WEIGHT OPTIMIZATION OF STIFFENED

CYLINDERS UNDER AXIAL COMPRESSIONt

GEORGE J. SIMITSE.~
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332,U.S.A.

and

VARIDDHIUNGBRARORN!
Chuialongkom University, Bangkok,Thailand

(Received 23 April 1975)

Abstract-A methodology is developed, by which one may design a stafened cylinder of specitied material, radius.
and length, such that it can safely carry a given uniform axial compression with minimum weight. The solution
procedure is divided into two stagrs, Phase I and Phase II. In Phase 1, an unconstrained mmimixation is performed
against one of the active constraints (m this paper-general instability) and data are generated in a sutBciitIy Iarge
region of the design space by employing efficient mathematical search techniques. in Phase II, these data are
employed to arrive at the miniium weight configuration that satisfies all other constraints. Two design exampks are
presented which demonstrate the methodology.

NOhlENCUTL’RE Poisson’s ratio

stringer and ring cross-sectional area weight density of stringer and ring
stringer and ring shape parameter weight density of skin
Aexural stiffness of the skin nondimensional lkxural stitfmsses of stringer
Young’s moduli of elasticity of skin, stringer, and ring
riag yieid stress
general instabihty load coefficient prebtrckhng stresses of the skin
panel buckIii Ioad WefBcient prebuckhng stresses of stringer and ring
total iengt6 of the shell critical stresses of stringer lange and web
applied axial compressive load critical local skin buckhng stress.
general instabihty critical axial compressive load
nondimensional load parameter
radius of the shel) ~BRBVIATIONS
weight of the leg AR angle ring
nondimensioaaI weight parameter AS angle stringer
composite weight ftmction ASRR angIe stringer and rectat@ar ring
nondimensional composite weight function CR channel ring
curvature parameter, (L’(1 - v*)“?Rh) cs channel stringer
huge widths of stringer and ring CSCR channel stringer and ring
ilange to web thickness ratios of stringer and ring CSRR channel stringer and rectangular ring
stringer and ring depths CSTR channel stringer and tee ring
stringer and ring eccentricities GB gross buckling, N/&,
nondimensional stringer and ring eccentricities IR l-ring
skin thickness IS I-stringer
width to depth ratios of stifiener sections IAR inverted angle ring
stringer and ring spacings IAS inverted angle stringer
number of axial and circumferential waves for ISIR I-stringer and ring
..
general instability MG
number of axial and circumferential waves for ;~~:~~:R,ls,,~p”
panel instabhity g rectat@ar ring
thickness of web of stringer and ring RS rectangular stringer
thickness of Aange of stringer and ring RYT ring yielding in tension, a,,.,/~~
displacement components of reference surface RSRR rectangrdar saiuger and ring
points skin buckiing,u,.Ju~*,
coordinate system :: skin yielding, u,/uo
nondimensional radii of gyration of stringer and STB stringer buckling, u..,~lo,,,
ring STFB stringer flange budding, o,,/u~,,”
Lagrange multiplier STWB stringer web buckling u, Iu,,
nondimensional Lagrange multiplier STYC stringer yielding in compression, u,,iuO
nondimensional extensional stifIncsses of stringer TR tee ring
and ring TS tee stringer
TSCR tee stringer and channel ring
TSRR tee stringer and rectam@r ring
tResearch sponsored by the Air Force Oflice of Scientific TSTR tee stringer and ring
Research, Air Force Systems Command, USAF, under AFGSR WMG without minimum guage
Grant No. 74-2655. ZR zee ring
SProfessor, School of Engineering Science and Mechanics. zs zee stringer
OInstructor, Department of Mechanical Engineering. ZSZR zee stringer and ring.

305
CAS VOL. 5 NO. 5lfr-D
306 GEORGE J. %4lTSES and VARIDDHI
t.~ODUC~ON
AS the size of modem aerospace vehicles increases, the
demand for light weight structures increases. This has
made the structural engineer, engaging in this area, more
and more conscious of minimum weight design. A
structural configuration that is used widely in aerospace
vehicles is the stiffened thin cylindrical shell, Since
stiffened thin cylindrical shells have been used exten-
sive& in the past thirty years, a tremendous effort has
been exerted in designing such a portion for
minimum weight. Better understanding, during the past
decade, of the failure modes of stiffened thin cylindrical
shells, for aerospace use, has produced some important
results in the attempt to achieve ~n~um weight
design[ l-161. A critical review of these efforts is
presented in Ref. [I6].
The precise statement of the problem considered in the
present paper is as follows: Given an internally stiffened,
thin circular, cylindrical shell of speci6ed material, radius,
and length, hnd the size, shape, and spacings of the
stiffeners, and the thickness of the skin, such that the
resulting configuration can safely carry a given uniform
axial compressive load with ~imum weight.
The design objective is minimum weight and ‘safely
carry’ means that no failure mode can possibly take place
for the resulting configuration. The failure modes
considered are, general ~s~b~ty, panel inst~~ty, local
instabilities of the skin hounded by stiffening members)
and stiffeners, and yieiding or limitations in the state of
stress for all elements of the configuration. In addition, it
is required that the locution be such that there is no
possibility of inte~~tion of the different failure modes
(see Ref. [17]). Finally, geometric constraints are used in
order to accomplish designs with realistic dimensions for
the design variables (skin thickness, dimensions and
spacings of the stiffeners, etc.).
The meth~olo~ empioyed in ac~omp~s~ng a sotution
to this problem is based on the fact that at least one active
constraint is known. This means that the primary criterion
for design is apriori known.
Depending on the size of the fuselage, the level of the
applied loads, and the section of the fuselage to be
designed, different primary criteria must be used. For
example, for some section of the fuselage, the primary
~onside~tion in the design process is strength for others
it is stiffness. Finally. for a large section, usually in the
middle part, it is general instability. Therefore the role of
the primary consideration and constraints are inter-
changed for different sections. The present paper is
concerned with the minimum weight design of that part of
the fuselage for which the primary consideration is
general instability.
For this case the dependence of the general instability
load on the geometric parameters is obtained from linear.
smeared theory for eccentrically stiffened thin circular
cylindrical shells. Since linear theory is used, there is no
assessment of the effect of geometric inperfections. In
addition, the effects of prebuckling deformations and edge
restraints have been ignored. Because of these, the
proposed solution provides an interim solution within the
current state-of-the-art and all these effects may be
lumped into a desired ‘knockdown factor.” The load case
chosen, uniform axial compression, can represent a
bending design case for fuselages when the maximum
bending stresses are equal to the stresses due to uniform
axial compression Justification is given in Ref. (181.
The solution to this problem is accomplished in two
~~GBH~~~R~
stages. First in Phase I, the augmented objective function
(see Ref. (191) is formulated on the basis of one of the
active constraints (in this particular case general instabil-
ity) and a mathematics search technique is employed to
generate design charts (a sufficiently large amount of
information in the design space without regard to all other
constraints). Next in Phase II, these design charts are
employed to arrive at a minimum weight configuration
satisfying all other cons~aints..
This procedure, effectively, leads to a minimum weight
configuration against general instability and satisfies all
other possible constraints (behavioral and geometric) as
well.
Tbe proposed procedure has many advantages over the
past attempts. Firstly, the design charts provide the
necessary insight and information to the designer in order
to deviate from the optimum solution when other
~o~side~tions, such as av~~~~ty and cost of construc-
tion, become important. Secondly, the designer can avoid
the simultaneous occurrence of various failure modes and
thus minimize the possibility of arriving at a configuration
which is unnecessarily more imperfection sensitive (see
discussion in Ref. 1163).Finally, this procedure allows the
consideration of many different shapes of stiffening
members.
There are three major failure modes for the problem
posed above. These are, general instability, panel
~stability and yielding of the material of the stiffened
cylindrical shell. In the present probiem one is concerned
with large thin circular cylindrical shells for fuselage
application only. In such an application, the loading does
not cause yielding of the material to become critical.
Thus, the remaining two principal catastrophic modes of
failure are general and panel instabUities. Since the stress
level in the rings, in this probiem, is very low, one can
always adjust the ring spacing such that the panel
instability load is higher than the general instability load
for the same weight. Hence, the augmented objective
function chosen for ‘Phase 1’ is the weight of the shell
with the equality constraint of general instability built into
it. The other constraints to be satisfied in ‘Phase 2’ are the
behavioral inequ~ity constants of panel instability.
wrinkling of the skin, local instability of the stringers.
limitations on the stress level in the skin, stringers and
rings, and the avoidance of simultaneous occurrence of
failure modes. In addition, the geometric inequality
constraints which represent the realistic design dimen-
sions of the design variables are to be satisified as well
The mathematical formulation of this problem for
rectangular cross-section stiffening members has been
presented in Ref. [16]. Following the same procedure. the
augmented objective function, W*, using the tee, channel,
ree, I, inverted angle, angle, and rectangular stiffeners is
given by
w* = w + A[&., - ‘G\, (1)
where W is the weight of the stiffened shell, A a Lagrange
multiplier. fi the applied stress resultant, and NXX,,the
general instability critical load. Note that N can include a
safety factor and/or ‘knockdown’ factor.
In a nondimension~i~ed form equation (II becomes
 Weight optimization of stiffened cylinders under axial compression

i--b,4 ’
b) tee

and the expression for R, is given in Ref. [16].

Thus, ** is a function of the following parameters,

W* = F(L, I,,,, Z, A, jYr,L, Q. m2, j’). (4)

A careful study of this function reveals that there exists

no set of values for Z, &, & L, and gYthat minimizes
w*. It can be seen that as Z increases @* decreases.
Similarly, as b increases W* decreases. This implies that
if a given stiffener material is distributed in such a manner
that, alghough its contribution to the extensional stiffness
is the same, its contribution to the Bexural stiffness, j, is
continuously increasing, then the critical load for general
instability is continuously increasing. Thus, in order to
carry safely, against general instability a given load with !-b,d
minimum weight the 5exural sti5ness should be as large
as possible. Of course in doing so the local instability e) 1 I) angle
failures will dominate the design. Thus there are limiting b,= kd, 1, = C&

values (upper bounds) on both B and 6 if no failure, of any Fig. 2. Gqnetry of stiffener cross sections.
kind, is to occur. In addition, for fixed values of Z, 8, and Z
there is a minimizing set of h:, and h;+. Because of this,
sti5ener shapes are given by
charts are generated in the space of Z, )i, and Z which
give the minimu_mweigh: and the corresponding minimix-
ing values of A, and A,, at each point (unconstrained p= &2X
minimization against general instability only). z = 3TZ(l- v)“2
(l+cc). (3
At this point it is convenient to introduce four new 22 1
parameters, 6, & G, and C,. The new parameter, d,
denotes the ratio of the stiffener radius of gyration to that
of the skin of unit width. The new parameters C, and C,, Note that subscripts x and y must be used in these
called the shape parameters, depend on the shape and for expressions to differentiate between stringers and rings,
each shape on the cross-sectional dimensions of the and that the expressions for 5 and C are found in Table 1.
stiffeners. Figure 2 describes the geometry of a number of Use of these new parameters in equation (4) yields
stiffener cross sections, and Table 1 gives the expressions
for & and C. Assuming that t,, tj 6 d,, p and E for all rt* = F(L, X,n m2, R2, (Z, &, 6, C,, C,)]. (6)

The change of parameters is introduced because it is

easier to find a reasonable range, for data generation, of
the new parameters rather than fi-, fin, K and &,
Now, with these changes, the precise statement of the
mathematical formulation in Phase 1 is as follows: for
each type of_ stiflener, Z value and for a given load
parameter, F, minimize the weight parameter with
respect to A, and xYYin the space of C and 6,
(unconstrained minimization against general instability).
In generating these charts, the mathematical search
technique of Nelder and Mead[20] is employed. Many
others were tried but this search technique proved to be
the most efficient in the two-dimensional space (L, XYY).

Phase II
Before outlining the necessary steps in achieving the
minimum weight design, it is imperative to list all the
needed equations concerning states of stress and failure
loads_in te_rmsof the design variables and the given data
(Au, A,,, h? etc.).
Fig. 1.Shell geometq The prebuckling state of stress in the shin, stringers and
308 GEORGE
J. Srtms~s and
Table 1. Propertiesof stiffener cross-sections
section AC%*A
rings is given by
Flat plate equations are used in predicting critical loads
for local skin and stiffener instability failures. It is also
assumed that ah edges of stiffeners and skin connecting
any part of the cylinder are simply supported. With both
rings and stringers on the inside, the possible buckling
failure modes and critical conditions are as follows:
Skin w_$nkling. The skin is considered as simply
supported on all four edges and subject to biaxial
compression [see equations (7)]. The critical condition is
found from the following equation, taken from Ref. @I,
(8)
Local stringer buckling. The critical stress for a flat
plate under uniaxiai compression with various edge
conditions is given in Bleich[22] as
where, a is the stiffener web thickness or stiiTener flange
thickness, b is the height of the stiffener web or the width
of the stiffener flange, and K is the edge factor which
depends on how the plate is supported at the four edges.
When rings are deepest the portion of a stringer
between any adjacent rings is a flat plate of length +J,.The
stringer web is considered as four sides simply supported
while the flange portion, a flat plate with three sides
simply supported and the unloaded side free.
In the case when stringers are deepest, the material of
the stringer web below the ring material is assumed to
buckle as a Bat plate of length e, with four sides simply
supported, while the outstanding portion of the stringer
web is considered as a flat plate of length L with four
VARIDDHI ~~~~HAKOR~
: c
sides simply supported. The stringer Range, which is
above the ring material, is also treated as a flat ptate of
length L with three sides simply supported and the
unloaded side free. For rectangular stringers there is no
stringer flange, therefore the stringer material above the
ring material is treated as a flat plate of length L with
three sides simply supported and the unloaded side free.
During the design process, however, it has been
discovered that when stringers are deepest, and in the
region where & > CE,, either the resulting design co&gura-
tion will always have the ring thickmess and stringer
thickness which are too thin to be fabricated or the
stringers will buckle. Thus, this subcase of the local
stringer failure can be disregarded in the design process
by concentrating only in the region where 4 > CE,in favor
of practical limitation on fabrication. In addition, since
both rings and stringers are inside and the rings are in
tension, there is no possibility of buckling failure for the
rings.
The critical stresses of stringers for several types of
stiffening members, when rings are deepest, are given in
Table 2.
Considering only the absolute values of these stresses
during the design process, the critical stresses for lo4
buckling faiiure must be greater than the applied stresses,
equations (7).
Skin yi@f~i~g. Since the skin is in a biaxial compression
the von Mises-Hencky yield criterion is used.
a, = [a&4 + c& - oureu~ylt]“I. (101
Note that any yield criterion can easily be applied. The
same is true for yielding of the stringers and rings.
In the design of the stiffened circular cylindrical shell
the following quantities are known.
1. The applied uniform axial compressive load.
1. The radius and length of the stiffened shell.
3. The skin and stiffener materials and their associated
properties.
4. The position of the stifIeners (inside).
The design variabtes to be dete~n~ are the skin
thickness, and the ring and stringer shapes, sizes and
spacings. The necessary steps in designing the stiffened
shell, for minimum weight, using different types of
stiffening members are outlined. Expressions of stringer
buckling for various types of stiffener sections are given
in Table 2.
The design procedure for rectangular stiffeners has
been outlined in Ref. 1161.In the present paper, only the
design of TSTR (tee stringers and rings) is described in
detail. Results, though, are presented for other stiffener
shapes.
 Weight op~~jzation of stiffened cylinders under axial compression 309

1. For each 2 (see Appendix for the selection of 2 If the quantity under the radioal sign is negative, then
values) locate the minimumweight parameter tv’ in the any & willsatisfy this constraint The seicoted 4, must bc
& 6, space. Correspondingto this value of E, mad checked to insure that panel instability dots not occur.
values of &, &,,and rn~g valuesof b and AWOne For small k, (i.e. d* is srnah), the stringers are
then follows steps 2-7 such that no consort is violated. equivaknt to the bulb&cadstringers;thcreforc there will
If at Icast one c.otWraintis viola&done must increasethe be no stringerflangebuckling.Thus, one willuot have the
weight and repeat the proecdure. above expressionfor t,, but 6 is de&mu&d on the basis
2. Calculate the apphcd stresses, equations (71, and of panel instabilityalone, with the number of rings being
check the yield con~tioo (or limitationon stress levels).If greater than thrce[231.
this condition is violated, increase the weight. 6. From the scicctcd &, calculate r., from step 4. Nc?
3. The stringerand ring heightsare computedfrom the the ringflangethicknessand widthare dctcrmincdfrom
definitionsof d, and hi,
tfi = C&y9 b* = kdwy.
Since the effect of ce on the miuimum weight is
neghgiiic, take ch equal to one.
4. The ratios of the stiffcncr thickness to t&estiffe_ner 7. From the constraint of skin wri&hng one must
spacingare detcrmincdfrom the de~nitionsof L and h,. determinethe acceptable range!on &valucs, by cmpIoy-
ing equation (8). This is ~rnp~ with the aid of a
small computer program. An aooeptablc e, value is then
selected.
8. From the selected h, oaloulatc the stringer web
(12) thickness, L, from step 4. Then the stringer flange
thickness and width are determined from
5. From the constraints of stringer fiange buckling :@= ctif,, b,, = k&z. Wf
(13) Since the effect of ct, on the minimum weight is
one has, negligible,take cfi equal to one.
The simultaneous occurrence of gcncral instabiity,
panel instabilityand loeal instabilitiesoan be avoided by
(14) proper choice of G and &
9. Check the local stringer web bu&iug.

where

d,X=-i(bti -t,) for TS. (15)

(Note that 4 = bh - t, for IAS).
 310 GEORGE J. SIMITSES and VARIDDHI UNGBHAKORN

If /uml”,, / >l~,,,~j, one goes to the next step. Otherwise,

the weight must be increased and steps 2-8 are repeated.
10. Calculate the weight of the stiffened shell.

W = 2 IrRLhp,I,rt: (18) kp= 4919

11. Repeat the above steps for a number of 2 values (h)

and plot W vs h. At least three values of h are needed.
From the plot, one can then locate the absolute minimum
weight with the corresponding value of h. and hence Z.
12. With the value of 2 for minimum weight in step I I, 011 014 m on 015 1121
one then generates the required data (design charts and Shell ThlCrneSS h / I” ,

tables) and repeats step l-10 to finalize the dimensions. Fig. 3. Shell weight vs skin thickness (Case 1,TSRR).
This last step is performed only when the exact minimum
weight conhguration is desired.
Note that most of the work involved in the design
stage, Phase II, can be automated through small computer
programs that use the generated chart data from phase I
as input data. In so doing it is necessary to change the
inequality constraints to equality constraints by employ-
ing certain numerical factors (in the sense of safety
factor).
Details concerning the generated data (Phase I) and
calculations in the design stage (Phase II) may be found in
Ref. [24]. t
ml 1 1 , , , , , , ,
3. DmIeN RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS III In tn i24 426
Shell Thickness. h ( I”,
The cylinder geometries and load taken as design
examples are the following: Fig. 4. Shell weight vs skin thickness (Case 1,TSTR).

m
Case 1: R = 95.5 in., L = 291 in.
I?= 800 lb/in., fl* = 1.233x IO-* c c,= 111
v= 0.33, ur = 50,000psi :lu 1-1 cy= 1
k, = 1126
E = E, = E, = 10.5 x 10”psi i
2 k, = 0
pIk= pX= pr = O-101lb/in’ 3 CfX = Cfy = I
Case 2: R = 85 in., L = 100in. t-i I#
5 MG = 41 co

Q= 2700 lb/in., fl* = 2,036 x 10e6

v = 0.33, u. = 45,000 psi
E = E, = E, = 10.5 x 10”psi
,,,3 41: on 021 n4 426

Psk = jh = pv = 0.101 lb/in.‘. Shell Thickness. h , I” )

Fig.5. Shell weight vs skin thickness (Case 1.CSRR).
Case I corresponds to case 7-I in Ref. 1141.Case I
represents a moderately loaded shell. The designs using

ir
I#
rectangular rings and stringers have been done in Ref.
[W.
Some design results of Case 1 with MG = 0.02 in. using I -AS

the combination of rectangular, tee, and channel stiffening

members are shown in Figs. 3-5. The design results
indicate that the location of the minimum weight
configurations for various shapes of stiffening members
(different values of C, and C,) correspond to approxi-
mately the same value for h (O-002in.). Furthermore, the
curves are very flat therefore a relatively large variation
of the skin thickness will result in designs which differ
only by a small percentage in weight. This implies that in
Fig. 6. Effect of stringer shape on weight (Case 1, rectangular
order to design the same case for other shapes of
rings-c, = I).
stiffening members one needs to generate data at the value
of Z corresponding to the skin thickness of 0*0X?in. only.
The effects of stringer and ring shapes of all cross- ring) is cut through this figure, one has a two-dimensional
sections considered herein are investigated in order to case shown on Fig. 6. That is. using rectangular rings, the
obtain the absolute minimum weight configuration of Case tee or inverted angle stringer ITS or IAS) with C, = 1.09
I. Consider the minimum weight design of various shapes gives the least weight while the best weight of channel.
of stiffening members as a three dimensional figure in the zee, or I stringer (0, ZS, IS) is at about C, -0.86. The
space of W, C,, C’,.and if the plane C, = 1 (rectangular angle stringer (AS) shows the best weight at its
 Weightoptimizationof stiffenedcyliodersunder axialcompression 311

Table3. Casel.EffectofstringershapesusiagRR(C, = I)

.6519 .35OC 0
k.
1.223 1.097 1.043 1
%
w 753 703 706 735
h .a2210 .02203 ..02203 .02210
.ozoO+ .02015 .OZlOO .03262
%dttr
k .02722 .02766 .01991 .02272
d, .32683 .441*7 -42357 .4b210
bfx .21306 .I5451 .06b71 ___
d 2.54210 l.bSlJ? 2.33302 2.loooO
vy
1 .a5433 .68ebQ .6bllf .91965
6.35882 10.77778 9.36710 9.38710

01) 1.0000 l.OOW 1.0000 1.0006

D .9217 .a%9 .9369 .9017
D .6963 .9316 .s742 -9542
SfnB .I%6 .2506 .2369 .9292
SlTQ .5073* .239W .05OQ* -__
QTFS .lVlb .0600 0 --.
QY .bb4S .4515 .b644 .4629
SlYC .4X6 .44bO ,434Q .4166
BY2 .1124 .12M ,123) .11b6
II 20 15 18 18
II 6 10 9 9
*P 1 1 I 1
*P 36 33 37 36

_
StC*er
m9 cs. 2s. or IS As

L. .%71 .2226 .lOOO .2510 .I336

C .7w .787 .s66 ,706 ,117
Y SM! 721 714 1117 7a7
h .02203 .02203 .02203 ,02203 .02203
'm'ffx .02072 .02006 .02070 .02956 .03Ob2
k .02390 .02160 .02436 .02729 .02432
dvx .36537 .41383 .55317 .42816 .b2Q96
b *18S26 .OQ236 -05532 .I0781 .w604
tx
dVP 2.64315 2.20263 1.5bls4 2.32276 2.3127b
ff .SYO3 .wslO *so051 .SZl26 .91sa3
A 9.31710 9.38710 11.64000 8.81tZO 9.09375
GE Lo000 LOOCG 1.0000 LOOMI l.OODO
PV .9291 .9302 .8230 .SObO .Sbll
QB .9301 .9247 .QlM .9315 .sb66
SlnB .1287 11996 .33bO .6821 *as70
sl!FB .0991* o* c+
SfFs .3961 .flbl .0369 *_* _--
m .4164 .430? .4314 .4125 .b265
Q!fYc .bosO .bblQ .4258 .4018 .4107
RPT .1056 .l?OQ .1243 .102Q .loQ2
n 19 LB 13 19 19
n 9 9 11 a 9
"P 1 1 1 1 1
nP 37 37 32 39 38

degeneration into a rectangular stringer. Table 3 shows
the minimum weight design geometry considcriug the
effect of stringer shapes usiug rectangular rings.
The effect of ring shapes on the cylinder weight is
investigated by passing the plane with different values for
C, through the ~murn weight figure in W, C,, C, space.
The results shown on Figs. 7 and 8 are for C, = I.097 and
0%6; only because these two C, values give the best
weight for each type of stringer (T’Sand CS) (see Fig. 7).
The results show that the rectangular ring is the most
efficient in designing a circular cylindrical shell under a
uniform axial compression. This suggests that the
extensional stiffness of the ring plays an importaut role
for this load case (uniform axial compression) but not its
flexural stiffness. The resulting design configurations are
shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Case 2 is a geometry similar to the C-141 fuselage
immediately after the wing box. Figure 9 and Table 6
present the necessary data and results for. minimum
weight design using TSRR with MG = 0.05 in. The results
indicate that the absolute minimum weight using TSRR is
at C,=lM
 312 GEORGEJ. SIMITSESand VARIDDHIUNGBHAKORN

Table 4. Case 1. Effect of ring shapes using most eficient stringer Table6. Case2. Minimumweight design using RR

(Is or IA&c - 1.097) py:- .oz in. 'Sin for IA6

x
a-6
rfm -or Aa

.3500 .6OW .ZOW

Irr .I429 ,650 ,450 .300 J
C 1.097 1.193 .79a ,798
1.212 1.135 1.079 1
Y 705 721 727 727 '4 4a4 478 473 w)6
h .02203 .02203 .02203 .02203 h .osow .05owJ .05ooo .o5ooo
tdtfx ,02037 .02081 .02127 .02127 ktfx .osola .o5o52 .05258 .06050
k+Y .02105 .02664 .02oso .02197 tw .a5519 .06235 .05419 .0507a
du% .47026 .46066 .36&P .36469 dwx .60874 .51992 .70117 '.6OGJO
bfx .16459 .16123 .12766 .12764 btx .39568 .23395 .21035 -_m
d 1.34359 1.14676 2.10851 2.4o972 d 1.75ooo 2.25ow 1.75000 3.oowo
Y "I
bfY .47026 .66606 .42170 .34435 L
1% 1.62249 1.53833 1.58397 1.54725
11 .a0197 .88197 .a4829 .a4829 Y 11.11111 1o.oWoo 12.5oooo 9.09091
L 11.64Wo 11.64030 8.81620 a.81620 0 l.WW LOO00 1.w l.OoW
em .?270 .8662 .727o .a821
CB l.wQo 1.oWo .l.WW l.owJo
SE .9111 .a898 .a765 .9168
* .a782 .9132 ,933s .9335
SluB .1036 .0972 .1531 .a521
an .9o73 .9063 .a994 .a994
STFB .oP49 ,028s .olaz ___
snm .2975 .2730 .I737 .1737
SY .744a .a091 .7517 .a240
SWB .2b32* .2387* .UPo* .139w
STPB .0658 .0597 .0346 .034a
SfYC .7326 .7896 .7w)a .a013
RYT .2094 .zoas .2154 .2073
SY .434a .4388 .4697 .4697
D 4 5 4 i
slw .4326 .4316 .4579 ,457P
0 9 3 9 ,
BY-f .1260 .1217 .1346 .1346
m 13 13 19 19
% 1 i 1 1
UP 26 30 25 31
il 11 10 9 9
mP 1 I 1 1
DP 31 31 38 38

Table 5. Case I. Effect of ring shapes using most efficient Cs, Zs,

fill
-t ,-CR.ZA.IR.orAR
nc - .oz in. ‘STFBfor IS
i
0 Cfx’ CfyZ 1
Rinr P
wD* lx 02 IM (8.ZX.IB &R MO = I2 in

.35W ,600
p
Irr .2oGu .I429
C
"
1.037
711
1.193 .796 .798
i
716 719 719
h .02203 .02203 .02203 .02203
%x'CfX .02027 .02012 .02005 .02oo5
U II II HI rn cy
LY.CfY .02437 .02411 .02526 .02708 Fig. 7. Effect of ring shapes on weight (Case I, most eficient
%x .55317 .534CP .55317 .55317 stringer-TS or IASwithC. = 1497).
bfx .05532 .05341 .05532 .05532
dY 1.24762 1.14676 1.31702 1.50607 I41
b fY

lx
.4366,
.PWSl
.68806
.90051
.26356
.9oo51
.21522
.PW51
l-
L 12.125W 10.39286 11.64Wo 11.64oW
rCR, ZR.IR,or AR
61 1.WW 1.0000 l.CiMO 1.0000 gIlI-
PB .9070 .7380 .a439 .a439 E
6% .9389 .9561 .9440 .944C 0 _ qx = qy = 1
3
SM .3541 .3389 .364C .36&l MG = ll I”
SW .oo97* .W93' .0100* .0100+ $lH -
.03aa .0373 .o398 .039a m
SW
rf .4351 .4431 .4375 .4375
slpc .4292 .4357 .4306 .4306
RI-f .I246 la I I 1 I 4 I I I ,
.1227 .1223 .1223
41 * w In I?# cy
I 13 14 13 13
n 11 11 11 11 Fig. 8. Effect of ring shapes on weight (Case.1, most efficient C, Z,
IP 1 I 1 1 or I stringer with C, = 0.866).
nP 32 33 32 32

combinations of the design variables which correspond to

the same minimum weight.
6. CONCLUSIONS 2. The present approach allows the designer to deviate
The important conclusions of the present investigation from the minimum weight solution with minimum penalty
are: in weight, in order to avoid interaction among failure
1. The solution of the minimum weight design problem modes and/or unrealistic design variables.
is not unique. This means that there are several 3. Among ail combinations of the rectangular, tee, zee,
 Weight optimization of stiffened cylinders under axial compression
(I( c, = I.070
cy = I
k, = I /
MG = .I5 I”
.01 45
Shell Thtckness, h ( I” ,
Fig. 9. Shell weight vs skin thickness (Case 2, TSRR).
channel, I, angle, and inverted angle stiEening members,
the circular cylindrical shell stiffened by tee stringers and
rectangular rings is most efficient (least weight). The
minimum *eight configuration of Case 1 has tee stringers
corresponding to C, = 1.09, that of Case 2, C, = I@.
4. The curves of minimum W vs h have wide flat
portion. This implies that large variations in skin thickness
(up to ca. 10 per cent) yield design configurations with
small difference in weight. Consequently, no exact Z is
required for the minimum weight design.
5. The methodology employed herein enables the
designer to carry out important trade-off studies, as he can
arbitrarily move in the design space and examine all
feasible designs.
Acknowlrdgunmis-This work was supported by the United
Stntes Air Force OfTice of Scientific Research under Grant
AFOSR-74-2655. The monitor of the project is Mr. William
Walker. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support, encour-
agement and many valuable discussions with Mr. Walker.
1. R. F. Crawfordand A. B. Burns, Minimumweightpotentials
for stilkned plates and shells, AXAAJ. 1, 879-886 (1%3).
2. A. B. Burns and B. 0. Almroth, Structm-al optimization of
axially compressed, ringer stiffened cylinders, J.
SpcrcecrCljt& Rockezs 3, 19-25 (1966).
3. A. B. Burns, Structural optimization of axially compressed
cylinders, considering ring-stringer eccentricity effects, 1.
Spacecrta~ & Rockets 3, 1263-1268(1966).
4. C. Lakshmikantbam and G. Gerard, Minimum weight design
of stiEened cylinders, Aenmaur Q. Feb. pp. 49-68 (1970).
5. J. L. Shideler, M. S. Anderson and L. R. Jackson, Optimum
mass-strength analysis for orthotropic ring-stiffened cylipders
under axial compression,’ NASA TND-6772,July (1972).
6. G. A. Cohen, optimum design of truss-core sandwich
cylinders under axial compression, AIM J. 1, 1626-1630
(1%3).
7. A. B. Burns and J. Skogh, Combined loads minimum weight
analysis of stafened plates and shells. J. Spocecrajf L Rockets
3, 235-240 (1966).
8. D. L. Block, Minimum weightdesign of axially compressed
ring and stringer stiffened cyiindrical shells, NASA CR-1766,
July (1971).
9. L..A. Schmit,, T. P. Kicher and W. M. Morrow, Structural
synthesis capability for integrally stiffened watTle plates,
AIM J. 1, 2820-2836(1963).
10. W. M. Morrow and L. A. Schmit, Structmal synthesis of a
8tiEened cylinder NASA CR-1217,December (1968).
11. W. J. Stroud and N. P. Sykes, Minimum-weight stiffened
sheUs with slight meridional curvature designed to support
axial compressive loads, AJAA J. 7, 1599-1601(1%9).
12. T. P. Kicher, Structural synthesis of integrally stiffened
cylinders, J. Spacecraft & Rockets 5, 62-67 (1968).
13. M. Pappas and C. L. Amba-Rao, A direct search algorithm for
automated optimum structural design, AU.4 J. 9, 387-393
(1971).
313
14. R. T. Jones and D. S. Hague, Application of multivariable
search techniques to structural design optimization, NASA
CR-2038.
!5. L. W. Rehlield, Design of stiffened cylinders to resist axial
compression, J. Spacccrajf & Rockets 10, 346-349 (1973).
16. G. J. Simitses and V. Ungbhakom, Minimum weight design of
stiffened cylinders under axial compression, AIAA Paper No.
74-101. January, 1974(also accepted for publication in AIAA
J.).
17. J. M. T. Thomson and G. M. Lewis, On the optimum design of
thin-walled compression members, 1. Mech. Phys. Solids 20.
101-109 (1972).
18. D. L. Block, Buckling of eccentrically stiffened orthotropic
cylinders under pure bending, NASA TN D-3351(1966).
19. A. V. Fiacco and G. P. McCormick, Nonlinear Programming;
Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques, Wiley,
New York (19&J).
20. J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, A simplex method of function
minimization. Cornouter J. 7, 308-313 (1964).
21. S. P. Tiiosh&ko &d J. M. &se, Theo& oiElostic Stability.
McGraw-Hill, New York (l%l).
22. F. Bleich Buckling Strength of Metd Structures. McGraw-
Hill, New York (1952).
23. J. Singer and R. Haftka, Buckling of discretely ring-stiffened
cvlindrical shells. Isrorl J. Teckn 6. 125-137119681.
24. G: J. Simitses and V. Ungbbakom, h&mum w&bt’designof
fuselage type stiffened circular cylindrical shells subject to
uniform axial compression, AFOSR TR-75-0137, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta (1974).
Guidelinefor datageneration
In several design cases the approximate value of the skin
thickness can be estimated, therefore the interval of 2,
z -i LZ(l - Pqm
Rh ’
for which the data must be generated, is greatly reduced. But
without a priori knowledge of the skin thickness the following
procedure to establish the range of Z values is recommended.
It is well known that the skin thickness of an tmstiffened
circular cylindrical shell subject to a given axial compressive load
is given by
hu= JE’SiR
Since the weight of the unstiffened geometry is greater than that of
a stringer- and ring-stiffened geometry, h. will provide a lower
bound for the velue of Z. It may also be anticipated that the
optimum stiffened geometry has a skin thickness not less than IS
per cent of k.. This may be considered as a lower bound for h or an
upper bound for the value of Z. Thus, if one defines Z. by
Z” = LW-Y,
then the range of Z values, in which the optimum co@nration is
expected to lie, is
Z. =Zs6Z.
In the case of uniform axial compression, from designing
experience, one generally expects the optimum con&tuation to
have both rings and stringers with rings being deeper than
stringers to strengthen the local stringer buckling. Furthermore,
whcnstrmgvSaredceperthanringapDdintheregion~>6,,the
design dimensions (stringer and ring thickness, ring spacing, etc.)
become too small to accept. Also from thin ring theory one must
have approximately
R
d,4=.
31-i GEORGE J. SIMITSES
and VARIDDHI
UNGBHAKORN

Hence. the region for which the data must be generated. for each
Z. is where
R satisfied. Call this weight W..
rE,s& and &<z.
Now the question is: What value of Z in the (Z., 62.) intervai
should be tried first? The following procedure is recommended.
I. Divide Z into 6 intervals: Z., !Z”. .6Z..
2. Obtam data at Z =4Z. and design the stiffened shell
according to design procedure outlined, such that the resulting
configuration has the lowest weight with all constraints being
3. Repeat Step ? with Z = SZUand obtain the cylinder weight
W5.
4. If W, -CW,,one repeats Steps 2 with Z = 32.. If W, > W,.
one repeats Step 2 with Z = 62.. if W, = W, then the minimum
weight configuration is between AZ. and 52..