1 Introduction
2 Analysis Approach
2.1 Geometry and Mechanical Properties of the Cylindrical Shell Models
2.2 Finite Element Study
2.2.1 Description of “ACM-RSBE5” Element
2.2.2 Description of S4R ABAQUS Element
2.2.3 Description of C3D8IH ABAQUS Element
2.3 Experimental Tests
3 Effect of Boundary Conditions on the Behavior of Cylindrical Shells
-
Cylindrical shell supported on 4 points “pinned” CS4P.
-
Cylindrical shell supported on two ends “Rigid Diaphragms” CSRD.
Load (N) | ACM-RSBE5 | S4R ABAQUS | Experimental solution | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deflection (mm) | Percentage (%) | Deflection (mm) | Percentage (%) | Deflection (mm) | Percentage (%) | ||||
CS4P | CSRD | CS4P | CSRD | CS4P | CSRD | ||||
775 | 5.061 | 1.064 | 78.97649 | 5.08 | 1.087 | 80.7165358 | 4.649 | 1.438 | 69.06862 |
800 | 5.224 | 1.098 | 78.981623 | 5.241 | 1.122 | 80.70979 | 5.098 | 1.727 | 66.12397 |
825 | 5.387 | 1.133 | 78.96789 | 5.403 | 1.157 | 80.69591 | 5.606 | 1.831 | 67.338566 |
850 | 5.551 | 1.167 | 78.976761 | 5.564 | 1.192 | 80.69734 | 6.060 | 1.936 | 68.052805 |
875 | 5.714 | 1.201 | 78.981449 | 5.726 | 1.227 | 80.684597 | 6.422 | 2.013 | 68.654625 |
900 | 5.877 | 1.236 | 78.96886 | 5.888 | 1.262 | 0.216033 | 6.822 | 2.103 | 69.173263 |
3.1 Comparison of Deflection Results Between CS4P and CSRD Using ACM-RSBE5 Element, ABAQUS Code and Experimental Results
4 Effectiveness of Boundary Conditions Supports on the “Cylindrical Shell with Stiffeners”
4.1 Comparison of Deflection Results Between SCS4P and SCSRD Using Experimental and ABAQUS Analysis Results
Load (N) | S4R ABAQUS | Experimental solution | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vertical displacement (mm) | Percentage (%) | Vertical displacement (mm) | Percentage (%) | |||
SCS4P | SCSRD | SCS4P | SCSRD | |||
900 | 2.595 | 1.447 | 44.238921 | 3.453 | 1.591 | 53.924124 |
950 | 2.737 | 1.527 | 44.208988 | 3.529 | 1.755 | 50.269198 |
1000 | 2.991 | 1.607 | 46.27215 | 3.806 | 1.607 | 57.777194 |
1050 | 3.023 | 1.688 | 44.161429 | 3.829 | 2.138 | 44.162967 |
1100 | 3.165 | 1.768 | 44.139021 | 3.966 | 2.355 | 40.620272 |
4.2 Comparison of Deflection Diminution Between “SCS4P” and “SCSRD” Models with ABAQUS Analysis
5 Effectiveness of Edge Beams on the Stiffened Cylindrical Shells
-
Stiffened cylindrical shell supported on two ends “Rigid Diaphragms” “SCD”.
-
Stiffened cylindrical shell supported on two ends “Rigid Diaphragms” with two edge beams (Stringers) “SCDS”.
Loads (N) | Displacement W1 at point 1 (mm) | |
---|---|---|
Experimental solution | C3D8IH ABAQUS | |
800 | 1.229 | 1.286 |
850 | 1.398 | 1.366 |
900 | 1.591 | 1.447 |
950 | 1.795 | 1.527 |
1000 | 1.966 | 1.607 |
1050 | 2.138 | 1.688 |
Loads (N) | Displacement W1 at point 1 (mm) | |
---|---|---|
Experimental solution | C3D8IH ABAQUS | |
800 | 0.883 | 1.280 |
850 | 0.958 | 1.360 |
900 | 1.043 | 1.440 |
950 | 1.143 | 1.520 |
1000 | 1.229 | 1.600 |
1050 | 1.482 | 1.681 |
1100 | 1.686 | 1.761 |
1150 | 1.913 | 1.841 |
1200 | 2.162 | 1.921 |
1250 | 2.469 | 2.001 |
1300 | 2.722 | 2.081 |
Load (N) | Displacement for the SCD (mm) | Displacement for the SCDS (mm) | Diminution percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
800 | 1.229 | 0.883 | 28.15 |
850 | 1.398 | 0.958 | 31.47 |
900 | 1.591 | 1.043 | 34.44 |
950 | 1.795 | 1.143 | 36.32 |
1000 | 1.966 | 1.229 | 37.49 |
1050 | 2.138 | 1.482 | 30.68 |
1100 | 2.355 | 1.686 | 28.41 |
1150 | 2.575 | 1.913 | 25.71 |
1200 | 2.851 | 2.162 | 24.17 |
1250 | 3.146 | 2.469 | 21.52 |
1300 | 3.378 | 2.722 | 19.42 |
5.1 Cylindrical Shell with Two end Diaphragms and Two Stiffeners (t = 1.2 mm)
5.2 Cylindrical Shell with Two end Diaphragms and Two Stiffeners Resting on Longitudinal Beams “Stringers” (t = 1.2 mm)
5.3 Percentage of Vertical Deflection Diminution Between “SCD” and “SCDS” Models with Experimental Results and Numerical Analysis
5.4 Percentage of Horizontal Displacements Diminution at Point 2 Using the Experimental and Numerical Results
Load (N) | Displacement for the SCD (mm) | Displacement for the SCDS (mm) | Diminution percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1000 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 91.67 |
1100 | 0.28 | 0.109 | 85.71 |
1200 | 0.33 | 0.119 | 75.76 |
1300 | 0.39 | 0.129 | 66.67 |
1400 | 0.47 | 0.139 | 59.57 |
Load (N) | Displacement for the SCD (mm) | Displacement for the SCDS (mm) | Diminution percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1000 | 0.147 | 0.09 | 38.77 |
1100 | 0.162 | 0.109 | 32.72 |
1200 | 0.177 | 0.119 | 32.77 |
1300 | 0.192 | 0.129 | 32.81 |
1400 | 0.207 | 0.139 | 32.85 |
5.5 Percentage of Horizontal Displacements Diminution at Point 3 Using the Experimental and Numerical Results
Load (N) | Displacement for the SCD (mm) | Displacement for the SCDS (mm) | Diminution percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1000 | 0.47 | 0.21 | 55.32 |
1100 | 0.57 | 0.29 | 49.12 |
1200 | 0.70 | 0.39 | 44.29 |
1300 | 0.85 | 0.52 | 38.82 |
1400 | 1.03 | 0.67 | 34.95 |
1500 | 1.25 | 0.87 | 30.40 |
Load (N) | Displacement for the SCD (mm) | Displacement for the SCDS (mm) | Diminution percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1000 | 0.651 | 0.394 | 39.48 |
1100 | 0.717 | 0.434 | 39.47 |
1200 | 0.783 | 0.475 | 39.34 |
1300 | 0.848 | 0.515 | 39.27 |
1400 | 0.914 | 0.555 | 39.28 |
1500 | 0.980 | 0.596 | 39.18 |