Original Article

Proc IMechE Part G:

J Aerospace Engineering
Optimization of lightweight sub-stiffened 2019, Vol. 233(15) 5507–5521
! IMechE 2019

panels with buckling analysis and Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

imperfection sensitivity analysis DOI: 10.1177/0954410019856782

journals.sagepub.com/home/pig

Hao Chen, Yuanming Xu, Junhao Hu and Xi Wang

Abstract
On the purpose of improving the structural efficiency of stiffened panels, which is widely used in engineering, three
promising layouts of sub-stiffened thin-walled structures were optimized in view of structure’s initial buckling and further
analyzed through post-buckling and imperfection-sensitivity analysis. The optimization tasks were carried out using an
integrated framework, which is based on the multidisciplinary optimization platform Model Center and finite element
method software ABAQUS. The particle swarm optimization algorithm was applied to optimize layout parameters.
Three optimal sub-stiffened panels were then evaluated based on their performance on critical buckling loads and post-
buckling ultimate strength under uniaxial loading. Imperfection-sensitivity analysis was also conducted to investigate the
stability behavior of the proposed panels with defect. The results indicate that the introduction of sub-stiffeners into the
traditional stiffened panel can achieve significant improvements on the panel’s buckling loads and ultimate strength under
uniaxial loading, which are favorable to expand design space for engineering structures under requirements of lightweight
with high bending stiffness and bucking resistance.

Keywords
Sub-stiffened, buckling, optimization framework, finite element analysis, particle swarm optimization

Date received: 15 May 2018; accepted: 17 April 2019

as small integral blades and local thickened pad-ups,

Introduction
Metallic thin-walled stiffened panels have been studied
and used widely in recent decades for their advantages
of simple manufacturing process, high stiffness-
to-weight ratio, and other excellent traits. It has been
regarded as an important structure in the field of aero-
space, shipbuilding, and construction industry, where
the structures usually have to satisfy the requirement of
light weight and thus keeping thin-walled features. In
this sense, stiffened panels may undergo one or more
secondary instabilities leading to a mode-jumping,
a catastrophic change in the deformation due to an
increasing load. Such changes usually happen abruptly
and release considerable energy, which may cause
structural damage or, if it happens frequently, fatigue
problems.1 Therefore, how to optimize the structure
form and further improve the stability as well as
the economic performance of the stiffened panels with-
out paying the price of weights, is of great significance
for the lightweight design of aerospace structures.
The concept of plate sub-stiffening is proposed for
its substantial potentiality in improving buckling and
post-buckling behaviors of thin-walled stiffened struc-
tures. By introducing the sub-stiffened elements such
the local stability may be increased and thus posi-
tively improve the ultimate collapse performance of
the whole plate panel. Bushnell and Rankin2
revealed that the ability of structures to resist buckling
could be greatly promoted and the sensitivity of stif-
fened panels to the spacing of the main stiffeners
could be reduced as well by adding sub-stiffened struc-
tures to the panels between the traditional main
stiffeners. Özakça et al.3 explored the mechanical
behavior of four sub-stiffened structures using experi-
mental and nonlinear finite element (FE) methods.
The results revealed that, with the reinforcement of
well-designed sub-stiffeners, gains in initial buckling
and post-buckling bearing capacity can be over 15%
and 10%, respectively. A series of experiments and
numerical simulations4–6 were done and the results
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University,
Beijing, China
Corresponding author:
Yuanming Xu, School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, BeiHang
University, XueYuan Road, No. 37, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Email: xu_ymg@163.com
5508
showed that the critical buckling load of stiffened
panels was greatly increased compared to the refer-
ence one under the condition of the same weight.
Meanwhile, Tamijani et al.7 and Joshi et al.8
carried out researches on vibration analysis and mini-
mization of acoustic radiation of curve stiffened
panels produced by electron beam free form fabrica-
tion technology (EBF3). Kapania et al.9 studied the
effects of certain factors such as, orientation, spacing,
location, and curvature, on the buckling performance
of stiffened panels. It was observed that curvilinear
stiffeners tend to perform better than straight stiff-
eners, e.g. Mehnen et al.10 investigated the stability
problem of stiffeners with complex shape. His work
indicated that blade structures and curve structures
can improve the panel’s buckling index (which is
defined as the buckling load per kilogram) four to
five times. Therefore, inspired by this idea, the buck-
ling and post-buckling behavior of the original struc-
ture might be improved if the curve stiffeners were
introduced as sub-stiffened elements in the design of
sub-stiffened structures.
Availability of high-performance computing soft-
ware and advancement of computer-aided manufac-
turing have provided a higher flexibility in the process
of design and fabrication of advanced structures.
Optimal design can be found with the help of opti-
mization platforms and finite element method (FEM)
software. Scholars began to optimize the shape and
layout of stiffeners to obtain better mechanical prop-
erties of stiffened plates. Rakesh et al.11 developed an
optimization framework to design stiffened panels
with curvilinear stiffeners, EBF3PanelOpt. Wesley
et al.12 and Mulani et al.13 made optimizations with
curvilinear stiffeners and T-stiffeners using the soft-
ware of EBF3PanelOpt. Panel’s weight was mini-
mized while subjected to constraints on buckling
load, yielding, and crippling or local stiffener failure.
A similar framework was developed by Xu and
Wang14 to optimize curvilinear blade-stiffened
panels, which turned out to have better stability
than straight stiffened panels under multiaxial load.
Zhang et al.15 proposed an optimization method for
metallic stiffened panels based on the design of experi-
ment (DOE) and the updated Kriging approximate
model. Multiple optimization studies of stiffened
panels with cutouts and curvilinear stiffeners were
carried out by Dang et al.16 To accomplish it, an opti-
mization framework, which considers multiple failure
modes such as buckling, damage tolerance, stress, and
crippling, was developed.
This article aims to investigate the buckling per-
formance of new curvilinear variable stiffness sub-
stiffened panel, and compared with that of straight
sub-stiffened and grid sub-stiffened panel. An opti-
mization framework integrating finite element soft-
ware ABAQUS and particle swarm optimization
(PSO) method was used to optimize the design
of the structures, in order to promote the critical
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(15)
buckling load and ultimate load capacity. In addition,
influence of single point defects on the stability of sub-
stiffened panels was investigated. The comparisons of
stability behavior for three different stiffener forms
of sub-stiffened panels with traditional stiffened struc-
tures without sub-stiffening were conducted.
Models, optimization, and analysis of
sub-stiffened panels
Models and optimization
The concept of sub-stiffened panels. Sub-stiffened panels
differ from traditional stiffened panels in that they are
stiffened not just by primary stiffeners but also sub-
stiffeners. For typical profiles of sub-stiffened panels,
height and thickness of sub-stiffeners are generally less
than those of the primary stiffeners in order to achieve
a higher structural efficiency. Therefore, it is usually
desirable in the design of a sub-stiffened structure
where the main stiffeners are rigid enough to limit
the out-panel displacements between the main stiff-
eners when buckling occurs. Furthermore, sub-stiffen-
ers with smaller flexural rigidity are added to improve
the local stability performance of the panel. Since the
buckling of stiffened panels is usually initiated by
local areas and then developed into overall collapse,
enhancements in local stability can hopefully improve
global buckling behaviors.
The proposed sub-stiffened panel configurations. The sub-
stiffened panels investigated in this paper are shown
in Figure 1 and constructed on the premise of the
same weight; structures are further optimized by the
method of reducing the panel thickness and adding
sub-stiffeners with less thickness and height into the
area between the main stiffeners.
According to shape of the panel formed by stiff-
eners, the stiffened panel is divided to have straight
sub-stiffeners and nonstraight sub-stiffeners, where
nonstraight sub-stiffened panels can further be classi-
fied into oblique or grid sub-stiffened (Figure 1(c))
and curvilinear sub-stiffened (Figure 1(d)).
To simulate the uniaxial compressive load condi-
tions in an actual experiment, load and boundary con-
ditions are as shown in Figure 2. Nonloading sides are
taken as free-boundary conditions, while the loading
sides are tied to the boundary element using reference
points whose degrees of freedom (DOF) in all direc-
tions are limited except the loading direction.
Layouts and main parameters of stiffened panel. The
layout of three proposed sub-stiffened panels, straight
sub-stiffened panel, grid sub-stiffened panel, and
curvilinear variable stiffness sub-stiffened panel, are
as shown in Figure 3. Straight sub-stiffened panel is
currently the most widely used form of aeronautical
structures for the reason of easy manufacture. The
number and size of sub-stiffeners can be adjusted
Chen et al. 5509

Figure 1. Diagrams of investigated sub-stiffened panels: (a) benchmark panel; (b) prismatic sub-stiffened panel; (c) grid sub-stiffened
panel; (d) curvilinear variable stiffened panel.

Figure 2. Boundary conditions and load of sub-stiffened panel.

Figure 3. Layout of sub-stiffened panel: (a) prismatic sub-stiffened panel; (b) grid sub-stiffened panel; (c) curvilinear variable stiffened panel.
5510 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(15)

easily as needed. Grid sub-stiffened panel is generated
by bringing grid stiffening into the sub-stiffening
design. The diamond design located in the central of
the panel is for the purpose of improving local flexural
rigidity and thus increase of the critical buckling cap-
acity. Curvilinear variable stiffness sub-stiffened panel
is generated by expanding the design space on the
basis of grid sub-stiffened panel. As mentioned in
Özakça et al.,3 sub-stiffened panels similar to this
form may have a better ability to resist buckling.
The study of sub-stiffened panels in this article
takes traditional stiffened panel in Figure 1(a) as a
benchmark, which means all panels were designed to
have an equal length, width, and weight. Considering
manufacturing limits, a series of constraints for the
geometric parameters such as minimum thicknesses
and maximum height need to be imposed.
Design variables of straight sub-stiffened panel.
Straight sub-stiffened panel is configured with three
straight sub-stiffeners between each primary stiffener.
Design parameters are as shown in Table 1. Sub-
stiffeners are distributed symmetrically and parallel to
the primary stiffeners, where S1 is the distance between
adjacent sub-stiffeners. Due to the limitations of man-
ufacturing technology, the thickness of panel structure
tp should not be less than 1 mm. The thickness of the
plate with sub-stiffener should be less than that of
the reference plate, namely 2.25 mm, because the intro-
duction of sub-stiffeners is at the expense of plate’s
thickness. Meanwhile, as mentioned above, the height
and thickness of sub-stiffeners (hst and tst ) will be less
than that of the primary stiffeners. All design param-
eters as well as their ranges were listed in Table 1.
Design variables of grid sub-stiffened panel.
Geometric parameters of grid sub-stiffened panel are
as shown in Table 2. The ranges of height and thick-
ness of sub-stiffeners and the thickness of plate is
totally the same as that of straight sub-stiffened
panel. Different from the previous panel, sub-stiffen-
ers here were composed of several grids, the opposite
sides of which stay parallel, the loading end of sub-
stiffeners stay vertical to the panel edge in order to
ensure the stiffeners can basically guarantee the con-
nection relationship. S1 is the margin of straight sub-
stiffeners, S2 is the length of the sub-stiffener, and  is
the angle between oblique sub-stiffener and the trans-
verse direction. Taking into account the difficulty of
manufacturing and processing, S2 ranges from 5 mm
to 280 mm and h ranges from 5  to 85  . The layout of
stiffeners can then be determined by S1 , S2 , and .
Variables and its bound are presented in Table 2.
Design variables of curvilinear variable stiffness sub-
stiffened panel. Design variables of curvilinear vari-
able stiffness sub-stiffened panel are as shown in
Table 3. A partial view is needed to give specific
instructions, and the overall effect diagram of stif-
fened panel is seen in Figure 1. Every single sub-
stiffener in the structure consists of two straight
lines and a period of curve of which both ends are
tangent to the straight line segments respectively.
The sub-stiffener curve is represented using Bézier
curve which is expressed as

BðtÞ ¼ ð1  tÞ2 P0 þ 2tð1  tÞP1 þ t2 P2 ð1Þ

Table 1. Design variables of straight sub-stiffened panel.
where t is a shape coefficient, P0 , P1 , and P2 represent
Lower Upper three control points.
Variable Representation bound bound According to the control equation of the Bézier
tst Thickness of sub-stiffener 1 mm 4 mm curve, three points are needed to determine the quad-
tP Thickness of plate 1 mm 2.25 mm ratic curve. Variable a in the picture is defined as a
hst Height of sub-stiffener 5 mm 20 mm half-panel length, b is defined as the width between
S1 distance between 10 mm 150 mm
the two main stiffeners.  takes the range of [5  , 85  ]
sub-stiffeners considering the manufacturing limitation and the

Table 3. Design variables of curvilinear variable stiffness sub-

stiffened panel.
Table 2. Design variables of grid sub-stiffened panel.
Lower Upper
Lower Upper Variable Representation bound bound
Variable Representation bound bound
tst Thickness of sub-stiffener 1 mm 4 mm
tst Thickness of sub-stiffener 1 mm 4 mm tP Thickness of plate 1 mm 2.25 mm
tP Thickness of plate 1 mm 2.25 mm hst Height of sub-stiffener 5 mm 20 mm
hst Height of sub-stiffener 5 mm 20 mm S1 Length of longitudinal 10 mm 150 mm
S1 Margin of straight sub-stiffener 10 mm 150 mm sub-stiffener
S2 Length of longitudinal sub-stiffener 5 mm 280 mm  Angle of inclined 5 85 
 Angle of inclined sub-stiffener 5 85  sub-stiffener
Chen et al. 5511

connections between the stiffeners,S2 needs to meet where Fcr is the critical buckling load of the stiffened
S2 5 0:5  b  csc , which is a dynamic constraint. panels; m is the overall weight; max is the maximum
The PSO algorithm will automatically delete particles von Mises stress of the stiffened panels under the crit-
that do not satisfy the dynamic constraints when ical buckling load conditions; tst is the thickness of the
selecting a particle. sub-stiffeners; hst is the height of the sub-stiffeners; tp
is the plate thickness; xi is shape design variables of
Optimization problem formulation. As mentioned above, sub-stiffened panels. Detailed design variables of three
this study focused on the optimization design of stiffened forms of sub-stiffened are as mentioned above.
panels under uniaxial compression condition. Due to
material and machining defects, there often occurs struc- Optimization framework based on the model center. In
tural instability in stiffened panels far before the local order to explore the optimal design of panels stiffened
stress reaches its strength limit. Therefore, buckling by the sub-stiffeners, optimization framework as
behavior of sub-stiffened panels should be primarily be shown in Figure 4 is established based on finite elem-
investigated in the process of optimization. In consider- ent software ABAQUS and multidisciplinary design
ation of the huge computing resource consumption it platform Model Center.
may take to analyze post-buckling, the critical initial The optimization process is as follows: firstly, set
buckling load Fcr of stiffened panels is therefore used the target for the optimization problems of stiffened
as the objective function in the problem. panels, constraint conditions, and design variables
The overall weight of the stiffened panel must be related information. Then start from a given set of
equal to the reference panel’s, i.e. 2 kg. As a result, the initial design variables, generate Python parametric
thickness of the plate has to be decreased when sub- modeling scripts that contain the initial design, and
stiffeners were added. submit it to the ABAQUS core for processing. The
Meanwhile, in order to avoid local stress exceeding objective function and the constraints obtained after
the yield limit s of the materials and structural failure calculation and post-processing will be written to the
occurring when loading the designed structure Fcr , the output text file. At this time, optimization framework
maximum Mises stress in the structure must take the will automatically read text results, obtain the value of
material strength limit s as the upper limits. the target variable and constraints, and enter it into
In addition, the concept of sub-stiffened structure the algorithm to complete a cycle of the algorithm.
defines that height and thickness of the sub-stiffeners
are smaller than the primary stiffeners; therefore,
height and thickness of the sub-stiffeners should
have corresponding upper limits.
Mathematically, an optimization problem can be
defined as
9
min :f ðxÞ >
x >
>
>
>
subject to : hi ðxÞ ¼ 0, i ¼ 1, 2, . . . m =
ð2Þ
gmin max >
>
j 4gj ðxÞ4gj , j ¼ 1, 2, . . . l >
>
>
;
xmin 5 xi 5 xmax , i ¼ 1, . . . , n

The optimization problem of the sub-stiffened

panel design, therefore, can be defined as, under the
condition of constant weight, to design a stiffened
panel with length 590 mm and width 440 mm and to
make sure the critical buckling load is the maximum.
The formation of this optimization problem is pre-
sented as
9
Max : Fcr >
>
>
>
subject to : m ¼ 2:0 kg >
>
>
>
>
>
max 5 s >
=
tst 4tstmax ð3Þ
>
>
hst 4hstmax >
>
>
>
>
>
tp 4tpmax >
>
>
; Figure 4. Optimization framework based on Model Center.
xmin 5 xi 5 xmax , i ¼ 1, . . . , n
FEM: finite element method; PSO: particle swarm optimization.
5512
The PSO algorithm is used for function optimiza-
tion, and penalty function method is applied to
achieve effective constraints in this framework. As
for the theory and implementation of PSO, this article
will not go into details.
The linear buckling analysis and buckling modes. For thin-
walled panels, the maximum in-plane load is usually
determined by the critical buckling load instead of
yield load. To determine the critical buckling load
and the shape of buckling mode, it is necessary to
make a linear buckling analysis, which is based on
the linear elastic theory of small displacement and
small strain. During the analysis, the deformation of
the structure configuration is not considered, which
means in each stage of the loading, the equilibrium
equation is always established on the initial configur-
ation of the structure. The equation of the eigenvalue
problem is formulated as follows
ðK þ li SÞ’i ¼ 0 ð4Þ
where K is the stiffness matrix, S is the stress matrix, li
is the ith eigenvalue, ’i is the ith eigenvector of dis-
placement, namely buckling mode shapes.
When a stiffened plate is subjected to in-plane
loads, one of the following four buckling modes
may occurs: local buckling, torsional buckling, overall
buckling and partial overall buckling, as shown in
Figure 5(a) to (d), respectively. Local buckling,
which means the deformations of plates and stiffeners
are limited to local places, usually occurs in thin and
short wall structures. Torsional buckling, a twist
deformation of stiffeners, usually occurs when the
stiffeners are thin and high. In overall modes, there
occurs global bending in the plate, and it usually
occurs on a thin plate.
Watson et al.17 noted that there may be another
buckling mode, namely partial overall. As shown in
Figure 5(d). In partial modes, the longitudinal dis-
placement of the primary stiffeners/plate junction is
Figure 5. The computed buckling modes: (a) local; (b) tor-
sional; (c) overall; (d) partial overall.
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(15)
very small, but the primary stiffeners were twisted
and the area between primary deformed remarkably.
Post-buckling performance analysis. To verify the ultimate
bearing capacity and the full strength of several opti-
mized structures presented above, it is necessary to
perform an ultimate strength analysis for the post-
buckling behavior. If the ultimate bearing capacity of
the optimized structure turns out to be falling instead
of rising compared to the reference structure, this opti-
mization design will be unreasonable and cannot be
used to replace the original reference structure.
Nonlinear finite element analysis method. Using arc-
length method (Riks method), post-buckling behavior
of the sub-stiffened panels proposed in the paper
above can be analyzed and the ultimate load of the
structure can be obtained.
Solving the nonlinear problem of structure by the
finite element method can be summed up as the solu-
tion to the iterative formula of nonlinear static
equilibrium
½Kði1Þ fXgðiÞ ¼ f F gli þ fRgði1Þ ð5Þ
There are n þ 1 unknowns in the formula but just n
equations can be used, therefore, a basic constrain
equation is needed to solve equations
ðli Þ2 FT F þ XT X ¼ l2 ð6Þ
In the formulas mentioned above, K is the tangent
stiffness matrix, namely the Jacobi matrix of the non-
linear equations, X is the nodal displacement incre-
ment array, F stands for the external load array, l is
the incremental coefficient of load generated by iter-
ation, parameter R is unbalanced force, namely the
residual in each iteration.
The basic idea is to adjust the acting load, so that
the step size of the load factor and the displacement
increments are controlled simultaneously in the solu-
tion process. It has been proved to be a powerful tool
for the quasi-static analysis of nonlinear structures
and was selected to solve the post-buckling problem
in this paper.
Initial geometric imperfection. An initial defect of
the stiffened panel is demanded to take into account
in the post-buckling analysis. In the absence of actual
initial defect measurements, a simulation method is in
needed.
Three methods are provided in ABAQUS to define
the initial imperfection: (1) Linear superposition of
buckling modes obtained in linear buckling analysis.
(2) Displacement values in static analysis. (3) Specified
node and its corresponding defect location value.
Here, the first-order initial critical buckling mode is
used to set the initial defects on stiffened panels. The
scale factor is set as a hundredth of the panel
Chen et al.
thickness. Boundary conditions of stiffened panels in
the post-buckling analysis are the same as those for
the analysis of linear buckling. Loading is completed
by controlling the displacements at the longitudinal
loading end.
Validation of benchmark panel FE model with experimental
results. In order to validate the effectiveness and accur-
acy of the entire computing framework, the initial
buckling, post-buckling, and collapse behaviors of
benchmark panel simulated by the FEM is compared
with Quinn’s experimental results. A quite
Figure 6. Layout of the benchmark stiffened panel.
Table 4. Material properties of 2024 _T351 aluminum alloy.
Parameter Value
Material elastic modulus E (GPa) 73.774
Poisson’s ratio l 0.33
Yielding strength s (MPa) 325
Density q (kg/m3) 2770
Figure 7. Model of the benchmark panel.
5513
comprehensive introduction of experimental procedure
is given in the literature.6
Model and parameters of benchmark panel. As
shown in Figure 6, the stiffened panel is 440 mm in
width, 590 mm in length, and 2.53mm in thickness,
with stiffeners height of 28 mm and thickness of
2.8 mm, the distance between the stiffeners is
167 mm, and the actual weight is 2.0 kg. Material
used in the analysis is 2024 _T351 aluminum alloy
whose material properties shown in Table 4.
Model of sub-stiffened structure is established
by the finite element analysis software ABAQUS
(Figure 7). According to Cerini’s study,18 based on
the current design parameters, six element nodes at
least are required to form half-wave when panel buck-
ling. The entire stiffened panel is meshed using four
nodes quadrilateral shell elements (S4R).
Experiment validation. In Quinn’s experiments, two
specimens, namely specimen A (stiffened panels with-
out sub-stiffeners) and specimen E (straight sub-stif-
fened panel) are designed, manufactured and tested.
Since the shape and size, material, loading condition,
and boundary condition of specimen A are exactly the
same with the benchmark panel in this paper, it is
plausible that the computing framework is trust-
worthy if the simulation results can fit well with the
experimental results.
As can be shown in Figure 8, the numerical simu-
lations and experimental results fit well. Experiment
results show that initial plate buckling occurred at
74.9 kN and ultimate panel collapse at 216.6kN. The
simulation results of the two parameters are 73.5 kN
and 214.2 kN. The relative errors of prediction and
experiment are 1.3% and 1.1%, respectively.
Meanwhile, the experimental first-order eigen mode
of benchmark panel fits well with the numerical
one as can be seen from Figure 9, which indicates
5514
the applied framework and analysis procedures can
accurately predict the plate deformation behavior.
Optimization results and analysis
For the convenience of description, hereafter the refer-
ence stiffened panel without sub-stiffeners as shown in
Figure 10 is called ‘‘structure A’’, optimization result of
straight sub-stiffened panel for ‘‘structure B’’, opti-
mization result of grid sub-stiffened panel for ‘‘struc-
ture C’’ and optimization result of curvilinear variable
stiffness sub-stiffened panel for ‘‘structure D’’.
Iterative optimization process. For investigating the effect
of design variables, the same particle swarm optimiza-
tion configuration is used during each optimization
problem. Considering optimization accuracy and
speed requirements, set 30 as the number of the
Figure 8. Experimental6 and computational results.
Figure 9. Comparison of modal figure from experimental6 and computational results: (a) experimental result; (b) numerical result.
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(15)
particles, and the maximum speed of the particles is
0.9, weight inertia is 0.8, and acceleration factor is 2.1.
The computing is considered to be convergent when
the target value is continuously maintained constant
at five cycles; Figure 10 is an iterative optimization
result of three optimization problems.
As shown in Figure 10, optimization of three forms
of stiffened panels is basically convergent after 10 cycles
and the result shows that convergence speed have rela-
tions with complexity of the problem, namely the
number of design variables of stiffened panels.
Optimization results under uniaxial
compression loads
Using PSO, the results of the above questions
obtained as follows, the optimal design variable
Figure 10. Iteration history of critical buckling load of three
sub-stiffened panels.
Chen et al. 5515

Table 5. Optimization results and design parameters.

Optimization results

Panel structure Fcr (kN) m (kg)  max (MPa) tst (mm) tp (mm) hst (cm) S1 (cm) S2 (cm) h ( )

Benchmark stiffened panel 73.5 2.0 93.1 2.25

Straight sub-stiffened panel 241.0 2.0 299.0 1.47 1.85 1.50 4.42
Grid sub-stiffened panel 208.2 2.0 289.3 1.02 1.87 1.56 5.62 9.01 49.2
Curvilinear variable 205.6 2.0 295.5 1.18 1.83 0.93 14.40 4.24 64.3
stiffness stiffened panel

Figure 11. Model from buckling analysis of optimized sub-stiffened panel: (a) benchmark stiffened panel; (b) straight sub-stiffened
panel; (c) grid sub-stiffened panel; (d) curvilinear variable stiffness stiffened panel.

values corresponding to the four forms are shown in
Table 5.
Schematic diagrams of the first mode obtained by
the corresponding linear buckling analysis are pre-
sented in Figure 11, which indicate that the optimal
structures of three forms of sub-stiffened panels have
greatly improved the initial critical buckling loads
compared with the reference stiffened panel. It is
also noted that the maximum Mises stress is close
to the artificially set upper limit 300 MPa under
the initial critical buckling load conditions. it can be
plausible that the stiffened panel structures where
sub-stiffeners are brought in have a reasonable
material distribution between the panel and the sub-
stiffeners, therefore a higher critical buckling load is
obtained without the Mises stress of the stiffened
panel exceed the upper limits.
Compared to structure A, structure B adds three
straight stiffeners between the main stiffeners to
improve the flexural rigidity of the panels and redis-
tribute the out-panel displacements when the panel
buckling occurs. Judging from the modal figures, the
number of longitudinal buckling half-waves of the
panel between main stiffeners drops from 3 to 1 and
5516
the critical buckling load is raised greatly with the
application of sub-stiffeners.
Grid sub-stiffened structure, namely structure C,
whose first-order buckling mode is as shown in
Figure 11(c), from where one can see the reason
why it can increase the initial critical buckling load
of the stiffened panels is that stiffeners in grid shape
can not only reinforce longitudinal bending stiffness,
but also laterally divide the region between the main
stiffeners. Therefore, the out-panel displacement of
stiffened panels is limited mainly between the regions
divided by sub-stiffeners. Both longitudinal and trans-
verse half-wave numbers of the panel have increased
in comparison with the nonsub-stiffener panel.
D structure applies curved blade sub-stiffeners
between main stiffeners. With this kind of geometric
design, the weak middle regions of the panel can be
strengthened and materials can be distributed reason-
ably. As seen from the modal figure, the out-panel
displacement occurs mainly at both ends due to the
strong stiffness of middle areas of the optimized
structure.
Post-buckling analysis
Result of benchmark stiffened panel. In Figure 12, the
instability process of the reference structure without
sub-stiffeners is investigated. From the displacement
figure in destabilization process, it can be noted that
during the process of loading from zero to ultimate
load, mutation occurs twice in the distortion wave-
form of the structure, the longitudinal half-wave
Figure 12. Load–displacement curve of the benchmark panel.
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(15)
numbers of the panel raise from 3 to 5, and finally
the stiffened panel structure goes into the overall
buckling. Waveform jumping phenomenon is unfa-
vorable during the using process of practical struc-
tures, because the release of energy may cause
structural damages.
Result of Straight sub-stiffened panel. The load–displace-
ment curve of straight sub-stiffened panel is as shown
in Figure 13. With the reinforcement of straight sub-
stiffeners, the linear deformation stage is obviously
longer, and there is no obvious change in the shape
of the half-wave form in the process of loading from
the beginning to the failure, only one half-wave exists.
After the linear stage, the stiffened plate reaches the
ultimate load capacity of the whole structure, namely
314.2 kN, which increased by 46% compared to the
reference stiffened plate.
Results of grid sub-stiffened panel. As shown in Figure 14,
the load–displacement curve of the grid sub-stiffening
is similar to that of the straight sub-stiffening, there
exists a longer linear stage, and during the whole load-
ing process the waveform keeps stable state until the
bending failure happens. Its ultimate bearing capacity
is 269.5 kN, which is a great improvement compared
to the reference plate although it is less than that of
structure B.
Results of curvilinear variable stiffness stiffened panel. As
shown in Figure 15, the load–displacement curve of
structure D is relatively smooth, and there is no
Chen et al. 5517

Figure 13. Load–displacement curve of the straight sub-stiffened panel.

Figure 14. Load–displacement curve of the grid sub-stiffened panel.

5518
Figure 15. The load–displacement curve of curvilinear variable stiffness stiffened panel.
Table 6. Post-buckling analysis results.
Results A B
Ultimate strength (kN) 214.2
Improvement (%)
abrupt change in the load–displacement curve of the
curvilinear variable stiffness stiffened plate. During
the process of loading, the buckling mode maintained
stability, a longer nearly linear stage existed in the
beginning, after that, the limit point 291.5 kN was
reached, and then the structure began to destroy.
Results obtained by the post-buckling analysis cor-
responding to the three optimized structures in the
above paper are shown in Table 6.
As can be seen, compared with the reference struc-
ture without stiffeners, structures with sub-stiffeners
have a great improvement in ultimate load-carrying
capacity, and the ultimate bearing capacity of straight
sub-stiffened panel B subjected to uniaxial load is
enhanced most, achieving a 46% increase. As for
structures C and D, the carrying capacity under uni-
axial loading is relatively weak; even then there is still
an increase of more than 15% and more.
Waveform jumping phenomenon, which may cause
instant damage to the structure, is unacceptable
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(15)
C D
314.2 269.5 291.5
46.0 25.0 36.2
during the using process of practical structures. As
shown in the load–displacement curve, the critical
buckling load of three optimized forms of sub-
stiffened structure are relatively high, there is a
rather long period of nearly linear part, and waveform
jumping does not occur before the ultimate bearing
capacity is reached. Therefore, these structures are
undoubtedly beneficial for aviation structure design.
Imperfection-sensitivity analysis
In the process of production, transportation, and use,
large size stiffened panels are easy to produce the
defects when subjected to an external force or the
impact of a heavy object. Therefore, it is necessary
to investigate the stability behavior of stiffened
plates with defects. A parameter, kNock down factor
(KDF), is usually used to measure the influence of
defects on the mechanical properties of stiffened
panels. In this paper, the defect sensitivity analysis
Chen et al. 5519

Figure 17. Comparison of disturbance load and out-of-plane

Figure 16. Diagram of single dimple imperfections. displacement.

of the benchmark panel and proposed sub-stiffened

structures is conducted.
Huhne and Rolfes19 performed the defect sensitiv-
ity analysis of stiffened structures. A geometric defect
is simulated by structural out-of-plane deformation,
which is produced by single point disturbance load.
This method is validated in Wang et al.’s20 research.
Therefore, in this paper, the defect is introduced using
the same method with the out-of-plane deformations
produced by a concentrated stress. The defects can be
characterized as

X ¼ XP þ XI
ð7Þ
XI ¼ 

where Xp is the node coordinate vector of faultless

panel, Xi is the nodal coordinate offset vector caused
by defect. d defines the sum of the thickness of the
plate and the height of the stiffeners,  is the normal-
ized defect base vector, which represents single point
defect in this paper. a is a dimensionless parameter
ranging from 0 to 1, it represents the magnitude of
imperfection, which means a ¼ 0 correspond to the
perfect structure model, and a¼1 indicates that the
defect amplitude reaches maximum. Diagram of
single dimple imperfections is as shown in Figure 16.
Model Center and ABAQUS were used to accom-
plish this nonlinear analysis, where the concentrated
stress is applied on the geometric center of panel. The
nonlinear static analysis of the benchmark panel indi-
cated that, when the disturbance load reach 30 kN,
the maximum out-of-plane displacement of the
panel is 26.5 mm, which is close to the height of pri-
mary stiffeners. Therefore, the disturbance load is
increased from 0 kN to 30 kN with an increment of
3 kN. Analysis results of stiffened panels mentioned
above are as shown in Figures 17 and 18.
According to the result, when subjected a 30 kN
concentrated force, the maximum sag amplitude of
Figure 18. Sensitivity of single point defect of the stiffened
panel.
structures A, B, C, D is 26.50 mm, 24.54 mm,
24.30 mm, and 26.38 mm, respectively.
Relation between ultimate capacity and distur-
bance load are as shown in Figure 18. When the dis-
turbance load is relatively small, it has a great
influence on the ultimate bearing capacity of the stif-
fened plate, where the ultimate bearing capacity
decreases rapidly with the increase of the load.
However, with the increase of the disturbing load,
for example, after the disturbance is more than
20 kN, the reduction of the ultimate load is decreased
until it is kept at a relatively stable level.
From the point of view of ultimate bearing capa-
city, straight stiffened panel has the best performance
among the four panels. However, with the increase of
the disturbing load, the ultimate bearing capacity of
the grid stiffened plate decreases obviously, but the
value is still higher than that of the base plate.
5520
Figure 19. kNock down factor (KDF) of the stiffened panel.
In practical engineering, KFD is usually used as an
index for measuring the influence of defect on proper-
ties. The calculating formula is given as
Ficr
kd ¼ ð8Þ
Fpcr
where Ficr is the ultimate strength of the defective
panel and Fpcr is the ultimate strength of the faultless
panel.
Obviously, when the disturbance load is 0 kN, it
corresponds to the defect-free condition. Graph show-
ing the KDF change with disturbance loads is
obtained in Figure 19.
From the calculation result, grid stiffened panel has
lower sensitivities of single defect, while the curvi-
linear variable stiffness stiffened panel seems more
sensitive compared with the rest of the panels. When
the load reached 30 kN, the KDF of four types of
panels are 0.56, 0.57, 0.61, and 0.48, respectively.
Conclusions
To improve the stability of traditional stiffened panels
and expand the design space of stiffened panels, this
paper proposed three forms of sub-stiffened struc-
tures, a straight sub-stiffened structure, grid sub-
stiffened structure, and curvilinear variable stiffness
sub-stiffened structure, respectively. On the premise
of constant weight, FEA-based stability optimization
research was carried out. The results showed that the
critical buckling load and ultimate bearing capacity of
stiffened panel structures could be improved effec-
tively by reasonably adding the sub-stiffeners into
areas between primary stiffeners.
The simulation results revealed that the critical
buckling load and ultimate load capacity of straight
sub-stiffened panels were better than the other two
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(15)
forms of sub-stiffened panels under the uniaxial com-
pressive loading conditions. However, the lack of
local transverse strengthening features of straight
sub-stiffened panels might not give good stability per-
formance under the biaxial loading or combined axial
and shear loading conditions where the grid and cur-
vilinear configurations are favored.
Sensitivity analyses of single point defect were also
carried out to achieve a better simulation of practical
defective structures. The results showed that, when
under the influence of single point disturbance, the
straight stiffened plate has the highest ultimate bear-
ing capacity while the grid sub-stiffened panel has the
lowest sensitivities of single point defect.
In summary, the stiffened panels with sub-stiffeners
have outstanding performance in improving the sta-
bility of structures; this means the mechanical proper-
ties of the thin-walled structures can be greatly
improved without pay the price of weight by an
appropriate design of sub-stiffened panels. In the
fields of aircraft’s frame, beam and skin support struc-
ture with large number of stiffened panels, it could be
expected that the design of sub-stiffeners will achieve
favorable weight reduction effect and improves the
damage tolerance performance. The same is true for
other structures using stiffened panels. Therefore, the
results of the study may have important application
values for aerospace, shipbuilding, and construction
industry.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Junhao Hu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7687-4028
References
1. Cerini M and Falzon BG. The reliability of the arc-
length method in the analysis of mode-jumping prob-
lems. In: Proceedings of 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS
structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference,
Norfolk, VA, USA, 7–10 April 2003, pp.2003–1621.
Reston, VA: AIAA.
2. Bushnell D and Rankin C. Optimum design of stiffened
panels with sub-stiffeners. In: Proceedings of 46th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics,
and materials conference, 2005, pp.1–54. Reston, VA:
AIAA.
3. Özakça M, Murphy A and van der Veen S. Buckling and
post-buckling of sub-stiffened or locally tailored alumi-
num panels. In: Proceedings of 25th international congress
of the aeronautical sciences, Bonn, Germany, 1
September 2006.
Chen et al.
4. Quinn D, Murphy A, McEwan W, et al. Stiffened panel
stability behavior and performance gains with plate
prismatic sub-stiffening. Thin-Walled Struct 2009; 47:
1457–1468.
5. Murphy A, Quinn D, Mawhinney P, et al. Tailoring
static strength performance of metallic stiffened panels
by selective local sub-stiffening. In: Proceedings of 47th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural
dynamics, and materials conference, New Port RI,
USA, 1–4 May 2006. Reston, VA: AIAA.
6. Quinn D, Murphy A, McEwan W, et al. Non-prismatic
sub-stiffening for stiffened panel plates—stability
behavior and performance gains. Thin-Walled Struct
2010; 48: 401–413.
7. Tamijani AY, McQuigg T and Kapania RK. Free
vibration analysis of curvilinear-stiffened plates and
experimental validation. J Aircraft 2010; 47: 192–200.
8. Joshi P, Mulani SB, Slemp WCH, et al. Minimization of
acoustic radiation from a turbulent boundary layer
excited panel with curvilinear stiffeners. In:
Proceedings of 55th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/SC
structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference,
Orlando, Florida, USA, 12–15 April 2010. Reston, VA:
AIAA.
9. Kapania RK, Li J and Kapoor H. Optimal design of
unitized panels with curvilinear stiffeners. In:
Proceedings of AIAA 5th ATIO and the AIAA 16th
lighter-than-air systems technology conference and bal-
loon systems conference, 2005, pp.1708–1737.
Arlington, VA: AIAA.
10. Mehnen J, Ding J, Lockett H, et al. Design study for
wire and arc additive manufacture. Int J Product Dev
2014; 19: 2–20.
11. Kapania RK, Mulani SB, Tamijani A, et al.
EBF3PanelOpt: a computational design environment
for panels fabricated by additive manufacturing. In:
Proceedings of 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting
5521
including the new horizons forum and aerospace expos-
ition, Texas, USA, 2013.
12. Slemp WCH, Keith Bird R, Kapania RK, et al. Design,
optimization and evaluation of integrally stiffened Al
7050 panel with curved stiffeners. J Aircraft 2011; 48:
1163–1175.
13. Mulani SB, Havens D, Norris A, et al. Design, opti-
mization, and evaluation of Al-2139 compression
panel with integral T-stiffeners. J Aircraft 2013; 50:
1275–1286.
14. Xu YM and Wang D. Design and optimization of
improving stability of curvilinear blade-stiffened panels.
J Beijing Univ Aeronaut Astronaut 2015; 41: 567–573.
15. Zhang ZG, Yao WX and Liu KL. Configuration opti-
mization method for metallic stiffened panel structure
based on updated Kriging model. J Nanjing Univ
Aeronaut Astronaut 2008; 40: 497–500.
16. Dang TD, Kapania RK, Slemp WCH, et al.
Optimization and post buckling analysis of curvi-
linear-stiffened panels under multiple-load cases. J
Aircraft 2010; 47: 1656–1671.
17. Watson A, Featherston CA and Kennedy D.
Optimization of post buckled stiffened panels with mul-
tiple stiffener sizes. In: Proceedings of 48th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynam-
ics, and materials conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 23–
26 April 2007, pp.5942–5949. Reston, VA: AIAA.
18. Cerini M and Falzon BG. Use of the arc-length method
for capturing mode jumping in post-buckling aero
structures. AIAA J 2005; 43: 681–689.
19. Hühne C, Rolfes R, Breitbach E, et al. Robust design of
composite cylindrical shells under axial compression —
simulation and validation. Thin-Walled Struct 2008; 46:
947–962.
20. Wang B, Tian K, Hao P, et al. Load-carrying capacity
and imperfection-sensitivity analysis of hierarchical stif-
fened panels. J Solid Rocket Technol 2015; 3: 408–412.