DESIGN OF POLYMER COMPOSITE SHELL STRUCTURES FOR UNMANNED

UNDERWATER VEHICLE APPLICATIONS

Ph.D thesis submitted to VTU, Belgaum

by
MOORTHY G 1RV07PMM01

Under The Guidance Of

Dr. H. N. NARASIMHA MURTHY
Prof. and Dean – PG Studies (Mechanical)

Undertaken at
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
Department of Mechanical
R.V. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Bangalore
Outlines of the Presentation
 Status of UUV- Global scenario
 Status of UUV- Indian scenario Materials considered for UUV structures
 Literature Review Research Objectives
 Proposed approaches for buckling behaviour
 Comparative Study of Metallic and Polymer
 Composites for Underwater Structures
 Buckling Response of Polymer Composite Shells by FEA
 Experimental Buckling Response of composite shells
 Von-Mises stresses of cylindrical shells by RSM
 Buckling Response of Cylindrical Shells under combined hydrostatic and
axial loading by FEA
 Conclusions and Scope
 References
Status of UUV- Global scenario
• UUV used for survey and inspection activities
of the ocean

• Oceanographic studies; underwater inspection

and maintenance; and surveillance and
security.

• Global MARKET $1.2 billion in 2014 and is

expected to register a CAGR of 20.11% in
2019.
• Demands - With the evolution of technology,
better endurance, miniaturization, and
enhanced payloads- UUV are efficiently used
for undersea activities.
• Defense and oceanographic studies will remain
a major sector for AUV
• Asia-Pacific, Latin American, and African
regions will prove to be emerging markets
for the Unmanned Underwater Vehicles.
• SAAB (Sweden), Fugro (The Netherlands),
Oceaneering (U.S.), will be the market
leaders that occupy a significant market
share for ROV.

• Kongsberg (Norway), Teledyne (U.S.),

Bluefin Robotics (U.S.), and Atlas
Elekronik (Germany), will be the leaders in
the AUV market.
Status of UUV- Global scenario…

Estimated ROV market growth Estimated AUV market growth

UUV demand by region 2011-2015 Present UUV market share by companies

 Status of UUV- Indian scenario
MAYA – India’s first
India tested AUV, Feb 17, 2010. Indigenously developed AUV Sea trials of AUV

Specifications
Depth of Operation: 100 m-150 m
Material: Al alloy (Special grade)
Speed:2-4 Knots
Modular in Design
Degree of Freedom:5,
Stable against roll
Energy system: Li- polymer battery
Mission time: 4-6 hours
Navigation and payload sensors
Intelligent controllers
Network-based distributed control
system
Acoustic and radio frequency
communication
January 3, 2011
• ‘AUV-150' was developed by
Robotics and Automation division
of CSIR-CMERI under the
leadership of S.N. Shome.
• CSIR-CMERI held numerous
April 29, 2013 meetings with experts from IIT-
Kharagpur and NIOT during the
development of the vehicle.
• Institution like IITs, NIOT, NPOL,
CMERI, NRB, NSTL, RVCE,
Chocin University are involved in
UUV vehicle research.
 Materials considered for UUV structures
• High buoyancy for better maneuverability,

• Should be immersed underwater for long periods without corrosion related problem

• Should have good sound absorption ability for performing military operations in stealth mode,
etc.

• Steel, Aluminium and Titanium are some of the traditional choices used for UUV structures,
which usually requires one or more tradeoffs between above mentioned requirements.

• For example, in case of Trieste Bathyscaphe, the heavy weight of the thick hull had to be
compensated by using huge gasoline container to increase buoyancy.

• To account for corrosion related problems sophisticated coatings or expensive titanium had to
be used many researcher.

• Composites materials have good buoyancy which increases maneuverability of UUV’s, have
lower weight to strength ratios which helps to achieve long endurance a greater depth,

• Most important of all is their resistance to corrosion, have good acoustic transparency, besides
many others.
Literature Review…
Polymer Matrix Composites (PMC) as UUVstructural materials
PMCs have several advantages over metallic materials for UUV structural applications. Hence, globally research is focused
on studying the behaviour of UUVs using PMCs.

Major advantages of PMCs include high specific stiffness, weight saving up to 50 % when compared with Al and up to
80% when compared with steel, excellent corrosion and chemical resistance, better design flexibility, cost effective
production of complex 3D structure, improved acoustic performance and low maintenance.

Potential polymeric resins for these applications include polyester, isopolyester, epoxy, vinylester, phenolics and the fibre
reinforcements include glass, carbon and Kevlar.

Fibre materials used for marine applications are glass, aramid (Kevlar), and carbon.

E-glass being cost effective is widely used in naval structures. Carbon fibres possess greater elastic modulus, fatigue
strength and service life than those of glass fibres. Hence, carbon fibres outperform aramid and glass fibres.

C.S.Smith [8] examined UUVs using GFRP and CFRP with epoxy as resin for buckling, creep, compressive fatigue,
impact strength and effect of prolonged immersion combined with pressure.

Tanguy et. al. [9, 10] analyzed thin walled composite vessels made of GFRP and CFRP with epoxy as resin using
numerical tool and correlated the results with experimental and analytical methods.

Derek Graham [11, 12] developed a large scale model of deep diving pressure hull using CFRP and tested the model for a
depth of over 6 km.

V. Carvelli et. al. [13] tested glass/polyester shells in sea to verify the reliability of analytical and numerical tools. Chul-
Jin Moon et. al. [14] performed numerical and experimental buckling for filament wound CFRP cylinders subjected to
hydrostatic pressure for UUV applications.
Design considerations of UUV Structures
UUV structures have to withstand high external pressure. They are generally composed of conical,
spherical, cylindrical and elliptical profiles and fail mainly due to buckling.

Cylindrical and elliptical profiles are more prone to buckling than spherical and conical profiles because of
greater slenderness [13]. Authors [9, 10, 13 - 24] reported design of UUV considering thick [14, 22] and
thin [9, 13, 17, and 19] shells.

Filament winding is widely adopted for fabricating UUV structures along with optimization of winding
angle for buckling resistance.

Chul-Jin Moon et.al. [14] studied combination of helical and hoop winding and bonding of metal flanges
for assembly.

C.T.F. Ross et.al. [15] reported that the composite structures experienced two forms of buckling, namely,
shell instability (or non-symmetric bifurcation buckling) and general instability.

Tanguy Messager et.al. [9] reported [902/60/305/60/90] as optimized stacking sequence.

Seong-Hwa Hur et.al. [16] reported fastening of the components by bolted joints along with adhesive for
leak proof joints.

S. Srinivasanet.al. [19] reported the effect of uncertainties in geometric and material parameters in the
manufacture of filament wound composite laminate tubes on matrix-dominated first ply failure.
8
H. Herna´ndez-Moreno et. al. [23] reported that ± 55o is the optimal winding angle for buckling resistance.
Design Approaches of UUV structures
Numerical approach
Several authors reported prediction of buckling pressure of underwater vehicles by FEA
approach.

Both commercial and in-house codes are adopted for the investigation. While authors [10, 13,
15 -17, 19, 21, 22, 24] used ANSYS, others such as [25, 38] employed ABAQUS, authors [14,
16] adopted MSC. NASTRAN. A few authors [14] developed in-house codes for buckling
analysis and for validating the results obtained by commercial codes.

While authors [14, 16 - 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 ] examined the performance of cylindrical part of
underwater vehicles by applying pure hydrostatic load, others [10,13,19,21] used combined
hydrostatic and axial loads in addition to pure hydrostatic loads.

Discretisation by elements such as CQUAD4 in MSC [14], Shell 93 and Beam 44 elements [15],
Shell181 and solid element Solsh190 [17] and shell 99 [21] is performed.

There is a general agreement on the application of boundary conditions. One end of the cylinder
is completely fixed with all degrees of freedom set at zero while the other end is left free. While
most of the authors analysed for critical buckling pressure, a few authors reported quasistatic
loading.

Tanguy Messager et. al. [10] reported analysis for first ply failure based on Tsai-Wu criterion. S.
Srinivasan et. al. [19] reported probabilistic analysis by ANSYS to predict first-ply failure of
angle-ply composite laminate tubes under combined internal pressure and axial loading.
 Review of Buckling Studies of Underwater Vessels
Load Nature of Material Element
References Model Considerations
Considerations analysis Considerations Considerations
Chul-Jin Moon external hydrostatic Linear and non-
Thick walled cylinders CFRP Four node elements
et. al. [14] pressure linear FE analysis
Tanguy Thin composite Mindlin composite
Non-linear FEM Carbon/ epoxy
Messager et. Filament wound Hydrostatic pressure laminated shell
stability analysis and glass/ epoxy
al. [9] cylinder elements
Axial stresses Numerical non- E-glass woven
V. Carvelli et. Underwater vehicle-
considered in linear buckling roving with 6800 shell elements
al. [13] assembly
hydrostatic pressure analysis polyester resin
Seong-Hwa External hydrostatic Linear and non- Carbon-epoxy 8-node laminated
Composite cylinders
Hur et. al. [16] pressure linear FE analysis prepreg tape shell, Element 139
Myung-Hun Filament-wound External hydrostatic Nonlinear composite carbon Shell 181 and the solid
Kim et. al [17] composite cylinder pressure buckling analysis fiber T700 Solsh190
Hae-Young Cylindrical composite Buckling pressure Linear and
Jung et. al. vessel hulls installed and external nonlinear Carbon fiber T700 Shell181
[20] with steel flange hydrostatic pressure buckling analysis
Composite long Static analysis
Baoping Cai External hydrostatic Carbon-epoxy Shell element
cylinders and steel and buckling
et. al. [21] pressure composite SHELL99
flanges analysis
Khairul Izman Circular cylindrical External
Aluminium alloy Iso- parametric solid
Abdul Rahim shape with end caps hydrodynamic Buckling analysis
6061-T6 element
et. al. [7] closure pressure
Tanguy Hybrid, composite
Thin- walled laminated Linear buckling Carbon-epoxy
Messanger External pressure laminated, shell
cross-ply cylinders analysis composite
[10] element
Review of Experimental studies of buckling
• Experimental studies are vital for investigating the buckling behaviour of
underwater vehicles.

• Many authors [1, 9, 13, 23, 26 - 32] reported hydrostatic buckling of composite or
metallic shells by applying pressure using oil or water in the chamber.

• C.T.F Ross et. al. [1] reported a scheme of mounting eleven strain gauges in
circumferential and longitudinal directions and the same is implemented by G.
Forasassi et.al. [27] with instrumentation for measuring strain data.

• Material, geometrical imperfections, winding pattern, shell thickness are some of

the main parameters reported to influence the buckling performance.

• Glass/epoxy and carbon/epoxy are the main candidate polymer composites

investigated for buckling.

• Andrew P.F et. al. [26] reported that the numerical and analytical results deviated
especially for shorter tubes. Thus, buckling is sensitive to the geometrical
parameters of the shells.
11
Review of CFD Approach
• More recently, CFD methods are used by Philips et al.[18] to predict the dynamic stability of
UUVs.

• Yamamoto [33] proposed use of CFD tools to optimize the shape of the vehicles in the
design phase.

• Hongwei Zhang et.al. [34] carried out dynamic behaviour of an indigenously developed
UUV using multibody system dynamics, and estimated hydrodynamic coefficients
employing empirical, experimental and CFD methods.

• Simulation and experimental results showed that multibody system dynamics is an efficient
tool to analyze the vessels with complex attached bodies.

• Ettore A. de Barros et.al [35] performed comparative study of analytical and semi-empirical
methods and CFD methods for the prediction of normal force and moment for UUV
considering full range of angle of attack and sideslip that may occur during typical
manoeuvres. The predicted parameters by both the approaches were compared with the
experimental results obtained by towing tank tests. 12
Review of CFD Approach
• Wu Jianguo et.al. [36] investigated hydrodynamic effects of the main parts of a hybrid-
driven underwater glider especially in the glide mode.

• Authors analysed three main hydrodynamic parts, namely, the wings, the rudders and also
the propeller and discussed the characteristics of drag, glide efficiency and stability.

• CFD methods are expected to play an increasingly important role in the design of more
advanced, hydrodynamically efficient UUVs

• CFD simulation, helps to estimate pressure distribution and the flow characteristics in
critical points of the vehicle.

Literature gap
• Review of literature [1- 36] on the design for buckling of underwater vessels revealed that
research efforts have been concentrated on exploring polymer composites as advanced
materials for the existing metallic alloys.

• However, comparative buckling performance of underwater vessels considering metallic

and polymer composite structures are scarcely reported.
13
Literature gap…
• Most of the authors adopted numerical approach using Block Lancoz method for predicting the
critical buckling pressure of underwater vessels.

• But static analysis for predicting stresses and strains in the elastic range and investigation of
buckling behaviour of underwater vessels under combined hydrostatic and axial loads are scarcely
reported.

• Also, such studies considering velocity of the vessels are not yet reported.

• Thus, the main objective of this research was to investigate the performance of polymer matrix
composite underwater vessels for buckling considering the existing metallic vessel (length 1650
mm and inner diameter 350 mm) operated at sea depth of 1000 m

• by experimental, numerical and analytical approaches.

14
 Research Objectives
 Comparative buckling performance of metallic and polymer composite underwater vessels for
cylindrical vessels of length 1650 mm and 350 mm inner diameter by numerical approach.

 Predicting CBP, stresses and strains of polymer composite cylindrical vessels of 1:2 scale model
(carbon / vinylester and glass / vinylester for 10 mm and 15 mm thick vessels with ± 550 fibre
orientation) in static condition by using FEA

 Fabricating cylindrical shells (glass / vinylester) of dimensions 825 mm length, 175 mm ID and 15 mm
and 10 mm thickness and ± 550 fibre orientations by Filament Winding method.

 Performing buckling test using the Buckling tester for the Filament Wound tubes made of glass /
vinylester with fibre orientation ± 550 and determining corresponding strains.

 Computing stresses analytically based on the experimental strain data for the cylinders by using
Reduced Stiffness Matrix

 Predicting the buckling performance of underwater vessels under combined external pressure and axial
loads.

 Predicting the Buckling behaviour of underwater cylindrical vessels in moving condition by FEA using
ANSYS.12 FLOTRAN CFD

 Validation of Experimental, Analytical, and FEA results.

 Proposed approaches for buckling behaviour of cylindrical shells
for UUV application
Comparative buckling performance of metallic and polymer composite underwater vessels by FEA

Buckling Response of Polymer Composite Shells by FEA

 Proposed approaches..
Experimental Buckling Response of composite shells

Von-Mises stresses of cylindrical shells by RSM

 Proposed approaches..
Buckling Response of Cylindrical Shells under combined hydrostatic and axial
loading by FEA

Buckling behaviour of underwater vessel in moving condition by FEA

 Comparative Study of Metallic and Polymer Composites
for Underwater Structures
Representive model:
• Diameter = 350 mm,
• Length = 1650 mm.
• Thickness for each material
was selected for a CBP of 10 MPa.

Materials considered: Material properties of metallic structure of underwater vessels [8]

• high strength steel (HY 80),
Material Young's Modulus Poisson's Ratio Specific density
• titanium alloy (Ti5),
(GPa) (g/cc)
• aluminum alloy (Al 7075),
(HY 80) 207 0.29 7.85
• glass/ vinylester
(Al 7075) 71.7 0.33 2.7
• carbon/ vinylester composites.
(Ti 5) 119 0.32 4.4

Material properties of the polymer composites considered for underwater vessels [9]

Composite Material Elastic Constant

E1 E2 E3 12 23 13 G12 G23 G13 Specific
GPa GPa Density, g/cc
carbon/ vinylester 156 9.56 6.57 0.27 0.492 0.34 5.47 2.8 3.92 2.1

glass/ vinylester 45.6 16.2 16.2 0.27 0.49 0.278 5.83 5.83 5.78 1.7

19
• Meshing:
shells of metallic vessels: SHELL63
Isotropic material properties
Poisson’s ratio
Shells of PMC: SHELL 99, Shell99 (Ref. ANSYS user manual)
linear Layered Structural Shell Element with 8-node,
3-D shell element with 6 DOF at each node.
Orthotropic Material Properties
• Loading and Boundary Condition:
Fixed along the cylinder ends Boundary conditions
External pressure of Pa =1 MPa
• Solution:
Static and buckling analyses to find CBP, Pcr.

Uniform external pressure 20

 results indicated weight savings of 46 % for carbon/epoxy and 31 % in
glass / epoxy when compared with HY80
Material HY 80 Ti 5 Al 7075 Carbon/ Glass/
Vinylester vinylester
Thickness 6.75 8.25 12 15 18
(mm)
Weight 19 13.5 13.3 10 13.2
(Kg)

Thickness of shells corresponding to Weight of shell structures for

CBP of 10 MPa CBP of 10 MPa

21
Buckling Response of Polymer Composite
Shells by FEA….
• Based on numerical studies of C.T.F. Ross et.al.[2] S. Srinivasan et.al.[11] ANSYS
SHELL - Linear Layer 99 with Fiber Orientation 550, -550 is considered for analysis.

ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL Block Lancoz Buckling Analysis

PROPERTIES:
Buckling analysis in ANSYS was carried out using
Elastic Constant Glass/ Vinylester BLOCK LANCOZ method to extract the Eigen
E1 45.6 GPa values to predict the critical buckling pressure. The
E2 16.2 GPa Block Lancoz method is the best of all the methods
E3 16.2 GPa and it is recommended for most applications
G12 5.83 GPa
because of the following reasons:
G13 5.83 GPa
• Efficient extraction of large number of modes
(40+) in most models.
G23 5.78 GPa
• Typically used in complete models with mixture
V12 0.27
of solids/shells/beams etc.
V23 0.49
• Efficient extraction of modes in a frequency
V13 0.278
range.
Specific Density 1.7
• Handles rigid-body modes well.
 Shell structure of UUV Meshed model of cylindrical structure Meshed model with boundary conditions

Meshed model with uniform external pressure CBP for 10 mm thick vessel CBP for 15 mm thick vessel
CBP = Frequency X Applied Pressure CBP = Frequency X Applied Pressure

= 5.169 X 2.5 = 13.639 X 2.5

= 12.92 MPa = 34.09 MPa

 Static analysis – Stresses and Strains
• Static analysis was performed in ANSYS to determine the
stresses and strains for the cylindrical structures.
FEA strains for 10 mm and 15 mm thick vessels FEA stresses for 10 mm and 15 mm thick vessels

Pressure FEA Micro-strain – Pressure FEA Micro- Pressure FEA stresses – Pressure FEA stresses –
15 mm thick
(bar) 10 mm thick vessel (bar) strain – 15 mm (bar) 10 mm thick (bar) vessel (MPa)
25 715 thick vessel vessel (MPa) 25 23.679
50 1429 25 585 25 37.011 50 47.358
75 2144 50 933 50 74.023 75 71.037
85 2430 75 1399 75 111.034 100 94.716
95 2716 100 1866 85 125.838 125 118.395
105 3002 125 2332 95 140.643 150 142.074
110 3145 150 2799 105 155.447 160 151.546
115 3287 160 2985
 Experimental Buckling Response of
composite shells…. Buckling Testing Procedure
Buckling Tester Setup
• The experimental work of being on the work reported by C. T. F Ross
et al. [2], in which metallic vessels were tested for buckling.
• Six strain gauges were connected to the inside of the vessel. Four strain
gauges were mounted circumferentially and two longitudinally at its
mid-span.
• Strain measurements from the gauges were used to determine the wave
pattern while buckling.
• The vessel was tested under uniform external pressure, while the
applied pressure Pexp and the microstrain were noted.
• Loading was done in forward and reverse directions to examine the
nature of strain induced.

Filament wound shell with flanges PU rubbers used as oil seal

and PU rubber

a) Filament wound shells, b) Strain gauge positions,

c) Strain gauge with cables
Strain indicator used for measuring strains
Results of Buckling Test…
Microstrains for 15mm thick vessel
(Forward)

Microstrains for 15 mm thick vessel

(Reverse)
 Microstrains for 10 mm thick vessel
Position of the strain gauges (deg)
Circumferential Longitudinal
Pexp,
Position 0 90 180 270 126 162 (MPa)
864 906 910 901 290 357 2.5
1392 1475 1460 1460 800 850 5.0
1890 2090 1975 2050 1325 1355 7.5
2060 2330 2143 2290 1530 1550 8.5
2215 2580 2310 2540 1750 1750 9.5
Microstrain
2330 2940 2395 2885 2010 1980 10.5
2294 3200 2260 3740 2140 2185 11.0
1536 4900 937-1300 4750 2380 2250 11.5

collapse collapse collapse collapse collapse collapse 12.0

 Collapsed Composite Cylinder
a) Tested for buckling, b) Buckled cylinder and c) Exploded
view of the buckled portion

Buckled cylinder

Exploded view
 Von-Mises stresses of cylindrical shells by RSM…..
• Based on the studies of J. M. Lifshitz et.al.[15] Stresses for the cylinders were calculated analytically by using
experimental strain data by REDUCED STIFFNESS MATRIX method.
• Composite materials employed for axisymmetric UUVs (Figure below) are likely to satisfy the conditions of
orthotropic elasticity.
• Cylindrical shells fall under the orthotropic material category. Cylindrical shells are generally considered as
axisymmetric models since the variations in the angular direction are neglected.
• Md. Mashud Karim et al. [41] studied UUVs for viscous drag by considering them as axisymmetric bodies.

• Since the shells do not contain any out-of-plane loads, plane stress condition can be assumed for the cylinder.

The stress-strain relationship is given by equation (1)

 1   Q11 Q12 0   1 
 =     -------(1)
 2  Q Q
 21 22 0  2 
   0 0 Q   
 12   66   12  where, Geometry of axisymmetric UUVs
Q11 
E1
------ (2) • Qij is the reduced stiffness coefficient,
1   21 12 • E1, E2 and E3 are elastic moduli in direction 1, 2 and 3
 12 E2 -----(3) direction corresponding to x, y and z respectively,
Q12 
1   21 12
• 12, 23, 31 are Poisson’s ratios, G12, G23, G31 are
E2
Q22  -----(4) shear moduli in plane 12, 23 and 31.
1   21 12
• The stiffness coefficient is related to the engineering
Q66 = G12 ------- (5) constants through equation (2) to (5):
• For the plane stress condition σ3 = 0, τ23 = 0 and τ31 = 0.
• By substitution of orthotropic properties (Table 3.2), Q11, Q12, Q22, Q66, are calculated using equation (2), (3),
(4), (5) and 1, 2, 12 values are taken from experiment and are substituted in equation (1).
• Principal stresses 1 and 2 are obtained and 3 is considered zero assuming plane stress condition.
Considering the relation,
2σys2 = (σ1 – σ2)2 + (σ2 – σ3)2 + (σ3 – σ1)2 ---------------------------------------------------- (6)
By substituting in (6) equation the values of principal stresses and on solving, Von-Mises stress is obtained.

Stress at 25 bar for 10 mm thick vessel

 49.4  103 4.88  103 0   910  10 6 
=    
 4.88  10 17.55 103
3 6
0   357  10 
 0 0 3
5.83 10  0 
  
1   49.4 10  910 10    4.88 10  357 10  σ = 46.69 MPa
3 6 3 6
1

σ = 10.7 MPa
2   4.88 10  910 10   17.55 10  357 10 
3 6 3 6 2

σ3 = 0
τ12 = 0
Substituting the values of σ1 and σ2 in Von-Mises equation
2σys2 = (σ1 – σ2)2 + (σ2 – σ3)2 + (σ3 – σ1)2
= (46.69 - 10.7)2 + 10.72 + 46.692
= 3589.72
σys2 = 1794.8
σys= 42.36 MPa
Stresses for 10 mm and 15 mm thick vessels

Pressure (bar) Analytical stresses (MPa) Pressure (bar) Analytical stresses (MPa)

25 42.36 25 31.51

68.68 50 52.15
50

75 71.87
75 97.41

100 92.42
85 108.65
125 113.10
95 120.3
150 128.28

105 137.13 141.69

160

Stresses for 10 mm thick vessel Stresses for 15 mm thick vessel

Validation of Experimental CBP with that of FEA for 10 mm
thick vessel
Experimental result FEA result Deviation

CBP 12.0 MPa 12.92 MPa 7.12%

Comparison of Experimental CBP with FEA CBP for 10 mm thick vessel

Validation of Experimental strains with that of FEA strains
Pressure Experimental FEA Micro- Deviation Pressure Experimental FEA Micro- Deviation
(bar) Micro-strain strain (bar) Micro-strain strain

25 633 585 7.58

25 906 715 21.08%
1475 50 1076 933 13.28
50 1429 3.22%
75 2090 2144 2.42% 75 1450 1399 3.51
85 2330 2430 4.11% 1920
100 1866 2.81
95 2580 2716 5.00%
125 2372 2332 1.68
105 2940 3002 2.06%
150 2830 2799 1.09
110 3200 3145 1.71%
4900 160 3014 2985 0.96
115 3287 32.9%

Comparison of Experimental strains Comparison of Experimental strains with

with FEA strains for 10 mm thick vessel FEA strains for 15 mm thick vessel
Validation of Analytical stresses with that of FEA stresses
Pressure Analytical FEA stresses Deviation Pressure Analytical FEA stresses Deviation
(bar) stresses (MPa) (MPa) (bar) stresses (MPa) (MPa)

42.36 25 31.51 23.679 24.85%

25 37.011 12.62%
68.68 50 52.15 47.358 9.18%
50 74.023 7.2%
75 71.87 71.037 1.15%
75 97.41 111.034 12.2%
100 92.42 94.716 2.42%
85 108.65 125.838 13.6%
125 113.10 118.395 4.47%
95 120.3 140.643 14.4%
150 128.28 142.074 9.7%
105 137.13 155.447 11.78%
160 141.69 151.546 6.5%
Comparison of Analytical stresses with FEA strains Comparison of Analytical stresses with FEA strains
for 10 mm thick vessel for 15 mm thick vessel

Analytical and FEA stresses at various applied pressures Analytical and FEA stresses at various applied pressures
for 10 mm thick vessel for 15 mm thick vessel
 Comparison of CBP of elsewhere results with those of present work

Elsewhere Studies Filament wound Approach CBP

specimens ( MPa)
Chul-jin Moon et.al[ 14 ] Thickness - 8 mm Experimental 7.18 MPa
with ± 30, ± 45 and
± 60 winding angle FEA 7.68 MPa
Seong-Hwa Hur et.al [ 16 ] Thickness – 2.52 to Experimental 0.51 MPa to 0.60 MPa
2.69 mm with FEA 0.64 MPa to 0.68 MPa
stacking sequence
00and 900
Tanguy Messager et.al[10 ] Thickness 6.2 to Experimental carbon/epoxy cylinder – 21.7
11.9 mm with MPa and
stacking sequence glass/epoxy – 8.27 and 8.58 MPa
300, 450, 600, 900
H.Hernandez-Moreno et.al Two thin cylinders Experimental Thin cylinders mean
[ 23 ] – 5 mm thick and CBP – 6.5 MPa and
Two thick cylinders Thick cylinders mean
– 15 mm thick with CBP – 48.4 MPa
winding angle of ±
550
Present Research Shells with Experimental 12 MPa for 10 mm thick shell
thickness 10 mm
and 15 mm with FEA 12.9 MPa for 10 mm thick vessel
winding angle of ± and 34.09 MPa for 15 mm thick
550 shell

35
Buckling Response of Cylindrical Shells under combined hydrostatic
and axial loading by FEA…
Material Properties
Material properties of Al 7075
Properties Values
Modulus of Elasticity 71.7GPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.33
Density 2.81g/cc
Orthogonal material properties of carbon/ Vinyl ester
and glass/ Vinyl ester

Elastic Constant Carbon/ Vinyl ester Glass/ Vinyl ester

Figure 1 a Stacking sequence and material
E1 156 GPa 45.6 GPa orientation angle of composite cylinder

E2 9.56 GPa 16.2 GPa

E3 6.57 GPa 16.2 GPa

G12 5.47 GPa 5.83 GPa

G13 3.92 GPa 5.78 GPa

G23 2.8 GPa 5.83 GPa

12 0.27 0.27

23 0.492 0.49

31
0.34 0.278 Figure 1 b Stacking of layers
 FEA Studies of Buckling

Meshed model with boundary Cylinder under external pressure-

Meshed model of cylindrical
conditions- External pressure Isometric view
vessel

Cylinder under external pressure- Side Meshed model with boundary conditions- Axial compression applied on
view Combined load the model

Model Dimension : 1:1 Scale

Eigen buckling of underwater vessels

Buckling mode shapes for carbon/ vinylester vessel subjected
to external pressure ( CBP: 10.31)
Static buckling of underwater vessels
4000
Buckling mode shapes for carbon/ vinylester vessel
subjected to external pressure and axial load (CBP : 9.06 )
250

200
3000

FEA stress (MPa)

FEA micro- strain

150

2000
100

1000
50
Variable Variable
Al7075 Al7075
Carbon/ epoxy Carbon/ epoxy
Glass/ epoxy 0 Glass/ epoxy
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Pressure (MPa) Pressure (MPa)

Pressure Vs. FEA micro- strain Pressure Vs. FEA stress –

15mm thick Al7075, carbon/ vinylester and glass/ vinylester 15mm thick Al7075, carbon/ vinylester and glass/
vessels under external pressure vinylester vessels under external pressure
Buckling behaviour of underwater vessel in moving condition by ANSYS
Flotran

Pressure plot Meshed region with boundary and loading conditions

Element: 2D Flotran 141

Model Dimension: 1:1 scale
Results:
Material: Al7075,
Velocity ranges for cylindrical shells
Carbon/vinylester
Lateral pressure Lateral and axial load Glass/vinylester
Material V (m/s) V (m/s) Density of water: 1000 kg/ m3
Velocity Range: 5 m/s to 200 m/s
t = 15mm t = 10mm t = 15mm t = 10mm

Al 7075 140- 150 90- 100 120- 130 80- 90

Carbon/Vinylester 110- 120 70- 80 100- 110 60- 70

Glass/ Vinylester 80- 90 50- 60 70- 80 40- 50

Dynamic analysis
18 Variable
7 Variable
16 Al7075 Al7075
Carbon/ epoxy 6 Carbon/ epoxy

Critical buckling pressure (MPa)

Critical buckling pressure (MPa)

14 Glass/ epoxy Glass/ epoxy

12 5

10 4

8
3
6
2
4
1
2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Velocity (m/s)
Velocity (m/s)

a) 15mm thick vessel b) 10mm thick vessel

Comparison of CBP results of vessels under external hydrostatic pressure
16 6
Variable Variable
Al7075 Al7075
14
Carbon/ epoxy 5 Carbon/ epoxy
Critical buckling pressure (MPa)

Critical buckling pressure (MPa)

12 Glass/ epoxy Glass/ epoxy
4
10

8 3

6
2
4

2 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Velocity (m/s) Velocity (m/s)

a) 15mm thick vessel b) 10mm thick vessel

Comparison of CBP results of vessels under external hydrostatic pressure and axial load
Validation
Calculated and FEA CBP values for cylinder under hydrostatic pressure

FEA Analytical FEA Analytical

% deviation % deviation
Material CBP (MPa) CBP (MPa) CBP (MPa) CBP (MPa)
t = 15mm t = 10mm

Al7075 17.062 18.34 6.96 7.103 8.58 17.21

Carbon/ epoxy 10.318 9.837 4.89 4.141 3.297 25.59

Glass/ epoxy 5.453 4.8022 13.55 2.256 1.6 29

Calculated and FEA CBP values for cylinder under hydrostatic pressure and axial load

FEA Analytical FEA Analytical

% deviation % deviation
Material CBP (MPa) CBP (MPa) CBP (MPa) CBP (MPa)
t = 15mm t = 10mm

Al7075 14.602 12.478 17.02 5.538 4.506 22.9

Carbon/ epoxy 9.086 9.834 7.60 3.331 3.295 1.09

Glass/ epoxy 4.664 4.8 2.83 1.75 1.59 10.06

Conclusions
• Buckling response of underwater vehicles was investigated to replace the existing metallic structures with polymer
composite materials. The results are summarised as:

• Use of polymer composites for underwater vehicles results in significant weight savings, which was 46 % if carbon /
vinylester is used in place of Al7075 for the same overall dimensions of the vehicle and the same operating depth.

• Linear buckling analysis was performed to obtain von-Mises stresses and strains under quasistatic loading
conditions and Block Lancos method for critical buckling pressure. Experimental studies were conducted on 1:2
scale models due to the tester size constraints and it was found that the experimental results closely agreed with
those of analytical and numerical results.

• Pure hydrostatic and combined axial and hydrostatic loading were considered for studying the buckling response.
Significant reductions in CBP were observed due to combined loading. Carbon / vinylester and glass / vinylester
showed similar percentage drops in CBP.

• Buckling performance of underwater vessels under combined hydrostatic and axial loading in moving conditions
was investigated by CFD approach. The results showed that carbon / vinylester shells of 15 mm and 10 mm
thickness can be safely towed at 110 m/s and 70 m/s respectively. For glass/ vinylester the velocities were 80 m/s
and 50 m/s and for Al7075 140 m/s and 90 m/s respectively when only lateral pressure was considered. The
velocities reduced by 10 m/s approximately in all the cases when the combined lateral and axial pressures were
considered.
Conclusions...
• The dimensions of the underwater vehicles obtained from the investigation truly reflect the operating conditions
and hence the results are expected to be reliable.

Scope for future studies

• The research involved experimental, numerical and analytical methods of predicting buckling behaviour of
underwater shell structures of metallic and polymer composite structures based on the geometrical features of
existing metallic shells. The methodology adopted in the research can be effectively employed for the design of
underwater vessels. However, the research may be extended in the following areas to achieve underwater vessels
of polymer matrix composites.

• Though the front conical and rear hemispherical components are not of significance while establishing the safe
operating depths of underwater vessels, the analysis may be extended to full- fledged model considering flanges
and the joints.

• Adoption of grid stiffeners may be explored to further strengthen the shells.

• Underwater vessels are operated under water for specific duration of time although intermittently. Thus, dwell
time analysis may be performed to establish their durability.

• Non-linear buckling analysis may be performed to investigate the behaviour of the vehicles after the on-set of
buckling.
 References
1. Carl T.F. Ross, A conceptual design of an underwater vehicle, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 33, 2006, pp. 2087–2104
2. T. Hyakudome., S. Ishibashi., Y. Watanabe., H. Yoshida., S. Tsukioka., T.Aoki., Application to Pressure Vessels for
Underwater Vehicle of Magnesium Alloys , IEEE, 2008, pp. 2126-2129.
3. Blachut., P. Smith., Buckling of multi-segment underwater pressure hull, Journal of Ocean Engineering , Vol. 35,
2008, pp. 247–260
4. Busby.F.R., Undersea Vehicles. Office of the oceanographer of the Navy, Washington.D.C, 1985.
5. Cho-Chung Liang., Sheau-Wen Shiah., Chan-Yung Jen., Hung-Wen Chen., Optimum design of multiple intersecting
spheres deep- submerged pressure hull, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 31, 2004, pp. 177-199
6. Kubbin Kim., Ulnyeon Kim., Jinsoo Park., A study on effects of initial deflection on ultimate strength of ring–
stiffened cylindrical structure under external hydrostatic pressure, Proceedings of thirteenth international off-shore
and polar engineering Conference, Hawaii, USA, May 25-30, 2003
7. Khairul Izman Abdul Rahim, Abdul Rahim Othman, Mohd Rizal Arshad, Conceptual design of a pressure hull for
an underwater pole inspection robot, Indian Journal of Marine Science, Vol. 38 (3), 2009, pp. 352-358
8. C.S.Smith., Design of Submersible Pressure Hulls in Composite Materials, Marine Structures, Vol. 4, 1991, pp. 141-
182
9. Tanguy Messager., Mariusz Pyrz., Bernard Gineste., Pierre Chauchot., Optimal laminations of thin underwater
composite cylindrical vessels, Journal of Composite Structures, Vol. 58, 2002, pp. 529-537
10. Tanguy Messager, Buckling of imperfect laminated cylinder under hydrostatic pressure, Journal of Composite
Structure, Vol. 53, 2001, pp. 301-307
 References
11. Derek Graham., Composite Pressure Hulls for deep ocean submersibles, Composite Structure, Vol. 32, 1995, pp. 331-
343
12. Derek Graham., Buckling of thick section Composite pressure Hulls, Composite Structure, Vol. 35, 1996, pp. 5-20
13. V. Carvelli., N.Panzeri., C.Poggi., Buckling strength of GFRP under water vehicle, Journal of Composite Part B:
Engineering, Vol. 32, 2001, pp. 89-101
14. Chul-Jin Moon., In-Hoon Kim., Bae-Hyeon Choi., Jin-Hwe Kweon., Jin-Ho Choi., Buckling of filament-wound
composite cylinders subjected to hydrostatic pressure for underwater vehicle applications, Composite Structures, Vol.
92, 2010, pp. 2241–2251
15. C.T.F. Ross, K. O. Okoto and A.P.F. Little, Buckling by General Instability of Cylindrical Components of Deep Sea
Submersibles, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 13, 2008, pp.289-296
16. Seong-Hwa Hur., Hee-Jin Son., Jin-HweKweon., Jin-Ho Choi., Post buckling of composite cylinders under external
hydrostatic pressure, Journal of Composite Structures, Vol. 86, 2008, pp. 114-124
17. Myung-Hun Kim., Jong-Rae Cho., Won-Byong Bae., Jin-Hwe Kweon., Jin-Ho Choi., Sang-Rae Cho and Yun-Sik
Cho., Buckling Analysis of Filament-Wound Thick Composite Cylinder under Hydrostatic Pressure, International
Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, Vol. 11, 2010, pp. 909-913
18. J. Blachut., P. Smith., Buckling of multi-segment underwater pressure hull, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 35, 2008, pp.
247-260
19. S. Srinivasan., B. Bhattacharya., Probabilistic failure of filament wound glass fiber reinforced composite tube under
biaxial loading, Proceedings of 9th ASCE Joint Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural
Reliability, , Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 26-28,2004
 References
20. Hae-Young Jung., Jong-Rae Cho., Jeong-Young Han., Woo-Hyung Lee., Won-Byong Bae., Yun-Sik Cho., A Study on
Buckling of Filament-Wound Cylindrical Shells under Hydrostatic External Pressure using Finite Element Analysis
and Buckling Formula, International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, Vol. 13, 2012, pp. 731-
737
21. Baoping Cai., Yonghong Liu., Huazhou Li., Zengkai Liu., Buckling analysis of composite long cylinders using
probabilistic finite element method, MECHANIKA, Vol. 17(5), 2011, pp. 467-473
22. Khairul Izman Abdul Rahim, Abdul Rahim Othman, Mohd Rizal Arshad, Conceptual design of a pressure hull for an
underwater pole inspection robot, Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, Vol. 38 (3), 2009, pp. 352-358
23. H.Hernandez-Moreno. B.Douchin., F.Collobet, D.choqueuse., P.Davies., Influence of winding pattern on the
mechanical behaviour of filament wound composite cylinders under external pressure, Composites Science and
Technology, Vol. 68, 2008, pp. 1015–1024
24. X. Wang, Jun Xiao., Y.C. Zhang., A method for solving the buckling problem of a thin- walled shell, International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 81, 2004, pp. 907–912
25. Kukbin Kim., Ulnyeon Kim., Jinsoo Park., A Study on Effects of Initial Deflection on Ultimate Strength of Ring-
stiffened Cylindrical Structure under External Hydrostatic Pressure, Proceedings of the Thirteenth (2003)
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2003, pp. 25–30
26. Andew P.F Little., Carl T.F. Rss., Daniel short., Graham X., Inelastic Buckling of Geometrically Imperfect tubes
under external Hydrostatic Pressure, Ocean Sovereignty, Vol. 3 (1), 2008, pp.75-81
27. G. Forasassi., R. Lo Frano., Buckling of Imperfect Thin Cylindrical Shell Under Lateral Pressure, Journal of
 References
28. Anton Hu bner., Matthias Albiez., Dietmar Kohler,, and Helmut Saal,, Buckling of long steel cylindrical shells
subjected to external pressure, Thin Walled Structures, Vol. 45, 2007, pp.1-7
29. S. Aghajari., K. Abedia., H. Showkatib., Buckling and post-buckling behaviour of thin-walled cylindrical steel shells
with varying thickness subjected to uniform external pressure, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 44, 2006, pp. 904–909
30. R. Lo Frano., G. Forasassi., Experimental evidence of imperfection influence on the buckling of thin cylindrical shell
under external pressure, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 239, 2009, pp. 193–200
31. J.R. MacKay., F. Van Keulen., A Review of External Pressure Testing Techniques for Shells including a Novel
Volume-Control Method, Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 50, 2010, pp.753–772
32. N.G.Pegg., Experimental determination of interframe buckling of a ring stiffened Cylinder, National Defence
Research and Development Branch, Technical Memorandum 89/209, 1989
33. Yamamoto, Research and development of past, present and future autonomous underwater vehicle technologies,
Proceeding of International Mater class AUV Technology Polar Science-Society Underwater Technology, Vol. 28,
2007, pp. 17–26
34. Hongwei Zhang, Shuxin Wang, Modelling and Analysis of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle via Multibody System
Dynamics, Proceedings of 12th IFTOMM World Congress, Besançon (France), Vol. 18-21, 2007
35. Ettore, A.de Barros, Joao, L. D. Dantas, Antonio, M. Pascoal, Elgar de Sa, Investigation of Normal Force and
Moment Coefficients for an AUV at Nonlinear Angle of Attack and Sideslip Range, IEEE Journal of Oceanic
Engineering, Vol. 33(4), 2008
36. Jianguo Wu, Chaoying Chen, Shunxin Wang, Hydrodynamic Effects of a shroud Design For a Hybrid-Driven
Underwater Glider, Sea Technology, Vol. 51(6), 2010, pp. 45-47
 References
37. K. D. Kim, Buckling behaviour of composite panels using the Finite Element Method, Composite Structures, Vol.
36, 1996, pp. 33 - 43.
38. Larbi Siad, Buckling of thin-walled orthotropic cylindrical shells under uniform external pressure. Application to
corrugated tin cans, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 35, 1999, pp. 101–115.
39. Sathivel. R., Vengadesan. S., and Bhattacharyya. S.K., Application of non-linear k- turbulence model in flow
simulation over underwater axisymmetric hull at higher angle of attack, Journal of Naval Architecture and Marine
Engineering, Vol. 2, 2011, pp. 149-163.
40. Sreekar Gomatam., Vengadesan. S., and Bhattacharyya. S.K., Numerical simulations of flow past an autonomous
underwater vehicle at various drift angles, Journal of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Vol. 2, 2012,
pp. 135-152.
41. Md. Mashud Karim, Md. Mahbubar Rahman, and Md. Abdul Alim., Numerical computation of viscous drag for
axisymmetric underwater vehicles, Journal Mekanical, Vol. 1(26), 2008, pp. 9-21.
 Publications
International Journal Publications
• Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M , Raghavendra N, Comparative Study of Metallic and Polymer Composite
Shells for Underwater Vessels using FEA, International Journal of Ocean System Engineering, vol. 3(3), 2013, pp. 136-141.
• Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Shiva Kumar M.S, Sudarsan K, Nandagopan O.R, Ajith Kumar K, Buckling
Behaviour of Underwater Vessels by Experimental, Numerical and Analytical Approaches, accepted for publications in Journal of
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,Volume 11, June 2014, pp.15-28
• Moorthy G, H.N Narasimha Murthy, Monika Y, K Sudarshan, O.R Nandagopan, Ajith Kumar K, Buckling response of underwater
vessels subjected to Hydrostatic and Axial loads, accepted for publication in Indian journal of Geo-Marine Sciences. ( in print )
• Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Finite Element Analysis of Grid Stiffened Structure for under water vehicle
Application, International journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. II, Issue I, Oct-Dec, 2012, pp. 151-153.
International / National Conference and workshop presentation and publications
• Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Modelling and Analysis of a Typical Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV)
Structure for Buckling Failure using FEA, Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Technologies and applications
in Engineering, Technology and sciences- ICETAETS 2008, Saurashtra University. Rajkot, Gujarat, 13-14 January 2008.
• Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Structural Analysis of Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) model for Buckling
Failure using FEA, Proceedings of the National Conference on Advances and Contempories in Mechanical Engineering- ACME
2008, Erode Sengunthar Engineering College. Erode, Tamil Nadu, 7- 8 Febuary 2008.
• Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Analysis of fibre reinforced polymer Structure, National workshop on Advanced
Manufacturing Technologies, St Peter’s College of Engineering and Technology. Chennai, 16 - 18August 2010.
• Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Raghavendra N, Buckling analysis of Grid Stiffened Polymer composite vessels for
UUV Application, International Workshop on Underwater Technologies- UTW 2013, National Institute of Ocean Technology.
Chennai, 21 October 2013.
Sl. Referee comments Corrections made Page No (in the
No. thesis) /
Remarks
1 Page# XXXI: Nomenclature: YS = YS represent yield stress and hence no correction is --
‘Yield stress’ should be read as ‘von required
–Mises stress’- see Sec .6.2 & 6.3.
2 Page # 5: In the first paragraph there Cylindrical / elliptical section forms the central part of Page 5 of
is a statement: “Conical and underwater vehicles and conical and hemispherical Introduction
Spherical Shapes do not buckle much shapes are preferred for the front and rear parts. Length
compared to elliptical and cylindrical to diameter ratio of cylindrical section is far greater than
components’. It needs to be that of either of hemispherical or conical part. Hence,
explained why. cylindrical section is more prone to buckling. This is in
agreement with elsewhere studies of buckling analysis of
underwater vehicles [13].
3 Page # 39: the statement just above Corrected as equation (4.2) Chapter 4
Eq.4.2 should be corrected ‘equation Page 39
(2)’ to read as equation (4.2).
4 In Chapters 4 onwards, when the The word ‘stresses’ is replaced with ‘von-Mises stresses’ Throughout
word stress is used, it needs to be as suggested Chapter 4
qualified as either ‘Principal stresses
or ‘von –Mises stresses. It appears
the word ‘stress’ is used throughout
the thesis to mean von-Mises stress

50
5 Page # 75: two lines of the text just above The two sentences before equation (6.6) are rewritten Page 75,
Eq. (6.6) need to rewritten. They appear to for better clarity, although they are not phrases but Chapter 6
be phrases but are shown as full sentences. sentences.
The corrected sentences are:
By substitution of orthotropic properties (Table 3.2),
Q11, Q12, Q22, Q66, are calculated using equation (6.2),
(6.3), (6.4), (6.5) and 1, 2, 12 values are taken from
experiment and are substituted in equation (6.1).
Principal stresses 1 and 2 are obtained and 3 is
considered zero assuming plane stress condition.
6 In Sections 6.2 and 6.3, stresses shown as YS represent yield stress and hence no correction is --
‘YS’ are not ‘yield stresses’, they are ‘von- required.
Mises stresses’ and need to be specified.

7 There is no need to include the repeated Computations shown in section 6.2 (b) thru 6.2 (h) and Chapter 6
computations shown in section 6.2(b) thru’ 6.3 (b) thru 6.3 (g) are deleted as suggested.
6.2(h) and 6.3 (b) thru 6.3(g). if sections
6.2(a) and 6.3(a) are retained, the rest could
be skipped since they are summarized in
Table 6.1.
8 It is suggested that the “ % deviations” As suggested “% deviations” shown in Tables 7.1 thru’ Chapter 7
shown in Tables 7.1 thru’ 7.4, be shown with 7.4, are shown with ‘+’ and ‘-‘ signs to indicate
‘+’ and ‘-‘ signs. positive or negative deviations.

9 Page # 110: the variable on the y-axis reads Correction incorporated as Pressure (Pa x107) Page 110,
‘Pressure (Pa(x107))’. It needs to be in 51
Figure
corrected to read ‘Pressure (Pa x 107)’ 9.4
Sl. No Referee Comments Corrections made Page Number (in the
thesis) / Remarks
1 Abstract: The abstract contain few paragraphs In Abstract, page (iii) Para 4 and In Abstract, page
which one more like introduction such as page page (iv) Para 3 are removed. (iii), page (iv) and
(iii) para 4, page (iv) para 3 etc. These can be page (vi) to page
removed and the length of abstract can be And write up about what is done in (xi).
shortened. The write up about what is done in each chapter are also shortened.
each chapter can also be shortened.
2 Chapter 1: In ch1., Sec 1.2, 1.3.1 and 1.3.2: As Suggested, Literature is written In chapter 1,
Instead of mentioning every paper and explaining in gist by combining similar works. Sec 1.2, 1.3.1 and
what the authors have done in each paragraph, 1.3.2, Page 5
the scholar can present the literature in a better
way by understanding the papers and presenting
only the gist of it, combining similar works.
3 Chapter 2: Title “Research methodology” seems Chapter 2: Title changed as In chapter 2, Title
to be very generic, it can be changed. “Proposed approach for buckling
behaviour of cylindrical shells for
unmanned underwater vehicle
application”
4 Ch.2 does not present the methodology, but the In Chapter 2: As suggested logic In chapter 2.
step by step procedure followed in the work. It behind the step are incorporated.
would be good if logic behind following such
steps is explained, rather than step by step
procedure.

52
5 Chapter 3: The way author described sec 3.3.2, it
implies that the cylinder shown in Fig 3.2 is a
composite with metal and polymer. Please change.
6 The corresponding weights of the shell can be also be
shown in Table 3.6 and title can be changed
appropriately.
7 Important issues to be explained: The scholar seems to
have taken the SHELL99 element for analysis of
composites, from the software library, however, the
scholar has not explained how exactly the elements of
different materials in the composite were connected at
the inference and how different properties were taken
care.
8 Chapter 4: Earlier in Ch. 3, table 3.6 it is mentioned
that the thickness required to with stand 10 MPa is 15
and 18 mm for carbon and glass/vinylester
respectively. In each such case, why 18 mm thick were
not analysed in chapter 4 and 5.
In chapter 3, sec 3.3.2 is changed Chapter 3, sec
correctly. 3.3.2, Page 31
Corresponding weight of all shells are Page 33,
included in Table 3.6 and its title is in Table 3.6
changed appropriately.
Importance of SHELL99 element is Page 29, in
included. Section 3.3
For 1:1 Scale model thickness of the In chapter 4,
shell 18 mm corresponded to CBP of 10 Page 37
MPa.
But for 1:2 scale model the thickness of
the shell 10 mm corresponded to for
12.92 MPa.
Experimental setup was developed to
suit 1:2 scale model hence buckling
experiment was conducted on 10 mm
thick shell.
53
9 Chapter 6 and 7 could have been combined.
10 Figure 7.1 can researcher explains why microstrain
shoots up suddenly after 11 MPa Pressure, and why
such phenomenon is not observed in other cases.
11 Chapter 10 can bring out the importance of work
rather than just summarizing the results.
As suggested Chapter 6 and 7 is In Abstract,
combined. Page (viii),
Para, chapter 6.
The chapter 6 titled as “Analytical
stress analysis of underwater vessels In Page 74,
and Validation of Results. chapter 6.
In Figure 7.1, 10 mm thick cylinder was Page 90,
tested for buckling whereas in Figure
7.2, 15 mm thick cylinder is not tested
for buckling and it’s only tested for
elasticity.
Importance of work is concluded. In chapter 10
54
 Very Thankful
TO
Dr. G.L.Samuel
My Guides
Dr.H.N.Narashima murthy
Dr. M.Krishna
Dr. S.C. Sharma
Our Principal & HOD
&

TO ALL 55