Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Effect of hole reinforcement on the buckling behaviour of thin-walled beams MARK

subjected to combined loading
⁎
Arif E. Oruna, Mehmet A. Gulerb,
a
TUBITAK UZAY Space Technologies Research Institute, ODTU Yerleskesi, 06800 Ankara, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara 06560, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, the effect of hole reinforcement on the buckling behaviour of thin-walled structures mostly used in
Buckling stress aircrafts is investigated under combined loads. A fuselage floor beam with real dimensions is used for the
Hole reinforcement buckling analysis, and a parametric study based on several loading scenarios is considered. Investigated
Finite element analysis structures include different ratios of hole diameter to reinforcement width (d/w), ratios of reinforcement height
Thin-walled beam
to web plate thickness (h/t), and the aspect ratio of the web plate (a/b). The material of the thin walled structure
Combined loading
is Al 7075 series. The commercial finite element analysis program, ABAQUS, is used for buckling analysis. The
Opening web
Cutout-strengthening loading scenarios such as compression, shear, and bending, as well as combined loading are considered using a
validated finite element model. For the selected range of geometrical parameters, buckling loads and allowable
buckling stresses are computed. Furthermore, compression, shear and bending rates are calculated, and the
interaction curves are plotted with the help of data obtained from the finite element studies. The effect of loading
scenario on the buckling strength is compared for beam without a hole, with a hole and with a hole plus
reinforcement cases. The main goal of this study is to provide engineers graphical data that can be used to check
whether or not a structure will fail under several defined load cases including combined loading.

1. Introduction
Thin-walled structures are widely used in aerospace and defense
industry applications. Since the reserve factor is kept low in this type of
structure, it tends to show easy buckling. Moreover, due to various
design requirements such as power cables, hydraulic tubes, fresh and
waste water pipes, a web of open holes need to be created in the
structure [21,26]. A structure weakened by open holes can be
reinforced by local support around the hole [3,8,16]. Thus, it becomes
stronger with respect to buckling and has a lighter design than a
perforated plate.
Different hole types such as rectangular [2,17], hexagonal [31] or
circular [11] and different number of holes [23–25] have been used in
the literature [1]. One circular hole on web is considered for this study.
Many researchers have studied the buckling behaviour of beams
[20,29] or plates [33]. Some of these studies have been undertaken for
thin plates with holes using specific technical methods such as
theoretical hand calculations, the Finite Element Method (FEM) and
testing procedures. Moen and Schafer [19] focused on closed-form
expressions for approximating the influence of single or multiple holes
on the critical elastic buckling stress of plates in bending or compres-
sion. They have created a parametric buckling formula for plates simply
supported on 3 or 4 sides and validated their formula using FEM and
classical engineering approximations. Panedpojaman et al. [22] have
developed a practical approach for estimating the shear strength of non-
composite symmetric and asymmetric cellular beams, based on failure
by local web-post buckling. They investigated the influence on buckling
strength and buckling mechanisms of geometric web-post parameters,
such as section size, opening depth ratio, spacing ratio and tee depth
with a validated finite element (FE) web-post model. Tsavdaridis and
D'Mello [28] have presented an experimental and analytical study on
the behaviour of perforated steel beams with closely spaced web
openings to investigate the failure mode and load strength of a web-
post between two adjacent web openings. They developed numerical
test specimens and verified their analyses using FEM and compared
their results with full-scale experiments. They considered the effects of
web opening depth and web thickness in order to understand the
stability of a web post subjected to vertical shear load.
Cheng and Zhao [5] studied the cut out-strengthening of perforated
steel plates subjected to uniaxial compressive loads. They considered
that each of the square plates that have a centrally placed circular hole
and four simply supported edges in the out-of-plane direction. They

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: arif.orun@tubitak.gov.tr (A.E. Orun), mguler@etu.edu.tr (M.A. Guler).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.04.034
Received 7 December 2016; Received in revised form 31 March 2017; Accepted 2 April 2017
Available online 09 May 2017
0263-8231/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler
used FEM to analyze the elastic and elasto-plastic buckling behaviours
of strengthened with different types of stiffeners and unstrengthened
perforated plates. They found out that the inelastic buckling stress and
elasto-plastic ultimate strength are closely related to stiffener types as
well as plate geometric parameters. Eiblmeier and Loughlan [9]
investigated the influence of cut-out diameter and circular reinforce-
ment ring width on the buckling stability of square panels under pure
shear or under pure compression loads. The results of their study
showed the influence of cut-out diameter and reinforcement ring width
on the buckling stability of simply supported panels.
Although, in the literature, there are many buckling loads types
studies performed on beams such as plates under only compression
[4,6,33], only pure shear load [7,12,30], pure bending loads [34,19],
both of each pure loads [32] or lateral torsional [13,21], combined
loading applications have not been considered. The most important
feature that makes this article different from the previously published
studies is that the study is conducted under combined loads (compres-
sion, shear and bending).
This paper is organized as follows: parametric geometry criteria
[10] and material properties are provided in Section 2. In Section 3, we
presented the validation of the finite element model using the result of
experimental [28], finite element analysis [22] in the literature and
theoretical hand calculations [14]. Buckling analysis results and the
critical buckling stress curves with respect to the geometric parameters
are given for pure compression, shear and bending loads in Section 4.
More than 400 models were analyzed with the validated finite element
model to determine the buckling interaction curves. Section 5 provides
a parametric buckling analysis study conducted under combined
loading using the variables mentioned above. A numerical example
for usage the interaction curve so that engineers can use our graphical
data to check whether their system buckles or not is given in Section 6.
Finally the conclusion drawn from this study is presented in Section 7.
2. Floor beam
2.1. Geometry
The structural body of an aircraft consists of three parts: the skin,
the frame and the longitudinal beams (longeron and stringer). The
structures subjected to passenger weight are called floor beam and floor
panels, as shown in Fig. 1. There are many holes in web section of the
beam because of various design principles and the need to alleviate the
overall structure weight. Structures weakened by hole opening can be
strengthened by two different methods. If a beam is produced by the
sheet metal method, it is reinforced with a bending sheet on the
perimeter of the hole. If a beam is produced by CNC machining, the
weakened regions can be reinforced using the cutout-strengthening
method. The aerospace industry primarily uses the second method for
hole reinforcement. The geometry used in this study is an I-type floor
beam with a circular hole produced by a CNC machining method. Three
Fig. 1. The skeleton of the aircraft and floor beam structure.
13
Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22
different geometrical parameters are considered. The ranges of the
geometrical parameters are selected as:
(i) Ratio of reinforcement width to hole diameter w/d,
0.033 ≤ w / d ≤ 0.150 .
(ii) Ratio of reinforcement height to web thickness h/t, 1.5 ≤ h /t ≤ 4.5.
(iii) Ratio of web length to web height (aspect ratio) a/b,
1.5 ≤ a /b ≤ 7.0 .
The increments for the parameter ranges are designated to be
0.0167, 0.5 and 0.5 for w/d, h/t, and a/b, respectively. Web thickness,
t, flange thickness, tf, flange width, wf, hole diameter, d, and web
height, b are fixed at 2, 5, 48, 60 and 120 mm respectively. Web length,
a, is taken to be 330 mm as a reference value. The geometry
investigated in the study and parameters w, h, a, b, t, tf and wf can be
seen in Fig. 2.
2.2. Material properties
In general aerospace structures, aluminum 2000 series is chosen for
skin elements and aluminum 7000 series is preferred for frames,
stringer, and beam components. Following these practices, 7075 T651
aluminum alloy material is selected for the aircraft fuselage floor beam
used in this study. Details of the material properties are taken from
Military Handbook [18], and required details are tabulated in Table 1.
The plastic strain value to be used in non-linear buckling for finite
element study is determined from the stress-strain curve displayed in
Fig. 3. Values of stress-strain between yield and ultimate stress are
imported to the FEA program's non-linear material properties module.
3. Validation of the finite element model
In this section, the value of the critical buckling stresses obtained
from the finite element model are compared with those from theoretical
hand calculations for plate structures under several loading conditions
(such as pure compression, pure shear and pure bending loadings). The
second validation step is conducted by comparing FEA results by
studies of Panedpojaman et al. [22] and Tsavdaridis and D'Mello [28].
3.1. Flange support test
The buckling stress formulas taken from J. Huet [14] can be applied
only for the plate structures. If the flange supports the web in a beam,
the flange can be removed and the structure can be modeled as a four-
sided, simply supported plate. This flange support test can be checked
using the following inequality:
It At
2.73 − ≥ 5,
ha ea3 ha ea (1)
where It is the moment of inertia of the flange, At is the cross-sectional
area of the flange, ha is the web height and ea is the web thickness. In
our reference geometry, the left-hand side of inequality Eq. (1) becomes
approximately 60, which is much higher than the required value of 5.
Therefore, theoretical hand calculations can be applicable for this study
under different loading conditions.
3.2. Theoretical hand calculations
The reference plate geometry values given in Section 2.1 are used in
the theoretical hand calculations. The allowable stress formulas under
pure compression, pure bending and pure shear loading conditions can
be computed as follows [14]:
⎛ t ⎞2
Fccr = Kc Ec ⎜ ⎟ ≤ Fcy,
⎝b⎠ (2)
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22

Fig. 2. Geometry of the beam with lighting hole and hole reinforcement.

Table 1
Aluminum 7075 T651 material properties.

ρ, Density [g/mm3 ] 2.81 × 10−9

E, Modulus of Elasticity [MPa] 71,700
Fty, Tensile Yield Strength [MPa] 502
Ftu, Ultimate Tensile Strength [MPa] 572
ν, Poisson's Ratio 0.33
Es, Shear Modulus [MPa] 26,900
Fsu, Shear Strength [MPa] 331

Fig. 4. Boundary conditions for using at theoretical calculation validation.

(a / b ) and the boundary conditions. The four-side simple supported

boundary condition used in this study is shown in Fig. 4.
Kc, Kb and Ks can be calculated from Eqs. (5)–(7), respectively.
π 2kc
Kc = ,
12(1 − νe2 ) (5)

π 2kb
Kb = ,
12(1 − νe2 ) (6)

Fig. 3. Stress-strain curve for 7075-T651 aluminum alloy [18].
⎛ t ⎞2
Fbcr = Kb Ec ⎜ ⎟ ≤ Fcy,
⎝b⎠
⎛ t ⎞2
Fscr = Ks Ec ⎜ ⎟ ≤ Fsy,
⎝ min(a; b ) ⎠
where Fccr is the critical buckling stress under compression, Fbcr is the
critical buckling stress under pure bending, Fscr is the critical buckling
stress under pure shear, Fcy is the compression yield strength, Fsy is the
shear yield strength, Ec is the compression elastic modulus of elasticity,
t is the web thickness, b is the web height, and a is the web length. Kc,
Kb and Ks are the buckling coefficients for compression, bending, and
shear loading, respectively. They are dependent on the aspect ratio
π 2ks
Ks = ,
12(1 − νe2 ) (7)
Buckling factors in compression, kc, in bending, kb and in shear ks
included in the buckling coefficient formulas (Eqs. (5)–(7)) are com-
puted using the expression given in Table 2. The coefficients of aspect
ratio in the expressions given in Table 2 the buckling factors are taken
from “Buckling of Thin Plates and Shells” section of reference J. Huet
(3) [14].
For our reference geometry, Kc is calculated to be 3.62 using Eq. (5).
The critical compression buckling stress is found from Eq. (2) to be
73.53 MPa. Similarly, from Eq. (6), Kb is calculated as 22.06, and the
(4)
critical bending buckling stress is calculated from Eq. (3) to be
433.90 MPa. Also, Ks is calculated as 5.40 from Eq. (7) and the critical
shear buckling stress is found from Eq. (4) to be 107.58 MPa.
3.3. Finite element modelling
3.3.1. Finite element mesh
The elastic buckling behaviour of simply supported plates with

14
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22

Table 2
Buckling factor calculation for a /b = 2.75 [14].

Buckling factors k's, formula C Constant Buckling factors

C1 = 1.00 Lim=1.0
Compression ⎧ ⎛ ⎞2 ⎛ b ⎞2 C2 = 1.00 k∞ = 4.0 k c = 4.00
⎪ a a
⎪C1 ⎜ ⎟ + C2 ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ + C3 if 0 ≤ ≤ Lim
kc = ⎨ ⎝ b ⎠ a b
⎪ a
⎪ k∞ if ≥ Lim
⎩ b
C3 = 2.00
C4 = 3.33 Lim=0.6

Bending ⎧ ⎛ ⎞2 ⎛ b ⎞2 C5 = 1.66 k∞ = 23.9 k b = 23.90

⎪ a a
⎪C4 ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ + C5 ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ + C6 if 0 ≤ ≤ Lim
kb = ⎨ b a b
⎪ a
⎪ k∞ if ≥ Lim
⎩ b
C6 = 18.10

Shear ⎛ ⎧ a b ⎫2 ⎞ C7 = 3.80 ks = 5.85

ks = C7 ⎜⎜min ⎨ ; ⎬ ⎟⎟ + C8
⎝ ⎩b a⎭ ⎠
C8 = 5.35

Fig. 5. Finite Element modelling and FEA results (a) FE modelling, (b) Converge using mesh refinement, (c) 2D beam model FEA results, (d) 2D plate model FEA results.

holes and reinforcements are simulated using shell formulation in the
eigen-buckling analyses module. All finite element models use eight-
noded S8R5 element type with reduced integration. The S8R5 element
was shown to predict the critical elastic buckling stress of thin plates
more accurately than the S4 and S4R four-noded elements [27]. In
order to more accurately observe buckling around the hole, the mesh
around the holes is made finer and meshed with all quad elements
around the hole as seen in Fig. 5a. This process is usually referred to
washer mesh type.
A mesh study is conducted to observe the convergence of buckling

15
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22

compression and pure bending boundary conditions are considered

based on the available literature [19]. The other two loading cases,
including shear loading, are verified by theoretical hand calculations.
The details of the four different types of boundary conditions are
described below.

(i) Pure Compression

(ii) Pure Shear
Fig. 6. Comparison of load-deflection curves between Panedpojaman et al. [22],
Tsavdaridis and D'Mello [28] studies and the results of current study for different
specimens.
stress as the mesh size increases. Eigenvalues with respect to element
(iii) Pure Bending
numbers depended on mesh size, as shown in Fig. 5b. The curve starts
to converge after an element number of 2000. At that element number,
the mesh size is about 5 mm. In order to reduce computational time,
5 mm mesh size is adopted in the subsequent buckling FE analysis.
3.3.2. Boundary conditions
(iv) Combined Loading
The plates in this study are modeled with simply supported
boundary conditions on four sides. Application scenarios for pure
Pure compression loading is applied to the short edges (in the x
direction) in the form of the shell edge load module [27]. This
technique is described as a force per unit thickness, with units of
[N/mm]. Symmetry boundary conditions are applied to the x=0
and y=0 planes, where the longitudinal mid-line is constrained in
the x direction and the transverse mid-line is constrained in the y
direction [19], as shown in Fig. 7a.
Pure shear loading is performed in the direction of the shear
surfaces of the four sides in the form of a shell edge load. The
center point of the hole is constrained to nodes on the perimeter of
the hole by using RB3 module, and the center point is fixed as
shown in Fig. 8a.
Pure bending loading is applied as a linear function of x at the
short edges in the form of a shell edge load. Symmetry boundary
conditions are applied, as in pure compression loading. The
longitudinal mid-line is constrained in the x direction and the
short edge center point is fixed in the y direction [19], as shown in
Fig. 9a.
Combined loading is the summation of the previously mentioned

Fig. 7. The buckling coefficient, kc, curves under pure compression loading. (a) Boundary conditions, (b) kc versus a /b ratio, (c) kc versus h /t ratio, (d) kc versus w /d ratio.

16
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler
Fig. 8. The buckling coefficient, ks, curves under pure shear loading (a) Boundary conditions, (b) ks versus a /b ratio, (c) ks versus h /t ratio, (d) ks versus w /d ratio.
loading conditions (pure compression, pure bending and pure
shear). All loadings are applied at the same time for the combined
loading condition. The hole is constrained in the same way as it is
in pure shear loading, as shown in Fig. 10a.
3.3.3. Finite element analysis (FEA) results
Two different design types are discussed for validating FEA results
with the theoretical hand calculations.
Beam model
The first analysis is done for the beam model compressed uniformly
from the short beam edges. Since the shell edge load is applied for the
FE analysis, the eigenvalue (compression buckling stress for unit
thickness) is found to be 236.57 [MPa·mm], shown in Fig. 5c, which
must be divided by the effective beam cross-section thickness (3.33 mm
for the web-flange joint) in order to obtain the compression buckling
stress. The full beam compression buckling stress is calculated to be
71.07 MPa. Note that the theoretical hand calculation value was found
to be 73.53 MPa in Section 3.2. The difference between the beam FEA
result and the theoretical hand calculation is 3%. Since the variation
between the FEA and the theoretical hand calculation is less than 5%
and the current approach predicts a conservative value for buckling
stress, beam model is applicable to predict buckling stress.
Plate model
The second analysis is performed for a simply supported plate. The
FEA result is found to be 147.03 [MPa·mm], as shown in Fig. 5d. By
dividing the eigenvalue with the plate thickness (2 mm), FEA predicts
17
Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22
the compression buckling stress to be 73.52 MPa. The difference
between the theoretical hand calculation and the plate finite element
model is 0.02%. Since the error is much less than the beam model, plate
model will be used hereinafter.
The critical buckling stress for a simply supported plate under pure
shear is found to be 107.78 MPa from finite element analysis. Thus, the
difference between the theoretical hand calculation and the FEA result
is calculated to be 0.2% under pure shear loading. The critical buckling
stress for a simply supported plate under pure buckling is found to be
433.94 MPa. The theoretical hand calculation result and FEA result are
approximately the same under pure bending loading (the difference is
0.008%).
As a result of these three comparisons, it can be said that the finite
element model has been shown to give very close results to the
theoretical hand calculation for buckling analysis.
3.4. Method validation with literature
The FE model is validated using the experimental results of
Tsavdaridis and D'Mello [28] and the FEA results of Panedpojaman
et al. [22]. Note that Panedpojaman et al. [22] used ANSYS finite
element program for buckling analysis. There are four sets of figures
corresponding to different geometries, and the loading conditions
shown in Fig. 6a. The results obtained in this study show good
agreement with those obtained by literature studies [22,28].
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22

Fig. 9. The buckling coefficient, kb, curves under pure bending loading (a) Boundary conditions, (b) kb versus a /b ratio, (c) kb versus h /t ratio, (d) kb versus w /d ratio.

Table 3 Table 5
Geometric parameters and critical buckling stresses under pure compression, bending and Compression, shear and bending loads and compression, shear and bending rates for
shear loadings. RS /RC =0.8.

a [mm] b [mm] d [mm] h [mm] w [mm] Fccr [MPa] Fbcr [MPa] Fscr [MPa] Specimen code C S B σall [MPa] RC RS RB

330.0 120.0 60.0 4.0 5.0 79.67 451.42 90.94 KRS416 1.10 1.0 0.5 65.947 0.911 0.725 0.073
KRS417 1.10 1.0 1.0 64.502 0.891 0.709 0.143
KRS418 1.10 1.0 2.0 60.321 0.833 0.663 0.267
KRS419 1.10 1.0 3.0 55.584 0.767 0.611 0.369
Table 4
KRS420 1.10 1.0 4.0 50.977 0.704 0.561 0.452
Compression, shear and bending loads and compression, shear and bending rates for
KRS421 1.10 1.0 5.0 46.767 0.646 0.514 0.518
RS /RC = 1.0 .
KRS422 1.10 1.0 6.0 43.023 0.594 0.473 0.572
KRS423 1.10 1.0 8.0 36.834 0.509 0.405 0.653
Specimen code C S B σall [MPa] RC RS RB
KRS424 1.10 1.0 10.0 32.041 0.442 0.352 0.710
KRS400 0.88 1.0 0.4 78.962 0.872 0.868 0.070 KRS425 1.10 1.0 13.0 26.688 0.368 0.293 0.769
KRS401 0.88 1.0 1.0 76.286 0.843 0.839 0.169 KRS426 1.10 1.0 17.0 21.740 0.300 0.239 0.819
KRS402 0.88 1.0 2.0 69.930 0.772 0.769 0.310 KRS427 1.10 1.0 22.0 17.601 0.243 0.194 0.858
KRS403 0.88 1.0 3.0 63.208 0.698 0.695 0.420 KRS428 1.10 1.0 28.0 14.303 0.197 0.157 0.887
KRS404 0.88 1.0 4.0 57.023 0.630 0.627 0.505 KRS429 1.10 1.0 35.0 11.726 0.162 0.129 0.909
KRS405 0.88 1.0 5.0 51.610 0.570 0.568 0.572 KRS430 1.10 1.0 45.0 9.319 0.129 0.102 0.929
KRS406 0.88 1.0 6.0 46.954 0.519 0.516 0.624
KRS407 0.88 1.0 7.0 42.962 0.475 0.472 0.666
KRS408 0.88 1.0 8.0 39.530 0.437 0.435 0.701 4. Buckling analysis results
KRS409 0.88 1.0 9.0 36.563 0.404 0.402 0.729
KRS410 0.88 1.0 10.0 33.981 0.375 0.374 0.753
In Section 3.1, it is shown that beam can be modeled as a four-sided
KRS411 0.88 1.0 12.0 29.728 0.328 0.327 0.790
KRS412 0.88 1.0 15.0 24.969 0.276 0.275 0.830 simply supported plate by removing flanges and retaining the web only.
KRS413 0.88 1.0 19.0 20.534 0.227 0.226 0.864 Note that this assumption can be used if the flange support test is
KRS414 0.88 1.0 25.0 16.182 0.179 0.178 0.896 successful. In Figs. 7–9, we present three different loading scenarios
KRS415 0.88 1.0 32.0 12.960 0.143 0.143 0.919 (pure compression, pure shear and pure bending) of buckling coeffi-
cients for three different geometric parameters. These geometric
parameters are a / b , h / t and w / d (see Fig. 2 for the definitions of
geometrical parameters). The range of the geometrical parameters are
given in Section 2.1.

18
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22

Table 6 strengthening height to plate thickness (h / t ) under pure compression

Compression, shear and bending loads and compression, shear and bending rates for loading is given in Fig. 7c. kc value for a non-perforated structure has
RS /RC = 0.6 .
been calculated as 4.0. As shown in Fig. 7c, the compression buckling
Specimen code C S B σall [MPa] RC RS RB coefficient for geometric parameters mentioned in Section 2.1 is greater
than 4.0 at h / t > 1.2 . That means that a plate with a lighting hole where
KRS431 1.46 1.0 0.7 51.436 0.943 0.566 0.080 h / t > 1.2 performs as well as a non-perforated structure with respect to
KRS432 1.46 1.0 1.0 50.969 0.934 0.560 0.113
buckling. The calculation for weight gain is shown below:
KRS433 1.46 1.0 2.0 48.739 0.893 0.536 0.216
KRS434 1.46 1.0 3.0 45.967 0.842 0.505 0.305
VP = abt = 79200mm3
KRS435 1.46 1.0 4.0 43.058 0.789 0.474 0.382 VH = πd 2t ÷ 4 = 5654.866mm3
KRS436 1.46 1.0 5.0 40.230 0.737 0.442 0.446 VS = (h − t ) π ((d + 2w )2 − d 2 ) ÷ 4 = 408.407mm3
KRS437 1.46 1.0 6.0 37.586 0.689 0.413 0.500 VG = VH − VS = 5246.459mm3
KRS438 1.46 1.0 8.0 32.965 0.604 0.363 0.584
Weight Gain ratio=VG / VP = 6.6%
KRS439 1.46 1.0 11.0 27.566 0.505 0.303 0.672
KRS440 1.46 1.0 15.0 22.449 0.411 0.247 0.746 where VP, VH and VS are the volume of plate, hole, strengthening
KRS441 1.46 1.0 20.0 18.126 0.332 0.199 0.803 respectively and VG is the volume gain. As h / t increases, the compres-
KRS442 1.46 1.0 26.0 14.676 0.269 0.161 0.845 sion buckling coefficient, kc converges to 4.52 for h / t > 3.5.
KRS443 1.46 1.0 35.0 11.390 0.209 0.125 0.883
The compression buckling coefficient, kc with respect to ratio of
KRS444 1.46 1.0 45.0 9.110 0.167 0.100 0.908
KRS445 1.46 1.0 60.0 7.000 0.128 0.077 0.930 reinforcement width to hole diameter (w / d ) under pure compression
loading is shown in Fig. 7d. The w / d curve starts to converge at
w / d > 0.15. After this value, the increasing of width of reinforcement is
Table 7 not logical since after this width ratio, kc does not increase a lot and the
Compression, shear and bending loads and compression, shear and bending rates for beam would become heavier than weight of the corresponding perfo-
RS /RC =0.4.
rate d plate.
Specimen code C S B σall [MPa] RC RS RB
The shear buckling coefficient, ks with respect to the ratio of length
to web width (a / b ) under pure shear loading is given in Fig. 8b. Unlike
KRS446 2.19 1.0 1.0 35.283 0.970 0.388 0.078 compression loading case (see 7b), ks curve does not oscillate. ks is to be
KRS447 2.19 1.0 2.0 34.510 0.949 0.380 0.153 about 2.85 after rate of a / b is 2. The descent and elevation occur on
KRS448 2.19 1.0 3.0 33.422 0.919 0.368 0.222
KRS449 2.19 1.0 4.0 32.153 0.884 0.354 0.285
plate at each a / b unit in buckling analysis for pure compression loading.
KRS450 2.19 1.0 5.0 30.800 0.847 0.339 0.341 This shape is named as concave-convex behaviour. Since the buckling
KRS451 2.19 1.0 7.0 28.089 0.772 0.309 0.436 stress is localized around the hole under shear load, the concave-convex
KRS452 2.19 1.0 10.0 24.432 0.672 0.269 0.541 behaviour on plate does not appear.
KRS453 2.19 1.0 14.0 20.548 0.565 0.226 0.637
The shear buckling coefficient, ks with respect to the ratio of
KRS454 2.19 1.0 19.0 16.989 0.467 0.187 0.715
KRS455 2.19 1.0 25.0 13.986 0.384 0.154 0.775 strengthening height to the plate thickness (h / t ) under pure shear
KRS456 2.19 1.0 35.0 10.745 0.295 0.118 0.833 loading is shown in Fig. 8c. ks value is calculated to be 5.85 for a non-
KRS457 2.19 1.0 48.0 8.231 0.226 0.091 0.875 perforated structure under pure shear loading. As shown the curve,
KRS458 2.19 1.0 65.0 6.294 0.173 0.069 0.906 after the h / t ratio reaches the value of 2.4, a stronger design with
KRS459 2.19 1.0 80.0 5.208 0.143 0.057 0.923
KRS460 2.19 1.0 100.0 4.234 0.116 0.047 0.938
respect to buckling can be obtained, although the structure has a d / b
hole ratio of 0.5. The h / t curve converges later to a ratio of 3.0 at ks is
7.35. Increasing the reinforcement height after reaching this value is
Table 8 not sensible.
Compression, shear and bending loads and compression, shear and bending rates for The shear buckling coefficient, ks with respect to the ratio of
RS /RC = 0.2 . reinforcement width to hole diameter (w / d ) under pure shear loading
Specimen code C S B σall [MPa] RC RS RB
is shown in Fig. 8d. The w / d curve stars to converge at a ratio of 0.13.
After this value, increasing reinforcement width is not reasonable
KRS461 4.38 1.0 2.0 17.954 0.987 0.197 0.080 because both progress to convergence, and the system would be heavier
KRS462 4.38 1.0 4.0 17.586 0.967 0.193 0.156 than in the first no-hole case.
KRS463 4.38 1.0 6.0 17.045 0.937 0.187 0.227
The bending buckling coefficient, kb with respect to the ratio of
KRS464 4.38 1.0 8.0 16.400 0.902 0.180 0.291
KRS465 4.38 1.0 15.0 13.962 0.768 0.154 0.464 length to web width (a / b ) under pure bending loading is given Fig. 9b.
KRS466 4.38 1.0 20.0 12.407 0.682 0.136 0.550 Like with shear loading, the curve for bending load buckling coefficient
KRS467 4.38 1.0 27.0 10.626 0.584 0.117 0.636 does not oscillate, and kb is closer to the value of 17.9 after a / b ratio is
KRS468 4.38 1.0 35.0 9.064 0.498 0.100 0.703
3. Buckling is concentrated only around the hole under bending load.
KRS469 4.38 1.0 45.0 7.615 0.419 0.084 0.759
KRS470 4.38 1.0 60.0 6.112 0.336 0.067 0.812
The bending buckling coefficient, kb with respect to the ratio of
KRS471 4.38 1.0 80.0 4.823 0.265 0.053 0.855 strengthening height to plate thickness (h / t ) under pure bending
KRS472 4.38 1.0 105.0 3.812 0.210 0.042 0.887 loading is shown in Fig. 9c. kb value is calculated as 23.9 for a non-
KRS473 4.38 1.0 135.0 3.044 0.167 0.033 0.910 perforated structure under pure bending loading. As shown in the
KRS474 4.38 1.0 170.0 2.464 0.135 0.027 0.928
curve, after the h / t ratio reaches 1.7, a stronger design can be obtained,
KRS475 4.38 1.0 210.0 2.023 0.111 0.022 0.941
although the structure has holes with a d / b ratio of 0.5. The h / t curve
converges later to a ratio of 2.0 at kb is 24.8. Increasing the reinforce-
The compression buckling coefficient, kc with respect to the ratio of ment height after this value is not practical.
length to width for the web (a / b ) under pure compression loading is The bending buckling coefficient, kb with respect to ratio of width of
given Fig. 7b. In a non-perforated structure, for each integer value of reinforcement to hole diameter (w / d ) under pure bending loading is
the a / b ratio (1, 2, 3.), the curve is tangential to a certain minimum shown in Fig. 9d. Under bending loading, the system starts to converge
value [15]. Likewise, for the opening web, the curve starts to converge more sharply than it does under compression and shear loads after
at the odd number (3, 5, 7) for the range considered plate with hole due reaching a w / d ratio of 0.08. After this start value converges, increasing
to the hole effect. the reinforcement width is not reasonable.
The compression buckling coefficient, kc with respect to the ratio of With the help of these nine parametric buckling coefficient curves
obtained from the finite element analysis, it is possible to obtain the

19
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22

Fig. 10. Interaction curve under combined loading reinforcement (a) Boundary conditions and combined load application, (b) curve for plate with no hole, (c) curve for plate with hole,
(d) curve for plate with hole reinforcement (d /b = 0.5, h /t = 2 and w /d = 0.083).

5. Combined loading

First, geometric input variables have been determined, as indicated

in Table 3. For these parameters, compression, shear, and bending
critical buckling stresses (Fccr, Fbcr and Fscr) have been calculated for
each pure loading case from buckling coefficient curves with respect to
geometric parameters in Figs. 7–9 and are tabulated in Table 3.
A total of 75 analyses are performed in order to investigate buckling
behaviour under combined loading. There are 5 subcases for each shear
to compression ratio, RS / RC = 1.0 , 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2 which are tabulated
in Tables 4–8, respectively. For each subcase, 15 analyses are conducted
for various values of bending loads, keeping the shear and compression
loads constant. The applied compression load rate, applied shear load
rate, and applied bending load rate are denoted as C, S, and B,
respectively, in Tables 4–8. Shear load rate, S is taken as 1.0 during
all computations and compression load rate, C is calculated from shear
load rate. The allowable buckling stress, σall , has been calculated for
each combined loading scenario.
Finally, the parametric analyses are displayed as allowable interac-
tion rate curves as shown in Fig. 10. The compression rate, RC, shear
rate, RS, and bending rate, RB, can be calculated from Eqs. (8)–(10) by
using critical buckling stress, allowable buckling stress, and load rate:
σall
RC = C
Fccr (8)
Fig. 11. Flow chart for interaction curve methodology. σ
RS = S all
Fscr (9)
critical buckling stress value for the desired design. σall
RB = B
Fbcr (10)

20
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22

Table 10
Applied forces, moment and calculated stresses and loads for numerical example.

F [N] V [N] M [N·mm] σC [MPa] τxy [MPa] σB [MPa] C S B

31680 9310 7990000 44 40 240 1.1 1.0 6.0

Fig. 13. Example for interaction curve study.

6. A numerical example for usage of the interaction curve

An example has been given so that users can more easily make sense
of the interaction curve.

Fig. 12. Example for cross-section study for floor beam of passenger aircraft.
In order to use the interaction curves, the applied rates are needed
and found as follows:
σC
RCA =
Fccr
τmax
RSA =
Fscr
σB
RBA =
Fbcr
where RCA is applied compression rate, RSA is applied shear rate and
RBA is applied bending rate.
Following this process, interaction curves are drawn using the
calculated RB and RC with respect to various RS / RC ratios. Three
different interaction curves, which are for a plate with no hole, an
opening web, and a web with hole reinforcement, are shown in
Fig. 10b, c and d, respectively. Load scenarios and the corresponding
buckling results are shown in Tables 4–8.
Flowchart for interaction curve methodology is given in Fig. 11.
First, one generates an interaction curve using geometric parameters
such as the interaction curve for combined loading shown in Fig. 10.
The user locates the compression and bending rates on the interaction
graph, according to the applied load. If the value is below this curve, it
can be determined that the system is reliable in terms of buckling.
1. The user defines the beam geometry (a, b,h, w and d) and cross-
sectional parameters (t, tf and wf) of the specific region of interest as
shown in Fig. 12. For this specific example, the beam geometry and
the cross-sectional properties are given in Table 9. The material of
the beam is selected to be Al 7075 T651 (E is 71,700 [MPa] and ν is
0.33). The normal force, F, shear force, V and moment, M acting at
the cross-section (see the sketch in Fig. 12) are obtained by using
FEM and tabulated in Table 10.
(11)
2. From the geometric parameters (see in Table 9), the compression,
shear and bending buckling coefficients, kc, ks and kb are found to be
4.33, 4.95 and 24.56 by using Fig. 7c, Fig. 8c and Fig. 9c,
(12)
respectively. Using Eqs. (5)–(7), Kc, Ks and Kb are calculated to be
4.00, 4.57 and 22.67, respectively. Critical buckling stress under
pure compression, Fccr, pure shear, Fscr and pure bending, Fbcr are
(13)
determined to be 79.67 MPa 90.94 MPa and 451.42 MPa using Eqs.
(2)–(4), respectively.
3. In order to find the applied compression, shear and bending stresses
(σC, τmax and σB) using the following formulas:
F
σC =
A (14)
VQ
τmax =
Ix t (15)
Mc
σB =
Ix (16)

Table 9
Geometric parameters and moment of inertia for numerical example.

a [mm] b [mm] d [mm] h [mm] w [mm] t [mm] t f [mm] wf [mm] A [mm2] Q [mm3] Ix [mm4] Iy [mm4]

330.0 120.0 60.0 4.0 5.0 2 5 48 720 18600 2164000 92240

21
A.E. Orun, M.A. Guler
where A is the cross-sectinal area, Q is the first moment of area, Ix
moment of inertia about x axis and c is the half of the height of the
beam (c = b /2 + t f = 65 mm ). Using the parameters in Table 9 and
the applied loads given in Table 10, the compression, shear and
bending stresses are found to be σC=44 [MPa], τmax=40 [MPa] and
σB=240 [MPa] using Eqs. (14)–(16), respectively.
4. In order to implement our approach, the value of the shear load rate,
S is taken to be 1. For this reason, all the stresses obtained in step (3)
are divided by the shear stress (40 [MPa]). And C, S and B are
obtained as 1.1, 1.0 and 6.0, respectively and these values are given
in Table 10. The RS / RC ratio is found to be 0.8 by using Eqs. (8)–(9)
in order to use Tables 4–8.
5. The applied compression rate, RCA, shear rate, RSA and bending rate,
RBA are found to be 0.55, 0.44 and 0.53 from Eqs.'s (11)–(13),
respectively.
6. RCA and RBA located on the interaction curve as shown in Fig. 13.
From Fig. 13, RS / RC equals 0.8 corresponded to the green line and it
appears that the applied compression and bending ratio are below
the curve. For another check user can use Table 5 for the specific
combination of load rates (C=1.1, S=1.0 and B=6.0) correspond-
ing to the specimen code KRS422. For this specimen code, RC is
0.594 and RB is 0.572 which are higher than calculated values of
RCA (0.55) and RBA (0.53) found in step 5.
As a result of this numerical example, it can be concluded that the
floor beam is safe with respect to buckling under these specific applied
forces and moment.
7. Conclusion
In this study, a design strategy under combined loading conditions
against buckling has been proposed. A buckling analysis carried out on
reinforced structures having holes, a situation frequently referenced in
the aviation industry, has been discussed. FEA results are verified by
experimental results and theoretical hand calculations are compared
with the finite element studies in the open literature. Depending on the
geometric design, the critical buckling curves that allow for the
observation of the effects and contributions of hole strengthening are
drawn. The optimum beam design can also be observed with the
convergence of the buckling curves. A design methodology based on
interaction curves with respect to load rate is presented. With this
methodology, safe levels for the system can be calculated. Basically, if
the load rate location remains under the interaction buckling curve, the
system is held in reserve. By looking at Fig. 10, it can be concluded that
the area under the interaction curve for a web with hole and
reinforcement is much more than that of without a reinforcement. This
means that energy and the force required to buckle a structure with
hole reinforcement is much higher then the one without reinforcement.
Using the method developed in this study, engineers can effectively
observe the effect of hole reinforcement on the buckling analysis under
combined loading with the help of interaction curve graph.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Chief Researcher Murat Celik of
TUBITAK UZAY for his contributions to this study.
References
[1] A.Z. Abidin, B. Izzuddin, Meshless local buckling analysis of steel beams with
22
Thin-Walled Structures 118 (2017) 12–22
irregular web openings, Eng. Struct. 50 (2013) 197–206.
[2] J. Cai, C.D. Moen, Elastic buckling analysis of thin-walled structural members with
rectangular holes using generalized beam theory, Thin-Walled Struct. 107 (2016)
274–286.
[3] B. Cheng, P. Shi, J. Wang, C. Li, Opening reinforcement for box-section walls
containing continuous elliptical holes in steel pylons, J. Constr. Steel Res. 103
(2014) 89–100.
[4] B. Cheng, J. Wang, C. Li, Compression tests and numerical analysis of perforated
plates containing slotted holes in steel pylons, Thin-Walled Struct. 67 (2013)
129–143.
[5] B. Cheng, J. Zhao, Strengthening of perforated plates under uniaxial compression:
buckling analysis, Thin-Walled Struct. 48 (12) (2010) 905–914.
[6] S. Cheng, et al., Shear effect on buckling of cellular columns subjected to axially
compressed load, Thin-Walled Struct. 98 (2016) 416–420.
[7] N. Degtyareva, V. Degtyarev, Experimental investigation of cold-formed steel
channels with slotted webs in shear, Thin-Walled Struct. 102 (2016) 30–42.
[8] C.A. Dimopoulos, C.J. Gantes, Numerical methods for the design of cylindrical steel
shells with unreinforced or reinforced cutouts, Thin-Walled Struct. 96 (2015)
11–28.
[9] J. Eiblmeier, J. Loughlan, The influence of reinforcement ring width on the buckling
response of carbon fibre composite panels with circular cut-outs, Compos. Struct. 38
(1) (1997) 609–622.
[10] F. Erdal, E. Doğan, M.P. Saka, Optimum design of cellular beams using harmony
search and particle swarm optimizers, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (2) (2011) 237–247.
[11] R. Feng, X. Mou, A. Chen, Y. Ma, Tests of aluminium alloy chs columns with circular
openings, Thin-Walled Struct. 109 (2016) 113–131.
[12] B.L. Gendy, Critical shear buckling load of tapered plate with circular opening,
HBRC J. (2015).
[13] M. Horáček, J. Melcher, O. Pešek, J. Brodniansky, Focusing on problem of lateral
torsional buckling of beams with web holes, Procedia Eng. 161 (2016) 549–555.
[14] J. Huet, J.I., 1999. Static stress manual, metallic materials. MTS.
[15] A. Javidinejad, Essentials of Mechanical Stress Analysis, CRC Press, 2014.
[16] J.-H. Kim, J.-H. Jeon, J.-S. Park, H.-D. Seo, H.-J. Ahn, J.-M. Lee, Effect of
reinforcement on buckling and ultimate strength of perforated plates, Int. J. Mech.
Sci. 92 (2015) 194–205.
[17] M.A. Komur, M. Sonmez, Elastic buckling behavior of rectangular plates with holes
subjected to partial edge loading, J. Constr. Steel Res. 112 (2015) 54–60.
[18] S. Military Handbook, Metallic materials and elements for aerospace vehicle
structures. Department of Defense, Washington DC (Nov. 1990), 1972, 9–16.
[19] C.D. Moen, B. Schafer, Elastic buckling of thin plates with holes in compression or
bending, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (12) (2009) 1597–1607.
[20] H. Naderian, H. Ronagh, M. Azhari, Elastic distortional buckling of doubly
symmetric steel i-section beams with slender webs, Thin-Walled Struct. 84 (2014)
289–301.
[21] P. Panedpojaman, W. Sae-Long, T. Chub-uppakarn, Cellular beam design for
resistance to inelastic lateral-torsional buckling, Thin-Walled Struct. 99 (2016)
182–194.
[22] P. Panedpojaman, T. Thepchatri, S. Limkatanyu, Novel design equations for shear
strength of local web-post buckling in cellular beams, Thin-walled Struct. 76 (2014)
92–104.
[23] A. Pasinli, Shape and position effects of double holes on lateral buckling of
cantilever composite beams, Compos. Part B: Eng. 55 (2013) 433–439.
[24] C.H. Pham, Shear buckling of plates and thin-walled channel sections with holes, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 128 (2017) 800–811.
[25] I.C. Scheperboer, E. Efthymiou, J. Maljaars, Local buckling of aluminium and steel
plates with multiple holes, Thin-Walled Struct. 99 (2016) 132–141.
[26] J.K. Seo, M. Mahendran, J.K. Paik, Numerical method for predicting the elastic
lateral distortional buckling moment of a mono-symmetric beam with web open-
ings, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (6) (2011) 713–723.
[27] D. SYSTEMES, Simulia, abaqus/cae user's manual, ABAQUS Doc. V6 (2014) 7.
[28] K.D. Tsavdaridis, C. D'Mello, Web buckling study of the behaviour and strength of
perforated steel beams with different novel web opening shapes, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 67 (10) (2011) 1605–1620.
[29] M. Uenoya, R. Redwood, Buckling of webs with openings, Comput. Struct. 9 (2)
(1978) 191–199.
[30] P. Wang, K. Guo, M. Liu, L. Zhang, Shear buckling strengths of web-posts in a
castellated steel beam with hexagonal web openings, J. Constr. Steel Res. 121
(2016) 173–184.
[31] P. Wang, X. Wang, N. Ma, Vertical shear buckling capacity of web-posts in
castellated steel beams with fillet corner hexagonal web openings, Eng. Struct. 75
(2014) 315–326.
[32] P.M. Weaver, M.P. Nemeth, Improved design formulas for buckling of orthotropic
plates under combined loading, AIAA J. 46 (9) (2008) 2391–2396.
[33] Z. Yao, K.J. Rasmussen, Inelastic local buckling behaviour of perforated plates and
sections under compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 61 (2012) 49–70.
[34] Z. Yingjiang, Y. Renjun, W. Hongxu, Experimental and numerical investigations on
plate girders with perforated web under axial compression and bending moment,
Thin-Walled Struct. 97 (2015) 199–206.