_N A S A REPORT
_ i_ B
I
!z CASE Fi LE
i _Prepared b),
E7 :
E_
k
_k
!

E
!
NASA CR1457
For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151  Price $3.00
ACE
I
/
_ / /_D 1Rp_l
IBCB_]N);
CORE i
/
{
DEPTH ! / _ _t l
RIBBON
DIRECTION
iii
ABSTRACT
The basic objective of this study was to develop and compile a manual which
would include practical and uptodate methods for analyzing the structural
stabilityof sandwich plates and she]Is for typical loading conditions which
might be encountered in aerospace applications. The methods proposed for
use would include known analytical approaches as modified for correlation
with applicable test data.
The data presented here covers recommended design equations and curves
for a wide range of structural configurations and loading conditions, includ
ing combined loads. In a number of cases, actual test data points are in
cluded on the design curves to substantiate the recommendations made. For
those items where little or no test data exists the basic analytical approach
is presented along with the notation that this represented the 'best available"
data and should be used with some caution and judgment until substantiated
by test.
Local Instability
Section Page
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Cont'd.
Section Page
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Cont'd.
Section Page
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure P age
xi
LIST OF FIGURES,Cont'd.
Figure Page
2.24 T_3_ical
DesignCurvesfor FaceWrinklingin Sanchvich
ConstructionsHavingHoneycomb
Cores......... 230
xii
LIST OF FIGURES, Cont'd.
Figure Page
3.18 K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Clamped and Sides Simply
Supported, Isotropic Facings, and Orthotropic Core,
(R = 0.40) ................... 316
3.19 K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Clamped and Sides Simply
Supported, Isotropic Facings, and Isotropic Core,
(R = 1.00) ................... 317
3.110 K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Clamped and Sides Simply
Supported, Isotropic Facings, and Orthotropic Core,
(R = 2.50) ................... 318
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES, Cont'd.
Figure Page
xiv
LISTOF FIGURES,Cont'd.
Figure Page
XV
LIST OF FIGURES, Cont'd.
Figure Page
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES, Cont'd.
Page
Figure
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES, Cont'd.
Figure Page
XVIII
LIST OF FIGURES, Cont'd.
Figure P age
xix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
21 Summaryof DesignEquationsfor Local Instability Modes
of Failure ................... 242
3'1 Summaryof DesignEquationsfor GeneralInstability of
Flat SandwichPanels ............... 376
41 Summaryof DesignEquationsfor Instability of Circular
Cylinders ................... 498
51 Summaryof DesignEquationsfor Instability of Truncated
Circular Cones................. 542
61 Summaryof DesignEquationsfor Instability of Dome
ShapedShells.................. 616
71 Summaryof DesignEquationsfor Instability of Cylindrical,
CurvedPanels ................. 712
91 Recommended Plasticity ReductionFactorsfor Local
Instability Modes ................ 97
92 Recommended Plasticity ReductionFactorsfor the General
Instability of Flat SanchvichPlates........... 98
93 Reeommended Plasticity ReductionFactorsfor the General
Instability of Circular SandwichCylinders, Truncated
Circular SandwichCones,andAxisymmetricSandwich
Domes.................... 99
XX
LIST OF SYMBOLS
_(Elt 1) (E2t2)h2
D Bending stiffness of sandwich wall or panel =
inchlbs. )'(Eltl + E2t2)
d
Total thickness of sandwich wall or panel (d = t 1 + t2 + tc), inches.
xxi
E 1, E 2 Young's moduli for facings I and 2 respectively, psi.
Gcb Core shear modulus associated with the plane perpendicular to the
facings and parallel to side b of panel, psi.
G.. Core shear modulus associated with the plane perpendicular to the
lj
facings and parallel to the direction of loading, psi.
xxii
K Theoretical fiat panel buckling coefficient which is dependent on
M sandwich bending and shear rigidities, panel aspect ralio, and
xxiii
P Axial load, lbs.
xxiv
R.
Stress or load ratio for the particular type of loading associated with
1
the subscript i, dimensionless.
R Stress or load ratio for the particular type of loading associated with
J
the subscript j, dimensionless.
(¥cr) Empirical lowerbound value for critical torque when acting alone,
Empirical inlbs.
t Thickness, inches.
xxv
t Total thickness of the cylindrical panel shown in Figure 7.11, inches.
R
2
lr D
_7 Bending and shear rigidity parameter which is defined as V 
dimensionless, b2U
W Bending and shear rigidity parameter for fiat sandwich panels with
?T2tc (Eltl)(E2t2) T?
corrugated core which is defined as W
dimensionless. Xb 2 Gcb(Eltl+E2t2 )
xxvi
Angle of rotation at appropriate joint in corrugatedcore sanchvich
construction (sec Figure 2.15), degrees. Vertex halfangle of
conical shell, degrees.
r/_×, dimensionless.
xxvii
Ratio of transverse shear moduli of core Esee Equation (4.21)],
dimensionless.
(l Stress, psi.
(_!
e Effective compressive stress defined by Equation (4.738), psi.
!
(I
cr Ex_perimental critical stress which would have been attained had
test the test specimen remained elastic, psi.
xxviii
ff Critical value for the compressive stress acting in the x direction,
cr
x psi.
xxix
T Shear stress, psi.
I
T Effective shear stress defined by Equation (4.739), psi.
I
T Critical shear stress for an equivalent cylinder subjected to an
cr
applied torque, psi.
T Pure shear stress, acting coplanar with the facings, at which shear
crimp
crimping occurs in sandwich constructions, psi.
XXX
CONVERSION OF U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS TO THE
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS 1
(Reference: MILHDBK23)
meters (m)
Length ft 0.304854
in. 0.02 meters (m)
3
IElastieity psi 6. 895 x 10 newtons/meter 2 (N/m 2)
Moduli _ Rigidity
Prefix Multiple
mcga (M) 10 6
micro _) 10 6
1
The International System of Units [Syste'me International (S1)] was adopted by the
Eleventh General Conference on Weights and Measures, Paris, October 1960, in
Resolution No. 12.
2
Multiply value given in U.S. Customary Unit by conversion factor to obtain
equivalent value in SI unit.
xxxi
1
INTRODUCTION
]. 1 GENERAL
sandwich plates and shells. The configurations and loading conditions covered here
are those which are like]y to be encountered in aerospace applications. Basic equa
tions, design curves, and comparisons of theory against test data are included.
depicted in Figure 1.11. The facings provide practically all of the overall bending
and inplane extensional rigidity to the sandwich. The core serves to position the
faces at locations removed from the neutral axis, provides virtually all of the trans
verse shear rigidity of the sandwich, and stabilizes the facings against local buckling.
beam. The sandwich core plays a role which is analogous to that of the I beam web
while the sandwich facings perform a function very much like that of the I beam
flanges. The primary difference between these two types of construction lies in the
Numbers in brackets [ ] in the text denote references listed at end of each major
section (1; 2; etc.).
11
fact that the transverse shear deflections are usually significant to the sandwich
behavior; whereas, for I beams, these deflections are only important for the special
FACING"
J
The sandwich is an attractive structural design concept since, by the proper choice
sandwich is particularly well suited to applications where the loading conditions are
conducive to buckling.
12
structural sandwich throughout the airframe. In this case, the sandwich was in the
form of birch face sheets bonded to a balsa wood core. Many other airplanes, includ
ing the B58, B70, FIll, C5A, etc., have taken advantage of the high strengthto
included the Apollo spacecraft, the Spacecraft LM Adapter (SLA) fairings on the
In view of the ever increasing application of structural sandwich, it has become desir
able to assemble a handbook which presents latest design and analysis criteria for the
stability of such construction. The practicing designer and stress analyst need this
information in a form suitable for easy, rapid use. This document is meant to fulfill
that need. However, it should be kept in mind that, in many areas, all practical
problems have not yet been fully resolved and one can only employ what might be re
numerical computations with suitable testing. Such areas of uncertainty are identified
in this handbook in the sections dealing with the appropriate configurations and loading
conditions.
In the sections to follow a discussion is given of the basic principles behind the design
equations along with conclusions derived from an analysis of available test data. This
is followed by the design equations along with any limitations on their use. Also, to
facilitate their use, a table of these equations and restrictions immediately precedes
the list of references in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 since these sections cover a wide
13
1.2 FAILURE MODES
Figures1.21 through1.23.
which occurs only when the core is not continuous. As depicted in Figure 1.21, in
the regions directly above core cells (such as those of a honeycomb core), the
facings buckle in platelike fashion with the cell walls acting as edge supports. The
progressive growth of these buckles can eventually precipitate the buckling mode
Face Wrinkling  This is a localized mode of instability which manifests itself in the
cellulartype cores, and involves the transverse (normal to facings) straining of the
core material. As shown in Figure 1.21, one must consider the possible occurrence
final failure from wrinkling will usually result either from crushing of the core,
tensile rupture of the core, or tensile rupture of the coretofacing bond. However,
if proper care is exercised in the selection of the adhesive system, one can reason
ably assume that the tensile bond strength will exceed both the tensile and com
14
A  Intraceilular Buckling (Face Dimpling)
SYMMETRIC ANTISYMMETRIC
B  Face Wrinkling
C  Shear Crimping
A  Core Crushing
15
i
,ut
,.,_
"_Sl
I
.mm_'
..m_
D"'4
L_
C
o=
Z
4_
16
Shear Crimping  Shear crimping is often referred to as a local mode of failure but
is actually a special form of general instability for which the buckle wavelength is
very short due to a low transverse shear modulus for the core. This phenomenon
occurs quite suddenly and usually causes the core to fail in shear; however, it may
also cause a shear failure in the coretofacing bond. Crimping will sometimes
occur in cases where relatively longwave general instability first develops. In such
instances the crimp appears because of severe local transverse shear stresses at
the ends of buckle patterns. As the crimp develops, the general buckle may dis
rings) except at the boundaries, the general instability mode is depicted in Figure
1.23A. The phenomenon involves overall bending of the composite wall coupled
sional strains do not play a significant role in this behavior. Whereas intracellular
gross nature. Except for the special case cited under the identification "Shear
Crimping", the wavelengths associated with general instability are normally con
siderably larger than those encountered in intracellular buckling and face wrinkling.
For configurations having supplementary stiffening at locations other than the bound
aries, the term general instability takes on new significance and reference is also
made to an additional mode identified as panel instability. For this case, general
17
instability is as definedabovebut with the addedprovisionthat thebucklepattern
thebucklepatternmustthereforeexceedthe spacingbetweenintermediatestiffeners.
spectivelocations.
Panel Instability  This mode of instability applies only to configurations which have
depicts this mode by again using the example of a sandwich cylinder stiffened by a
series of rings. However, in this case the rings have sufficient stiffness to enforce
nodal points at their respective locations. The rings experience no radial deforma
tion. Therefore, the halfwavelength of the buckle pattern cannot exceed the spacing
between rings. As in the case of general instability, this mode involves overall
bending of the composite wall coupled with transverse shear deformations. Here
again, transverse extensional strains do not play a significant role in the behavior.
18
2
LOCAL INSTABILITY
behavior. Even where curvature is present, as in the cases of cylinders and spheres,
the honeycomb core cell size will normally be sufficiently small to justify such an
assumption. As noted from Reference 21, the critical stress for flat plates can be
(2.11)
Crcr  12(1v0) _s
whe re
21
tf = Thicknessof plate (Facingthicknessin the caseof intra
cellular buckling), inches.
%r (lre)
= K (2.13)
_TEf
22, Norris took s to be equal to the honeycomb core cell size. By convention,
this is taken equal to the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed within
the cell. Based on the analysis of test data, Norris then chose K = 2.0 for the
case of uniaxial compression. This provides a reasonably good fit to the test results
as shown in Figure 2.11 which was taken directly from Reference 22. It should be
noted that the choice of K = 2.0 does not provide a lower bound to the data. Six of
the test results fall significantly below the values predicted by the recommended
formula. This situation can be tolerated since the dimpling of several cells in a
Figure 2.11, one could reasonably expect the majority of unbuckled cells to possess
design curve. Under these conditions, some redistribution of stress would occur
22
0.1
Theoryfor Simply
_Suppor_d SquarePla_
0.01
Legend:
Dimplingin Elastic Range
• Test Datafor SpruceCorewith
SingleCircular Hole
• Test Data for Honeycomb Core
Dimpling Beyond Elastic Range
O Test Data for Spruce Core with
Single Circular Hole
[2 Test Data for Honeycomb Core
0.001
0.0005
0.01 1.0
23
but the structure couldcontinueto supportthe appliedload. In addition, it is pointed
practical honeycomb
configurations. Onlythree datapointswereobtainedfor speci
mensactuallyhavinghoneycomb
coresand, as shownin Figure 2.11, thesepoints
24
2.1.1.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
The dimension s is the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed within
the cell shape. For example, in the cases of hexagonal and square cells, s is
@
Figure 2.12. Definition of Dimension s
(2.15)
s = tf ,,_ [_cr _(1 Ve_)]"j g
This equation may be used to determine the maximum permissible cell size corre
0.001 to tf = 0.100.
For elastic cases, use _? = 1. Whenever the behavior is inelastic, the methods of
25
2.00
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.30
0.04
0.03
0.02
1 2
"0Ef
Figure 2.1'3. Chart for Determination of Core Cell Size Such That
Intracellular Buckling Will Not Occur
26
When the facings are subjected to biaxial compression, it is recommended that one
R x + Ry = 1 (2.16)
whe re
Reference 21 for square flat plates. For cases involving shearing stresses which
are coplanar with the facings, it is recommended that the principal stresses first be
computed and that these values then be used in the above interaction equation. When
ever one of the principal stresses is tensile and the behavior is elastic, the analysis
should be based on the assumption that the compressive principal stress is acting
alone.
27
2.1.2 Sandwich
With CorrugatedCore
2.1.2.1 BasicPrinciples
maybe idealizedas shownin Figure 2.14. For cylinders, the only case treated
here is that where the axis of the corrugations is parallel to the axis of revolution.
For flat plates, however, the corrugations can be oriented in either the longitudinal
or transverse directions.
The design curves presented here are taken directly from Reference 23 and are
28
datato confirm the validity of thesesolutions. Until suchsubstantiationis obtained,
the recommended
designcurvescanonlybe consideredas a 'bestavailable"criterion.
curvatureinfluenceswill be negligible.
remain unchanged
duringbuckling. It is alsoassumedthatthe overall sandwich
29
cl oL Q ci 01
Clomped
oL o_ cl ol ol
rz _1 i1 ol cl
_ cl cl ol cI,
el  rx rl _ _1 cl
__ply t
210
2.1.2.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
where
The only case considered here is that where the two facings are of the same thickness
and the entire sandwich construction (facings and core) is made of a single material.
Figures 2.16 through 2.112 give values for k i for each of the following loading
combinations:
a. kx when k_ = 0
b. kx when k_ = 0.5
c. kx when k_ = 1.0
d. ky when kx = 0
211
12(1Ve _ ) (bf._ _
kx  rr _rIE _f_ (Applied Compressive ¢rx) (2. I9)
The subscript x (for k and k') is used to identify cases where the loading is
directed along the axis of the corrugations (x direction). The subscript y (for k
and k') is used to identify cases where the loading is acting in the y direction which
is parallel to the facings but normal to the axis of the corrugations. For combinations
arrangements since all of the corresponding applied load is transferred through the
facings. The dashed lines in Figures 2.16 through 2.111 divide the charts into two
regions. Above the dashed lines, the face sheets are the unstable elements and are
restrained by the core. Below the dashed lines, the core is unstable and is restrained
To clarify the design charts given in Figures 2.16 through 2.112, the following
In addition, the sample problem given below should be helpful to the user of this
handbook.
212
Given: SampleProblem Data for SingleTrussCore Type SandwichPanel
v e = .30 tf = .020" ¢ = 65 °
%=.o16 = .800
tf .020
Using linear interpolation between values given on Figures 2.17 and 2.18 one
obtains k x = 2.68.
Hence, the critical stress in the x direction (parallel to the corrugation axis) is
kx _2_ E /tf_ 2
Since this value is below the proportional limit, the assumption _ = 1 is valid.
In cases where the qi value exceeds the proportional limit, the methods of Section
9 must be employed.
213
o
E_
I
_d
!
_4
214
0
hL
.E
215
r..
<.i..i
H
2
r,D
I.i
.,.I
,,,.,
216
0
= 2
_9
_D t_ re) _xj 0
217
=1
,g
11
eo
".>
.,,i
218
[
ll[i
:iiiiiii
,.
I 1ii
1_]
;I
iiiitiii
:_!!!!!!!
:::::::::
iiiiiiiii
.'__!!!!!!!
!N!!iiJi
iiNiiiii
H
Mili_iii
J[l{I {1ill
'_ILI ] I IAI I I
I%J I I ]/I_l I I
ll_lllll
[ I I_I I Ii I
t I i_i_ll I [nlL[
i [l I kl l_l
t'_ll 1 IN ]l
I_ I I k] i
U I I_1 II Ill
i 1 i ll_i 1 111
I I I • II III
! [_1 ] /!/
t i lil.l i i i i
!11]_11
l_Jl 1 I Illi 1
_ i i 1 IRl.Jll i I
flllll_ I ]
'WL] I ] I II{ J {
iiiiiiiii
iiiiiii;.:
,,!!144_
219
_:..i
.......l....
I .... H
__.__ 
.... + : ....... ZZ<01 _....
C_
I
r_
..... + ............... _. _
i_ f_J c<J
220
2.2 FACE WRINKLING
The problem of face wrinkling has been treated by many investigators dating back as
far as 1940. The most important publications on this subject are listed as References
24 through 214. For the purposes of this handbook, it was decided that the results
in References 27 and 29 would be the most useful. The latter applies only to sand
wich configurations which have solid or foam cores. The development there includes
consideration of both the symmetric and antisymmetric modes along with the influences
from initial waviness of the facings. It is pointed out that, when the core is sufficiently
thick, the wrinkle patterns of the two facings will be independent of each other and the
same critical load is obtained for the symmetric and antisymmetric modes. However,
for sandwiches having thinner cores, the core strains introduced by one facing influ
ence the wave pattern in the other facing. Under these conditions, it was found that
The following governing equation was derived to predict this form of wrinkling for
c_ _r]Ef Ec Gc_ _
{rwr : _L (1Pea)_ (2.21)
whe re,
221
E c = Young's modulus of the core in the direction normal to the facings, psi.
_
30V ÷ 16q ( cosh
sinh_ 1
5)
(2.22)
whe re
tc I (1Ve_)13
q = _f Gc LrlEf Ec Gc] (2.23)
6Ec (2.24)
K8  tc Fc
and
The initial waviness plays an important role in the wrinkling phenomenon since it
causes transverse facing deflections to develop even when the applied loading is very
small. As the load increases, these deflections grow at steadily increasing rates and
lead to transverse tensile or compressive failure of the core or tensile rupture of the
222
coretofacingbond. Thesefailures occur, of course, at loadvaluesbelowthe pre
The results from Reference 29 can be summarized in the form of Equation (2.21)
is given in Reference 29 and they are of the general shape shown in Figure 2.21.
The limiting values established by the straight line 0A correspond to the shear
crimping mode of failure (see Section 2.3). All other points on the curves al"e for
very helpful since the K 8 values appropriate to particular structures are rarely
known. Therefore, in order to provide a practical means for the prediction of face
wrinkling in sandwich constructions having solid or foam cores, it has become com
data. This approach is followed here. Elastic test data selected from Reference 29
are plotted in Figure 2.22 from which the value Q = 0.50 has been selected as a
safe design value. Additional data are given in Reference 26 which are not shown
here but lead to the same value for a lowerbound Q. This is in conformance with
the observation made by Plantema in Reference 215 that the value Q = 0.50 has
often been recommended for practical design purposes. However, since much of the
existing test data were obtained from specimens that were not very representative of
223
K6 = 0
Q K 8 = Constant
K 6 = Constant
0
q
Figure 2.21. Typical Variation of Q vs. q
involved, it is recommended that for the verification of final designs, wrinkling tests
The method presented here for the prediction of wrinkling should only be regarded as
an approximate guideline.
224
o
.i
0
O
°,_
0 ¢.j
Qo ¢.0 5'q
t
225
2.2.1.2 Design Equations and Culwes
The following equation may be used to compute the approximate uniaxial compressive
stress at which face wrinkling will occur in sandwich constructions having solid or
foam cores :
In cases where the amplitude of initial waviness is known, one can use the curves of
For elastic cases, use }7= 1. Whenever the behavior is inelastic, the methods of
When the facings are subjected to biaxial compression, it is recommended that one use
Rxa + Ry = 1 (2.26)
whe re
and the y direction corresponds to the direction of maximum compression. This inter
action relationship is based on the information provided in Reference 21 for rectangular
flat plates having very large aspect ratios. For cases involving shearing stresses which
are coplanar with the facings, it is recommended that the principal stresses first be
computed and that these values then be used in the above interaction equation. When
ever one of the principal stresses is tensile and the behavior is elastic, the analysis
should be based on the assumption that the compressive principal stress is acting alone.
226
I
_o
/ 2_
//
\
d
L"
O0
(y
227
2.2.2 Sandwich With Honeycomb Core (Symmetric Wrinkling)
As noted in Section 2.2.1.1, the results of Reference 29 apply only to sandwich con
figurations which have solid or foam cores. However, the basic theory of that report
nize that the honeycomb core elastic moduli in the plane parallel to the facings are
very small in comparison with the core elastic moduli in the direction normal to the
facings. Full consideration was given to both the symmetric and antisymmetric wrin
kling modes along with the influences from initial waviness of the facings. However,
in this case it was found that, except for the region controlled by shear crimping (low q),
symmetric wrinkling develops at stress levels which are lower than those at which the
antisymmetric mode will occur. Based on this observation, the development of Refer
ence 27 resulted in the following equation for the prediction of wrinkling for isotropic
compression:
1
082(Ec ( Ef,
awr = . \r/Ef te/
1 + 0.64 K8 (2.28)
where
8 Ec
K8  tc Fc (2.29)
228
and
awr = Facingwrinkling stress, psi.
Equation (2.28) can be used to plot a family of design curves of the form shown in
Figure 2.24. It should be noted that the curve for K8 = 0 is an upperbound classi
cal value which is based on the assumption that the facings are initially perfect. This
particular curve agrees very closely with the following symmetrical wrinkling equation
Comparison of Equations (2.28) and (2.210) shows that, when K8 = 0, the former
gives critical stresses which are approximately 5 percent less than those obtained by
Numbers in brackets [ ] in the text denote references listed at end of each major
section (1; 2; etc.)
229
K(_ = 0
= Constant
K 6 = Constant
_TEf t c ]
In actual practice, curves of the type shown in Figure 2.24 do not prove to be very
helpful since the K5 values appropriate to particular structures are rarely known.
Therefore, in order to provide a practical means for the prediction of face wrinkling
in this handbook. For this purpose, test data selected from References 27 and 210
are plotted in Figure 2.25. All of the specimens from Reference 27 failed within the
elastic range. Several of these failures occurred by means of shear crimping and
these data were discarded. For the remaining tests reported in Reference 27, three
data points are plotted in Figure 2.25 for each group of nominally identical specimens.
One point is plotted for the maximum test value for the group, one point for the mini
mum, and one point for the average. The data from Reference 210 were selected in
wrinkled under highly inelastic conditions. Since rather crude plasticity reduction
230
°1°l
o
0
0 o
o
o
o _' 0
_._
_=
e_
o
o
r/3
•C_'_
_._
o
00
o
0
231
factors (77 Et/Ef) wereusedin thedatareduction, it wasdecidedto plot dataonly
tion, many of the test specimens of Reference 210 had very poor eoretofaeingbonds
as measured by flatwise tensile strengths. It was therefor(, decided to plot data only
for those specimens whose flatwise tensile strengths were at least equal to the flatwise
compressive strengths. Adhesive technology has now advanced to .the point where, with
proper care, one can usually select an adhesive system which satisfies such a require
ment.
/Eetf _
has been selected here to provide safe design values. This implies that a knockdown
this is not a rigorous approach to the problem and it would be advisable to base the
design equation on a much wider selection of test data of specimens which were truly
fication of final designs, wrinkling tests be performed on specimens that actually dup
licate the selected sandwich configuration. The method presented here should only be
232
2.2.2.2 Design Equations and Curves
The following equation may be used to compute the approximate uniaxial compressive
stress at which face wrinkling will occur in sandwich constructions having honeycomb
cores:
z/Ec
0.8 tc/ (,El)
°'wr 1 + 0.64 K(5 (2.212)
whe re
(]Ec
K6  tc Fc (2.213)
In cases where the amplitude of initial waviness is known, one can either use these
equations or the curves given in Figures 2.26 and 2.27 to establish the wrinkling
stress. Both of these figures are taken directly from MILHDBK23 [216]. When
ever the initial waviness is unknown, it is recommended that the following equation be
For elastic cases, use 77 = 1. Whenever the behavior is inelastic, the methods of
When the facings are subjected to biaxial compression, it is recommended that one use
where
233
CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0
i
4hl/,/l
ll " _o
CD
/ LO
//
/ _I
_
, /// CO
0 o
z.//, /
0
I>
0
C_
jjz//
f
&
234
0
?]
II 11
¢£:
.....
oi 0
b b _J
and the y direction corresponds to the direction of maximum compression. This
rectangular flat plates having very large aspect ratios. For cases involving shearing
stresses which are coplanar with the facings, it is recommended that the principal
stresses first be computed and that these values then be used in the above interaction
equation. Whenever one of the principal stresses is tensile and the behavior is elastic,
the analysis should be based on the assumption that the compressive principal stress
is acting alone.
236
2.3 SHEARCRIMPING
2.3.1 BasicPrinciples
To understandthe phenomenon
of shearcrimping, onemustkeepin mindthatthis
Vc _ 2 (2.31)
where
_o
V c = (2.32)
Crerimp
h 2 xJtz t2
(2.33)
(ro = *)Ef_ l___pe2(tl + re)
h_
(2.34)
°'crimp  (tl + t2) tc Gxz
237
t C 'l'hickn_,ss of core, inches.
Gxz ,_. _r< shear modulus associate,I with the plane perpendicular to the
facings and crienled in the axial direction, psi.
The critical stress c:m t)(_ dt, termined from the eq_mtion
% r' Kc % (2.35)
and, when the Inequality (2. :{1) holds true, Kc: can be computed as follows:
1
(2.36)
Hence,
'{; rimp
"i?, ....... _'_7 _r° : 'rcri'nP (2.37)
Therefore, when the two facings ",re made of the same material, the following equation
can be written for the c_'itk_'t! stres_ for _h¢,ar crimpir_g in a circular sandwich cylinder
h _
I ' 4 .) • .
An equlvalen_ rest)It can be obtained from Referen¢'e :_t _ for sandwich cylinders sub
je,"led [(_ _mif,__,'m e>:t,",_i !g_!,,ra! pressure. Tim! ,_, ,.:i_,,c_, the two facings are made
rrcr :: (r crimp
.  (t t + re)t e O.vz (2 39)
x\' h e 9"e
Gyz ;',_',, sl_( :z_' ul _d_!t s us,;¢)( iated with the tqane perpendicular to the
'l'<i';
',rrcvol,!lion, psi.
In addition, the development of Reference 219 leads one to the following formula for
circular sandwich cylinders under pure torsion and having both facings made of the
same material :
 h2 JGxz (2.310)
rcr = "rcrim p (t 1 + t2) tc GY z
It should be noted that, although Equations (2.38) through (2.310) were derived for
sandwich cylinders, all of these final expressions are independent of curvature. Thus,
these equations have a general applicability which is not limited to the cylindrical con
figuration.
239
2.3.2 Design Equations
The following equations may be used to compute the facing stresses at which shear
crimping will occur in sandwich constructions having both facings made of the same
mate rial:
ao For uniaxial compression acting coplanar with the facings (see Figure 2.31),
use
h _
where
O', psi
o, ps .i___
o, psi _
240
bo For pure shear acting coplanar with the facings (see Figure 2.32), use
h_ (2 312)
Tcrimp  (t_+ t2) tc _GxzGyz
The foregoing equations are valid regardless of the overall dimensions of the structure.
tive since their derivations neglect bending of the facings about their own middle sur
Further mention of the shear crimping mode of failure is made in the various sections
241
_4
= i
ECJ
o
2_
• ,_ _
©
O
<
_ g _
_D • b_
m _
.Z
b£.
o
ci ,"
._ °
b _ r,9 ¢/ _ m ._ b ._ c'd
o_ o e r2_
la., el _) L:I
Z ;
i i#_ _
i_ iII ¢',1
.A
i i
©
i,ii
)'( I _,,._
e_
_'i
,i
2 42
= 4o
7
¢o
o _
°_, °} S_
_'_ _ • I
_ m
a _
"0 0
_ ._ ._f
•.,_,__
o _, ._
i ._ _ .
i ,°
_ .
:i 0
"_ b _ _ _ ._ _ be
%
0
8
g g g
1ii
c,
243
RE FERENC ES
Part I  Buckling of Flat Plates," NACA Technical Note 3781, July 1957.
24 Gough, C. S., Elam, C. F., and deBruyne, N. A., "The Stabilization of a
25 Williams, D., Leggett, D.M.A., and Hopkins, H. G., "Flat Sandwich Panels
26 Hoff, N. J. and Mautner, S. E., '_rhe Buckling of Sandwich Type Panels,"
27 Norris, C. B., Boller, K. H., and Voss, A. W., 'WVrinkling of the Facings
29 Norris, C, B., Ericksen, W. S., March, H. W., Smith, C. B., and Boller,
245
210 Jenklnson, P. M. and Kuenzi, E. W,, "Wrinkling of the Facings of Aluminum
211 Yusuff, S., "Face Wrinkling and Core Strength in Sandwich Construction,"
213 Benson, A. S. m_d Mayers, J., "General Instability and Face Wrinkling of
Sandwich Plates  Unified Theory and Applications," AIAA Paper No. 66138
214 Bartelds, G. and Mayers, J., "Unified Theory for the Bending and Buckling of
215 Plantema, F. J., Sandwich Construction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
Copyright 1966.
216
U. S. Department of Defense, Structural Sandwich Composites, MILHDBK23,
30 December 1968.
217
Zatm, J. J. and Kuenzi, E. W., "Classical Buckling of Cylinders of Sandwich
218
Kuenzi, E. W., Bohannan, B., and Stevens, G. H., "Buckling Coefficients for
246
219 March, H. W. and Kuenzi, E. W., "Buckling of Sandwich Cylinders in
247
3
GENERAL INSTABILITY OF FLAT PANELS
3. i. 1 General
As previously noted, one of the potential modes of failure for sandwich panels is that
of general instability. This occurs when the panel becomes elastically unstable under
the application of certain types of inplane loads. Further, it should be noted, the
loads which are critical for instability may or may not be of such magnitude as to
The fiat, rectangular sandwich panel represents that configuration for which the vast
majority of fabrication and test data has been accumulated over the past decade. This
is probably due to the fact that this configuration was best adapted to the structural
needs for a number of applications and that it represented the minimum in fabrication
problems and costs as far as this type of construction is concerned. By the same
token, analytical solutions have been developed for a wide range of loading applications
for flat panels, and an appreciable amount of testing for correlation with these solu
As a consequence of this past work, it is now possible to employ the analytical solu
tions for fiat panels, as given in MILHDBK23, [31], with a high degree of con
37, inclusive, for basic panel design. Therefore, with this background in mind, the
31
buckling coefficients, K, which will be given in this section for the various plate loading
conditions will be those taken from the applicable sections of Reference 31, with no
The development of plate buckling coefficients for sandwich construction requires the
face plates, 2) the use of the same or of dissimilar materials for the face plates and,
3) the degree of orthotropicity of the core material. The general equations given in
the following sections account for these possibilities; however, the curves showing K
as a function of (a/b), V, the type of loading and edge support conditions will assume
the use of isotropic faceplate materials since this is largely typical of aerospace
In all cases, the final design of the sandwich panel must comply with the following four
a. The sandwich facings shall be at least thick enough to withstand the chosen
design stresses under the application of the ultimate design loads.
b. The core shall be thick enough and have sufficient shear rigidity and
strength so that overall sandwich buckling, excessive deflection, and
shear failure will not occur under the design loads.
c. The core shall have high enough moduli of elasticity, and the sandwich
shall have great enough flatwise tensile and compressive strength such
that wrinkling of either facing will not occur under the design loads.
32
Otherrequirementsincludethe useof moduli of elasticity andstressvaluesrepre
ticity shouldbeused.
33
_,_ b[ __ _tf
_ b__..t _
_h_
N
v
CORE ,
E b, Gcb
4t4 _t
tl_ C 2
.to
ItONEYCOMB CORE
e_ b
.]_ y
34
3.1.2 Uniaxial Edgewise Compression
The buckling coefficient equations and curves given here for uniaxial edgewise com
pression arc those originally developed by Ericksen and March, _38], and are in
cluded in the MILHDBK23 documents, issued since then. The basic principles and
noted in the references and are not repeated here except where required to limit their
The basic equations for calculation of the allowable sandwich panel edgewise com
pression loads are given in the following section. Curves for panel buckling coeffi
cients for panels having isotropic facepkttes and both orthotropic and isotropic cores
As previously noted, the equations presented in this section arc those developed by
Supporting data such as pertinent assumptions and definition of terms are also in
One of the basic assumptions used in the design and analysis of sandwich panels is
that the face plates carry the inplane loads applied and that the core provides that
shear support to the face plates required for them to act as a unit in preventing early
35
individual buckling. From this, the edgewise compression capability of the panel is
given by the following equations, which are taken from Section 5.3, Reference 31:
N = (_2/b_)(K)(D) (3.11)
cr
where D is the sandwich bending stiffness. Solving this equation for the facing sires
E I
_K (h)_ f
F  (3.13)
e 4 (b) 2 )_
w he re
1
E J
= (,'a = effective modulus ()f elasticity for orthotropic
facings.
X = (1  _ta_b)
Since the buckling coefficient curves to be presented here are being limited to the case
sanchvich applications, the affected equations given previously arc revised below for
this situation.
36
For isotropic facings:
As noted above the buckling coefficient for the panel under this loading condition is
K = KF+K M
where
Values of K F are generally quite small relative to KM, thus a safe first approximation
is to assume it is equal to zero until a final panel check is made. On this basis, K
= K M may be used to develop initial face plate and core thicknesses for the panel.
shear rigidities and panel aspect ratio. Other factors which influence the magnitude
of this coefficient include the panel edge support conditions and the orthotropicity of
the core. A discussion of these considerations along with development of the equations
for calculation of this coefficient are given in References 31 and 38. This manual
does not propose to repeat these equations here; however, the curves shown in Figures
3.12 through 3.115 give values of K M as a function of edge support condition, panel
aspect ratio, and the bendingshear rigidity parameter, V which is defined as follows
y_D
V  b2U (3.16)
37
which further canbewritten as:
It
C
V = (3.17)
kb; Ge (E_t,+E;t:)
_2 t t
c Eftf
V  (for equal facings) (:3.17a)
2). b 2 G
C
where U is sandwich shear stiffness; Gc is the core shear modulus associated with the
axes parallel to direction of loading (also parallel to panel side of length a) and per
An indication of the influence and importance of the core shear modulus may be obtained
from inspection of the above equations for V m_d the curves giving values of K M given
later. Holding all terms constant except G , an increase in its value reduces the value
e
of V to be used with the buckling coefficient curves, this reduced value then calls for
an increased value of K
M"
The equations and fornmlas previously given are for sandwich panels with honeycomb
cores; however, they may be adapted to cover the case of panels with corrugated cores
a. For the case where the corrugation flutes are oriented normal to the direc
tion of the load application, the shear modulus in the direction parallel to
the flutes, Geb, is very high with respect to the shear modulus parallel to
the direction 2f andl°ading'R Ge :}; thus,= 0.the previous curves may be used by
letting Gcb = = Gca/Gcb
b. For the case where the corrugation flutes are parallel to the direction of
loading, the corrugations may be assumed to carry load in a direct pro
poYtion to their area and elastic modulus. The parameter V for this case
is replaced by the parameter W, which is defined as
38
e
= i (3.18)
W ).b2Gcb (E_t_ + E_t,)
edge support conditions in Figures 3.12 through 3.115, with Figures 3.114 and
Figure 3.116 gives values of KMo as a function of panel aspect ratio and edge support
conditions for use in determining values of K F in order that final values for K may be
The curves and equations just given may be used in developing a panel design in addi
tion to checking the adequacy of an existing design; however, this is a slow iterative
approach described in Reference 31 since it was specifically developed to expedite the
39
]
10
2.5 Gc
END
V
05
0.15
0.30
1
FOR V>0.40 tC =
M V
o .__ _k .... 1 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
Figure 3.12. K M for a Sandwich Panel with Ends and Sides Simply Supported,
Isotropic Facings, and Orthotropic Core, (R = 0.40)
310
14
12
10
.20
2 .40
0.60
1  1.00
FORV > 1.00 _.'=
M
0 i i .
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
Figure 3. i3. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends and Sides Simply Supported,
Isotropic Facings, and Isotropic Core, (R = 1.00)
311
14
.... .......... [ li
I I
12 I 2
II
1_ _ !
10 V  rr D
b2U
0.4G i
8 ° I
END 'r
I_ _1
I b I
KM X I
0.10
0.20
0.30
1
FOR V >2.50 I( = 1 O.5O
M V
o t i I 2.50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b
a
Figure 3.14. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends and Sides Simply Supported,
Isotropic Facings, and Orthotropic Core, (R = 2.50)
312
16
14
2
?r D
12 V m
b2 U
10
_0.05
.10
.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
b
a
a
b
Figure 3.15. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Simply Supported and Sides
Clamped, Isotropic Facings, and Orthotropic Core, (R=0.40)
313
16 T I
14"I ....
12
10
1 V m
2
?r D
b2 U
G
END
c
_,
S
\ v
0
0.I0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.60
1 0.75
._ b
a
Figure 3.16. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Simply Supported and Sides
Clamped, Isotropic Facings, and Isotropic Core, (R=I.00)
314
16 i T
i i
14 I l
L_o
2
D
12 V m
b2U 0.4G
C
END
10 L_   
] I
V
8
0
6
\
\
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.60
1 1.00
.l, =_77:1 1. 875
FOR V > i1.875 lK_"
0 J
b
a
a
b
Figure 3.17. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Simply Supported and Sides
Clamped, Isotropic Facings, and Orthotropic Core, (R= 2.50)
315
16
14
12
.30
O. 40
1
FOR V >0.40 K  V
0
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
Figure 3.18. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Clamped and Sides Simply
Supported, Isotropic Facings, and Orthotropic Core, (R=0.40)
316
16
14
2
D
12 V
b2U
G
C
END
1
0 FORVi > i.?0 K M=_ V
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
a b
b a
Figure 3.19. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Clamped and Sides Simply
Supported, Isotropic Facings, and Isotropic Core, (R = 1.00)
317
16
I
14 ...... l,
\ 2
D
\
12
b2 U
0.4G
C
\ END
K
M
6
t
0
0 0.2 0.4
Figure 3.110. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends Clamped and Sides Simply
Supported, Isotropic Facings, and Orthotropic Core, (R= 2.50)
318
;_iA
14
2 0°
V = __
rr D 1'
12 \ b2U
\, 2.5G
END
e
2 ?
1
FoR v > 0.30 %  V
o 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
Figure 3.111. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends and Sides Clamped, Isotropic
Facings, and Orthotroptc Core, (R = 0.40)
319
16
.... _.....] 1 i i
14
b2U
12
END
I _'_
10
0.i0
O. 20
0.30
0.40
0.50
I 1 0.75
FOR V >0.75 K =
M \7
0 / i •
a b
b a
Figure 3.112. K M for Sandwich Panel with Ends and Sides Clamped, Isotropic
Facings, and Isotropic Core, (R = 1.00)
320
16
14 2
D
V =
b2 U
12
0.4G
e
END _'
V
8
0
O. 10
0.20
0.30
0.60
1 1.00
FORV > 1.875 K.o  _ 1.875
0 1 J M v
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
Figure 3.113. KM for Sandwich Panel with Ends and Sides Clamped, Isotropic
Facings, and Orthotropic Core, (R = 2.50}
321
14
I
V =0
12
lp
10
=0.1
2
Tr Dt
c
+I t
V _t: Gb=_
b2h2 G
ca _L
I t? _,
\
°v0 \
[ l
V_0.4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
322
14
12
2 Dt
C
]0 W
b 2 h 2 Gob
0.1
_'0o2
_ o.4
323
END t
\
\
K
Mo \
0.i 0.2
a
324
3.1.3 Edgewise Shear
As noted earlier in Section 3.1.1, sufficient analysis, design, and testing of flat sand
wich panels has been accom,lished to demonstrate the adequacy of the analytical
approaches presently in use. Thus, the panel buckling coefficient equations and
curves given in the following paragraphs for edgewise shear are those taken from the
by Kuenzi and Ericksen E313] and employ the same general assumptions as those
The basic equations for use in calculation of the allowable sandwich panel edgewise
shear loads are given in the following section along with applicable background data
and assumptions. Design curves and buckling coefficients for panels having isotropic
faceplates and both orthotropic and isotropic cores for both simply supported and
The design equations presented here are taken from Reference 31 and 313. Support
ing data and design constraints are also noted and discussed as required.
The edgewise shear load carrying capability of a sandwich panel is given by the follow
ing equation:
325
where
Nscr = critical edgewise shear load, lb per inch
Solving this for the facing st_'esses gives the following equation:
/ I f
(E_tI)(E_t_)(he)E z,
Fsz,_ = _K , + i (3.110)
s (Elt 1 E_t_) (be) x
y2K s (h e) Ef'
F  (3.110a)
s 4 (b_)k
where
X = 1D 2
whe re
i 3 t
(E_t_3 + E_t2 ) (E'_t_+ E_t_)KMo
KF = 12(E_t_)(E,2t_
) h2 (3.111)
(tf_KMo
KF = 3h 2 (3.llla)
326
The equation defining the value of K M is quite complex and involved, being dependent
on panel aspect ratio, (a/b), the number of halfwaves, (n), for the minimum energy
buckle pattern, and the panel bending and shear rigidityparameter, (V, or W). This
manual proposes to follow general practice in the literature and provide curves only
for the definition of this buckling coefficient. Those interested in the basic equation
Values of K M are given in Figures 3.117 through 3.124 as a function of the panel
aspect ratio and the parameter V, or W, for various panel edge support conditions.
These figures cover panels with isotropic faceplates and both isotropic and orthotropie
core, including panels using corrugated flutes for cores. Values of the buckling coeffi
cient, KMo, may also be obtained from the same set of figures.
The equations defining the parameters V and W are the same as those given in the
previous section for edgewise compression; however, they are repeated below to
facilitate their use. The equation numbers previously assigned to them are retained
below
(Y% tc
(E_tl)(E'_t2) (3.17)
V = k(E[t_ +E_t 2) (b 2) G
ca
(3.17a)
V = _r_tcE'ft/2),b2 Gca (equal facings)
For a sandwich panel with a corrugated core in which the corrugation flutes are parallel
to the edge of length a, the parameter V is replaced by the parameter W which is de
fined as follows:
327
W
In checking a particular design for the critical buckling stress, Fscr, Figures 3.117
through 3.121 should be used for those panels having all edges simply supported.
Curves of K M for sandwich panels having all edges clamped are given in Figures
3.122 through 3.124. These curves may be interpolated in order to obtain the
buckling coefficients for other values of core orthotropicity, (R = Gea/Gcb), and inter
mediate values of V or W°
It should be noted that if the resulting value of F is above the proportional limit
set
value, the value of E' shall be an effective value based on that stress level, and this
effective value shall be used in computing the value of V, Equation (3.17) or (3.17a)
or W, Equation (3.18) or (3.18a), as the case may be. This same effective value
for E I shall also be used in Equation (3.110), or (3.110a) when calculating the criti
cal panel buckling stress. Thus, several interations will be required to establish the
actual value of F scr in those cases where it exceeds the proportional limit.
The equations and curves just given may be used in the development of panel designs
as well as in checking an existing design; however, as was the case for uniaxial com
pression, this is a lengthy iterative process. Thus, this manual recommends the use
of the designprocedures approach described in Reference 31 for those cases where
328
10
0
l
2
7r 1) /
b2U /
0.05
0.10
KM
 0.40
329
10
V
0.4 G
0.40
b
a
Figure 3.118.
K M for a Sandwich Panel with All Edges Simply Supported,
and an Orthotropic Core, (R = 2.50)
330
J
ff
10
t_
2
D
/
t_L
b2 U /
/
/
0.05
_J" J
O. 20
0.40
C
0 0.2 0.4 b 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 3.119. K M for a Sandwich Panel with All Edges Simply Supported,
and with an Orthotropic Core, (R = 0.40)
331
10
K
M 5
i
0
0 0.4
b
a
Figure3.120.
K M for a Sandwich Panel with All Edges Simply Supported,
Isotropic Facings and Corrugated Core. Core
Corrugation Flutes are Parallel to Side a
332
10
V
9 r 2
_r t D
I '
c
_L V
b2 h2 G
ca 
/ 0.05
_b_ / " /
/ /
7 1
i /
1
f
// 0.20
J J
_J
i
i
i
I
KM O. 50
11
I
jl
4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b
a
Figure 3.12 i. K M for a Sandwich Panel with All Edges Simply Supported,
Isotropic Facings and Corrugated Core. Core
Corrugation Flutes are Parallel to Side b
333
16
V
14
l Gc
12
10
0.05
K M
O. i0
O. 20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b
334
16
2 0
14 i
I
V
77 D
"
b2 U
/
0.4G
c
If /
/
12 _b 4
10  i r_
I jj
J
0.05
5_ 7
J
J
_..I
6 v
I
_J
J 0.10
I
I
0.20
o I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b
a
335
16
V
14
2
_r D
/
0
Il 2.s C
II
"_ _
12
10 0.05
0.i0
K
M
.2O
336
3.1.4 Edgewise Bending Moment
produces a loading condition such as that shown in Figure 3.125. This represents a
somewhat different situation from the ones previously covered, since the tension loading
on one half of the panel represents a stabilizing effect. The edge compression load
on the other half of the panel varies linearly from zero at the neutral axis to a maxi
mum value, N, at the panel edge. It is this compression loading which can produce
panel buckling in the same fashion as the uniaxial compression case; however, the
presence of the panel edge support along the line of maximum loading forces consider
These failure mode considerations for this type of loading have been covered in the
development of analytical techniques for the evaluation of flat plates (Reference 317).
hlso, as has been previously noted, sufficient analytical development and testing has
been accomplished on flat, rectangular sandwich panels to enable the use of the buckling
coefficients given in Reference 31 for this loading condition with complete confidence.
The general equations for the behavior of flat, rectangular honeycomb sandwich panels
under this loading condition were developed by Kimel E315] while whose applicable to
panels with a corrugated core were developed by Harris and Auelman, E314] and E316].
The assumptions employed in the development of the basic equation for the panel sta
bility coefficient for this loading condition are generally the same as those described
337
in Section 3.1.1, with one particulal' exception. This exception requires that the
critical design faeeplate stress, Fcr, shall not exct,ed the elastic buckling stress for
the faceplates. This requirement stresses the fact that the analysis is based on a
linear loading variation across the edge of the panel. Once the elastic buckling stress
beyond the elastic range of facing stresses cannot be done by using an effective elastic
modulus such as the tangent modulus, in the buckling formulas. Since the proper
extrapolation to stresses beyond the elastic range must consider the variation of
effective elastic modulus across the panel width associated with the stress variation,
the equations and buckling coefficier_ts given here are thus strictly applicable only to
The basic equations to be used in the calculation of the allowable sandwich panel edge
loading are given in the following section. Design curves and buckling coefficients
for panels having isotropic faceplates and both isolropic and orthotropic cores based
The design equations presented here arc those taken from Reference 31. Background
Using a linear stress variation as previously discussed, the value of N at the panel
N = 6M/b _ (3.112)
338
where
N __
load per unit width of edge
The edgewise bending load capability of a sandwich panel is given by the following
N (3.113)
er = (_,/be) (%) (D)
where
D = sandwiehbending stiffness
The critical faceplate stresses are obtained by solution of the previous equation and
are as follows:
F = (3.114a)
c 4 (b _) ),
whe re
I = (1  _)
339
(E_tl_+ E_t2
3) (Elt1+ Eat)
(3.115)
KF = 12 (E1t_)(E_t
2) (he) KMo
(tf 2) KM o
(3.115a)
KF = 2 h2
where
for panel buckling are given in Figures 3.125 through 3.128 as a func
Values of K M
isotropic faceplates using both isotropic and orthotropic cores, including those using
The equations defining the parameters V and W are the same as those given in the
previous section for edgewise compression; however, they are repeated below to
facilitate their use. The equation numbers previously assigned to them are retained
For a sandwich panel with a corrugated core in which the corrugation flutes are parallel
to the edge of length a, the parameter V is replaced by the parameter W, which is de
fined as follows :
34O
C
w = (3.18)
I b_Gcb (Elh +E2t _)
A particular design may be checked by using the graphs given in Figures 3.125 through
3.128 to determine the appropriate value of the buckling coefficient to use in Equation
(3.115), or (3.115a) to compute the critical buckling stress, Fer. This approach,
which involves trial and error solutions by iteration, may also be employed to develop
new panel designs; however, this manual recommends that the designprocedures
341
36 ......
_
°°°I
C _ __T
2
32 ?r D
V 
V0
b2 U
28 .......
I
r
/
"_ n2/ n3
24
16
V=0.215
i
8
FOR v => 0.21_ KM = 1.ssG/v
0
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
342
4O
a _
G _
e c, ,, 
3_
y2 D
V 
b2 U
32 !V=0
A
/
_4 ! ", n=l S
f
n=2vxn=3
,o "X v=o.osl
16 \ \_.
\
\
12
'_..L
o.2
8
V0 .4
I I
FOR V _
> 0.4 K M  1. ss6/v
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
{ I
0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
343
4O
36
2 D
32
V=0 V 
2
b U
28
K
M
0.15
FOR V >0
15 KM= 1.886/V
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
344
4O
v cr rl a_
36 G _ 'i
±
y2t D
e
32
b2h 2 Gcb
28
Ill/ \
"_.. n=21 n=3
24
W=O.05
2O
W=0.20
16
_W=0.50
12
............ L .......................
C
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
a b
b a
Figure 3.128. K M for a Simply Supported Sandwich Panel with Corrugated Core.
Core Corrugation Flutes Parallel to Side a
345
3.1.5 OtherSingleLoadingConditions
346
3.1.6 Combined Loading Conditions
A study of the effects of combined loadings on the buckling of fiat sandwich panels
a. The mode of failure of the panel under each of the applied loads.
buckling or failure.
loadings.
Since little specific testing for biaxial instability modes has been accomplished for
fiat sandwich panels, this part of the manual will provide analytically developed
equations for combination of the stress ratios which are conservative for most appli
needed.
The equations given on the following pages cover the interaction relationships between
the stress ratios, (R i = Ni/Nicr) , for each of the separate loadings which produce
failure by overall panel instability under the action of the combined loads. For the
stress ratio relationships which produce panel failure by local instability only, refer
to Section 2. These latter equations and pertinent discussion are not repeated here
347
although the specific equation number and report page are listed below for each of the
It should be noted that there are no known data available for potential panel failures
arising from the loading applied along one edge in conjunction with a general insta
bility problem arising from the loading applied along the panel edge perpendicular
to the first one. This situation might occur for panels having very high aspect
ratios; however, most of these would also indicate a potential local instability failure
under the action of the combined loads. In all cases, however, as has been previously
noted, tests should be run to substantiate a final design in all cases where there is
The effects of plasticity must be accounted for in calculating the stress ratios, R.,i to
be used in the interaction equations which are given in later paragraphs. Reference is
herewith made to the discussion and recommendations given in Section 9.2, COMBINED
Either of these equations define an effective uniaxial stress, cr., for use in determining
1
an effective plasticity reduction factor which accounts for the effects of the biaxial
stress field. Once the value of (y. is known, the plasticity reduction factor, _7, may
1
348
3.1.6.2 Design Equations and Curves
The design equations and curves for combined loading conditions are separated into
those which should be used for sandwich panels having honeycomb cores and those to
be uscd with panels having corrugated cores. Supporting references are given for
each type and loading condition along with any limitations or restrictions on the use
The interaction relationships between the stress ratios which define the onset of general
instability buckling of honeycomb core panels under combined loadings are complex
functions of a number of factors. Some of these will be covered briefly here. One of
the prerequisites for the development of the interaction equation is the determination
of the number of halfwaves in both the x and y directions for minimum energy plate
buckling. Since each of these is a function of not only its relationship with the other
but is also dependent upon the core shear rigidity parameter, V, the panel aspect
ratio, panel edge support considerations, etc., the establishment of general equations
the writers of this manual propose the use of the following simplified stress ratio
relationships for panel buckling. These give somewhat conservative results over the
typical range of aerospace application and have been recommended for general use,
[3I].
3 49
A° Biaxial Compression. The following formula is recommended for estimating
R +R =1 (3.116)
cx cy
where
R = N/N
e cr
As noted in References 31 and 323, the above equation is correct for square,
for panels of large aspect ratio, (a/b _ 3.0) and for panels bordering on the weak
core regime (V _> 0.3). For panels with aspect ratios of 2.0 or less, and which
method for the estimation of panel buckling under the action of combined bending
R + (RBx)3/2 = 1 (3.117)
CX
350
where
RB = (N/Ncr)bending
References 319 and 323 are recommended, in case more accurate analysis
able method for the prediction of panel buckling under this particular combination
of loads:
Rc + (Rs)2 = 1 (3.118)
whe re
RS = (Ns/Nsc r)
in the solution of specific problems. References 321 and 323 develop this
351
O_ Bending and Shear. The following interaction equation represents a close
(3.119)
(RB)2+ (Rs)2 = 1
w he r c
Figure 3.132 to make it more easily and readily usable. Reference 319 pro
equation.
The interaction equations for predicting the onset of general instability failure for
sandwich panels with corrugated cores involve the consideration of a number of com
plex relationships also, as for the honeycomb core case. The same influences prevail
for fluted corrugations as before, with the additional consideration that the core shear
shear modulus measured parallel to the flutes. Also, the ability of the corrugations
to carry axial loading when it is applied along the axis of the flutes, further compli
cates the problem since the distribution of this loading between the faceplates and the
352
In view of the magnitude of the problem involved in developing specific equations for
the interaction relationships, this manual will take advantage of the extensive studies
in this area performed by Harris and Auelman, [314 and 316]. The latter reference
presents interaction equations for the prediction of the onset of panel buckling in the
form'of curves relating the buckling coefficients to each other as a function of panel
aspect ratio, the core bendingshear rigidity parameter, W, the _!ation between load
direction and flute orientation, and the ratio of the loading carried by the flutes with
respect to that carried by the faceplates. These interaction curves are repeated here
in Figures 3.133 through 3.142 for several values of the shear rigidity parameter,
W, and for the following additional relationships: 1) Panel aspect ratio, a/b = 1/2,
1.0, and 2.0, and 2) Amount of axial load carried by the core corrugations is negligible
(D = bending stiffness
with respect to that carried by the faceplates, i.e., De/D = 0. c
this combined load condition are given in Figures 3.133 through 3.135.
Buckling coefficients for other panel aspeo* ratios and different values of W
The following example problem is offered to demonstrate how these curves may
Given: Panel withN =2000 lbs/in, N =400 lbs/in, a=30 in, b 60 in,
x y
353
Figure3.133 is usedfor this casesince(a/b) = 1/2. The top line of this figure
applies since W = 0. The interaction equation takes the following general form:
R + R <_1 (3.120)
cx cy
or
N N
x y
+ __ 1 (3.121)
N N
xcr ycr
where
E; (tf)(t e + tf) 2
D = Sandwich bending stiffness = for equal facings.
2 (1 _Nfe)
Gcb  Core shear modulus in the direction parallel to the flutes, psi.
354
Substitutingin Equation(3.121):
N N
X Y
+ 1.0 (3.122)
and, letting
r = N /N (3.123)
y x
then
(3.124)
Nxb_ [ 1 r]
Since D, b, N , and r will be known for the design in question, and K and K
x x y
may be obtained from the appropriate curve, Equation (3.124) can be used in
checking the panel stability on the basis that the panel margin of safety is the
From which
(_) 1o:(_yc4
.Nx.
lO \Ny/
or
= r (3.126)
Nxer/ =
the n
(Ky) (y2D/b 2) KY
r  (3.127)
K
(Kx) (_'_D/b _) x
355
Returningto the datagivenfor the exampleproblemto demonstratethe method
for checkingpanelstability:
r = N /N = (400/2000) = 0.20
y x
Using Figure 3.133, erect a line passing through the origin and having a slope
of K /K = 0.20 and extend it until it intersects the line for W = 0. The coor
y x
dinates of this intersection point, as taken from the figure, are: K = 6.0,
X
and K = 1.2.
Y
Then,
2000 400
 0.406 + 0.406 =: 0.812
4930 986
Since the total is less than 1.0, the panel is stable under the applied loads. The
margin of safety for panel buckling is: M.S. = (1.0/0.812)  1.0 = +0.232.
356
B°
Combined Compression Along Core Flutes and Shear. Figures 3.136 through
3.138 give eurves showing the interaction relationships between the buckling
coefficients for panels loaded in this manner. Curves for other panel aspect
ratios and values of the shear rigidity parameter may be developed by inter
polation from those given. Panel stability checks for this combined loading
condition are made in the same manner as for the biaxial compression ease.
This is accomplished by handling the calculations for the t2 term in the inter
s
action equation in the same way as was done for the I_ term in the example
cy
for the buckling coefficients covering this particular combination of loads are
obtain values for the specific design under study and the stability checks may
be made in a similar fashion to those for the biaxial compression case. The
D°
Combined Biaxial Compression and Shear. Figure 3.142 shows the relation
ships for the compression and shear buckling coefficients for this loading con
dition. These curves are for a square panel only, however, as may be noted
from the small change in the values of K between the various values of the
Y
basis of ratios obtained from the curves of Figures 3.136 through 3.138.
357
Panelstability checksare madein basicallythe samemanneras for the example
generalform:
R +R +R _1
cx cy s
where
R andR are as definedonpage354.
cx cy
Since, as may be seen in Figure 3.142, K is a function of W only for this case
Y
and is independent of the values of Kx and Ks, the value for Rcy may be calcu
lated imm :diately and the interaction equation put in the following form:
The design check may now be performed in the same way as for the example
problem on page 353, if the R term and calculations are handled in the same
s
way as the R term and calculations were handled for the example. It is to be
cy
noted, however, that the term on the right side of the equation, C, has a value
which is less than 1.0 and this value should be used in place of the 1.0 used in
the example. Thus, assumingR = 0.10, then C = 1.0 0.1 =0.9, and the
cy
margin of safety for panel buckling as calculated on page 357 for the example
358
R
cx
0.6 0.8
0 0.2 0.4 R
cy
359
1.0_::: hi !': ft+.
....
....
I
+ +
::
,
t;+
'++ ....
.... _it_
+P+_ :i!: if!! _'_ 
i.
+++.
Itt _:
: ' +i ' +_+ P [ il +r + ;i,
'::;::.t ....... T++[ "I :'
r!','_T !_ !! !'
;I fl ::::I::::
i,+!t
: ;:{!:..
t_+:
....
: ,:
: ,:!:
,_!_ _ _
!_ilii!:
,,_i,],,i
+i::
•
:::
: ::"
'
_+fl .... i+ .
![;:
:iiii:i: il!i ::t:l '+li_li:i: :_
II + .+v'":=;!: ;:, tit, , + +:;
++' 111 i':,: '+
+!t+l+++:
:'.'.i +:': +!+ ;+++t!G:_
',',+
...... ::i , ,+_ +_+ N_:
0.6 lll.+'.l; _'. ',t:
0.4 ":r !!
.la
:'I!
I.
I+++++N
+:
.......
: : _bJ::!+`:!ti:ifill+ +::"
++:I++++I++++:N
: : +++:+_,,,
_,++If+1+ +
',_tt++,
ttTT
iii tr _
t!t:Ir _ +:tr [[i[ ' '
_t_;t:'+:: itt_ "_]_ It l_tt I i!::
!F i:
U4ttt!iiilii!t
0 Hf+H_ii_t+xl _ ]PI tt 11 Pt ii _t!,_ii!l
I _++_!d+:]l+_fi..
o 0.2 0°4 0. 6 o. 8 1. o
R
Bx
360
I!+t:: : +!:iii _!< i! !;;
tt _i::
:_ i_ tR + R = 1 O) "TrY
i[ _:i _ c s "
ii! I[ :t_l liT! T.... :: ,lii:*+
gt
++ _!!1
+,+l
. _ : ;+ t_; !_
R
2 .: . , ]q[ _I_ + , ii
1I....
tti_
Jill
C !! iTii
+÷,. _':_it:_l}_
l;ii _.XiitiliaS:.!i I ¸ !_i
i: !i!!
' !111
i]4!ti!i::;;i:_i;I +t_;liilli) t_
Lilt
t;:i
L+ '.1+
!+'.,.J,i
........ ;++_ ++++i;+++++l++ 11
!+,+:t;;_p.+!:_i]Ll ++ L !![
;i 1%I:
,+++i;+11++1+Pl_+_
+ H _ t_
361
Figure 3.132. Interaction Curve for a Honeycomb Core Sandwich
Panel Subjected to Bending and Shear
362
20.0 Y
N ___ +. b
x
16.0
W=0
L...×
tttt _
N
12.0
\ i
Y
Nb
2
X
W = 0.05 K
X 2
_r D
K
Y
N b2
Y
. Z = 
8.0 y 2
D
I
W = 0.20
4.0
(a/b = 1/2)
I
W 0.50
\
4.0 6.0 8.0
0 2.0
K
X
363
5.0
364
2.0
Y l
L a _1
I I
N
X
b
1.6
N
_'_ Y N b2
K
X
D
2
1.2
K  2
K
Y
\ I
0.8
w \ ",g_,. I
"_...... .., \'_
O. 50 _
0.4
(a/b = 2. O) _ _ \_
o
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
K
X
365
10.0
y_
"k 4
N '_" b 4.._ b
X
"_4
8.0
(a/b = 1/2)
xy 2
Nb
I K
X
x2D
6.o __ 2
N b
xy
K
K _ \ S
2D
× \ "_,
4.0
\
\ \\ \
W = 0
2.0
W=0.20  ..W = O. 05
0
0 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0
K
S
366
4.0
Y a _1
N _ b
3.0
x ' "K = x
_ x 2D2
K
X
2.0
_
\ g1>w\_io.
o_
w_o._o
\ jA%
1.0
K
S
367
5.0
Y,I
a _1
vI
Nx_'_ *b
(a/b = 2. o) : ...... _ "
4.0
_ xy
__'_ _ ! Nxb2
_'_'\ ff D
_' _ Kx  2
3.0
Ks _rxy2D
K
X
__ N b2
2.0
.....
1.0
o,,
0
0 2.0 4.0
, 6.0 8.0
K
S
368
10.0 •
(a/b = 1/2)
N _
x.... F I t q b
8.0 _t t_
i K  N xb 2
6.0 "_ x 2
KX _ 2
_ N b
_, \ Ks xy
4.0
2.0
PW = 0.05 i
I _,
w_o._o \ '
0 8.0 16. 0 24.0 32.0
K
S
369
N f I I I /o__ ' b
Kx
Nbx2
3.0
W= 0. Ir D
N b2
2.0 = 0.05
K
X
_W=O
1.0
W
(a/b = 1.0) \
370
5.0 Y ii
a _1
N x _ l I l I l _ b
(a/b  2.0) ""t.,_
,,,_
, i i i t"AL..
,,_ X
4.0 \N
xy
I L K 
_x_
x 2
_ D
3.0
N b2
K
\ S
xy
2
17 D
X
\
2.0
05
1.0
w=o._\ _
371
2.5 Y 1
._e_q_
(a/b : 1. O) Nx  = b
2.0
_N_ _ N b2
1.5 Nxy rr D
rr D N b2
K X
N N_ __ Ks = 2
2_ ' KY  Y
Ky = 1. 7r 2D
1.0 \
K =1.7. W=0
W = 0.05
0.5
_ 0 50
\i " ()'20 _ __ =_
K 1"9y
o ,_,o 4o oo =o
Ks
372
3.2 CIRCULARPLATES
3.2.1 AvailableSingleLoadingConditions
manualmakesno recommendations
for techniquesto be usedin design, andstrongly
quacystructurally.
3.2.2 AvailableCombinedLoadingConditions
Consequently,
this manualmakesno recommendations
for possibleanalyticalap
373
3.3 PLATESWITH CUTOUTS
3.3.1 FramedCutouts
drawbacks.
sandwichconstruction.
374
It maybepossiblefor specificdesignsto be assessed,onthe basisof goodengineering
3.3.2 UnframedCutouts
375
+ o
h9
Z
I o .._
,.m _ _.5
0
i
[I r] ._ "_ ,._
,+
%i _u o_ +a
0
_ +a oa
.,4
+ii!
,..i
o,,I
+..o
,B,
ff
ro o "_ m+ d6
Z
p,+ ©
,+.9
o
+ +.+B _ Z
[,¢] ,+_ + O "+
o+o:_
0
o,,i
<
Z
8+
c ...
¢a9
B , B _
0 _ 0 B
o
0 o
% e_ o o b+
b 0 +
o
0
0 0 I
B
©
C.l] _t_ _ "_
Eo_.S
I
o.9
0
m
ryj
376
o
fF
o o
E,.b
p.
¢,
tm
©
U H II II II
M m
_i ._ r_
_ +
M E
'1=
H
II
Z _
r..,q I._
o
0 ° 0 _'
o
<:
u II II II [I
,M
0 i,].
377
bJo o
0 01
0
09
.o_ o_ >
c_
b_
0
_7
7 '_, °_
o"
E _o °_
0 o o=
.o _ +
tn
r_
o
o r_ Ir
o _
0 ,_ o_ _9
0 !
o
L_
!
Z
0 0
tn
378
_9
b_
b_
_o
o
o"
0
0
II
L_ z
0
_o
379
...... lr J
g_
_r
_ ,_
god
c,l
t
g
o _ f'I
•_ ..
gl _
N
o
rj
N J_ _ _ •
0
L_
I.
o
Z° Z L_._J
Ca
_ _._
II
v
i
I m ×
°
,_,_= ._,
g
°_,1 ,
r/?
k T
8
,_ ..o i 0 ,
b'_ _ , 0
__j
'ii £ _:
380
_ _ _ o
o _ o_
._ _ o_ _
_ , _.
o _ _ o_
_
0
, _'_
_ o_ _ _._
o _ _ _ _._
°_ _ _ _._ o o.
.o _ _ . _
b._ • I o _ _ "_
,._ _ _ _._
0
o _ ._ _ _.
t
.._ _ _ _ _o
II
o _ ,, __ _4
• _ _ ,__ _ _ ._._
_,_,4 I
L! iJ
l/ \,II
D
381
._..E
_._ o
r_
o
_.
0
L_ e *') _1
_ _°
_._ _ _._
o_ _ _ _ _._
r._ o
_d
_ z_ ._ _
_ z
m
o o • _ _ "_
Z _ ._ _ _
_' _ z _'
_ °_' _ ° _
M I!
_,_ _ _ ,, _ _ _ m
_ • _ M_ 2_..
_._ _ hi)' i
_._ _:
e_
o
,,,4 8
o  I I o
<
r_
m
m
I I IJ
e_
>._ir'J , , ' <
u o
z
I
8_
382
0
2
0 _ "_
z
_ o.
o _ ._ "___
C
° o_ ,, °_o ._
o_ _ z_ _
._ o° o
o_
_ _ z_
+
_.o C_
Z _ o_ o
c_
II
t_ _ _ 0 2
_o _
o
o xjF__
I I i I I I_ _
<i
383
REFERENCES
May 1964.
"Sandwich Panel Tests for C5A Airplane," GELAC Report No. ER 8976,
22 February 1967.
1 August 1965.
39 Norris, C. B., "Compressive Buckling Curves for Flat Sandwich Panels
385
310 Norris, C. B., "Compressive Buckling Curves for Flat Sandwich Panels
September 1960.
cients for Simply Supported and Clamped Flat, Rectangular Sandwich Panels
May 1965.
313 Kuenzi, E. W., and Ericksen, W. S., "Shear Stability of Flat Panels of
316 Harris, L. A., and Auelman, R. R., "Stability of Flat, Simply Supported
317 Timoshenko, S. P., and Gere, J. M., Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw
318 Gerard, G., and Becker, H., Handbook of Structural Stability, Part I
386
319 Kimel, W. R., "Elastic Bucklingof a SimplySupportedRectangularSand
wich PanelSubjectedto CombinedEdgewiseBending,Compression,and
Shear," ForestProductsLaboratoryReport1859,1956.
Flat Sandwich Panel Subjected to Two Direct Loads Combined with a Shear
Edgewise, Direct, and Shear Loads, " Forest Products Laboratory Report
1838, 1953.
323 Plantema, F. J., Sandwich Construction, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 1966.
387
4
GENERAL INSTABILITY OF CIRCULAR CYLINDERS
4.1 GENERAL
has long been recognized that test results usually fall far below the predictions from
primarily to
a. the shape of the postbuckling equilibrium path coupled with the presence
of initial imperfections
and
b. the fact that classical smalldeflection theory does not account for pre
Neglecting the discontinuity distortions, the equilibrium path for an axially com
pressed perfect cylinder is of the general shape shown by the solid curve in Figure
4.11. This path is linear until point A is reached and general instability occurs at
a stress level crCL equal to the result from classical smalldeflection theory
the cylinder is initially imperfect and the discontinuity distortions are considered, the
behavior will be as shown by curve 0B and buckling will occur at the stress O'cr. The
rrtio (Crcr/erCL) will be dependent upon the magnitude of the initial imperfections pres
ent in the cylinder. However, since this information is not normally available, one
41
usuallyfinds it necessaryto resort to either of the followingpracticesto obtainpracti
cal designvalues:
Figu_e 4. iI.
knockdown factor )'e which is based on the results from a large array of
Perfect
Cylinder
A Imperfect
crCL Cylinder
Axial
Compressive
Stress
O'cr
C
O'MiN
0
End Shortening
these approaches and, for such cylinders, the test data shows that _'c is a function of
42
In the caseof sandwichcylindershavingrelatively rigid cores, the behavioris similar
walledisotropic (nonsandwich)
cylinders. In addition,as the coretransverseshear
now rather generally agreed that this criterion often provides design values which are
has become common practice to design sandwich cylinders by method (b) cited above
[44 and 45]. This approach, which employs smalldeflection theory in conjunction
In the treatment of various types of external loading, it is important to note that the
characteristics of the equilibrium paths are not identical for cases of axial compres
sion, torsion, or external radial pressure. For purposes of comparison, Figure 4.12
43
depictsthe generalshapesof thesepathsfor eachloadingcondition[46] assuming
thanin the caseof axial compression. This has beenborneout by the availabletest
44
4.2 AXIAL COMPRESSION
The theoretical basis used here is the classical smalldeflection solution of Zahn and
a. The facings are isotropic but the core may have orthotropic transverse
shear properties.
b. Bending of the facings about their own middle surfaces can be neglected.
c. The core has infinite extensional stiffness in the direction normal to the
facings.
Section 4.2.2).
In this handbook, the final equations of Reference 47 have been transformed into
equivalent formulations which should be more meaningful to the user. For those cases
Gxz
O _;1 (4.21)
Gyz
45
where
h 2 _r}_l t 2
(4.23)
_o = _Ef_ l_:_ee (tl + t_)
and
1
When Vc _ 2 (4.24)
Kc = 1  _ V c
1
When Vc > 2
Kc = Vc (4.25)
where
oo
Vc  (4.26)
°'crimp
5 2
(4.27)
_rcrim p  (t 1 + t2)t c Gxz
z
Plasticity reduction factor, dimensionless.
Gxz 
Core shear modulus associated with the plane perpendicular to
the facings and oriented in the axial direction, psi.
important to note that the value V c = 2.0 establishes a dividing line between two
different types of behavior. The region where V c _ 2.0 covers the socalled stiffcore
46
1.0
K c
I
I
I
2.0
Vc
zero, the core shear stiffness is high and the sandwich exhibits maximum sensitivity to
initial imperfections. Hence, for any given radiustothickness ratio, the knockdown
less. The domain where V c > 2.0 is the socalled weakcore region where shear
crimping occurs. Sandwich constructions which fall within this category are not influ
enced by the presence of initial imperfections, and a knockdown factor of unity ean be
knockdown relationship which recognizes the variable influence of the core rigidity but
47
4.2.1.2 Empirical KnockDownFactor
equation:
The quantity Yc is referred to as the knockdown factor and this value is generally
gators have proposed different relationships in this regard. The differences arise out
of the chosen statisticalcriteria and/or out of the particular test data selected as the
empirical basis. One of the most widely used of the relationships proposed to date is
the lowerbound criterion of Seide, et al. [49] which can be expressed as follows:
where
1 R
(4.210)
This gives a knockdown curve of the general shape depicted in Figure 4.22. For the
purposes of this handbook, it is desired that an empirical means of this type also be
provided for the design of sandwieh cylinders. One of the major obstacles to the
achievement of this objeetivo, is the lack of sufficient sandwich test data for a thorough
empirieal determination. Faced with this deficiency, one finds it expedient to employ
the data from isotropie (nonsandwich) cylinders in conjunction with an effective thick
ness concept and eorrection factors which are based on the few available sandwich test
points. Toward this end, it is usually assumed that, when V c _< 2.0, equal sensitivity
48
1.0
Yc
Log Scale
h
(_ _ for sandwich constructions whose two facings are of equal thickness). There
fore, the approach taken here is to rewrite Equations (4.29) and (4.210) in terms
of P. The revised formulations give the plot shown as a dashed curve in Figure
4.23. Also sho_ in this figure are the appropriate test points obtained from
axially compressed sandwich cylinders [42, 410, 428] which did not fall into
the weakcore category. Eleven such data points are shown. In addition, two
test points are shown for axially compressed conical sandwich constructions
[410] which likewise did not lie in the weakcore region. The conical data are
included in Figure 4.23 in view of the scarcity of available test results and
also because the cones were analyzed as equivalent cylinders whose radii were
taken equal to the Rz (finite principal radius of curvature) values at the small end
of the specimens. Based on this limit_i amount of sandwich test data, it is recom
mended that the solid curve of Figul"e 4.23 be used for design purposes. This
49
1.0
.8
.7
.6
.3
.2
.1
10 103
410
gives Ycvaluesthat are 75percentof thoseobtainedfrom the dashedcurve whichwas
mendeddesigncriterion. It canbe seenthat all but oneof the test results exceed
bedesignedas weakcorestructures.
In view of the meager compressive test data available from stiffcore and moderately
stiffcore sandwich cylinders, the method proposed here is not very reliable when
411
Vc < 2.0. Therefore, in suchcasesthe methodcanonlybe consideredas a "best
(V c _>2.0), the method is quite reliable and will, in fact, usually give conservative
predictions.
2O
15
• _,_b.
10 8
_D
I I
5 10 15 20
Figure 4.24. Comparison of Proposed Design Criterion Against Test Data for Weak
Core Circular Sandwich Cylinders Subjected to Axial Compression
412
2OO
100 200
As indicated in the preceding paragraphs, appropriate test data must be used in order
to arrive at practical values for the knockdown factor. However, one can be easily
misled in this endeavor when the test data and/or the classical theoretical predictions
lie in the inelastic region. To demonstrate this point as simply as possible, the pre
sent discussion is limited to the case of axially compressed circular sandwich cylin
ders for which V c = 0. Then the recommended design value for the critical stress
h 2 _ t_ (4.211)
°'cr = Yc _ Ef R I_ZYYe2 (tl + t2)
413
For anyparticular test specimen,the relatedvaluefor the knockdownfactor shouldbe
Equation (4.211):
C(rCrTest_
\ "_Test /
= (4.212}
The plasticity reduction factor DTest is evaluated at the actual experimental buckling
stress. By inspection of the numerator and denominator of Equation (4.212), one can
conclude that this formula may be rewritten in the following more meaningful form:
The example illustrated in Figure 4.26 should help to clarify this concept. In this
figure, the solid line represents the stressstrain curve for the test specimen mate
rial. Suppose that this particular specimen buckled at a stress equal to OCrTest . As
indicated in the figure, it is assumed here that this stress lies in the inelastic region
so that NTest will be less than unity. For the purposes of this discussion, further
assume that _?Test  0.80. If the material had remained elastic, the experimental
critical stress would have been somewhat higher than OcrTest . This greater value
(4.214)
°'CrTest °CrTest
 1.25 (rCrTest
CrcrTest  _)Test 0.80
414
¢rCL
(r_rTest
O'Ma x
_rcr
Test
Strain
Now let it also be assumed that, using elastic material properties, the classical thee
retical critical stress equals the value oCL indicated in Figure 4.26. The following
formula would then give the proper value for the experimental knockdown factor:
h 2v/t _ tz
(rCL = Ef _ _pe z {tl +t2) (4.216)
415
The abovediscussionis givenhere sincesomeof the results presentedin the literature
exceed _Max andthis type of comparisonmight lead oneto believethat the appropriate
knockdownfactor is very closeto unity. However,use of the correct approachas
given geometry, one could always show very close agreement between O'crTest and
OMa x simply by choosing a material with a sufficiently low yield strength and having
416
4.2.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
facing is denoted by either subscript. These equations were obtained by a simple ex
tension of the formulas developed in Reference 47 which only considered the case
where the behavior is elastic and the moduli of elasticity are identical for both facings.
The extended versions given in this handbook were derived through the use of equivalent
thickness concepts based on the ratios of the moduli of the two facings. For cases
where the two facings are not made of the same material, these equations are valid
only when the behavior is elastic (7 = 1). Application to inelastic cases (_? _ 1) can
only be made when both facings are made of the same material. For such configura
The buckling coefficients Kc can be obtained from Figure 4.27. Curves are given
Gxz
there for both 0 _< i and 0 = 5 where 0  Since these two plots are not very
Gyz
different from each other, one may use Figure 4.27 to obtain rather accurate esti
Whenever V c < 2.0, the knockdown factor Yc can be obtained from Figure 4.28.
For elastic cases, use _) = 1. Whenever the behavior is inelastic, the methods of
417
! I I I I
cq L'_
+ IJ
j
O
oJ
17 A
O
v
¢..J
v4
I I I I
I O,1 o,1
.>
O
O
¢,J
+
o
¢7 L)
g
°,.._
¢7
_>
418
JiJ, i¸ il
........ :!:i!
_9
0
_9
<
i
}.
1
_9
419
1.o _i:il
..... :::i_/_'!!I
:i!_
..... ii_i
!_....' e ...............
::i
.9 i:, x/(EI tl) (E2 t2) h
•8 'ki_ i_L[ii_4.!i_
i T i_
.............
'!t
i i,I
_'C
T:t:T!_T, ,, jklt....
, F3 dii_t
_:ii11 i!ii
.2 : J'_' [71_i!:7
_ _ti3 : lit, " 3!7!t7['_i
I0 10 _ 10 a
420
The critical axial load (in units of pounds) can be computed as follows:
In the special case where t_ = t2  tf and both facings are made of the same material,
(_Ef) h (4.228)
5 2
oo
Vc  (4.230)
arcrimp
Equations (4.217) through (4.231) and Figure 4.27 are valid only when the length L
of the cylinder is greater than the length of a single axial halfwave in the buckle pat
Gxz
tern for the corresponding infinitelength cylinder. For the case where _  Gy z  1,
one can apply the following test to determine if the cylinder length is sufficiently large:
When V < 2
el When Vcl > 2
and Figure 4.27 are valid only where and Figure 4.27 are valid for any
value of L.
421
For constructionswhere e _ 1, nocorrespondingnumericalcriterion is presently
(4.231) and Figure 4.27 to be valid. In addition, it is comforting to note that the
Cylinders which fail to meet the foregoing length requirement are usually referred to
as short cylinders. The only means available for the analysis of such sandwich cylin
ders under axial compression is the solution of Stein and Mayers [413] which is only
valid
a. when 0 = 1
and
and
and
d, the thickness of one facing is not more than twice the thickness of the
other facing.
For short sandwich cylinders which satisfy these conditions, one can use the design
Z  2L_ (4.232)
Rh 1_/_e2
422
2
rr D
r a  (4.233)
L 2 Dq
where
(_ h)(E2 ts)h2
(4.235)
D = r](l_Pe_) [(F__tl) + (F__t_i]
h _
and
L = Overall length of cylinder, inches.
During the preparation of this handbook, no solutions were uncovered for axially com
pressed sandwich cylinders having any degree of rotational restraint at the boundaries.
long for such fixity to have negligible effects on the buckling loads.
423
...... ]
70  _
1
4o  + ....
•_ _
30: _ I
I '
20=' i
::ii4' :!
1
10_ _, :
7 '_, :
!
4 ..... i
K
C
• i:
.5 _ ::
.4 ,!
• 9
424
4.3 PUIIE BEN1)ING
jeeted to axial compressive stresses which vary in the circumferential direction. From
the results of these references, it can be concluded that, regardless of the nature of
the circumferential stress distribution, classical instability is reached when the peak
Et
o" _.6 R (4.31)
It should be recalled that the value . 6 Et/R is also obtained from the smalldeflection
compression. In view of this result, one might reasonably expect that smalldeflection
sandwich theory would also indicate that only the peak axial compressive stress need
has been shown in References 417, 418, and 419 that this is indeed the case. Ref
erences 417 and 418 demonstrate this for weakcore sandwich cylinders while Ref
erence 419 deals with infinitely long cylinders which fall in the stiffcore and moder
that the theoretical considerations of Section 4.2 (axial compression) apply equally well
to sandwich cylinders which are subjected to pure bending if the analysis considers only
the peak value of the applied compressive stress. The only differences lie in the em
In the caseof pure bending, only a relatively small portion of the cylinder's circumfer
ence experiences stress levels which initiate the buckling process. Because of the
consequent reduced probability for peak stresses to coincide with the location of an
imperfection, it is to be expected that the knockdown factors for pure bending will not
be as severe as the corresponding factors for axial load. For thinwalled, isotropic
(nonsandwich) cylinders under pure bending, Seide, et al. [49] have proposed the
where
= _ (4.33)
Comparison against Equations (4.29) and (4.210) shows that this bending criterion
does indeed give Yb values of lesser severity than those which apply to the axially
compressed cylinders. Following the same approach as that taken in Section 4.2, the
h
above equations are rewritten in terms of the shellwall radius of gyration p(_ for
sandwich constructions whose two facings are of equal thickness). The revised formu
lations then give the plot shown as a dashed curve in Figure 4.31. Also shown in this
figure are the appropriate test points from stiffcore sandwich cylinders subjected to
pure bending [4201. Since only three such data points are available, it was thought to
be helpful to include the axial compression sandwich data points previously shown in
Figure 4.23. To fully understand the information given in Figure 4.31, it is im
portant for the reader to be aware of the data reduction techniques used here. For an
426
explanation of the procedures used in this handbook, reference should be made to the
Based on the limited amount of available test data, it is recommended here that the
solid curve shown in Figure 4.31 be used for the design of sandwich cylinders sub
jected to pure bending. This gives T b values that are 75 percent of those obtained
from the dashed curve which is based on the empirical formula of Seide, et al. [49].
This is consistent with the practice followed in Section 4.2 for the case of axial com
pression where the design knockdown factor was likewise taken to be 75 percent of
the value obtained from the corresponding curve derived from Reference 49.
In view of the meager test data available from sandwich cylinders under pure bending,
the method proposed in Section 4.3.2 is not very reliable when V c < 2.0. Therefore,
the other hand, when the failure is by shear crimping (V c >_ 2.0), the method is quite
427
• !
10 a
10
428
4.3.2 Design Equations and Curves
For simply supported sandwich cylinders subjected to pure bending, one may use the
same design equations and curves as are given in Section 4.2.2 (for axial compression)
a. For the ease of pure bending, use Figure 4.3.2 to obtain the knockdown
bo For the case of pure bending, the critical stresses obtained from the
location which lies on the compressive side of the neutral axis and is
furthest removed from that axis. Hence the computed stresses are the
when the behavior is elastic, the critical bending moment Mcr can be
where
subscripts 1 and 2.
429
1.0
.9
6
_b
5
.2
.I
I0 io_
(s)
P
430
To computel_cr whenthe behavioris inelastic, onemust resort to numericalintegra
tion techniques.
Sincethe procedurerecommended
heremakesuseof the methodsof Section4.2.2, all
be accomplished
for rather specialcasesas cited in Section4.2.2.
gible effectsonthe critical stresses. The samesituationexists for the caseof pure
bending.
431
4.4 EXTERNAL LATERAL PRESSURE
This section deals with the loading condition depicted in Figure 4.41. Note that the
sandwich cylinder is subjected to external pressure only over the cylindrical surface.
No axial loading is applied. In addition, it is specified that the ends are simply sup
ported. That is, during buckling, both ends of the cylinder experience no radial dis
p, psi
ends
s imply s uppo
Both rt_
p, psi
The theoretical basis used here is the classical smalldeflection solution of Kuenzi,
e. Bending of the facings about their own middle surfaces can be neglected.
f. The core has infinite extensional stiffness m the direction normal to the
facings.
432
h. The transverse shear properties of the core may be either isotropic or
o rthotropic.
2R
i. The inequality _ >> 1 is satisfied.
The solution of Kuenzi, et al. [421] draws upon the earlier groundwork laid by
Raville in References 422, 423, and 424. Norris and Zahn used these reports to
develop design curves which are published in References 425 and 426. The work of
Kuenzi, et al. [421] constitutes the latest revision to this series of reports and is
the most uptodate treatment of the subject. However, the format of their results
has been slightly modified in Reference 45 in order to reduce the scope of interpola
tion required in practical applications. The revised format is used here. However,
the need for interpolation has not been entirely eliminated since separate families are
still required for each of the selected values for Vp [see Equation (4.44)].
where
and
(4.42)
_2 (n 2 _ 1) (3 + __/L\_'_R
n2 L2 _[/n2 L22 1)(nL 7v:'R2
1+ _)2]+ 98 [1+ (n 2 + _]Vp]
+
433
(Ez tl) (E2 t_) h2
L_/2
(4.43)
[(Eltl) * (E_t_)laW
(Eltl) (Ezt2) h
Vp =
[(El tl) + (Ez t2)] (1;,seg)R_Gi, z (4.44)
whe re
n
= Number of circumferential fullwaves in the buckle pattern,
dimensionless.
For cases where the two facings are not made of the same material, the foregoing
formulas are valid only when the behavior is elastic (_ = 1). Application to inelastic
cases ( E _ 1) can only be made when both facings are made of the same material.
434
Equation(4.42) constitutesanapproximateexpressionfor Kp sinceit embodiesthe
By using Equation (4.42), plots can be generated of the form shown in Figure 4.42.
The design curves of this handbook are of this type and were taken directly from Ref
erence 45. It is helpful to note here that lower and upper limits exist for the coeffi
cient Cp and these are identified in Figure 4.42. The lower limit is associated with
longcylinder behavior. Such configurations are unaffected by the end constraints and
the related critical pressures are equal to those for rings which are subjected to
external pressure. For portions of the cylinders that do not lie in the neighborhoods
of the boundaries, the buckle patterns will be the same as are obtained from such rings.
[48] to nonsandwich rings leads to critical pressures which are 33 percent higher
than the predictions from accurate ring formulations. This is due to the fact that the
421 retains a sufficient number of terms to accurately predict the buckling of long
cylinders. That is, when Gy z * o0 {Vp _ 0) and L/R is large, the critical pressure
is equal to the value obtained from that ring theory which is capable of properly de
scribing the behavior where n = 2. The upper limit to the curve of Figure 4.42 is
associated with the shear crimping mode of failure which involves extremely short
435
circumferential wavelengths (noo). Specialization of Equations (4.4i) through
(4.44) to this case gives the following formula for the critical compressive running
Ncr = h Gy z (4.45)
where
• " Crimping)
Cp
Lower Limit
(n = 2)
Note: Vp = Constant
0 a : Constant
Another important point which should be noted is that the approximate formula for Kp
[Equation (4.42)] does not contain the core shear modulus associated with the plane
perpendicular to the facings and oriented in the axial direction (Gxz). This modulus
has very little influence on cylinders longer than approximately one diameter and has
436
therefore disappeared through the approximations made in the development of Refer
ence 421. Thus the theory and design curves presented in this section (Section 4.4)
of the handbook can be considered applicable to sandwich cylinders having cores with
437
4.4.1.2 Empirical KnockDownFactor
of normalexpanded
core in onecylinder while the other incorporatedoverexpanded
@ @ @ @
Theoretical Pcr ('(P)Test
438
Kazimi [427] attributes the scatter in his test results to the circumstance whereby
the overexpanded condition gives more uniform core properties than are obtained
from normalexpanded honeycomb. The argument put forth on behalf of this viewpoint
rests on the fact that the overexpanded core exhibits less anticlastic (saddletype)
In Reference 428 Jenkinson and Kuenzi report the results obtained from five test
plastic facings. Each facing was composed of three layers of glass fabric with their
which were essentially isotropic. The following results were obtained from these
cylinders :
® ® ® ®
Theoretical Per (YP)Test
For specimens 2 through 5 it was reported that initial buckling occurred at external
lateral pressures which ranged from 50 to 55 psi. Therefore, in the above tabulation
439
it wasassumedthateachof thesefour cylindersbuckledat 52.5 psi. In general, the
due to
The foregoing test results from References 427 and 428 seem to provide added
justification for the use of '{1) = 0.90 as a lowerbound knockdown factor, ltowever,
it would certainly be desirable to supplement these data with additional tests on speci
mens having small tf/h ratios which would be truly representative of configurations
the fact that shear crimping failures will be insensitive to the presence of initial im
perfections. Hence, in the region where this mode of failure prevails, one could
safely use the value ,(p = 1.0, especially since the theoretical basis used here neglects
the bending stiffnesses of the facings about their own middle surfaces. However, in
spection of the design cuz_ves of Section 4.4.2 shows that this type of failure will only
occur for extremely low L/R values. This fact, coupled with considerations of
simplicity and the moderate nature of the value "_p  0.90, led to the selection here
440
In viewof the meagertest dataavailablefrom sandwichcylinderssubjectedto external
441
4.4.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
7p T, Cp
(4.47)
Pcr  R(l__e _) [(Eltz) _ (Eet2)]
where
"_p = 0.90
(E 1 tl )(Ea ta ) h
(4.49)
Vp = TI [(Eltt) +(Eata)] (lre _) He Gyz
For elastic cases, use _] = 1. Whenever the behavior is inelastic, the methods of
For cases where the two facings are not made of the same material, the foregoing
formuIas are valid only when the behavior is elastic (,Z  1). Application to inelastic
cases (_ _ 1) can only be made when both facings are made of the same material.
Since separate families of design curves (Cp vs L/R) are provided for only three
values of Vp, one will usually find it necessary to use graphical interpolation or
442
improved accuracy can be obtained by minimizing Equation (4.42) with respect to n
The results given by the procedures specified here apply to sandwich cylinders having
443
0.01
Yp rtC
Per '2 [(I lt]) + (E2t,2)]
I_:]  v )
\5
9O
P
\ ",v
I 2 defined by Eq. (4.,t8)
\.
CIo00] *,
_x
NN N < 2
= O. 0001
N<
/oll,
i _ll oJo!ol
0.000] 
C
p
......
w..:
:oTioii
\ I
O. 00001 
\
X_
0.000001. 
1 10 100
tropic; Vp : 0
444
0.0 :,.
...... _p ,7c
2

..... Per  R(1 v eP ) [(Eltl) + (E2t2)]
0.00]
O. O00l
C
P
0.00001
0,000001
10
Figure 4.44.
Buckling Coefficients Cp for Circular Sandwich Cylinders
Subjected to External Lateral Pressure; Isotropic Facings;
Transverse Shear Properties of Core Isotropic or Ortho
tropic; V = 0.05
P
445
0.01
¢' yz 1
0.001
0.0001
C
P
0.0000]
0.000001  100
1 10
4.5.1 BasicPrinciples
4.5. I. 1 TheoreticalConsiderations
T, In.Lbs. Torque
__ T, In.Lbs. Torque
treated by Donnell in Reference 48 which has become a standard source of information
theory. Using the Donnell approximations, Gerard [429] has investigated the buck
ling of long circular sandwich cylinders subjected to torsion. This solution gives no
447
view of the qssumed extremely long configuration. On the other hand, in Reference
430, March and Kuenzi develop smalldeflection solutions for sandwich cylinders of
both finite and infinite lengths. The boundary conditions taken lot the finitelength
cylinders are as indicated in Figure 4.51. For the purposes of this handbook, Refer
ence 430 is considered to provide the most uptodate treatment of the subject. The
theoretical design curves given in Section 4.5.2 were taken directly from that report
b. The facings are of equal thickness. However, the curves are reasonably
accurate for sandwich cylinders having unequal facings, provided that the
e. The core has infinite extensional stiffness in the direction normal to the
facings.
o rthotropic.
The design curves include separate families which respectively neglect and include
bending of the facings about their own middle surfaces. However, for both of these
448
The theoreticalbucklingrelationshipusedhereis
d
rcr = K s ]] ErR (4.51)
which is based on the further assumption that both facings are made of the same mate
d t c +tz + te (4.52)
pression given in Reference 430. This formulation is not reproduced here. However,
it should be noted that the indicated minimization leads to Ks values which can be
L_
Zs  dR (4.53)
16 t c tlt_ Ef
 (4.54)
Vs 15 (tl +t2) Rd Gxz
449
Gxz
(4.55)
Gyz
and
L  Overall length of cylinder, inches.
Gxz = Core shear modulus associated with the plane perpendicular to the
d imens ionl es s.
t c/d  Constant I
_ Constant '/
K s
Upper Limit (Shear Crimping)
: Constant ]
Long Cylinder
(,1 : 2)
ZS
The curves given in Section 4.5.2 are of this type. Note that the upper limit for the
the buckling equations to this case leads to the following result when it is assumed
that tc/d _ I :
450
5 2
where
h =
Distance between middle surfaces of facings, inches.
In connection with sandwich constructions having large values for the parameter Zs
(long cylinders), it is pointed out that the cylinder will buckle into an oval shape (n = 2)
for which the Donnell approximations [48] are no longer valid. To illustrate this
point, attention is drawn to the results obtained for isotropic (nonsandwich), circular
obtains the following result for the critical shear stress of such cylinders:
In Reference 432, Timoshenko presents the following result from a more rigorous
: E (.___.) 3/_
rcr 3 _]2 (1Ve2)a/a (4.58)
The more exact result gives a critical stress which is only 87 percent of that given by
the Donnekl approach, This is similar to the situation encountered in the case of exter
nal lateral pressure (see Section 4.4) where the difference is even more pronounced.
Since the torsional design curves of Section 4.5.2 incorporate the Donnell approxima
tions, they must be used with caution in the case of long cylinders (n = 2).
451
4.5.1.2 Empirical KnockDown Factor
In Section 4.1 it is pointed out that, for circtdar cylinders subjected to torsion, the
shape of tile postbuckling equilibrium path is such that one would not expect the sensi
compression. On the other h:md, tile sensitivity iil torsion would be expected to be
somewhat more severe than is exhibited by circular cylinders under external lateral
I{eference 48 indicates that, over an enormous range of sizes, proportions, and
materials, a lowerbound curve to the available test data can be obtained by taking
Average values of the test data can be approximated by using 80 percent of the classi
To date, no test data has been ptd)lished for sandwich cylinders which are of the types
basis exists lor the determination of reliable knockdown lactors in such cases.
Based on the moderate dropoff of the postbuclding equilibrium path, some sources
[451 recommend that no reduction be employed ( "_s :: 1.0). ttowever, Reference 44
takes a more cautious approach in recommending the use of _s .80 for the sand
wich configuration. This selection was made largely on the basis of the isotropic
(nonsandwich) data. Although this value did not furnish a lowerbound to the isotropic
test points, it is reasonable to expect that the usually greater thicknesses of sandwich
cylinders should lead to more moderate reductions than apply to the isotropic (non
452
sandwich) conligurations. In addition, it should be noted that cylinders under torsion
will continue to supt_)rt considerable torque well into the postbuckled region, ttence
the torsional buckling mechanism should not be nearly so catastropic as the general
instability of axially compressed cylinders. With these several factors in mind, the
value "is  O. 80 has been selected for use in this handbook. In view of the lack of
sandwich test data to substantiate this selection, the methods proposed here can only
453
4.5.2 Design Equations and Curves
For simply supported circular sandwich cylinders subjected to torsion, the critical
d
rcr = Xs Ks _ Ef _ (4.59)
where
d = tc + t_ + t_ (4.511)
and Ks is obtained from Figures 4.53 through 4.58. border to use these cu_,es,
L2
Zs  (4.512)
dR
V = 16 tc t_ t_ TiEr (4.513)
s 15 (tl + t_) R d Gxz
Gxz
@  (4.514)
Gyz
For elastic cases, use r1 = 1. Whenever the behavior is inelastic, the methods of
The critical torque Tcr , measured in units of in.lbs, can be computed from the
4 54
Culwesfor Ks aregiven for values of @ 0.4; 1.0; and 2.5. Estimates of Ks
In addition, curves for Ks are given for values of t c/d = 1.0 and 0.7. The former
neglect the contribution from bending of the facings about their own middle surfaces.
The latter may be used to obtain numerical estimates of the conservatism introduced
As noted in Section 4.5.1.1, the design curves are somewhat inaccurate in the region
where Zs is large (long cylinders). Some caution should be exercised in the appli
Strictly speaking, Figures 4.53 through 4.58 apply only when the facings are equal.
However, the curves are reasonably accurate for sandwich cylinders having unequal
facings, provided that the thickness of one facing is not more than twice the other.
455
e_
r_
.!
m
El
456
0
¢)
II II
_J
¢)
0
C)
iZ/
457
0
b
or,,i
°,,I
r..)
II
458
S
E)
459
.2
_D
"0
.2
e_
.2
I
t_
O(3
o
S
460
©
,.,,.i
%
©
ca
od
I
461
4.6 TRANSVERSE SI[EAR
In Reference 433, Lundquist reports the results from a series of tests on isotropic
ing. The same type of data is published in Reference ,I34 for elliptical cylinders.
Both sets of data were obtained from cantilevered cylinders of varied lengths. Extrapo
lation of these results to the condition of zero bending stress permits a determination
of critical stresses for pure transversc shear loading. It has proven useful to com
pare these stress values against the theoretical results obtained from smalldeflection
theory for isotropic (nonsand_vich), circular cylinder,_ loaded in torsion. Gerard and
Becker [435j report that, for nominally identical specimens, such comparisons yield
the following ratios where the theoretical predictions are obtained by using Reference
436:
Average of "rer
Shear Test Values f¢)r t
Transverse Loading
SmallDeflection Theoretical Ter
[ Values for Torsional Loading i a, 1.(; (4.61)
To properly interpret these ratios, it is pointed out that, for torsional loading, the
shear stress Tcr is uniformly distributed around the circumference. On the other
hand, under transverse shear loading, the shear stress is nonuniform and the value
Tcr then corresponds to the peak intensity which occurs at the neutral axis.
462
For the lack of a better approach,it is recommonded
that Equation(4._;2)beused[or
463
4.6.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
cylinders)andoneshouldexercisesomecautionwhendealingwith suchconfigurations.
other.
For elastic eylinders the critical transverse shear force (Fv)cr, measured in units of
To compute (Fv)cr when the behavior is inelastic, one must resort to numerical inte
gration techniques.
464
4.7 COMBINED
LOADINGCONDITIONS
4.7.1 General
shows the graphic format usually used for this purpose. The quantity R. is the ratio
1
of an applied load or stress to the critical value for that type of loading when acting
alone. The quantity R. is similarly defined for a second type of loading. Curves of
J
this form give a very clear picture as to the structural integrity of particular con
figurations. All computed points which fall within the area bounded by the interaction
curve and the coordinate axes correspond to stable structures. All points lying on or
outside of the interaction curve indicate that buckling will occur. Furthermore, as
shown in Figure 4.71, a measure of the margin of safety is given by the ratio of
distances from the actual loading point to the curve and to the origin. For example,
Then, for proportional increases in R. and R., the margin of safety (M.S.) can be
1 j
(Rj)D
M.S.  1 (4.7I)
(Rj)B
which is based on the assumption that loading beyond point B follows the path BM.
Point M is located in such a position that BM is the shortest line that can be drawn
465
between point B and the interaction curve. The minimum margin of safety can then be
calculated as follows:
OB _ BM
Minimum M.S. OB 1 (4.72)
1.0
(Rj) D _M
(Rj)B
R
J
iiiiii
0 R 1.0
i
466
4.7.2 Axial Compression Plus Bending
In References 417, 418, and 419 it has been shown that, for circular sandwich
(4.73)
(Re)c L + (Rb) C L = 1
where
U
e
(4.74)
(Rc)cL 
(5c)CZ
_b
(.i. 7_)
{Rb)cL (Sb)CL
= (4. v6)
((_b) CL ((_e) C L
and
References 417 and 418 develop the foregoing result for weakcore constructions
which fail in the shear crimping mode. On the other hand, Reference 419 deals
with infinitely long cylinders which fall in the stiffcore and the moderatelystiff
4f;7
allowables,it doesnot includeanyconsiderationof the detrimentalinfluencesfrom
spectively) to obtain
Rc +Rb = 1 (4.77)
where
e
R  (4.78)
c 'Yc ((_c) C L
(_b
% Yb ((_c) CL (4.79)
Therefore, the design interaction curve can be drawn as shown in Figure 4.72. Since
no test data is available for sandwich cylinders subjected to combined axial load and
bending, the general validity of this curve has not been experimentally verified. Some
degree of empirical correlation is inherent in the approach since the knockdown fae
tors 3/c and 7b were established, in part, from sandwich test data (see Sections 4.2
and 4.3). ttc_vever, even these data were few in number. Therefore, until further
lo0 
Rc 1.0
Re + Rb = 1 (4.710)
w h e re
(y
c
R  (4.711)
c Tc ((7c) C L
au  _b (_c)CL
(4.712)
In Equations (4.711) and (4.712), the knockdown factors Tc and _b are those ob
The quantity (ffc)CL is simply the result obtained by using Tc = 1.0 in the method of
Section 4.2.2.
ao
IlVel Et
r7 = [ 12_1 _ff for short cylinders, and
t s
b. _ 
for moderatelength through long cylinders.
tlu_] Ef
Equation (4.710) may be applied to sandwich cylinders of any length. However, length
considerations should be included in the computation of ((_c)CL when the structure falls
469
0.8
!i!ii
0.6 _' j
i!il
Rb
470
4.7.3 Axial Compression Plus External Lateral Pressure
This section deals with the loading condition depicted in Figure 4.74. The sandwich
cylinder is subjected to uniform external pressure over the cylindrical surface. Axial
loading is imposed as indicated by the [orces P. These forces can originate from any
source including external pressures which are uniformly distributed over the end elos
ures. In addition, it is specified that the ends of the eylinder are simply supported.
This is, during buckling, the ends are constrained such that they experience no radial
lbs
P, lbs__
/ lllttIlIIlt'(
Both Ends Simply Supported
The theoretical basis used here is the classical smalldeflection solution of Maki
[437]. The design curves given in this handbook were taken directly from that source
471
d.
Poisson's ratio for the facings is equal to 0.33.
e° Bending of the facings about their own middle surfaces can be neglected.
f. The core has infinite extensional stiffness in the direction normal to the
facings.
ho The transverse shear moduli of the core are the same in the circum
ferential and longitudinal directions (G = G ).
xz yz
io
The mean radius of the cylinder is large in comparison with the sandwich
thickness.
number of terms were retained throughout the derivation to obtain accurate results
when the number of circumferential fullwaves equals two (n = 2). If the derivation
had been based on the wellknown Donnell approximations [481, the results would
The interaction curves given in Reference 437 are of the two different types depicted
Ef tf h
V  (4.713)
xz 2 (1.33e) RaG
XZ
Eftfh
Vyz = 2 (1 (4.714)
.33_) RaG
yz
P
_ Y
(4.715)
(Rp) CL _y) CL
472
cr
x
(Rc)CL (4.716)
(C_x)C L
and
Since the curves of Reference 437 were developed from a classical, smalldeflection
approach, they do not include any consideration of the detrimental effects from initial
imperfections. This is evident from the fact that classical theoretical allowables are
used in the ratios (Rp)cL and (Rc)CL. For the purposes of this handbook, the effects
473
1.0 1.0 : 4> ._I
% ..
o
(Rc)CL
(Rc)CL
Jill/ = Constant \
\XZ  \VZ  O/ _
[_ : Constant] _ .
1.0 1.0
(tlp)CL (Rp)CL
Figure 4.75. Typical Interaction Curves for Circular Sanchvieh Cylinders Subjected
to Axial Compression Plus External Lateral Pressure
from initial imperfections are introduced through the replacement of (%)CL and
Py
R =  (4.717)
P Tp (Py) CL
(y
R = x (4.718)
e Yc ((_x) C L
The quantities yp and Yc are the knockdown factors discussed in Sections 4.4 and 4.2,
respectively. Values for yc can be obtained from Figure 4.28 while yp may be taken
equal to 0.90.
No test data are available for sandwich cylinders which are of the types considered
here and are subjected to axial compression plus external lateral .ressure. Therefore,
the general validity of the design curves recommended here has not been experimentally
verified. Some degree o[ empirical correlation is inherent in the approach since the
474
knockdown factors Te and Tp were established, in part, from sandwich test data (see
Sections 4.2 and 4.4). ttowever, even these data were few in nmnber. Therefore,
475
4.7.3.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
4.76 through4.715where
Eftf h
(4.719)
xz 2(1. 33z')R_ Gxz
Eftf h
(4.720)
Vyz 2(1.332)R _G
yz
P
Y (4.721)
R =
P Yp (Py)CL
R = x (4.722)
c Tc (fix) C L
In Equations (4.721) and (4.722), the knockdown factor Tc is that obtained from
The quantity (15y)CL is simply the result obtained by using 7p = 1.0 in the methods of
Section 4.4.
The quantity ((_x)CL is simply the result obtained by using Tc = 1.0 in the methods of
Section 4.2.
Figures 4.76 through 4.712 give interaction curves only for cases where Vxz =
values for the parameter _ = 50; 160 and 500 . Graphical interpolation may be
476
used to obtain results for intermediate values of this parameter. Each family includes
separate curves for ten different values of the ratio L  = 0.1; 0.'2;  1. . In
view of the restrietions on V and V , these curves can only be used to describe the
xz yz
behavior of stiffcore eonstruetions. For the purposes of praetieal design and analysis,
it is proposed here that Figures 4.76 through 4.712 be considered applicable only
when
Rt
C
 V ± 0.05 (4.723)
h_ xz
Rt
C
V _ 0.05 (4.724)
h* yz
\vhcre
It is ex_pected that many realistic sandwich configurations will satisfy these requirements.
Fi_ires 4.713 through 4.715 present a partial picture of the effects which variations
cases for which rrR _= 0.1. }tc_vever, the trends displayed furnish some basis for one
I,
to conjecture that the curves given for V = V = 0 would result in conservative pre
xz yz
dictions if they were applied to sandwich configurations which do not satisfy the In
sweeping application of this observation in view of the limited scope of the information
477
It shouldbe kept in mindthatthe interactioncurvesgivenin Figures4.76 through
4.712 include C L values ranging only from 0.1 through 1.0. Since
_R
C  (4.725)
L L
L
3.14 _ _ < 31.4 (4.72(;)
478
h= 50
O.
8 _. Vxz = Vyz : 0,0
__C rrI1
0.6
O. ,1
0,2
479
1
I1
50
11
V = V = 0.0
xz yz
'gR
C
I_ L
0.6
R
C
0.4
CL 0.7"
CL 0.8
C O. 9_
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R
P
480
1.0
R
N = 50
h
V = V = 0.0
0.8 xz yz
_R
C =
L L
0,6
'0
R
c
\
0.4
0.2
481
I
H
 160
h
V :: V :: 0.0
 xz yz 
=0.]
482
I
R
 160
h
0.8 = V 0.0
0.4 C
L
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R
P
483
1.0 I
R
CLI0. 4 5O0
h
_ jt/ICL = 0. V = V = 0.0
0.8 xz yz 
_R
C
C L = 0.5'__ L L
0.6
R
c
0.4
C L = 0.3
C =0.1
L
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R
P
484
= 0o0
R
C
0.4
=0.8
CL=0.
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R
P
485
l°01
R
C
R
P
486
R
C
0.2
0
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R
P
487
1.0
0.8
t 5
0.6 % kk 
R %
C
0.4 \
h = 500
0.2 
CL = _R
I_ =0.1
488
4.7.4 Axial CompressionPlus Torsion
4.7.4.1 BasicPrinciples
BothEnds
SimplySupported
In Reference 418 Wang, et al. treat this type of problem but only consider the case
of weakcore configurations which fail in the shear crimping mode. In addition they
assume that the cylinder is long so that the boundary conditions can be ignored. This
(4.72 7)
(Rc)CL + (Rs) CL
2 = 1
where
C
(4.728)
(Rc)CL  _
(_c)CL
489
I (4.729)
(Rs)CL (_)CL
and
it does not include any consideration of the detrimental effects from initial imperfee
tions. That is evident from the fact that classical theoretical allc_vables are used in
the ratios (Rc)cL and (Rs)CL. For the purposes of this handbook, the effects from
initial imperfections are introduced through the replacement of (Rc)cL and (Rs)CL by
(y
c
R 
(4.730)
c "/c(ffc)C L
R _ 1 (4.731)
s
7s (_)CL
The quantities _c and _s are the knockdown factors discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.5,
respectively. Values for Yc can be obtained from Figure 4.28 while :Ys may be taken
equal to 0.80. Incorporation of the foregoing substitutions into Equation (4.727) then
R + R 2 = 1 (4.732)
c s
490
In Reference 438, Batdorf, et el. deal with the subject loading condition for thin
transverse shear deformations of the shell wall are of negligible importance, one
might conjecture thai this work could be applied to sandwich cylinders which fall into
Batdorf, et el. c438n: arrived at the same interaction expression as that given above
as Equation (4.732). In view of this, one might choose to view Equation (4.732) as
should be observed in implementing this viewpoint, partially because of the fact that
only the extremes of transverse shear stiffness of the core have been considered. In
addition, although the interaction relationship for the subject loading condition should
lish the sandwich cylinder lengths over which Equation (4.732) is a reasonable repre
sentation of the actual behavior. Furthermore, no test data are available for sandwich
cylinders which are of the types considered in this handbook and are subjected to axial
compression plus torsion. Therefore the general validity of Equation (4.732) has not
approach since the knockdown factor _'e was established, in part, from sandwich test
data (see Section 4.2). ttowever, even these data were few in number. Therefore,
until further theoretical and experimental investigations are accomplished, the inter
491
4.7.4.2 Design Equations and Curves
R +R _ = 1 (4.733)
c s
a
R  c (4.734)
c _'c (_c) CL
R  _" (4.735)
s
Ys (_) C L
In Equations (4.734) and (4.735), the knockdown factor _c is that obtained from
The quantity ((_c)CL is simply the result obtained by using )'c = 1.0 in the methods of
Section 4.2.
The quantity (_) is simply the result obtained by using _s = 1.0 in the methods of
CL
Section 4.5.
Attention is drawn to the fact that, in Section 4.7.4.1, several factors are cited which
shed considerable doubt upon the reliability of results obtained from the indiscriminate
use of Equation (4.733) and Figure 4.717. In view of these uncertainties, one might
R + R = 1 (4.736)
c s
492
which is plotted in Figure 4.718. This relationship can be used with confidence for
any length of cylinder and for any region of transverse shear rigidity of the core since
experience has shown that the linear interaction formula is never unconservative for
shell stability problems, ttowever, in many cases it will, of course, introduce execs
sive conservatism.
(}. (!
CO 0.2 0.4 0. (; 0. _ I . 0
R
s
494
4.7.5 Other Loading Combinations
In Sections 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 the following combined loading conditions are treated:
The corresponding interaction relationships can be used for certain additional com
a. the peak axial stress due to an applied bending moment can be converted
b. the peak shear stress due to a transverse shear force can be converted
With this in mind, the design equations and curves of Section 4.7.3.2 can be used for
and
495
This formula is based on the findings reported in Section 4.3.
In addition, the design equations and curves of Section 4.7.4.2 can be used for the
VERSE SHEAR FORCE if one simply substitutes the quantities _' and T _ for (_ and 1",
C C
respectively, where
(4.738)
(r'e = (_c)c + (_c)b
, O. 80
T = T T + 1.255rV = 7"T + 0"641"V (4.739)
and
Equation (4.738) is based on the findings reported in Section 4.3 while Equation
Since no sandwich test data are available to substantiate the foregoing procedures, they
49G
4.7.5.2 DesignEquationsandCmwes
LATERALPRESSURE,
substitute(_X for(_X andusethe designequationsandcurves
follows:
given in Section 4.7.3.2. The quantity (i X is defined as
(4.74O)
0"X = (ax) c + ((Ix) b
sectior_.
For the combination of AXIAL COMPRESSION PLUS BENDING PLUS TORSION PLUS
TRANSVERSE SIIEAR FORCE, substitute cr I for a and T _ for "r in the design equations
e c
and curves given in Section 4.7.4.2. The quantities a t and __ are defined as follows:
e
e = (<:'c)e\ 'bl
u (4.741)
0.80
7" = T T + 1.2_o
"rV = TT + 0.64"r V (4.742)
However, the quantities ((Tc)CL and (_)CL used in Section 4.7.4.2 remain as defined
in that section.
The foregoing criteria will still apply, of course, where one or more of the specified
497
^ o
I . t
ao
i
.# ul
1
,t
_t_ _ _ O H
_ m
"tJ
o
.o
L_
o b
"8
e_
•_ ,, ,, o_ _ _ o
__ _ .
N
"o Ii N
% L) ° el# °
r_
r_
,2 d d
c,1 _,1 > 2®_ o
..... _ "_'_K_ V AI II e_ o o.
_2
d ° d'
II > > & 0
% b b > o _1 o
II % "_
_._o _, _ o
e_
._
o
N O [._ II
_ "_,_ _ _o o
Q q_ _ o
(_ "_ _ 0
NI.._
h vl
£zJi
o
,1
o _.i I
o_ °"K v _ _ _.
z
498
©
<
o
_q
t_
O)
@ "a o
8
o .,2.If
o
,x2,
e_ I
d'
r,
If _,
.P
o
o
_,o II I1
H
o_.oK
dz o _D
H
V H _
"_o_,_.
H
°_
K
×V uoTlnloAa}:I jo sl.xv
©
/ _ r_ ° ,_
a
v_ _ >_]
o _4
,4
499
r_
d _
I
d N5
I
4
d 4 N
0
ip _ '_: _,
[._ ml
o I
o 1__. ¢1
Q
c,_ °
_D 4 rl
_
°
b
O
0
©
_D
: r_ _= o ,'f
d 0
o
r_ b
o o
O _ _)
d'
o; 0; _ u d_
© IP PI II
V
II
II
c_
C_ II vo ,\
0
% e_
Ii
bl
r/l
©
o
_d
t_
I
_2
0 AI _I
,.Q
V _ _
.1:2_ AI _
II
4100
0
o
a _
o _ g
o E
.a o
.0 ._
o
0
2 _
fll
,, _ _ o _
o
_ b o "_
II
. _ _ V AI fl II _ _
_ ° ,__1.__¢_ _
0
_.5
Ca m
4101
o _
e_
0
o
i
u,l '_
0
o _
__
o
d_
_._ . ._
o 0
_._•
T_ _
0 2 _
o
[._
_ x
2_ _
m
_ +
II
_.__ ,_
+
5_
v I _e°i
i
.o o• _0
Cl "5
% II ,_
0 _ H _
rr
g)
0
>,
e_
o
! o
,.0
o
©
ff_2___ " o
>,
ca_
ca _ z
4102
©
L_
_,_ b_
0 o
"_ ,
r_
>
°_ "_ c_ CJ
H o
%
C)
_)
_._ _
> N o © .o o
>_ b,8
_,_
_' 0
_.,_
* o ._
_
V1 m
.j, ..1:2,
io
I
i_.
> >
o ©
07
¢o to
II ._ _ o
% _ •
h,1
>
__) i_ c_
rn,
e_
0 >'
ca_
< m
ca_
_103
• _ _ _ _
.,4
II
r0 _
o_
÷ H
c_
3
o
_o _
_m ._ _ _ _ , ,
li
tn i._ o
o_ (d
°vq 0
o "_ "o o _
_0
.r#
?
c_ c
r./2 .o
t3
O ×
•,,,r,i
L_ rn
4104
©
,,2
o
_ o_
I_ _', _u
©
o ll
._ .=
_>
I
©
I
( _i
g
_4
©
_ s
>, o
>
,.4
_f i
t
V_
g
©
m
g _;< e _e
a2 _
_ m ,/')
,._ o _
_ _ ,
_>' i_ _'
c_ ,_
el o
rF [_
2)
•_ _
2_ o
M
N r_ m _
t_q
(J I ;_1
t
4105
©
0
"0
(0
[/3
P_
0S
4106
r_
"b
_ o o 0.;
I, [
b_
,,_, ,c ._
d
2
m
o o
o
_' o _ _ ,_ .2.
r_
r_ 0
,,1 r_
¢, o
_ o_ 0
Ct _ © ,
a <
'l:J
_ _ _''_< •
r_ o
._ _ _ _ o _ _4 ._ o
0 '_ II _'
m £ • m
_14
i>, ..o _Q
_m
T ¸ __ o_1
_0 M
_ ca_
4107
RE FERENCES
Thin Cylinders and Columns Under Axial Compression, " Journal of Applied
December 1957.
43 Hoff, N. J., Madsen, W. A., and Maycrs, J., "The Postbuckling Equilibritm_
February 1965.
44
Anonymous, "Buckling of ThinWalled Circular Cylinders, " NASA Space
30 December 1968.
48 Donnell, L. H., "Stability of ThinWalled Tubes Under Torsion, " NACA
4109
49 Scide, P., Weingarten, V. I., and Morgan, E. J., "Final Report on the
Development of Design Criteria for Elastic Stability of Thin Shell Structures, "
1968.
411 Anonymous, "Status Summary Report for R&D Project 6002, " Hexce] Products,
412 Plantema, F. J., Sandwich Construction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
Copyright 1906.
413 Stein, M. and Mayers, J., "Compressive Buckling of Simply Supported Curved
January 1952.
415 Abir, l). and Nard(_, S. V., "Thermal Buckling of Circular Cylindrical Shells
416 Seide, P. and Weingarten, V. I., "On the Buckling of Circular Cylindrical
Bending and Combined Bending and Axial Compression, " Journal of the
4110
418 Wang, C. T., Vaccaro, R. J., and DeSanto, I). F., "Buckling of Sandwich
421 Kucnzi, E. W., Bohannan, B., and Stevens, G. H., "Buckling Coefficients
Uniform External Lateral Pressure, " FPL Report No. 1844, November 1954.
Construction Under Uniform External Lateral Pressure, " FPL Report No.
Uniform External Lateral Pressure, " FPL Report No. 1844B, May 1955.
425 Norris, C. B. and Zahn, J. J., "Design Curves for the Buckling of Sandwich
Cylinders of Finite Length Under Uniform External Lateral Pressure, " FPL
426 Norris, C. B. and Zahn, J. J., "Design Curves for the Buckling of Sandwich
4iii
428 Jenkinson, P. M. and Kuenzi, E. W., "The Buckling Under External Radial
429 C_rard, G., "Torsional Instability of a Long San(hvich Cylinder, " Proc. 1st
435 Gerard, G. and Becker, H., "Handbook of Structural Stability, Part II1 
Buckling of Curved Plates and Shells, " NACA TN 3783, August 1957.
,t36 Batdorf, S. B., Stein, M., and Schildcrout, M., "Critical Stress of Thin
437 Maki, A. C., "Elastic Stability of Cylindrical Sandwich Shells Under Axial
and Lateral Load, " U. S. Forest Service Research Note FPL0173, October
1967.
438 Batdorf, S. B., Stein, M., and Schildcrout, M., "Critical Combinations of
Torsion and Direct Axial Stress for ThinWalled Cylinders, " NACA Technical
4112
5
GENERAL INSTABILITY OF TRUNCATED CIRCULAR CONES
It appears that no significant theoretical solutions have been published for axially com
pressed sandwich cones. Therefore, for the purposes of this handbook, the equivalent
cylinder concept of Seide, eta!. [511 has been adopted as a practical expediency.
Based on a large array of test data from thinwalled, isotropie (nonsandwich), trun
cated cones, Seide, et al. concluded that the critical stresses for such cones can be
taken equal to the values for circular cylinders which satisfy the following conditions:
a. The wall thickness of the equivalent cylinder is equal to that of the cone.
In the ease of sandwich constructions, the logical extension of this con
dition is that the equivalent cylinder have the same facing and core thick
nesses found in the cone.
b. The radius of the equivalent cylinder is equal to the finite principal radius
of curvature at the small end of the cone.
c. The length of the equivalent cylinder is equal to the slant length of the
e one.
In Reference 52, Baker presents test data from two axially compressed, truncated
sandwich cones having vertex halfangles equal to 15 degrees. These data were used
factors _c" The results are shown in Figure 5.1i, along with data obtained from
51
!!
i i
+ t
_t
t !
2_
I
4 J ,
ill
i!:
I I
52
axially compressedsandwichcylinders. This figure alsoincludesthe designcurve
recommended
in Section4.2.2 for suchcylinders. It canbe seenthat the datafrom
equivalentcylinderapproachto sand_vich
cones. However,in view of the scarcity of
a "bestavailable"criterion.
53
5.1.2 Design Equations and Curves
may be computed from the equations and curves of Section 4.2.2, provided that the
So
The values
• t_, t_, tC , and h are measured as shown in Figure 5.12.
(There is no preference as to which facing is denoted by the subscripts
1 or2.)
6
The radius R is replaced by the effective radius R shown in Figure 5.12.
e
C°
The length L is replaced by the effective length L shown in Figure 5.12.
e
Both Ends
Simply Supported
Axis of
P, lbs
P, lbs Revolution
R
small
View A
N()F}:
t 1, 12 t , h, I_"lll a] r ' let ' a_ld
54
The applied axial load P and the computed stresses are associated with the directions
indicated in Figure 5.12. In addition, since the maximum stresses occur at the small
end of the cone, the critical values are associated with this location. For both elastic
where
Rsmall
R  (5. i2)
e cos o_
It is recommended that the approach specified here be applied only to cases where
_ 30 degrees.
Plasticity reduction factors should always be based on the stress at the small end of
55
5.2 PURE BENDING
It appears that no significant theoretical solutions have been published for sandwich
cones subjected to pure bending. Therefore, for the purposes of this handbook, the
Based on a large array of test data from thinwalled, isotropic (nonsandwich), trun
cated cones, Seide, et al. concluded that the critical peak stresses for such cones can
be taken equal to the corresponding values for circular cylinders which satisfy the
following conditions:
a° The wall thickness of the equivalent cylinder is equal to that of the cone.
In the case of sandwich constructions, the logical extension of this condi
tion is that the equivalent cylinder have the same facing and core thick
nesses as are found in the cone.
b. The radius of the equivalent cylinder is equal to the finite principal radius
of curvature at the small end of the cone.
c. The length of the equivalent cylinder is equal to the slant length of the cone.
No test data are available for sandwich cones which are of the types considered in this
handbook and are subjected to pure bending. Therefore, the validity of the method
recommended here has not been experimentally verified and can only be considered as
a "bestavailable" approach.
56
5.2.2 Design Equations and Cu_wes
bending, the critical peak stresses _ and ff (for facings 1 and 2, respectively)
e r 1 c r>
may be computed from the equations and curves of Section 4.:'.2, provided that the
a. The values t_, t.z, re, and h are measured as shown in Figure 5.21.
(There is no preference as to which facing is denoted by the subseripts
1 or 2.)
[
1
"r C  Axis
a_nraJll \ r<evoIut ;;_n
View A
Rsmall
L
Note:
tl, t2, t c, h, R small' Re, and 1, e
57
The applied bending moment M and the computed stresses are associated with the
directions indicated in Figure 5.21. In addition, since the maximum stresses occur
at the small end of the cone, the critical values are associated with this location.
whe re
Rsmall
R = (5.22)
e cos (_
To compute M cr when the behavior is inelastic, one must resort to numerical inte
gration techniques.
It is recommended that the approach specified here be applied only to cases where
o_ _ 30 degrees.
Plasticity reduction factors should always be based on the peak compressive stress at
58
5.3 EXTERNAL LATERAL PRESSURE
The loading condition considered here is depicted in Figure 5.31. As shown, the cone
is subjected to a uniform external lateral pressure. The axial component of this loading
o_ R R
i
I
R
smal 1 F
%
R
large
!
w c, lbs/in
is reacted by a uniform compressive running load at the large end of the cone. This
results in principal membrane stresses which may be computed as follows, when the
core has a relatively high extensional stiffness in the direction normal to the facings:
P Ram (5.3!)
(YH  (t_ + t_)
59
where
R (5.33)
R_  cos (_
and
Since the radii R and I_ vary with the axial location, the stresses ¢YH and a M are non
uniform over the conical surface. The maximum values for each of these quantities
It appears that no significant theoretical solutions have been published for the stability
of truncated sandwich cones which are subjected to uniform external hydrostatic pres
sure. Therefore, for the purposes of this handbook, the equivalentcylinder approach
this method, the critical lateral pressure for the truncated cone may be taken equal
510
to that for anequivalentcircular sandwichcylinderwhichsatisfies the following
conditions:
Rsmal 1 + Rlarg e
R = (5.34)
e 2 cos
The critical lateral pressure for the equivalent cylinder can be obtained by using the
Since no test data are available from truncated sandwich cones subjected to external
lateral pressure, the reliability of the foregoing approach has not been experimentally
511
5.3.2 Design Equations and Curves
form, external, lateral pressure, the critical pressure may be taken equal to the
critical lateral pressure for an equivalent sandwich cylinder which satisfies the
following:
a, The values t_, t:., tc, and h are measured as shown in Figure 5.32.
Rsmal 1 + Rlarg e
R = (5.35)
e 2 cos_
t k_\
,.. BOTH ENDS VIEW A
SIMPLY SUPPORTED
512
The critical lateral pressurefor the equivalentsandwichcylinder canbe obtainedby
usingthe equation,_
andcurvesof Section4.4.2.
Plastieily c_)nsiderations
shouldbehandledas specified in Section 9.2. Tile plasticity
P R1 arge
= in. 36)
_I! (L _ t:.) cos q
P Re ( R_m_ll /
_M  (L t_) \1  (5.37)
. ' _ Rlarg e /
It is ruconm_(,nded thai the at)l)roach specified here be applied only to cases where
c_ _ 30 degrees.
513
5.4 TORSION
5.i. 1 BasicPrinciples
It appearsthat no significantlheoreticalsolutionshavebeen1)ublished
for sandwich
sand_vich),
truncatedcones,Scideconcludedthat the critical l¢)rquesfor suchshells
conditions:
a. The wall thickness of the equivalent cylinder is equal to that of the cone.
In the case of sandwich constructions, the logical extension of this condi
tion is that the equivalent cylinder have the same facing and core thick
nesses as arc found in the cone.
[?. The length of the equivalent cylinder is equal to the axial length of the cone.
where
514
In R(_ference 51, Seide, et al. present test results from ten isotropic (nonsandwich),
truncated cones which were subjected to torsion. These tests included specim¢,ns
having vertex halfangles (c_ of both 30 and (;0 degrees. The agreement of these,
results with equivalentcylinder predictions was similar to that obtained from com
parisons of test data from isotropic (nonsandwich) cylinders against the corresponding
therefore decided to use the same knockdown factor (7 s = 0.80) as was selected in
No test data are available for sandwich cones which are of the t33)es considered in this
handbook and are subjected to torsion. Therefore the method recommended here has
approach.
515
5.,1.2 Design Equations and Curves
where
/
T = Critieal shear stress for equivalent sandwich cylinder when
cr
subjected to torsion, psi. (it should be noted that this value is
not equal to the critical sh,ar stress of the conical sandwich
construction. )
1 1
(,_. 4:_')
Re = (Rsmal 1 c_)scs) 1 + [2 (1 + Rlarge_]' [1(I + Rlar_e_] _
Rsmall/] Rsmall/l
The stress 7_ may be computed from the equations and cur_'es of Section 4.5.2 pro
or
vided that
a. The values t_, t_, te, and d are measured as shown in Figure 5.41.
co The length L is taken equal to the axial length of the cone (see Figure
5.41).
516
Both Ends
Simply Supported /
7 d .!
( R
i
small
Axis of
Revolution
l, Hl/bs
T, itllbs View A
In a truncated cone which is subjected to torsion, the maximum shear stress will occur
at the small end. Hence, for sandwich constructions of this type, the critical stress
value is associated with that same location. One can therefore write
T
cr
where
It is recommended that the approach specified here be applied only to cases where
_ 30 degrees.
Plasticity reduction factors should always be based on the stress at the small end of
517
:).;_ TRANSVERSE SIIEAR
Th(, case considered here is that of a truncated sandwich cone which is subjected only
to transverse shear forces a,_ shown in Fig_,re 5.51. No_c that all transverse see
tions, such as AA, are subjected to the same magnitude <)f shear load.
,. A
J l.i
____ 
_.A
This, of course, is a pur_qy h3_pothetical loading condition since it does not result in
overall static equilibrium of the structure. To obtain the necessary balance of forces
and moments, it is required that an external bending moment also be present. Never
theless, the hypothetical unbalanced loading system does prove to be of interest since
the combined effects of transverse shear and its associated bending are usually analy
zed by using an interaction equation. Such a relationship invulves both the critical
peak meridional stress under a bending moment acting alone and the critical peak
It appears that no significant theoretical solutions have been published for sandwich
cones subjected to transverse shear. Therefore, for the purposes of this handbook,
518
the conceptusedfor sandwichcylinders (see Section 4.6) will also be adopted here as
a practical expediency. As noted in Section 4.6, the results from a series of tests
[54 and 55] on isotropic (nonsanchvieh), circular and elliptic cylinders led to the
SmallDeflection Theoretical ]
rcr Values for Torsional Loading]
To properly understand this ratio, it should be observed that for torsional loading of a
thinwalled circular cross section the shear stress Tcr is uniformly distributed around
the circumference. On the other hand, under transverse shear loading, the shear
stress is nonuniform and the value _'cr then corresponds to the peak intensity which
For the lack of a better approach, it was reconm_ended in Section 4.6 that Equation
(5.51) be used for the design and analysis of sandwich cylinders that are subjected to
transverse shear forces. For the same reason, it is recommended here that Equa
tion (5.51) also be used for truncated sandwich cones. In the latter ease, the re
quired smalldeflection theoretical Tcr values for torsional loading should be obtained
as specified in Section 5.4, with the exception that 7s must now be taken equal to unity.
No sanchvich test data are available to substantiate the reliability of this practice.
Until such data do become available, one can only regard this proeedm_e as a "best
available" approach.
519
5.5.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
Ys 1.0
where
In a truncated cone which is subjected to transverse shear, the maximum shear stress
will occur at the small end. ttence, the critical stress value is associated with that
1ocation.
Plasticity reduction factors should always be based on the stress at the small end of the
When the behavior is elastic, the critical transverse shear force .._Fv)cr can be corn
To compute (Fv)cr when the behavior is inelastic, one must resort to numerical inte
gration techniques.
520
5.6 COMBINED LOADING CONDITIONS
5.6.1 General
shows the graphic format usually used for this purpose. The quantity R i is the ratio
of an applied load or stress to the critical value for that type of loading when acting
alone. The quantity" Rj is similarly defined for a second type of loading. Curves of
this form give a very clear picture as to the structural integrity of particular con
figurations. All computed points which fall within the area bounded by the interaction
curve and the coordinate axes correspond to stable structures. All points lying on
or outside of the interaction curve indicate that buckling will occur. Furthermore,
as shown in Figure 5.61, a measure of the margin of safety is given by the ratio of
distances from the actual loading point to the curve and to the origin. For example,
(Rj)
D    M
I
1.0
(Rj) B __
Rj 1/111
0 ].0
Ri
521
Then, for proportional increases in R. and R., the margin of safety (MS) can be com
1 j
(Rj) D
MS  i
(Rj) B (5.61)
which is based on the assumption that loading beyond point B follows the path BM.
Point M is located in such a position that BM is the shootest line that can be drawn
between point B and the interaction curve. The minimum margin of safety can then
be calculated as follows:
Minimum MS  OB + BM 1
OB (5.62)
522
5.6.2 Axial Compression Plus Bending
In Section 4.7.2 this loading condition is treated for the case of circular sandwich
cylinders. For such configurations, it was concluded that one may use the following
interaction relationship:
(5.63)
R c +%=1
where
c
R = (5.64)
c "/c ((_c) C L
ab
(5.65)
%= Tb ((_c)
CL
and
= Uniform compressive stress due solely to applied axial load,
(Y
c
psi.
In this handbook it is proposed that for truncated sandwich cones the cases of pure
bending and of axial load acting alone both be treated by means of an equivalent
cylinder concept (see Sections 5.1 and 5.2). For both types of loading, the radius
of the equivalent cylinder is taken equal to the finite principal radius of curvature at
the small end of the cone. It should be noted that the maximum stresses from both
523
bendingandaxial compressionoccurat this samelocation. In viewof theseseveral
a,
o"c and gb are bcCh computed for the meridional direction and at the small
end of the cone, and
b.
the values for ;¢e' and Yb' and ((Te)r_T are those which apply to the equivalent
sandwich cylinder described in Sect_i_ns 5.1 and 5.2. (It is important to
keel) in mind that 7c must be taken equal to 1.0 when computing the value
((_c) C L • )
Since no test data have been published for truncated, sandwich cones subjected to axial
compression plus bending, the recommended approach has not been experimentally
524
5.6.2.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
compressionplusbending,the followinginteractionequationmaybeemployed:
Re+ Rb = 1 (5.66)
where
c
R  (5.67)
c 7e (6c)CL
_b
Equation (5.66) may be used for cones of any length. A plot of this equation is given
in Figure 5.62.
The quantity gc is the uniform meridional compressive stress, at the small end of the
The quantity Crb is the peak meridional compressive stress, at the small end of the
The quantities Ye' _b' and (Cre)CL are those which apply to the equivalent sandwich
In Equations (5.67) and (5.68), the knockdown factors )'e and_b are those obtained
The quantity (_c)CL is simply the result obtained by using Yc = 1.0 in the method of
Section 4.2.2.
525
Plasticity considerationsshouldbehandledas specificdin Section9.2 except,that in
(a)
[ l
r? : [ _]_
1 1 EZ for short cones, and
(b) r7 =
Ii VEtEs
o l for moderatelength through long cones.
1_ l Ef
The plasticity reduction factor 77 should always be based on the peak compressive stress
1.0t
I 'iii
0.8
\ ........ T
0.6
It b
..... r t
!
0.2 1 _
i I '
0 i .
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 .0
R
e
52 6
5.6.3 Uniform External Itydrostatic Pressure
The loading condition considered here is depicted in Figure 5.63. As shcavn, the cone
is subjected to a uniform external pressure over the lateral surface and both cnd closures.
Both Ends
Simply SuppoEtLd
p, psi
c_ R Rz
I
p, psi
..q_
_t_
Rlarg c
This results in principal membrane stresses which may be computed as follows when
the core has a relatively high extensional stiffness in the direction normal to the
facings:
p R_
pR._ (5.610)
cr M  2 (t_ + t_)
where
R
R  (5.611)
2 cos
527
and
uniform over the conical surface. The maximum values for each of these quantities
It appears that no significant theoretical solutions have been published for the stability
of truncated sandwich c(mes which are subjected lo uniform external hydrostatic pres
sure. Therefore, i'or lh(, purposes of this handbook, _he equivalentcylinder at)preach
of Seide, et al. [511 has been adopted as apractical expediency. Based on alarge
array of test data from thinwalled, isotropic (nonsandwich), cylinders and truncated
cones, Scide, et al. concluded that the critical hydrostatic pressures for such cones
can be taken equal to the values for equivalent circular cylinders which satisfy" the
following conditions:
a. The wall thickness of the equivalent cylinder is equal to that of the cone.
In the case of sanokvich constructions, the logical extension of this condi
tion is thai the equivalent cylinder have the same facing and core thick
nesses as are found in the cone.
528
b° The length of the equivalent cylinder is equal to the slant length of the cone.
C. The radius of the equivalent cylinder is equal to the average finite principal
radius of eurvature of the cone. That is,
where
The critical hydrostatic pressure for the equivalent cylinder can be obtained by using
The only available eN)erimental results for conical san&vieh shells under uniform
external hydrostatic pressure are the data from two tests eondueted by North American
Rock, veil, Corp. _57 and 58_ in conjunction with the Navajo missile program. To
assist in the preparation of this handbook, an analysis was made of the result published
in Reference 57. The other specimen was not studied since it was stressed too deeply
into the plastic region. The specimen of Reference 57 was also inelastic but the
stresses in this instance were low enough to permit reliable computations. Using the
approach of the present section in conjunction with the plasticity reduction criteria of
Sect{on 9, the design critieal pressure was computed to bc 36.4 psi. This is in satis
5 ')9
The foregoingsubstantiates,to a very small degree,the reliability of the equivalent
cylinder conceptrecommended
here. However,in viewof the lack of a sufficient
530
5.6.3.2 Design Equations and Curves
external, hydrostatic pressure, the critical pressure may be taken equal to that for tin
a. The values t_, t:., t c, and h are measured as shown in Figure 5.64.
Figx_re 5.6<1.
Rsmal 1 + Rlarg e
R = (5.613)
e 2cos (_
, Rlargc
R R2
L_L\I
_T
VIEW A
P'smail
BOTH ENDS
SIMPLY SUPPORTED
The critical hydrostatic pressure for the equivalent sandwich cylinder can be obtained
from the equations and curves of Section 4.7.3 if the ratios R and R are now defined
c p
as follows :
531
R = P
c ye (l_x)C L (5.614)
P
R =
(5. (;15)
p Wp (_y)CL
w he re
p
Uniform, external, hydrostatic pressure applied to lateral
surfaces and end closures of the equivalent sandwich cylinder,
psi.
In Equations (5.614) and (5.615), the knoekd(r_cn factor _/e is that obtained from
(Px)CL Re
((rx) CL  2 (t_ * t:_) (5.616)
or
2 (gx)CL(t ! _ t_)
(ISx)CL = R (5.617)
e
whe re
The value (tSy)c L can be obtained by using Tp = 1.0 in the equations and curves of
Section 4.4.
reduction factor r7 should always be based on the principal membrane stresses at the
532
pR large
(5.G18)
(YH= (t1 _ t2) (cos _)
P Rlarg e
(5. (;19)
_M = 2 (t 1 + t_) (cos (_)
It is recommended that the approach specified here be applied only to cases where
_ 30 degrees.
533
5.6.4 Axial CompressionPlus Torsion
T, mlbs torque
], Hllbs (orqtle_
f_ / \\
P. I bs
Bol:h Ends
Simply Supported
It appears that no significant theoretical solutions have been published for the stability
and Matthiesen _59] have arrived at certain conclusions for nonsandwich shells under
such loading and, for the purposes of this handbook, these results provide the basis for
on a large array of test data from Mylar specimens, MacCalden and Matthiesen con
cluded that the following interaction relationship could be applied to thinwalled, iso
R +R _ = 1
c S (5.620)
534
where
R :2
P (5.621)
c m
(Pcr)Empirical
R T (5.622)
s
(Ter) Empirical
and
This result is identical to that given in Reference 510 for thinwalled, isotropic (non
sandwich) cylinders subjected to axial compression plus torsion. One might, therefore,
conjecture that in the case of sandwich constructions the interaction curves for trun
cated cones under the subject loading condition are of the same shape as those pre
sented in Section 4.7.4.2 for circular cylinders. The design equations and curves
recommended here arc based on this premise. That is, one might choose to view the
formula,
R + R2 = 1 (5.623)
c s
MacCalden and Matthicsen observed that the presence of even a very small axial load
made the torsionallyloaded conical shell much more sensitive to imperfections than
was the case when no axial load was applied at all. They, therefore, recommended
535
m
fied that this single knockdown factor should be taken equal to that which applies for
the case of axial compression acting alone. The same practice is adopted here.
because only the extremes o[ transverse shear rigidity of the core have been consid
ered (see Section 4.7.4.1). In addition, although the interaction relationship for the
investigations were made to establish the sandwich lengths over which Equation (5.623)
been obtained for sandwich cones subjected to axial compression plus torsion. There
fore, the general validity of Equation (5.623) has not been experimentally verified
536
5.6.4.2 DesignEquationsandCurves
(5.624)
R +R e =1
C S
c (Per)Empirical
T (5.626)
 3,c
R
small (5.627)
Re = cosc_
Figure 5.66.
Conditional Interaction Curve for Truncated Sandwich Cones
Subjected to Axial Compression :Plus Torsion
The factor _ should be introduced into the demoninator of the ratio R s only when
R c is nonzero. For the special case where no axial load is present (R c 0), Rs
Attention is drawn to the fact that in Section 5.6.4.1, several factors are cited which
shed considerable doubt upon the reliability of results obtained from the indiscriminate
use of Equation (5.624) mid Figure 5.66. In view of these uncertainties, one might
R +It =1
c s (5.628)
which is plotted in Figure 5.67. This relationship can be used with confidence for
any length of cone and for any region of transverse shear rigidity of the core, since
53 8
experiencehas shownthat the linear interactionformulais neveruneonservative
for
excessiveconservatism.
reductionfactor r{ should always be based on the stresses at the small end of the cone.
0o
0°
0.4
li
R e
In Section 5.6.4, the combined loading condition of axial compression plus torsion is
treated. The interaction relationships presented there can be used for an additional
539
loadingcombination1)5, recognizing that at any given axial location on the cone the
peak meridional stress due to an applied bending moment can be converted into an
equivalent uniform meridional stress. With this in mind, the design equations and
era'yes of Section 5.6.4.2 can be used for the combination of axial compression plus
Fig_lre 5, 68.
Truncated Cone Subjected to Axial Compression
Plus Bending Plus Torsion
p#
R
c (tScr) .... (o. 629)
r_mplmcal
whcre
(5, 630)
and
Note: Vor the purposes of the present ease, the quantity R (see
Figure 4.28) must be set equal to the equivalent radius Re which
is comt)uted as follows:
540
Rsmall
(5.631)
Re  cosa
Note: For the pro'poses of the present case, the quantity R (see Fignre
4.32) must be set equal to the equivalent radius R e which is computed
as follows:
Rsmall (5.632)
Re  coset
The foregoing formula for P_ is based on the principles cited in Section 5.2
Since no sandwich test data are available to substantiate the recommendations made
loading condition depicted in Figure 5.68, one may use the design equations and
curves of Section 5.6.4.2, except that the quantity R c must now be defined as follows:
p'
Rc =  (5.633)
(Pcr)Empirical
where
(5.634)
_,Tb/ a11
541
c_
_1o
_4
", :a£
c_
II
©
o
,:D
c_
r_
©
t_
%[, b d ' .
_, HIh
d
4_ _ _' D
ii_ Q_
_q
_'_ _ > r, _"
q_
_q
b
c4
_. ,
C_O
©
I
L_
o
C_
b_
e_
©
0
tO'
542
0
< o
0 "_
u.,
0
:Z ._ • o:
0a
b _
Zo _
%
0
c_
b ,.i
o _ _
.m la: _
0
D
_. o o_
01
At
11
II II
0 _
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.