Struct Multidisc Optim (2013) 48:777–794
DOI 10.1007/s00158-013-0922-9
RESEARCH PAPER
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical
shells using surrogate model
Bo Wang · Peng Hao · Gang Li · Yaochu Fang ·
Xiaojun Wang · Xi Zhang
Received: 15 October 2012 / Revised: 26 February 2013 / Accepted: 2 March 2013 / Published online: 12 June 2013
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Thin-walled cylindrical shells subjected to axial
compression are sensitive to initial geometrical imperfec-
tions. Firstly, the influence of a single dimple imperfection
on the load-carrying capacity of cylindrical shells is inves-
tigated by varying the amplitudes, directions and positions
of the dimple imperfection. Then a single delta function
is introduced to describe the profile of the dimple imper-
fection in a more general form, which enables to analyze
conveniently the effect of the imperfect zone area on the
load-carrying capacity of cylindrical shells. Thereafter, a
surrogate-based optimization framework of determining the
worst realistic imperfection is proposed to study the reduc-
tion of the buckling load of cylindrical shells based on a
finite number of dimple imperfections. The possible dimple
imperfections may be introduced during the service of cylin-
drical shells. Finally the effectiveness of the present method
is demonstrated by an illustrative example.
Keywords Cylindrical shell · Buckling load ·
Surrogate-based optimization · Realistic worst imperfection
B. Wang () · P. Hao · G. Li · Y. Fang
State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial
Equipment, Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Dalian University of Technology,
Dalian 116023, People’s Republic of China
e-mail: wangbo@dlut.edu.cn
X. Wang · X. Zhang
Beijing Institute of Astronautical Systems Engineering,
Beijing 100076, People’s Republic of China
1 Introduction
Thin-walled cylindrical shells subjected to axial compres-
sion are prone to buckling (Calladine 1983), which is the
area of great interest in launch and space vehicle appli-
cations. Various studies have been focused on the buck-
ling and post-buckling behaviors of cylindrical shells, and
several methods and programs are available for these issues,
ranging from simple closed form solutions to complicated
numerical solutions (Timoshenko and Gere 1961; Calladine
1983; Thompson and Hunt 1984; Croll 1995). In the pre-
vious studies (Calladine 1983, 1995; Arbocz and Starnes
2002; Hilburger et al. 2004; Lindgaard et al. 2010), initial
geometrical imperfections were proved to reduce the load-
carrying capacity drastically compared to that of the geo-
metrically perfect structure. The reduced stiffness method
developed by Croll et al. has the potential to explain ana-
lytically the discrepancy between experimental results and
theoretical buckling loads of cylindrical shells (Croll and
Batista 1981; Croll and Ellinas 1983). When investigating
the effect of initial imperfections, it has been a standard
practice to predict the buckling load of geometrically perfect
structure and then to reduce the buckling load by a knock-
down factor (KDF), see Hilburger et al. (2004) and Haynie
and Hilburger (2010). Based on a semi-empirical method,
KDFs of cylindrical shells with varying ratios of radius
and skin thickness (R/t) were proposed by NASA SP-
8007 1968. In China’s current design code, KDFs for tank
designs of launch vehicles were also derived from the exper-
imental results in the past. However, with the development
of manufacturing technology and material systems, these
KDFs were proved to be overly conservative, see Arbocz
and Starnes (2002), Haynie and Hilburger (2010) and Wang
et al. (2011). This is due to the fact that the sensitivity of
778
the response of a cylinder to various forms of imperfec-
tions was not included in traditional sources of KDFs. The
excessive conservatism usually corresponds to an increase
of structural weight, which is particularly important in
the development of large-diameter launch vehicles. With
the advent of China’s newly developed and future heavy-
lift launch vehicles, the diameter of core stage increases
from 3.35 m to 5 m, then to 9 m, and the study of R/t
becomes an important issue, see Wang et al. (2012). Obvi-
ously, a launch vehicle is likely to be overweight eventually
with an unchanged R/t. However, with regard to a largely
increased R/t, the effect of initial imperfections on the load-
carrying capacity of a cylindrical shell may become more
significant, which results in an extremely high imperfection
sensitivity.
In the past, the effects of several types of imperfec-
tions on the load-carrying capacity of thin-walled struc-
tures were studied in detail, such as Croll and Batista
(1981), Croll and Ellinas (1983), Croll (1995), Bushnell
(1981), Bushnell and Bushnell (1996), Eurocode 3 (1999),
Mandal and Calladine (2000), Elishakoff (1983, 2000,
2012), Elishakoff et al. (2001), Teng and Song (2001), Hunt
et al. (2003), Sosa et al. (2006), Huhne et al. (2008), Hrinda
(2010), Haynie and Hilburger (2010). Most of these studies
were performed using numerical methods, due to the fact
that the modern CAE technology has enabled the buckling
analysis of cylindrical shells accounting for both geometric
and material nonlinearities together with initial imperfec-
tions. Among various types of imperfections, the eigen-
mode shape imperfection is the most commonly adopted
one at the design stage, see Teng and Song (2001). The
European standard for steel shell structures recommends
that the imperfection should be specified in the form of
eigen-mode shapes, with its amplitude linked to fabrication
quality, unless a different unfavourable pattern is justified,
see Eurocode 3 (1999). Besides, a significant contribution to
the area of buckling and post-buckling analyses for imper-
fect stiffened shells was the development of PANDA2 by
Bushnell and Bushnell (1996), taking into account a vari-
ety of imperfections, such as global, local, inter-ring, and
out-of-roundness imperfections. Additionally, Hühne et al.
(2008) developed a new approach to create a local dimple-
shape imperfection, which is typically similar to the type
of dimple that forms in a compressed shell at the onset
of buckling as observed in tests. Further, three different
imperfection types were compared, including an imperfec-
tion with eigen-mode shape, an imperfection caused by
a lateral perturbation load, and a single dimple imperfec-
tion by Haynie and Hilburger (2010). Results indicate that
the lateral perturbation technique and the single dimple
imperfection produce response characteristics that are
physically meaningful, which were then validated by
experimental results, see Haynie and Hilburger (2012).
B. Wang et al.
Furthermore, the single dimple imperfection was consid-
ered as a realistic and worst imperfection of thin-walled
cylindrical shells.
Additionally, aiming to obtain improved KDFs for cylin-
drical shells, considerable efforts were put forth to deter-
mine the lower bound of the buckling load based on
numerical analyses, see Arbocz and Williams (1977), Deml
and Wunderlich (1997), Hilburger and Starnes (2004),
Arbocz and Hol (2005), Biagi and Medico (2008), Prabu
et al. (2010), Degenhardt et al. (2010), and Lindgaard
et al. (2010). In general, these approaches can mainly be
categorized as two approaches. The first approach is to
take the measured initial geometrical imperfections into
account, see Arbocz and Williams (1977), Hilburger et al.
(2004), and Hühne et al. (2008), and high-fidelity nonlin-
ear finite element analyses that include the effects of a
manufacturing-process-specific geometric imperfection sig-
nature were developed and validated by Hilburger et al.
(2004). Besides, the effect of random imperfections is
another subject of active research, including the variability
of thickness, material properties, boundary conditions, load-
ings, etc. (Elishakoff and Arbocz 1982; Elishakoff 1983,
2000, 2012; Elishakoff et al. 2001; Koiter et al. 1994;
Papadopoulos and Papadrakakis 2005). Also, stochastic
FEA of shells was presented using the spectral represen-
tation method for the description of the random fields
(Papadopoulos and Papadrakakis 2004). Further, the effects
of material and thickness spatial variation on the buck-
ling load of shells with random geometric imperfections
were investigated (Papadopoulos et al. 2009). Based on
the various data of measured imperfections, probabilistic
approaches where imperfections were introduced as ran-
dom variables with a certain distribution were utilized to
derive the improved KDFs for cylindrical shells by Biagi
and Medico (2008). However, each manufacturing pro-
cess causes a specific imperfection pattern, thus extremely
large number of experiment data is needed, which is dif-
ficult to collect in practice. The other approach is to find
the “worst” geometrical imperfections, which yields the
lowest performance and thereby a lower bound for the load-
carrying capacity of structures. In recent years, the imper-
fections were represented by a linear combination of base
shapes which were constructed from a number of eigen-
modes. Then the determination of the “worst” imperfection
for a given structure was formulated as an optimization
problem by varying the imperfection amplitudes of each
base shape, see Lindgaard et al. (2010). The concept of
this work is advanced and universal for the imperfection-
sensitive structures. Although the obtained worst imperfec-
tions may lead to extremely lower performances of struc-
tures (Hühne et al. 2008), fortunately, no matter how to
choose the base imperfection shape it will result in a more
robust design.
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical shells using surrogate model
In practice, it should be noted that KDFs are extremely
related to the structural parameters, material systems, man-
ufacturing technology, etc. This may be the reason that
engineering practice tends to rely on experiments to deter-
mine the KDFs. However, it is economically unsustain-
able and impossible to obtain KDFs entirely dependent
on experiments, especially for large-scale structures. Since
the main motivation of this study is to assist and guide
the experiments and thus provide a reference for improv-
ing KDFs, dimple imperfections are selected as the subject
of this study, based on the consideration that this type
of imperfections is probably produced in the processes of
manufacturing, transporting and installation of structures.
Specifically, the reduction of the buckling load of cylindri-
cal shells based on a finite number of dimple imperfections
is investigated in this study. The cylindrical shells with
too large amplitude of imperfections or too many dimple
imperfections are not the scope of concerns in this paper,
because these shells would be considered as substandard
products in launch and space vehicles and other industrial
applications.
In this study, the influence of a single dimple imper-
fection on the load-carrying capacity of cylindrical shells
is firstly investigated by varying the amplitudes, directions
and positions of imperfection. Then a single δ function
is introduced to describe the profile of the dimple imper-
fection in a more general form, which enables to analyze
conveniently the effect of the imperfect zone area on the
load-carrying capacity of cylindrical shells. Thereafter, a
surrogate-based optimization framework of determining the
worst realistic imperfection is proposed to investigate the
reduction of the buckling load of cylindrical shells based
on a finite number of dimple imperfections, where the
variables include the amplitude of the perturbation load
and the position numbers of the dimple imperfections. The
possible dimple imperfections may be introduced during
the service of cylindrical shells. Finally the effectiveness
of the present method is demonstrated by an example,
and the proposed framework is proved to be more effi-
cient to find the realistic lower bound of buckling load
for cylindrical shells compared with direct optimization
using MIGA.
2 Method of analysis
2.1 Nonlinear buckling analysis of cylindrical shells
For these thin-walled structures under axial compression,
buckling is the main failure mechanism, see Lindgaard and
Lund (2011) and Hao et al. (2012). The load–displacement
response of a structure often shows a negative stiffness
and the membrane strain energy is converted into the
779
bending strain energy to remain in equilibrium. Several
incremental-iterative solution approaches have been exten-
sively studied and reported in the existing publications,
and the modified Riks method is an algorithm that enables
effective solution of such cases, see Crisfield (1981) and
Powell and Simons (1981).
The essence of the modified Riks method is to follow
the static equilibrium path of a structure in a space defined
by the nodal variables and the loading parameter. Both geo-
metrical and material nonlinearities are considered using the
Newton method as a basic algorithm and gradually increas-
ing the applied loads, thus the effect of local instabilities
on the global buckling of structures can be accounted for.
Additionally, in this approach, it is essential to control the
increment step, which is limited by moving a given distance
along the tangent line to the current solution point and then
searching for equilibrium in the plane that passes through
the point thus obtained and that is orthogonal to the same
tangent line (Crisfield 1981; Powell and Simons 1981).
Besides, dynamic explicit analysis can provide an accu-
rate and robust prediction for the buckling and post-buckling
behavior of thin-walled structures, which is proved to be in
fairly good agreement with experimental result, when using
the explicit central-difference time integration rule (Lanzi
2004; Hao et al. 2012). However, this type of analysis may
be extremely time-consuming because of the large num-
ber of small time increments determined by the minimum
element size.
In a buckling analysis, an axial displacement loading is
applied as axial shortening at one end of the structure grad-
ually, and the sum of reaction forces of the other end is
calculated as an axial load at each time increment. The
buckling load is specified by the peak point of the load-
shortening curve, which limits the load-carrying capacity,
as shown in Fig. 1. The evolution of buckling phenomena,
in terms of deformation, stress and strain, into the post-
buckling field until structural collapse resulted from the
global instability can be investigated.
Fig. 1 Typical load vs. end-shortening curve together with the point
of buckling load
780 B. Wang et al.

2.2 Surrogate-based optimization

Surrogate model is a mathematical model that approximates

the multivariate input/output behavior of complex systems,
constructed by the input–output relationships of sample
points derived from design of experiment (DOE), such as
Orthogonal Arrays design (OA), Central Composite design
(CC), Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) and Optimal LHS
(OLHS), etc. (Hardy 1971; Queipo et al. 2005). In this
study, OLHS is adopted because it is capable of performing
stratified sampling in a random manner.
Radial basis functions (RBF) model, a type of approx-
imation methods, was developed by Hardy (1971) for the
interpolation of scattered multivariate data. RBF model
was proved to be the most dependable method in most Fig. 3 Schematic of cylindrical shell subjected to axial compression
situations for global optimization in terms of accuracy together with the geometric parameters of the T-rings
and robustness, compared to Kriging and polynomial
regression method, see Gutmann (2001) and Jin et al.
(2001). Given a set of sampling data, RBF model can be corresponding function values, we can obtain n equations in
expressed as (1) using linear combinations of a radially the matrix format as
symmetric function based on Euclidean distance or similar
metric. R = λ (4)

n
 where
 R = [R(x1 ), R(x2 ), . . ., R(xn )]T , ij = ϕ
R(x) = λj ϕ(r) (1) xi − xj  (i = 1, 2, . . ., n, j = 1, 2, . . .n), and λ = [λ1 ,
j =1 λ2 , . . ., λn]T . Similar to the polynomial regression method,
the coefficients λ can be obtained by solving (4).
Surrogate-based optimization consists of inner optimiza-
r = x − xj  (2)
tion and outer update, as shown in Fig. 2. Actually, the inner
where λj is the weight coefficient, x is the vector of design optimization is entirely based on the surrogate model and
variables, xj is the vector of design variables at the jth needs negligible computational cost. The optimization is
sampling point, r is the Euclidean distance between the considered to be converged if the relative error between the
predicted point and the jth sampling point, φ is the basis results obtained from the surrogate model and the ones from
function, and n is the number of sampling points. the exact FEA is less than 0.1 %, otherwise the surrogate
A typical basis function for RBF model is the multi- model is updated by the exact FEA and another inner opti-
quadric (MQ) function, and it can be stated as mization search is performed based on the new surrogate
model. Updating surrogate model also requires negligible

ϕ(r) = r 2 + c2 (3) computational cost, because it only involves refitting the
model with both old and new sampling data.
where c is a given constant ranging from 0 to 1. Replacing A surrogate model needs to be validated with error
x and R(x) in (1) with the n vectors of design variables and analysis before it can be used with full confidence. Thus,

Fig. 2 Framework of
surrogate-based optimization
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical shells using surrogate model 781

where yi is the response value at the ith test point from the
exact function, ỹi is the prediction value from the surrogate
model, n is the number of sampling points. The smaller val-
ues of three error metrics (closer to 0), the higher quality of
the surrogate model.

3 Imperfection sensitivity of cylindrical shells

with dimple imperfections

3.1 Buckling analyses of the perfect cylindrical shell

In this study, a metallic cylindrical shell having a radius of

R = 250 mm, a length of L = 510 mm and a thickness of
t = 0.5 mm is studied in detail. The structural dimensions
Fig. 4 Load vs. end-shortening curves of the perfect cylindrical shell are the same as the ones studied by Hühne et al. (2008),
obtained by the dynamic explicit method and the modified Riks and typical properties of 2024 aluminum alloy used herein
method are listed as follows: elastic modulus E = 72 GPa, Pois-
son’s ratio υ = 0.31, yield stress σs = 363 MPa, ultimate
another set of sample points (randomly distributed through- stress σb = 463 MPa, density ρ = 2.8E-6 kg/mm3 . For
out the design space, and differing from the sample points the convenience of loading and fixing, T-rings are designed
for use of constructing surrogate model) is generated to to be attached to the both ends of the cylindrical shell, the
perform the error analysis, see Venter and Haftka (1997). material property of which is identical with the cylindrical
Three different error metrics are calculated, named as per- shell, as shown in Fig. 3. The bottom face of the lower T-
cent root mean square error (%RMSE), percent average ring is fully clamped, and the top face of the upper T-ring
error (%AvgErr), and percent maximum error (%MaxErr), is clamped except for axial translational degree of freedom.
which are defined as The buckling load of the perfect shell obtained by the ana-

lytical approach is 68.7 kN, defined as (8) by Timoshenko
1 
n
n (yi − ỹi )2 and Gere (1961).
i=1
%RMSE = 100 (5) 2πEt 2

n
1
yi Pcr =  (8)
n 3(1 − υ 2 )
i=1


n Then, numerical methods including the modified Riks
1
n |yi − ỹi | method and dynamic explicit method are carried out
i=1
%AvgErr = 100 (6) respectively by Abaqus (2008) accounting for geometric

n
nonlinearities. Four-node shell element with reduced inte-
1
n yi
i=1 gration (S4R) is utilized to discretize the model, and the
⎡ ⎤ element nodes include three translational degrees of free-
dom and three rotational degrees of freedom. A cylindrical
⎢ |yi − ỹi | ⎥
%MaxErr = Max ⎢
⎣100  n
⎥
⎦ (7) coordinate system is defined with its origin at the center
1
yi of the√fixed end. The element size is chosen in the order
n
i=1 of 0.5 Rt for two methods as proposed by Meyer-Piening

Fig. 5 Schematic of
perturbation loads with three
directions. a case 1: along the r
axis in the zr plane; b case 2: at
a 45-degree angle to the r axis in
the zr plane; c at a 45-degree
angle to the r axis in the rθ plane
782 B. Wang et al.

et al. (2001). To balance the computational cost and accu- analysis under a given perturbation load. Then, the defor-
racy, a loading time of 200 ms is chosen eventually for mation of the cylindrical shell is introduced to the perfect
the dynamic explicit analysis. The buckling loads of the geometry by modifying the nodal coordinates. Finally, an
perfect shell obtained by the dynamic explicit method and
the modified Riks method are 66.1 kN and 69.1 kN respec-
tively. The load vs. end-shortening curves obtained by two
methods are shown in Fig. 4, which agree reasonably well
with the increase of the end-shortening before reaching the
point of buckling load. However, the computational cost
of such an explicit analysis is about three times of the one
of the modified Riks method. Consequently, although the
dynamic explicit analysis is able to obtain the buckling and
post-buckling deformation shapes of structure, the modified
Riks method is adopted for the buckling analyses and then
optimizations in this study for its reasonable accuracy and
high efficiency.

3.2 Response of cylindrical shell with a single dimple

imperfection considering various directions

For metallic shells, it should be noted that the single dimple

considered in this study is stress-free, slightly differing from
the dimple imperfection developed by Hühne et al. (2008),
because it is likely that any real geometrical imperfection
might be relatively stress-free, see Haynie and Hilburger
(2010). Thus, the single stress-free dimple shape is con-
sidered to be a more realistic imperfection, which may
be caused by a sudden impact during the manufacturing,
transporting, installation and serving processes of metallic
cylindrical shells.
The numerical analysis procedure can be divided into
three steps. In the first step, the displacement response
of the cylindrical shell is obtained by a nonlinear static

Fig. 6 Imperfection sensitivity curves for perturbation loads with Fig. 7 The distribution of five dimple positions along the axial
three directions direction (Z1–Z5)
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical shells using surrogate model 783

axial load is applied and then the evolution of buckling phe-

nomena, in terms of deformation, stress and strain, is traced
by the modified Riks method, until the structural collapse is
reached.
In this section, the influence of a single dimple imperfec-
tion with various directions on the load-carrying capacity of
cylindrical shells is investigated numerically. Specifically,
three perturbation load directions are considered, which are
along the r axis, at a 45-degree angle to the r axis in the
zr plane and rθ plane respectively. The resultant perturba-
tion loads can thus be decomposed into Nr , Nr and Nz , Nr
and Nθ respectively, as shown in Fig. 5. Then the imper-
fection sensitivity analyses based on the above perturbation
loads are carried out, and the curves of the component of
the perturbation load Nr vs. buckling load can be obtained,
as shown in Fig. 6. Results show that three curves agree Fig. 9 Perturbation load vs. imperfection amplitude curve for Z3
well, especially for the relatively small N, however, small
differences are found between three curves for the rela-
tively large N. In general, it can be concluded that the dimple positions along the axial direction need to be dis-
direction of the perturbation load has little effect on the cussed. Therefore, five positions are selected along the axial
buckling load of shells. This may be due to the fact that a direction to produce the single dimple imperfections indi-
cylindrical shell has the ability to resist the in-plane defor- vidually, as shown in Fig. 7. By varying the amplitudes
mation rather than the out-of-plane one, thus the cylindrical of perturbation loads, imperfection sensitivity curves can
shell is very sensitive to the radial perturbation load. For be plotted in Fig. 8 for five single dimple imperfections
this reason, only the radial perturbation load is discussed respectively.
below. As can be observed, for N < 10 N, the buckling loads
decrease significantly as the perturbation loads increase, and
3.3 Response of cylindrical shell with a single dimple the reductions of the buckling loads are similar for each
imperfection considering various positions dimple location. For 10 N< N < 30 N, the curves of Z2,
Z3 and Z4 are qualitatively similar, and the buckling loads
The effect of a single dimple imperfection with various posi- do not decrease with the further increase of the perturbation
tions is considered in this section. Since the cylindrical shell loads. For Z1 and Z5, the buckling loads firstly decrease and
is symmetrical along the circumferential direction, only the then increase as the perturbation loads increase. At N =

Fig. 8 Imperfection sensitivity curves of cylindrical shells with vary- Fig. 10 Imperfection sensitivity curves obtained by the dynamic
ing dimple positions (Z1–Z5) explicit method and the modified Riks method for Z1
784 B. Wang et al.

20 N, two local minimums of buckling loads (38.1 kN for
Z1 and 38.9 kN for Z5) are reached along the imperfection
sensitivity curves respectively. For N > 30 N, the buckling
loads almost do not decrease with the further increase in the
perturbation loads for each dimple location.
The relationship between the perturbation load N and
the amplitude of dimple imperfection w can be obtained, as
shown in Fig. 9. The maximal amplitude of the deviation
from the perfect geometry caused by the perturbation load
is 0.3 mm when N = 10 N (1.5 mm when N = 30 N,
3.7 mm when N = 60 N, 5.2 mm when N = 90 N).
Compared with the radius of 250 mm, the shell length
of 510 mm and the thickness of 0.5 mm, these imper-
fections when N < 30 N are relatively small and not

Table 1 Deformation shapes of the cylindrical shell by the dynamic explicit method with various perturbation loads and end-shortenings for Z1

N = 7.5 N N = 20 N N = 40 N

Ue =
0.332
mm

Ue =
0.357
mm

Ue =
0.382
mm

Ue =
0.407
mm

Ue
=0.433
mm

Ue =
0.458
mm

Ue =
0.483
mm
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical shells using surrogate model
Fig. 11 Profile of the dimple
imperfection caused by delta
function. a cross section of the
dimple imperfection; b FEM
model of the cylindrical shell
with the dimple imperfection
visible to be detected, thus considered to be realistic in
this study.
To further investigate the cause of the local minimum of
curves in Fig. 8, a series of dynamic explicit analyses are
performed for the load position Z1. The comparison of the
imperfection sensitivity curves obtained by two methods is
shown in Fig. 10, and the tendency of two curves is quite
similar. Additionally, since the dynamic explicit analysis is
able to obtain the post-buckling response of the structure,
the deformation shapes of three cylindrical shells which
stand for three key points along the imperfection sensitivity
curve are plotted in detail, as shown in Table 1. Specifi-
cally, at the onset of the imperfection sensitivity curve, e.g.
N = 7.5 N, the dimple shape does not result in a local
buckling with the increase of the end-shortening Ue , and
the global buckling occurs firstly at Ue = 0.458 mm cor-
responding to a buckling load of Pcr = 46.4 kN. When
N = 20 N, the imperfection sensitivity curve reaches a
minimum. For this case, the local buckling occurs at a low
level of the end-shortening. With the increase of the end-
shortening, the local buckling evolves into a global buckling
at Ue = 0.382 mm corresponding to a buckling load of
Fig. 12 Imperfection sensitivity curves of cylindrical shells with
varying diameters and amplitudes of imperfections
785
Pcr = 37.8 kN. After reaching this minimum, the imperfec-
tion sensitivity curve re-rises in a small amplitude and then
approximately converges. When N = 40 N, the trend of the
deformation shape is similar to the one of N = 20 N. The
difference is that the local buckling is relatively unstable and
spreads out wavelike at Ue = 0.382 mm for N = 20 N,
while the shell is still able to carry further load at Ue =
0.382 mm, and the local buckling evolves into a global fail-
ure rapidly at Ue = 0.407 mm for N = 40 N. In essence,
this difference may exist in the load path of such a redun-
dant structure under axial compression. A larger amplitude
of dimple imperfection usually results in a lower stiffness
and therefore a smaller compressive load for the region
around the dimple imperfection, while higher load may be
distributed to the region far away from the dimple imperfec-
tion. Therefore the total load-carrying capacity may instead
be higher in this case compared with the one of a smaller
amplitude of dimple imperfection. The lower bound of Pcr
given by these curves using the dynamic method and the
modified Riks method are 37.8 kN and 36.2 kN respectively.
In the previous works, a relatively large perturbation
load was chosen to determine the lower bound of the buck-
ling load. However, the above results indicate that a large
perturbation load may not lead to the lower bound of the
buckling load.
Fig. 13 Schematic of the shell elements in the interferential zone for
the cases of λ = 29, 30, 31 mm
786
Fig. 14 Schematic of the interferential zones of cylindrical shells
3.4 Response of cylindrical shell with a single delta
function imperfection
Considerable efforts have been put forth to determine ana-
lytically the effects of geometrical imperfections which are
described by mathematical models on the buckling response
of structures, ranging from the stability problem of columns
to the buckling of stiffened panels (Timoshenko and Gere
1961; Calladine 1983; Thompson and Hunt 1984; Croll
1995). Thus it is a natural way to develop a mathematical
model in order to describe the dimple imperfections in a
more general form. Based on the function to describe the
weld depression in the study of Rotter and Teng (1989),
a modified δ function can be expressed as (9) and (10) to
describe the circular dimple imperfection, which is assumed
to be in the shape of a circle, indicated by the round gray
area in Fig. 11.
πs
δa (s) = δ0 e−πs/λ cos (9)
λ of λ = 29 mm, several elements move out of the imper-
 Fig. 12. Though element refinement would be conductive
s= (Rθ − Rθ0 )2 + (z − z0 )2
where λ and δ0 are the diameter and amplitude of the dim-
ple imperfection, θ0 and z0 are the circumferential and axial
coordinates of the centre of the dimple imperfection, s is the
Fig. 15 Framework of the
proposed method
B. Wang et al.
distance between the node in the imperfect zone and the cen-
ter of the imperfection. The profile together with the FEM
model of such an imperfection is shown in Fig. 11.
In this study, three typical amplitudes of the dimple
imperfection are investigated, t, 3t and 5t respectively. The
center of the dimple imperfection is assumed to be located
at the mid-length of the shell along the axial direction. Then
the imperfection sensitivities of cylindrical shells with vary-
ing λ are analyzed, as shown in Fig. 12. Similar to the
dimple imperfection caused by the perturbation load, the
buckling loads drop sharply with the increase of λ on the
onset of three curves, then the buckling loads converge to
almost the same value when the diameter λ > 30 mm.
Finally, the lower bound of the buckling loads given by these
curves is 40.7 kN, which is close to the one given by the
curve of Z3 in Fig. 8 (Pcr = 41.0 kN).
It should be noted that the curve of δ0 = t in Fig. 12
shows a local minimum at λ = 30 mm. To investigate the
cause of this minimum, the buckling analyses of the cylin-
drical shells with three dimple imperfections (λ = 29, 30,
31 mm) are performed, and the buckling loads are 41.0,
40.7, 41.8 kN respectively. Finite elements are utilized to
discretize the cylindrical shell model, and the dimple imper-
fections are introduced by modifying the nodal coordinates
of the perfect geometry, as shown in√ Fig. 13. The ele-
ment size is chosen in the order of 0.5 Rt as proposed by
Meyer-Piening et al. (2001). For the case of λ = 30 mm,
approximately 30 elements fall into the imperfect zone. For
the case of λ = 31 mm, several elements near the bound-
ary fall into the imperfect zone. Otherwise, for the case
fect zone. This may cause numerical noises to the curve in
(10)
to the solution of this problem, however, the computa-
tional burden may cause serious concerns, especially for
the surrogate-based optimization. Fortunately, the buckling
loads with three imperfections (λ = 29, 30, 31 mm) are
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical shells using surrogate model 787

almost the same, which may not affect the perceptions of

the curve in Fig. 12.
For a practical structure, although it may suffer from a
“surface force” to cause a dimple, the dimple imperfection
caused by the perturbation load is considered to be sufficient
to represent the realistic dimple imperfection. Therefore
it is a natural way to find the lower bound of its load-
carrying capacity using the dimple imperfection caused by
the concentrated perturbation load, since the design vari-
ables involved in the optimization are the amplitude of the
perturbation load and the position numbers, while the diam-
eter and amplitude of the dimple imperfection together with Fig. 17 Schematic of the position number of the dimple imperfection
the imperfection positions should also be considered if the
δ function is used.
of such a post-buckling analysis is about 900 s, using a
This study aims to emphasize that it is a feasible way
computer with a CPU of P4 2.9 GHz and 16 G RAM.
to investigate the reduction of cylindrical shells based on
In addition, discrete variables (position number of each
a finite number of dimple imperfections for large-diameter
dimple imperfection) are involved in the determination of
launch vehicles. Therefore, the interaction between dimple
the realistic worst imperfection. Therefore, the gradient-
imperfections should be investigated. However, two adja-
based optimization method are not suitable, while discrete
cent dimple imperfections caused by the single δ function
optimization methods (e.g. Genetic Algorithm, Simulated
may be interferential, as shown in Fig. 14. This interfer-
Annealing Algorithm, integer programming, etc.) can be
ential zone is difficult to describe by a mathematic model.
employed. However, using these methods may require large
Besides, for a single dimple imperfection, which is near the
computational resources due to the large number of iter-
T-ring and thus may not be a whole one, e.g. near the posi-
ations to find an optimal solution, thus surrogate-based
tions of Z1 or Z5, the interferential zone is also hard to
technique is utilized to find the realistic worst imperfection
describe in this case.
in this study.
Fortunately, the calculation of the imperfection shape
The proposed method of the determination of the real-
caused by the perturbation load is a static analysis, whose
istic worst imperfection can be summarized as 4 steps, as
computation cost is negligible compared to the post-
outlined in Fig. 15. In Step 1, imperfection sensitivity anal-
buckling analysis. Consequently, the perturbation load is
ysis of cylindrical shell is performed using a single dimple
utilized to produce the dimple imperfection in the following
shape caused by the perturbation load. Then the relationship
study.
between the amplitudes of the perturbation load and dimple
imperfection can be obtained, e.g. as shown in Fig. 9. The
considered maximum imperfection amplitude and thus the
4 Determination of the realistic worst imperfection
for cylindrical shells

4.1 Framework of the proposed method

Post-buckling analysis is extremely time-consuming, espe-

cially for large-diameter structures. The computational time

Fig. 16 Schematic of the combination of load positions together with Fig. 18 Effect of the distance l on the buckling load of the cylindrical
Sa and Sc shell
788 B. Wang et al.

Table 2 Imperfect geometries of cylindrical shells with different l

l = 0 mm l = 20 mm l = 35 mm l = 40 mm l = 45 mm l = 50 mm l = 60 mm l = 80 mm

√
maximum perturbation load Nmax in the proposed method Sc = 3l/2 (12)
are determined according to the current fabrication quality
and detection tolerance. Meanwhile, the range of the per-
turbation load N, which is a variable of the surrogate-based L 2L
na = −1= −1 (13)
optimization, can be specified as [0, Nmax ]. In Step 2, a Sa 3l
combined dimple shape shown in Fig. 16 is introduced to
perform the imperfection sensitivity analysis, in which the 2πR 4πR
considered maximum imperfection amplitude and the cor- nc = = √ (14)
Sc 3l
responding perturbation load Nmax are adopted. By varying
where Sa and Sc are the distances of two adjacent load
the distance l (the distance between the circumcenter and
positions in the axial and circumferential directions respec-
each triangle vertex in Fig. 16) from zero, the curve rep-
tively, na and nc are the numbers of possible load positions
resenting the relationship between the buckling load and
in the axial and circumferential directions respectively. It
l can be plotted. The results in Section 3.2 indicate that
is obvious that the smaller l means more possible load
the buckling load almost does not decrease with the further
positions, higher calculation accuracy, and of course larger
increase of the perturbation load after the turning point of
design space. However, the requirement of more samples
the imperfection sensitivity curve (N > 30 N) (N = 30 N,
in the surrogate-based optimization due to the larger design
Pcr = 41.5 kN; N = 90 N, Pcr = 41.0 kN). Initially, the
space may cause serious concerns. Thus l is suggested to
buckling load of cylindrical shell with the combined dim-
take a value of le herein, and such a combined pattern is
ple imperfection would be close to the one obtained by the
approximately considered to represent a rational distance
single dimple imperfection, since three load positions are
between each load position, aiming to find the worst dimple
overlapped when l = 0 mm. Then, the buckling load would
imperfection based on three dimple imperfections.
vary with the increase of the distance l, and the distance l
Once Na and Nc are determined, each position where the
corresponding to the first minimum buckling load is referred
dimple imperfection may be produced is assigned with a
to as effective distance le . Such a combined pattern with
position number, as shown in Fig. 17. The position number
the effective distance is approximately expected to represent
a rational distance between each loads position, assuming
that the detrimental interaction of adjacent load positions
has been enveloped. Based on the effective distance le , the
spacing of load positions along the axial and circumferen-
tial directions Sa and Sc can be determined by (11) and (12).
Further, the numbers of possible load positions in the axial
and circumferential directions Na and Nc can be determined
by (13) and (14). Note that these load positions are assumed
to be evenly distributed in the shell.

Sa = l + 0.5l = 1.5l (11)

Table 3 Modeling errors of the RBF model

%RMSE %AvgErr %MaxErr

8.4 6.0 24.8 Fig. 19 Iterations of outer updates in the surrogate-based optimization
by the proposed method
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical shells using surrogate model
Fig. 20 History of relative error between the surrogate model and the
exact FEA
starts from the bottom of shell at 0◦ , and increases from
the bottom to the top along the axial direction, and then
increases along the circumferential direction.
The perturbation load N involved in the optimization
should be a variable, rather than a specific value, since the
curves in Fig. 8 indicate that the minimum buckling load
does not always occur at a higher perturbation load level.
The upper bound of the range for the perturbation load is
suggested to be equal to Nmax in Step 2, and the lower
bound can be selected as zero or some empirical small val-
ues. Also, the number of dimple imperfections involved in
the optimization needs to be determined. It should be noted
that the number of samples in DOE (design of experiment
in the surrogate-based optimization) to fit the approxima-
tion increases rapidly with the growing number of dimple
imperfections and design variables, the requirement of more
samples may cause serious concerns for such computation-
ally expensive problems. Fortunately, the cylindrical shells
with too many dimple imperfections would be considered
as substandard products in launch and space vehicles and
other industrial applications. Therefore, three dimple imper-
fections are expected to be adequate to represent the realistic
condition in this study. However, the influence of the num-
ber of dimple imperfections on the reduction of the buckling
load is an important subject that demands further research.
Fig. 21 Imperfect geometry of
the optimum result in an
expanded view by the proposed
method
789
With this information established, the design of experi-
ment can be carried out, and the involved variables include
the amplitude of the perturbation load N, and the position
numbers of the dimple imperfections (the number of dimple
imperfections takes a value of 3 herein). Finally, surrogate-
based optimization can be performed to find the realistic
worst imperfection for cylindrical shells. The formulation
of this optimization problem can be expressed as (15 to 17).
The optimization objective is to minimize the buckling load
of the cylindrical shell with combined dimple imperfections.
Lower and upper bound constraints are considered in (17)
Find : X = [N, N1, N2 , . . . , Nn ] (15)
Minimize : Pcr (16)
Subject to : Xil ≤ Xi ≤ Xiu , i = 1, 2, . . . , n + 1 (17)
where Nn is the position number of the nth load, as shown
in Fig. 17, Xil and Xiu are the lower and upper bounds of the
ith variable, including the amplitude of the perturbation load
N, and the position numbers of the dimple imperfections.
4.2 Illustrative example
The metallic cylindrical shell described in Section 3 is
employed to illustrate the proposed framework. The imper-
fection sensitivity curve of this shell is shown in Fig. 8.
Assuming that the fabrication and detection qualities have a
tolerance of three times of the skin thickness, the maximal
amplitude of imperfection is chosen as about 3t (1.5 mm),
corresponding to a perturbation load Nmax of 30 N, because
the buckling load almost does not decrease with the further
increase of the perturbation load when N > 30 N, while
the considerably larger perturbation load (N >> 30 N,
e.g. 500 N) is not taken into consideration, which would
be considered as substandard products in launch and space
vehicles and other industrial applications.
Based on this perturbation load, the imperfection sensi-
tivity analysis using the combined dimple shape is carried
out, with three load positions (N1 , N2 and N3 ) shown in
Fig. 16. As can be seen in Fig. 18, the minimum buckling
load occurs at l = 45 mm, referred to as le , and such a
790
Fig. 22 Iterations of generations by MIGA
combined pattern is approximately considered to represent
a rational distance between each load position, assuming
that the detrimental interaction of adjacent load positions
has been enveloped. The imperfect geometries of cylindri-
cal shells with different values of l caused by the combined
load pattern are listed in Table 2. The area where the radial
deviation value is larger than 0.5 mm (one skin thickness
of the cylindrical shell) is plotted in red, while the area
where the radial deviation value is less than 0.5 mm is
plotted in blue. It is evident that the red area is composed of
three main regions when l ≤ 40 mm, and the area of each
region decreases with the increase of l. Then, the number
of regions increases to 4 when l = 45 mm. Afterwards,
another different pattern is archived when l ≥ 50 mm,
in which the red area is composed of three small regions.
Referring to Fig. 18, the phenomenon of buckling mode
switching is found at l = 45 mm, and this imperfect geom-
etry pattern may be detrimental for cylindrical shells to
carry the axial load.
Then, a set of 100 sampling points is generated using
the OLHS throughout the design space, and RBF model
is constructed based on the sampling data. To evaluate the
accuracy of the surrogate model, another sample set com-
posed of 18 sampling points is generated by OLHS, and
then %RMSE, %AvgErr, and %MaxErr are calculated, as
Fig. 23 Imperfect geometry of
the optimum result in an
expanded view by MIGA
B. Wang et al.
shown in Table 3. As can be seen, %RMSE and %AvgErr
are under 10 %, which indicate an acceptable accuracy for
optimization. However, because the RBF model does not fit
well when the perturbation load is extremely small, %Max-
Err reaches a value of 24.8. Fortunately, the extremely small
load usually would not lead to a minimum buckling load.
Moreover, with the assistance of outer updates, new samples
are created, thus the fidelity of the surrogate model can be
improved continuously.
Once the surrogate model is built successfully, multi-
island genetic algorithm (MIGA) is adopted in the
surrogate-based optimization to find the optimum design.
For the sake of clarity, the iterations based on surrogate
model are removed, and only the history of outer update is
shown in Fig. 19, and the history of relative error between
the surrogate model and the exact FEA is provided in
Fig. 20. Initially, the accuracy of the surrogate model is rel-
atively low, thus the convergence curve shows somewhat
oscillation. With the assistance of outer updates and new
samples, the fidelity of the surrogate model is improved
continuously. Finally, the relative error between the results
obtained from the surrogate model and the ones from the
exact FEA is less than 0.1 %. It means that the final
optimum design has already been validated by the exact
FEA. For this illustrative example, the obtained minimum
buckling load is 29.1 kN, and the corresponding position
numbers of the dimple imperfections are 145, 235 and 269,
while the perturbation load is 17.3 N. The imperfect geom-
etry of the optimum design in an expanded view is shown in
Fig. 21.
4.3 Comparison with traditional methods
To demonstrate that the optimum design obtained by the
proposed method is potentially close to the global optimum,
MIGA is directly employed to find the global optimum
(or quasi-global optimum) design throughout the design
space. The numbers of islands, generations, and population
per island are equally set as 10. The total number of runs
is 1,000, and the iterations of each generation are plotted in
Fig. 22.
The obtained minimum buckling load is 29.2 kN, and
the corresponding position numbers of the dimple imper-
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical shells using surrogate model
Table 4 KDFs obtained by
different methods Mode shape imperfection
1st 10th
0.30 0.28
fections are 158, 180 and 271, while the perturbation load is
18.1 N. The imperfect geometry of the optimum design in
an expanded view obtained by MIGA is shown in Fig. 23.
Although the position numbers are not exactly the same
as the ones obtained by the proposed method, the two
worst imperfection cases have the similar relative distances
between each load position. Because the cylindrical shell is
cyclic symmetry along the circumferential direction, only
the relative positions of each load have the influence on the
load-carrying capacity of the cylindrical shell.
From the point-of-view of computational cost, the pro-
posed method has a significant advantage, as the total runs
of the exact FEA is 113 and the total computational time is
about 103,000 s, while MIGA needs 600 runs of the exact
FEA for a quasi-optimum design and 1,000 runs for the
optimum design, and accordingly the computational time is
about 900,000 s, thus 797,000 s savings are achieved by the
proposed method.
KDF = 1 − 0.901(1 − e−φ )
 among the six selected ones, since the KDF obtained by the
φ= R/t/16
Also, KDF obtained by NASA SP-8007 using (18) and (19)
is 0.32, as listed in Table 4. In the proposed study, KDF is
defined as
KDF = Pimp /Pcr
where Pimp is the lower bound of the buckling loads of
imperfect cylindrical shells. It is evident that NASA SP-
Fig. 24 Different orders of
eigen-mode shapes (1st, 10th,
20th, 30th, 40th, 50th)
791
NASA SP-8007 MIGA Proposed method
20th 30th 40th 50th
0.39 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.32 0.42 0.42
8007 is relatively conservative, and the proposed method
has the possibility of reducing the conservatism of KDF.
In practice, industry practice tends to rely on experi-
ments to determine the KDFs. However, it is economically
unsustainable and impossible to obtain KDFs entirely
dependent on experiments, especially for large-scale struc-
tures. Numerical methods as well as virtual experiments are
promising to assist and guide the experiments, then further
provide a reference for the improved KDFs. For the pur-
pose of comparison, the imperfections of different order
eigen-mode shapes which are generally utilized to assess the
imperfection sensitivity of thin-walled structures are also
considered, as shown in Fig. 24. The lower bound of the
buckling load can be obtained by varying the maximum
amplitude of imperfection from 0 to 0.5 mm (one skin thick-
ness) for each mode order, and then the KDFs can be derived
subsequently, as listed in Table 4. It is worth noting that the
KDF obtained by the first order eigen-mode shape is even
lower than the one obtained by NASA SP-8007, however,
(18)
the first order eigen-mode shape is also not the worst one
(19)
10th order eigen-mode shape is 0.28.
Furthermore, another two cylindrical shells with shell
length L = 1, 020 and 255 mm are established. Aside
from the parameter L, all the other parameters are identical
with the previous shell, including the boundary condition
(20) and loading pattern. Comparison of KDFs obtained by the
imperfections of different order eigen-mode shapes for three
shells can be observed from Fig. 25. As can be seen, the
first order eigen-mode shape is not the worst one for each
792
Fig. 25 Comparison of KDFs obtained by imperfections of different
orders of eigen-mode shapes
shell. Thus it is practically hard to choose the order of eigen-
mode in an imperfection sensitivity analysis. Besides, from
a point of experimental view, the eigen-mode shape imper-
fection is difficult to fabricate and process for validation.
By contrast, dimple imperfections are more realistic in
engineering practice, and the authors believe that it is a
feasible way to investigate the reduction of cylindrical
shells based on a finite number of dimple imperfections for
large-diameter launch vehicles.
5 Conclusion
Dimple imperfections are selected as the subject of this
study, based on the consideration that this type of imper-
fections is probably produced in the processes of manufac-
turing, transporting and installation of structures. It should
be noted that the cylindrical shells with too large amplitude
of imperfections or too many dimple imperfections are not
the scope of concerns in this paper. since these shells would
be considered as substandard products in launch and space
vehicles and other industrial applications.
Firstly, the influence of a single dimple imperfection on
the load-carrying capacity of cylindrical shells is investi-
gated by varying the amplitudes, directions and positions of
the imperfection. Results show that the direction of the per-
turbation load has little effect on the buckling load of shells.
This may be due to the fact that a cylindrical shell has the
ability to resist the in-plane deformation rather than the out-
of-plane one. Since the cylindrical shell is very sensitive to
the radial perturbation load, only the radial perturbation load
needs to be considered in the design optimization. From the
analyses of cylindrical shells with a single dimple imper-
fection considering various positions, it is also found that a
B. Wang et al.
large perturbation load may not lead to the lower bound of
the buckling load.
Then, a single δ function is introduced to describe the
profile of the dimple imperfection in a more general form,
aiming to analyze conveniently the effect of the imper-
fect zone area on the load-carrying capacity of cylindrical
shells. It is evident that the lower bounds of buckling loads
obtained by use of the δ function and the concentrated per-
turbation load are potentially close. Therefore it is a natural
way to find the lower bound of its load-carrying capacity
using the dimple imperfection caused by the concentrated
perturbation load, due to the less variables and more robust
solution.
Engineering practice tends to rely on experiments to
determine the knockdown factors (KDFs), which are
extremely related to the structural parameters, material sys-
tems, manufacturing technology, etc. However, it is eco-
nomically unsustainable and impossible to obtain KDFs
entirely dependent on experiments, especially for large-
scale structures. Therefore, a surrogate-based optimization
framework of determining the worst realistic imperfection is
proposed to investigate the reduction of the buckling load of
cylindrical shells based on a finite number of dimple imper-
fections, and the main motivation of this study is to assist
and guide the experiments and thus provide a reference for
improving KDFs.
Finally the effectiveness of the surrogate-based optimiza-
tion framework is demonstrated by an example. Results
indicate that the proposed framework is more efficient
to find the realistic lower bound of the buckling load
compared with the direct optimization using MIGA. Fur-
thermore, since it is known that NASA SP-8007 is rel-
atively conservative, the proposed method has the pos-
sibility of reducing the conservatism of KDFs. Com-
pared with the eigen-mode shape imperfections, the dimple
imperfections are more realistic and physical meaningful,
as well as convenient for fabrication and validation by
experiments.
Acknowledgments The research is supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (91216201, 11128205) and 973
Program (No. 2011CB610304).
Additionally, C. Huang and X. H., Tang from Beijing Institute
of Astronautical Systems Engineering are much appreciated for their
helpful comments and suggestions.
References
ABAQUS Standard User’s Manual Version 6.7 (2008) Hibbit,
Karlsson and Sorensen Inc. Pawtucket, Abaqus
Anonymous (1968) Buckling of thin-walled circular cylinders. NASA
space vehicle design criteria. [NASA SP-8007]
Determination of realistic worst imperfection for cylindrical shells using surrogate model
Arbocz J, Hol JM (2005) On a verified high-fidelity anal-
ysis for axially compressed orthotropic shells. In: 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics
and Materials Conference, Austin, TX, [AIAA-2005-2302]
Arbocz J, Starnes JH (2002) Future directions and challenges in shell
stability analysis. Thin-Walled Struct 40(9):729–754
Arbocz J, Williams JG (1977) Imperfection surveys on a 10-ft-
diameter shell structure. AIAA J 15(7):949–952
Biagi M, Medico FD (2008) Reliability-based knockdown factors
for composite cylindrical shells under axial compression. Thin-
Walled Struct 46(12):1351–1358
Bushnell D (1981) Buckling of shells—pitfall for designers. AIAA J
19(9):1183–1226
Bushnell D, Bushnell WD (1996) Approximate method for the opti-
mum design of ring and stringer stiffened cylindrical panels and
shells with local, inter-ring, and general buckling modal imperfec-
tions. Comput Struct 59(3):489–527
Calladine CR (1983) Theory of shell structures. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Calladine CR (1995) Understanding imperfection-sensitivity in the
buckling of thin-walled shells. Thin-Walled Struct 23(1–4):215–
235
Crisfield MA (1981) A fast incremental/iteration solution procedure
that handles ‘snap-through’. Comput Struct 13(1–3):55–62
Croll JGA (1995) Towards a rationally based elastic–plastic shell
buckling design methodology. Thin-Walled Struct 23(1–4):
67–84
Croll JGA, Batista RC (1981) Explicit lower bounds for buckling of
axially loaded cylinders. Int J Mech Sci 23(6):331–343
Croll JGA, Ellinas CP (1983) Reduced stiffness axial load buckling of
cylinders. Int J Solids Struct 19(5):461–477
Degenhardt R, Kling A, Bethge A, Orf J, Karger L, Zimmermann
R, Rohwer K, Calvi A (2010) Investigations on imperfection
sensitivity and deduction of improved knock-down factors for
unstiffened CFRP cylindrical shells. Compos Struct 92(8):1939–
1946
Deml M, Wunderlich W (1997) Direct evaluation of the ‘worst’ imper-
fection shape in shell buckling. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
149(1–4):201–222
Elishakoff I (1983) How to introduce the imperfection-sensitivity
concept into design. In: Thompson JMT, Hunt GW (eds) Col-
lapse: the buckling of structures in theory and practice. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Elishakoff I (2000) Uncertain buckling: its past, present and future. Int
J Solids Struct 37(46–47):6869–6889
Elishakoff I (2012) Probabilistic resolution of the twentieth century
conundrum in elastic stability. Thin-Walled Struct 59:35–57
Elishakoff I, Arbocz J (1982) Reliability of axially compressed cylin-
drical shells with random axisymmetric imperfections. Int J Solids
Struct 18(7):563–585
Elishakoff I, Li YW, Starnes JH Jr (2001) Non-classical problems
in the theory of elastic stability. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Eurocode 3 (1999) Design of steel structures, Part 1.6: General
rules-supplementary rules for the strength and stability of shell
structures. CEN, Brussels
Gutmann HM (2001) A radial basis function method for global
optimization. J Global Optim 19(3):201–227
Hao P, Wang B, Li G (2012) Surrogate-based optimum design
for stiffened shells with adaptive sampling. AIAA J 50(11):2389–
2407
Hardy RL (1971) Multiquadric equations of topography and other
irregular surfaces. J Geophys Res 76(8):1905–1915
Haynie WT, Hilburger MW (2010) Comparison of methods to predict
lower bound buckling loads of cylinders under axial compression.
793
In: 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, Orlando, FL, [AIAA-2010-
2532]
Haynie WT, Hilburger MW (2012) Validation of lower-bound
estimates for compression-loaded cylindrical shells. 53rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics
and Materials Conference, Honolulu, [AIAA-2012-1689]
Hilburger MW, Starnes JH (2004) Effects of imperfections of
the buckling response of composite shells. Thin-Walled Struct
42(3):369–397
Hilburger MW, Nemeth MP, Starnes JH (2004). Shell buckling
design criteria based on manufacturing imperfection signatures.
[NASA/TM-2004-212659]
Hrinda GA (2010) Effects of shell-buckling knockdown factors in
large cylindrical shells. In: 5th International Conference on High
Performance Structures and Materials, Tallinn, Estonia
Hühne C, Rolfes R, Breitbach E, Teßmer J (2008) Robust design of
composite cylindrical shells under axial compression-simulation
and validation. Thin-Walled Struct 46(7):947–962
Hunt GW, Lord GJ, Peletier MA (2003) Cylindrical shell buckling:
a characterization of localization and periodicity. Discret Contin
Dyn Syst 3(4):505–518
Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of meta-
modelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct
Multidisc Optim 23(1):1–13
Koiter WT, Elishakoff I, Li YW, Starnes JH (1994) Buckling of an axi-
ally compressed cylindrical shell of variable thickness. Int J Solids
Struct 31(6):797–805
Lanzi L (2004) Composite stiffened panels in post buckling: exper-
iments and dynamic explicit analyses with LS-DYNA. In: 30th
European rotorcraft forum, Marseilles, France
Lindgaard E, Lund E (2011) Optimization formulations for the max-
imum nonlinear buckling load of composite structures. Struct
Multidisc Optim 43(5):631–646
Lindgaard E, Lund E, Rasmussen K (2010) Nonlinear buckling
optimization of composite structures considering “worst” shape
imperfections. Int J Solids Struct 47(22–23):3186–3202
Mandal P, Calladine CR (2000) Buckling of thin cylindrical
shells under axial compression. Int J Solids Struct 37(33):
4509–4525
Meyer-Piening HR, Farshad M, Geier B, Zimmermann R (2001) Buck-
ling loads of CFRP composite cylinders under combined axial and
torsion loading—experiments and computations. Compos Struct
53(4):427–436
Papadopoulos V, Papadrakakis M (2004) Finite element analysis of
cylindrical panels with random initial imperfections. J Eng Mech
130(8):867–876
Papadopoulos V, Papadrakakis M (2005) The effect of material and
thickness variability on the buckling load of shells with random
initial imperfections. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194(12–
16):1405–1426
Papadopoulos V, Stefanou G, Papadrakakis M (2009) Buckling anal-
ysis of imperfect shells with stochastic non-Gaussian material and
thickness properties. Int J Solids Struct 46(14–15):2800–2808
Powell G, Simons J (1981) Improved iterative strategy for nonlinear
structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 17(10):1455–1467
Prabu B, Raviprakash AV, Venkatraman A (2010) Parametric study
on buckling behaviour of dented short carbon steel cylindrical
shell subjected to uniform axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct
48(8):639–649
Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Geol T, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker PK
(2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp
Sci 41(1):1–28
Rotter J, Teng J (1989) Elastic stability of cylindrical shells with weld
depressions. J Struct Eng 115(5):1244–1263
794
Sosa EM, Godoy LA, Croll JGA (2006) Computation of lower-bound
elastic buckling loads using general-purpose finite element codes.
Comput Struct 84(29–30):1934–1945
Teng JG, Song CY (2001) Numerical models for nonlinear analysis
of elastic shells with eigenmode-affine imperfections. Int J Solids
Struct 38(18):3263–3280
Thompson JMT, Hunt GW (1984) Elastic instability phenomena.
Wiley, Chicester
Timoshenko SP, Gere JM (1961) Theory of elastic stability. McGraw-
Hill, New York
B. Wang et al.
Venter G, Haftka RT (1997) Response surface approximations for
fatigue life prediction. In: 38th AIAA/ASME/AHS/ASC Struc-
tures, Structural Dynamic, and Materials Conf., Kissimmee, FL,
[AIAA-1997-1331]
Wang B, Hao P, Du KF, Li G (2011) Knockdown factor based on
imperfection sensitivity analysis for stiffened shells. Int J Aerosp
Light Struct 1(2):315–333
Wang B, Hao P, Li G, Du KF (2012) Surrogate-based optimization of
stiffened shells including load-carrying capacity and imperfection
sensitivity. Thin-Walled Struct (submitted)