figure 8, with the maximum points
shown in Figure 9. From this Figure, it may be
seen that the behaviour of the cylinders is rela-
tively consistent; as he size of the initial imperfec-
tion is increased, the response of the cylinder be-
comes more flexible. The change in peak load is
fairly insensitive to the presence of imperfection
however.
The load-displacement curves for the low stiff-
ness cylinder show a nonuniform displacement re-
sponse. The nonuniformity of this response is as-
boundary conditions.
5 REFERENCES
Guggenberger, W. 1995. Buckling and postbuckling of imper-
4 5 6 Structures 23: 351–366.
Hibbert, Karlsson and Sorenson. 2003. ABAQUS user’s man-
ual, version 6.4. Hibbert, Karlsson and Sorenson: Rhode Is-
land.
Pinna, R. Ronalds, B.F. 2000. Hydrostatic Buckling of Shells
with Various Boundary Conditions, Journal of Construc-
tional Steel Research 56: 1–16.
Pinna, R. 2004. Buckling of suction caissons during installa-
tion. PhD Thesis. Perth: The University of Western Austra-
lia
Pinna, R. & Ronalds, B.F. 2003. Buckling and Postbuckling of
Cylindrical Shells with One End Pinned and the Other End
Free. Thin Walled Structures 41(6): 507-527.
Ronalds, B.F. & Pinna, R. 2003. Eigen buckling of cylindrical
shells in offshore structures: influence of geometry, loading
and end conditions. Structures and Buildings 156(SB2):
183-192.
Tjelta, T. I. 2001. Suction piles: Their position and application
today’. Proceedings of the 11th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference. New York:ASME.