ANALYTICAL TOOLS FOR SHELL STRUCTURES
1Ashutosh Srivastava, 2Parijat Naha, 3Dr. S. Chandrasekaran
Abstract
Shell structures are essentially the form influenced by the method of construction. The economy of shell structures stems
from their low consumption of material like cement and steel for covering unit area. On the other hand, formwork is
complicated and needs expert labour. Also, the analysis and design aspect of shell roofs are quite cumbersome in
comparison to conventional structural elements. This paper essentially attempts to compare standard procedures of
analyzing shell roofs, namely classical membrane theory and approximate theory based on ASCE tables. Numerical
examples are solved by both the methods and the stress resultants are plotted. The variations and the stress variants are
discussed. It is seen that the solution by ASCE tables gives higher values as compared to membrane theory, both at the
crown and the valley. It is also seen that the stress values obtained using ASCE tables are for larger intervals of +, which
neither apprehends the profile of the stress variation, nor is there a provision for plotting this variation for closer values of +.
Hence, the analytical tools are to be sharpened so as to land at the desired interval of the angle +. The authors aim at the
formulation of the design curves for the open cylindrical shell for recommendation to the Bureau of Indian Standards, which
at present has no guidelines in this front as of today.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Undergraduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, IT-BHU, [email protected]
2 Undergraduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, IT-BHU, [email protected]
3 Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, IT-BHU, [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Shells are classified as structures which sustain load by their curved slabs. When the slab is curved in one direction only, it
is called as barrel and if curved in both directions, it is called dome. They are supported by integrally built transverse
stiffeners. The curvature of the shell is usually prismatic for the whole shell.
Shell action is transmission of load primarily by direct stresses with relatively small bending stresses and therefore, the
behaviour of the shell is contradictory from the behaviour of a plate.
Tangential component
Normal component
Figure 1: transmission of load in a shell
The presence of shearing force is significantly important which make shell elements different from others. Hence, shells,
regardless of their shape, can support hypothetically any type of loading by direct stresses. Therefore, these sky covers are
challenges for structural analysts. The edge displacements may induce bending moment in the shell, but it is fascinating to
understand that these bending moments are induced by strain, not by the load. Hence they do not affect the ultimate load
carrying capacity of the shells.
Exclusive advantages:
No other structure may be so economical as the shell structure. This is evident from the fact that a cylindrical shell
of span 24m and a radius of 7.2m can be constructed with 4.5 m3 of building material because its thickness can be
as small as 25mm
Shells have remarkable reserve strength which make it practically impossible to collapse though the supporting
structure may collapse. This was practically observed during the II World War when shells constructed by German
forces saw their supporting structures collapse due to heavy shelling while they themselves remained unaffected.
It is also believed that, being a civil engineer, Osama bin Laden has designed all his hideouts as shells which have
protected him from relentless artillery attack.
A greater degree of freedom can be exercised in determining the structural layout, shape and architecture of
shells, which is not possible with any other system
Objectives:
On the basis of the critical review of the literature related to the topic, the following objectives were set in:
To analyze an open cylindrical shell by conventional membrane theory
To analyze an open cylindrical shell with the help of ASCE manual
To compare the plot of stress variants from the theories
Membrane Theory
Whenever it is possible, engineers attempt to shape and support a shell so that it carries its load essentially by normal and
shearing forces. If this is done the moments can be neglected altogether in the stress analysis. The simple version of shell
theory which is obtained in this way is called the membrane theory of shells.
The membrane theory provides a reasonable basis for design if the following conditions are fulfilled.
1) The displacements due to membrane stress resultants do not give rise to appreciable bending
2) The loading is distributed smoothly over the surface of the shell.
3) The boundaries can supply the forces and permit the displacement required by the membrane stress resultants.
When speaking of membrane theory, membrane stresses, or membrane forces, we do not imply that the normal forces are
necessarily tensile forces. In many shells they are compressive; nevertheless the theory is exactly the same and is also
called membrane theory.
Analysis by ASCE tables:
In this method of analysis, the membrane stress resultants acting on an open cylindrical shell due to external loading and
the deformations at the edges can be calculated by using the formulae and values given by relevant ASCE tables at specific
positions on the shell. In this method, the horizontal component of the tangential stress resultant at the valley is assumed to
be applied back to the shell as the slender edge beam is incapable of resisting forces in the ransverse direction. The
method, unlike membrane theory, does not provide the dimensions of the edge beam. The same have to be assumed and
iteratively applied to the calculations to reach the optimum value.
Numerical studies:
It is conventional in shell analysis, and convenient, to work not in terms of stresses( <),but in terms of stress resultants N ,
where,
N=/t
We define axes in the longitudinal and in circumferential directions. Thus,
Nx and N= are the normal stress resultants,
Nx= is shear stress resultant,
M= is moment .
Here we analyse a single barrel open cylindrical shell with the following specifications:
Span (l) = 24 m
Roll down angle (=k ) = 300
Thickness (t) = 0.075 m
Radius (r) = 7.2 m
Hence,
r/ t = 96(which can be assumed to be equal to 100)
r/ l = 0.3
Next , we assign the loading specifications for the shell as follows:
Dead load = 0.075 * 25 =1.875 KN/m2
Finish load = 0.6 KN/m2
Live load = 0.75 KN/m2
Total load (W) = 3.225 KN/m2
Figure 2 : Definition of + for membrane theory analysis
Analysis using membrane theory:
Figure 3 shows a differential element of the shell with the various normal and shear stress resultants acting on it .The
values of these resultants may be related in the usual way (eg.by Mohr’s circle) to the values Nx ,Ny and Nxy on reference
planes defined by the directions of the X and Y axes.
In this method of analysis, the various normal and shear stress resultants are resolved in three mutually perpendicular
directions, namely radial, longitudinal and circumferential direction.Pr, Px, P+ are the loads applied in the respective
directions.
Nx + (KNx/ Kx) dx
Pr
N+x
Nx+ + ( KNx+/ Kx)
Px
N+
N=x + ( K N=x / K+)d+
P+
Nx+
dx N= + ( K N= / K+)d+
Nx rd+
Figure 3: Differential element of a shell
On considering the condition of equilibrium in the longitudinal direction we get,
(KNx/Kx)dx.rd+ + (KN+x/K+).d+.dx + Px.dx.rd+ = 0 ______________________________________________(1)
On considering the condition of equilibrium in the circumferential direction we get,
(KN+/K+)d+.dx + (KNx+/Kx).rd+.dx + P+.dx.rd+ = 0 ______________________________________________(2)
On considering the condition of equilibrium in the radial direction we get,
N+.dx.d+ – Pr.dx.rd+ = 0 ______________________________________________(3)
After division by the two differentials these three conditions of equilibrium yield the differential equations for the membrane
forces of the shell :
N+ = Pr .r
KNx+/Kx = -P+ – (1/r). KN+/K+
KNx/Kx = -Px – (1/r). KNx+/K+
The solutions of these equations are the expressions of the various stress resultants acting on the shell. In this problem,
Pr = - W cos +,
P+ = -W sin +
On solving the above mentioned equations and on putting the above expression for Pr and P+ ,the expression for stress
resultant are obtained as:
N+ = -Wa Cos +,
Nx+ = -2Wx Sin +,
Nx = - W/ (4a) (l2-4x2) Cos +.
By using these expressions for the various stress resultants mentioned above, the graphs showing the variations of these
resultants with the parameters x and + can be plotted and they give results as follows:
values values
+
+
span
span
Figure 4: Nx+ at whole shell Figure 5: Nx at whole shell
+----N +----N
Figure 6: N+ at whole shell Figure 7: Nx at x = 6 m
+----N +----N
Figure 8 : Nx+ at x = 12 m Figure 9: Nx+ at x = -12 m
+----N +----N
Figure 10: Nx+ at x = 6 m Figure 11: Nx+ at x = -6 m
Thus, analysis by membrane theory enables us to get the values of the membrane forces at any continuous value of +. It
also gives the dimensions of the edge beam which simplifies the design aspect of shell analysis.
(Self weight + vertical component of N+)
d Shear at edge beam on top fibre
b
Figure 12: Forces on the edge beam
The shell and the edge beam should satisfy the following compatibility conditions at the edge:
1) The beam and the shell must have the same longitudinal strain (Ox).
2) The beam and the shell must have the same vertical deflection.
From the first condition, we get
-W l2 t/(4a) = W l2 /(4A) – b / (2I) * [ (1/8)*(Q.A – 10.054)* l2 - W l2 * (d/8)] __________________(a)
From the second condition, we get
(Q.A – 10.054)/ 76.8 + W.d. l4 / 64 = W l2 /8 *[5 l2 /(24.a2 ) + 8+ 4S] ___________________(b)
Where Q = specific weight of RCC
S = Poisson’s ratio
On putting b = d/2 in (a), we get
d = 1.1m and b = 0.55m.
On putting b = d/2 in (b), we get
d =0.8m and b = 0.4m.
Since the value from (a) is larger, it will be accepted for the design of the edge beam.
Analysis using ASCE manual 31:
Figure 13: Definition of + for ASCE analysis
Table 1B of ASCE gives membrane forces under load for the first harmonic that is, n = 1 at x = 0 (midspan). When sin(T x/ l)
is expanded in series, then, for n = 1,the first term (4/ T) is multiplied to the applied loads to get a sinusoidally varying
loading pattern on the shell. Thus,
Effective dead load = Pd = (4/ T) * (1.875+0.6) = 3.151 KN/m2
Effective live load = Pl = 0.75 KN/m2
From table 1B of ASCE , the stress resultants acting on the shell due to the applied loads are calculated separately for dead
load and live load using the following formulae:
For dead load,
Nx = Pd r [ (l / r) 2. col(7)] sin(T x/ l)
N= = Pd r [ (l / r) . col(8)] sin(T x/ l)
Nx= = Pd r col(9). sin(T x/ l)
Stress resultant due to dead load ( table1)
= =k - = Nx/sin(T x/ l) Nx= /cos(T x/ l) N = /sin(T x/ l) M = /sin(T x/ l)
30 0 -51.06 0 -22.689 0
20 10 -50.30 -8.356 -22.259 0
10 20 -47.49 -16.47 -20.20 0
0 30 -44.21 -24.07 -15.850 0
For live load,
Nx = Pl r [ (l / r) 2. col(1)] sin(T x/ l)
N= = Pl r [ (l / r) . col(2)] sin(T x/ l)
Nx= = Pl r col(3). sin(T x/ l)
Stress resultants due to live load( table2)
= =k - = Nx/sin(T x/ l) Nx= /cos(T x/ l) N = /sin(T x/ l) M = /sin(T x/ l)
30 0 -18.23 0 -5.4 0
20 10 -17.13 -2.94 -5.236 0
10 20 -13.97 -4.19 -4.768 0
0 30 -9.120 -2.74 -4.05 0
At the valley(= = 00),
N = = 19.9 . sin(T x/ l)
Horizontal component of this force = N = . cos (300) = HL= 17.23. sin (T x/ l)
Since edge beam cannot resist such a horizontal force, this force must be applied back on the shell in the opposite
direction.
The vertical component of N = = 10.05 . sin (T x/ l).
This edge load will induce some stress resultant in the shell. These stress resultants can be found out by using table 2A.
The formulae given in this table are:
Nx = HL [(l/r)2 . col(5)] sin (T x/ l)
Nx= = HL [(l/r) . col(5)]cos (T x/ l)
N= = HL x col(7). sin (T x/ l)
M= = HL r x col(8). sin (T x/ l)
Stress resultant due to horizontal edge load( table3)
= =k- = Nx/sin(T x/ l) Nx= /cos(T x/ l) N = /sin(T x/ l) M = /sin(T x/ l)
30 0 50.51 0 -16.505 -13.796
20 10 1.796 5.5146 -16.81 -12.193
10 20 -56.259 -.2.00 -16.622 7.722
0 30 126.32 0 -14.934 0
Next deformations are calculated. It will follow the following convention:
Uu = deformation in longitudinal (x) direction
Uv = deformation in vertical direction
UH = deformation in horizontal direction
Using table 1B,the above mentioned deformations can be calculated using the following formulae:
Due to dead load :
Uv = Pd r (L4/ r3 t E) [(2r/T l)2 + 2/T4 +(r/ l)4 .col (10)] sin (T x/ l)
UH = Pd r (L4/ r3 t E)[ (r/ l)4. col(11) ] sin (T x/ l)
Displacement due to dead load( table4)
= =k - = Uv E/ sin(T x/ l) UH E/ sin(T x/ l)
30 0 17507.952 0
20 10 17442.172 372.465
10 20 17253.108 700.059
0 30 16963.413 943.142
Due to live load :
Uv = Pd r (L4/ r3 t E)[(1+0.5(T r/ l)2 + 1/12(T r/ l)4). col(4)] . sin(T x/ l)
UH = Pd r (L4/ r3 t E)[(r/ l)4. col(5) +[ 1+0.5(T r/ l)2 + 1/12(T r/ l)4].col(6)} . sin(T x/ l)
Displacement due to live load( table5)
= =k- = Uv E/ sin(T x/ l) UH E/ sin(T x/ l)
30 0 11904.2 0
20 10 11369.8 28.1494
10 20 9877.78 -296.207
0 30 7731.57 -1227.97
These are the deformations due to dead and live load acting on the shell but there will also be some deformations in the
respective directions due to the horizontal edge load which is sent back to the shell by the edge beam, the deformation due
to the this load is given by the formulas given in table 2B.
Horizontal edge load = 17.23 . sin(T x/ l)
Uv = HL (l4 / r3 t E) . col (4). sin(T x/ l)
UH = HL (l4 / r3 t E) . col (5). sin(T x/ l)
Therefore,
Uv E/ sin(T x/ l) = 818.871x103 KN/m
UH E/ sin(T x/ l) = 1.93466 x 106 KN/m
Displacements in the longitudinal direction
The deformation in the X- direction can be derived by integrating the following expression
u = W Ox dx, between the limits (x,L/ 2)
where,
Ox = strain in longitudinal direction
Also, Ox = Nx/ E t
Finally,
Eu/ cos(T x/ l) = -Nx/ t. (l/ T)
Using the above mentioned formula,
At the valley (= = 00),
Eu/ cos (T x/ l) = 4503.18 KN/m (dead load)
= 928.953 KN/m (live load)
= 12879.389 KN/m (horizontal edge load)
Xxy is defined as deflection in ‘x’ direction for ‘y ’ type of loading. Thus, [10] signifies the characteristic in the direction 1, ie Nx
due to original loading on the shell. [11] Signifies the characteristic in the direction 1,ie N =, when N = is taken is unity.
[13] Signifies the characteristic in the direction 1, when direction 3,ie N =x is taken as unity.
Where,
1 signify vertical direction.
2 signify horizontal direction.
3 signify longitudinal direction.
For the shell
X [10] E / sin(T x/ l) = -1.9056248 x 106 KN/m
X [30] E / cos(T x/ l) = 7447.23 KN/m
X [11] E / sin(T x/ l) = 417659.26 KN/m
X [31] E / cos(T x/ l) = -14039.25 KN/m
X [13] E / sin(T x/ l) = 14068.15 KN/m
X [33] E / cos(T x/ l) = -1244.72 KN/m
The next objective is to obtain the stress resultants for the beam. To obtain this, the following differential equation for two
loads vertical and shear edge load are solved .For vertical load (X1) ,
EI w””=-X1 sin(T x/ l)
Where, w is the deflection of the beam in the vertical direction.
In the sequence of the successive integration,
Mx = EI w” = - X1 (l2/ T 2)sin(T x/ l)
Tx = 0
EI w = - X1 (l4/ T 4) sin(T x/ l)
Eu = - X1 / I (l3/ T 3) d/2 cos (T x/ l)
Where I is the moment of inertia of the beam.
On doing similar calculations for longitudinal shear load (X3),
Ew = X3/ I (l3/ T3) d/ 2 sin(T x/ l)
Eu =X3 (l2/ T2) ( 1/ A + d2/ 4I) cos (T x/ l)
Tx = - X3 ( l/ T) sin(T x/ l)
Mx = X 3 ( l/ T) d/2 sin(T x/ l)
For the edge beam
X [10] E / sin(T x/ l) = -1534202 KN/m
X [30] E / cos(T x/ l) = 114700.921 KN/m
X [11] E / sin(T x/ l) = -105123.66 KN/m
X [31] E / cos(T x/ l) = -8256.39 KN/m
X [13] E / sin(T x/ l) = 8256.39 KN/m
X [33] E / cos(T x/ l) = 58.39 KN/m
The next step is to apply the compatibility equations at the edge for the shell and the edge beam.
Compatibility equations are:
X [ i0] + X [ i1] X1 + X [ i2] X2 + X [ i3] X3 + X [i4] X4 = 0 ( i = 1,2,3,4)
X [ i0] = X [ i0] (shell) + X [ i0] (beam)
By using the above mentioned compatibility equations, the values of X1 and X3 can be calculated. This comes out to be:
X1 = 7.881 KN/m2
X3 = -117.46 KN/m2
Using this value of X1 and referring to table 2A, the stress resultants are calculated as follows:
Stress Resultants due to X1( table6)
+ Nx/ sin (T x/l) Nx + / cos (T x/l) N + / sin (T x/l) M + / sin (T x/l)
30 -411.527 0 -26.496 -15.712
20 -311.813 -62.486 -20.743 -13.318
10 92.023 -86.342 -6.596 -7.235
0 1086.278 0 3.941 0
Using this value of X3 and referring to table 2A, the stress resultants are calculated as follows:
Stress Resultants due to X3( table7)
+ Nx/ sin (T x/l) Nx + / cos (T x/l) N + / sin (T x/l) M + / sin (T x/l)
30 341.609 0 7 2.029
20 54.233 45.961 2.713 1.353
10 -424.207 29.362 4.945 0.254
0 -1437.945 -117.46 0 0
On adding the all tables of stress resultants, the final table is obtained for stress resultant which is as follows:
Final stress resultants( table8)
+ Nx/ sin (T x/l) Nx + / cos (T x/l) N + / sin (T x/l) M + / sin (T x/l)
30 -88.256 0 -31.094 0.142
20 -223.211 -33.349 -28.549 0.228
10 -337.834 -77.44 -10 0.742
0 -278.554 -144.27 -1.061 0
Discussion of results
Based on the numerical studies conducted as on the 24m span open barrel shell using conventional Membrane Theory and
design table of ASCE it is seen that the stress variation at the valley and at the crown are calculated for closer intervals of =
which shows a non-linear variation in a profile to a degree of two. However, the stress values at these closer intervals
cannot be computed using the design tales of ASCE. Also, to fulfil the compatibility requirements and to reverse the Nx=
component at the valley, it is essential to assume the dimensions of the edge beam in case of using ASCE tables.
By comparing the transverse forces Nx obtained from the design tables (1) and (2) with that of values shown in Figure 6
obtained using membrane theory, it is seen that the ASCE table values are 22.26% more than the membrane theory values.
Similarly, in the case of the shear force Nx= at the valley, the values that are obtained from ASCE tables are 48.84% lower
than those obtained using membrane theory. This gives a contradictory picture of in-plane stress variation of the shell in two
mutually perpendicular directions. Therefore, a closer analysis of stress variation along a membrane is essential to
understand the response variation along the span at various intervals of =.
Conclusion
The following main conclusions are drawn based on the numerical studies conducted:
1) Stress variation in the transverse and longitudinal directions is non-linear which requires values at closer intervals
of x. These values can be readily obtained using membrane theory.
2) The edge stress values are significantly important for a closer range of = near the valley so that the reinforcement
can be designed according to the exact variation of the stresses. In the large curvature of shells, a 100 interval of
stress calculation given in ASCE is quite large which is unable to present the variation successfully.
3) The behaviour of the stress variant plotted based on membrane theory gives a clear understanding of the
analysis. Instead, calculations done based on ASCE tables fails to impart this understanding,
The authors are currently working on the preparation of design curves for single barrel and multibarrel open cylindrical shell
for a closer range of = which will be sent to the advisory committee of the Bureau of Indian Standards for incorporating it as
a code of provision.
References:
IASS-2000 ; International Association of Shell Structures
IS 2204-1962 ; Code of Practice for the construction of RCC shells
IS 2210-1988 ; Criteria for design of RCC shells
ASCE Manual 31 (1952) ; Design of cylindrical concrete shell roofs
