PSI - Issue 59

Alfiy Alfatarizqi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 59 (2024) 420 – 427 A. Alfatarizqi et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2024) 000 – 000

426

7

The average buckling pressure calculation result is around 0.89, signifying a stable central value. The small standard deviation (STDEV) of 0.12 indicates minimal deviation from the average, suggesting low data variation. The average coefficient of variation (COV) is 0.14, indicating a high level of consistency with minimal variation from the mean value. Overall, the data suggests stable and consistent calculation results, with minimal deviation from the mean value of approximately 0.89. 5.3. Combine Loading (Axial and external pressure) The study involves five cases, that which has been presented in the data table found in Table 6, each examining different loading conditions in a simulation calculation. In Case 1, external pressure is set at 100%, eliminating axial force. Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4 involve a combination of external pressure (75%) and axial force (25%).

Table 6. Test results for combine loading.

Percentage (%)

Experiment

Numerical

Ratio

Reference

External Pressure (MPa)

Axial Force (kN)

External Pressure (MPa)

Axial Force (kN)

External Pressure (MPa)

Axial Force (kN)

Model

Case

[8]/[6]

[9]/[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] 0.84 0.89 0.95 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.30 1.63 1.12 0.26 0.23

[11]

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

100

0

0.81 0.71 0.61

0

0.68 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.00 0.65 0.60 0.56 0.52

0

75 50 25

25 50 75

740

762.62 1525.23 2287.85 3050.46 714.36 1428.71 2143.07 2857.42 0

1.03 1.05 1.04 1.11 0.96 0.10 0.97 1.00 0.91 0.33 0.36

(Wang et al., 2021)

1450 2200 2755

1

0.5

0

100

0

100

0

0.58 0.51 0.43 0.32

0

75 50 25

25 50 75

748

(Wang et al., 2021)

14300

2

2200 2850

0

100

0

0

AVERAGE

STDEV

COV

Case 5, conversely, represents the ultimate strength scenario with 100% axial force and no external pressure. Abaqus FE tests show that in column [10], the average is approximately 1.12, with a lower standard deviation (0.26) and coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.23. In contrast, column [11] has an average of about 0.91, a higher standard deviation (0.33), and COV of 0.36. Overall, column [10] demonstrates better consistency and lower variation compared to column [11]. The results of the numerical simulations conducted in Abaqus FE are attached in Figure 4. 6. Conclusion In conclusion, this systematic review was conducted to investigate the behavior of cylindrical shells using a numerical approach and design formulas. The review was carried out by performing basic standard numerical analysis and benchmarking to models derived from previously published experiments. The results offer valuable insights into how this behavior can be predicted, which is crucial in a design office setting. From the numerical findings, it can be inferred that, in general, the accuracy of estimates is below 10%, whereas the formula-based approach yields slightly larger deviations within the range of 20%. This research contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the behavior of cylindrical shell structures, providing crucial data for engineers and designers working on structures and products that utilize such materials promptly.