S

A
M
P
L
E
Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference
PVP2012
July 15-19, 2012, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


1 Copyright 2012 by ASME


PVP2012-78XXX



CALCULATION OF WORKING PRESSURE FOR CYLINDRICAL
VESSEL UNDER EXTERNAL PRESSURE


Gurinder Singh Brar
Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College,
(Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar)
Gill Road, Ludhiana 141006
Punjab, India.
Tel: 91-9781991160
Email: brar.gurinder@gmail.com


Yogeshwar Hari
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
9201 University City Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28223-0001 USA
Email: hari@uncc.edu


Dennis K. Williams
Sharoden Engineering Consultants, P.A
P.O. Box 77346
Charlotte, North Carolina 28271 USA
Email: DennisKW@sharoden.com



ABSTRACT
Initial geometric imperfections have a significant effect on
the load carrying capacity of asymmetrical cylindrical pressure
vessels. This paper presents a comparison of a reliability
technique that employs a Fourier series representation of random
asymmetric imperfections in a defined cylindrical pressure
vessel subjected to external pressure. Evaluations as prescribed
by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 2 rules are also presented and discussed in light of the
proposed reliability technique. The ultimate goal of the
reliability technique is to statistically predict the buckling load
associated with the cylindrical pressure vessel within a defined
confidence interval. The example cylindrical shell is a
fractionating tower for which calculations have been performed
in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code. The maximum
allowable external working pressure of this tower for the shell
thickness of 0.313 in. is calculated to be 15.1 psig when utilizing
the prescribed ASME B&PV Code methods contained within
example L-3.1. The Monte Carlo method as developed by the
current authors is then used to calculate the maximum allowable
external working pressure. Fifty simulated shells of geometry
similar to the example tower are generated by the Monte Carlo
method to calculate the nondeterministic buckling load.

NOMENCLATURE
D Bending stiffness of cylindrical wall
D
0
Outside diameter of the shell
E Youngs Modulus
L Length of the shell
N
xx
Axial distributed in-plane force
N
yy
Circumferential in-plane force
P External design pressure
P
a
Maximum allowable external working pressure
P
cl
Classical buckling load of a perfect shell
P
cr
Critical buckling load of a shell with imperfections
R Inside radius of the shell
W
n
(,) Initial imperfection function
k Number of half waves in axial direction
l Number of full waves in circumferential direction
t Nominal shell wall thickness
S
A
M
P
L
E



Copyright 2012 by ASME
2
w Radial displacement
Non-dimensional buckling load
Poissons ratio
Non-dimensional circumferential coordinate
Non-dimensional axial coordinate

INTRODUCTION TO BUCKLING OF SHELLS
Buckling is a failure mechanism that is associated with both
the application of a compressive load to a structural component
and the instability of that component once any number of critical
loads are reached or exceeded. Shell buckling physically
manifests itself by the appearance and growth (under continual
load) of bulges, ripples, and waves in both the circumferential
and longitudinal direction of a cylindrical shell. Similar to
column buckling of bars and beams, shell buckling is
encountered in long, shallow (i.e., relatively thin wall thickness)
vessel and tank members when the members begin to exhibit
visibly large transverse displacements to an applied axial load or
to an applied external pressure (or vacuum). A shell structure is
considered to fail from buckling while subjected to a
compressive load; the structure undergoes a transition in
deformation from that of the direction of compressive load
application to a deformation that is predominantly perpendicular
to the direction of load application. The load at which the initial
deformation transition and instability occurs is commonly
referred to as the critical buckling load. Often times this type of
buckling failure is of a catastrophic nature, occurring without
any visible precursor or form of warning to the user or operator.
Shell buckling can also produce a sudden collapse in a vessel or
tank.
Buckling failure is an important feature to be considered in
many pressure vessel designs, especially when the vessel is
subjected to vacuum (i.e., external pressure) service. Typical
failure theories based upon material strength, such as Tresca or
von Mises failure theories, have no method by which to address
buckling and the instability issue. Furthermore, the most
significant material properties affecting the resistance to
buckling failure are Young's modulus of elasticity and Poisson's
ratio. The most significant geometrical parameter is the aspect
ratio comprised of the diameter to length (i.e., slenderness) ratio.
The ultimate strength (or yield strength) does not play a
significant part in the prediction of the critical buckling load for
any given shell geometry. Historically, buckling failures have
occurred at calculated compressive stresses significantly less
than the ultimate compressive stress of the given shell material.
Furthermore, buckling of cylindrical shells can occur when the
structure is subjected to the individual or combined action of
axial compression, external pressure, and torsion.
Buckling behavior (in particular, the critical buckling load)
is not accurately predicted by linear elastic equations. In
contrast, classical buckling theories employing non-linear
equations have been utilized extensively in the past to predict
buckling behavior. However, classical theories include the
effect of pre-buckling deformations and post-buckling
behaviors. In a shallow shell where the pre-buckling curvature
is small, the equilibrium conditions were shown by Donnell [1]
to be adequately described by Eq. (1) in a linearized form,
whereby the critical buckling load could be computed upon
substitution of the applicable boundary conditions.

v
4
(v
4
w) -v
4
[N
xx

2
w
x
2
+2N
x

2
w
x
+N
xx

2
w
x
2
+
Lt
R
2

4
w
x
4
= u (1)

It should be noted that v
2
represents the Laplacian operator
and that v
4
signifies the application of v
2
twice while v
8
four
times. Furthermore, =
Lt
3
12(1-v
2
)

represents the flexural
rigidity of the shell.

CLASSICAL & NONCLASSICAL BUCKLING LOADS
Ultimately, the buckling behavior of thin cylindrical shells
is influenced in varying degrees by initial imperfections and
variations in the geometry of the cylindrical shell. Variations in
the shell wall can be manifested in the form of gradients in the
particular loading, eccentricity from the ideal (i.e., perfect)
shape, variations in the material properties such as Young's
modulus, imperfections in the shell wall thicknesses (i.e., local
thin spots), and other miscellaneous parameters. Most large
diameter pressure vessels are manufactured by welding rolled
plates, creating both longitudinal and circumferential seams.
Due to variations in manufacturing tolerances and techniques,
fabricated cylindrical shells differ from perfect shape as
evidenced by out-of-roundness and local thin wall conditions on
occasion. In the present work, a fractionating tower having
variations in the shell wall thickness (regarded as imperfections)
and subjected to external pressure is studied and the respective
results are presented herein.
Based upon the work by Saunders and Windenberg [2], an
approximation of the classical critical buckling load for a
cylindrical shell subjected to external pressure can be calculated
as shown in Eq. (2):

P
cI
= u.8u7
Lt
2
LR
_
[
1
1-v
2

3
t
2
R
2
4
(2)

When imperfections in shells exist and are considered in the
engineering design, the load carrying capacity of shells is
reduced, as evidenced by tests. In an effort to relate the
predicted critical buckling load to the closed form classical
form, a non-dimensional buckling load () is defined as shown
in Eq. (3). The intent of utilizing is to allow the engineer to
account for the effects of imperfections on the "actual" critical
buckling load of a given structure.

z =
P
cr
P
cl
(3)

In general, two approaches can be used for determining the
critical buckling load of a cylindrical shell: deterministic
methods representing a host of closed form solutions, and
stochastic methods that employ any number of statistical
parameters. While the deterministic approach carries out
analysis on the basis of some physical laws, stochastic (or
probabilistic) methods attempt to mimic several unknown
factors (including the imperfection profile, for instance) that can
S
A
M
P
L
E



Copyright 2012 by ASME
3
affect the critical buckling load or the given shell. Deterministic
approaches do not include perturbations in the shell wall
thicknesses, which are admittedly known to exist in practice. In
the present analytical study, a stochastic approach is employed
in an attempt to predict the probability of a given critical
buckling load within a defined confidence interval. This
approach was previously presented by the authors [3, 4] for a
series of shells subjected to an external pressure.
The example cylindrical shell considered in this study is a
fractionating tower with a 14 ft. I.D., 21 ft. long bend line to
bend line, fitted with fractionating trays, and designed for an
external design pressure of 15 psi at 700F. The tower material
of construction is assumed to be SA-285, Gr. C carbon steel.

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF A VESSEL WITH
ASYMMETRIC VARIABLE WALL THICKNESS
Determination of the critical buckling load for a shallow
cylindrical shell containing small asymmetric thickness
variations while subjected to an external pressure is performed
by a non-classical technique in the current study. This analysis
was accomplished employing a reliability approach that
simulated of a number of shells using the Monte Carlo
technique, calculation of critical buckling loads using the multi-
mode method [5], and calculation of the non-dimensional
buckling load () based on the reliability function. Similar to the
method described by Elishakoff et al. [6], any initial
imperfection can be represented by series of trigonometric
functions, such as in a Fourier series. A review of the
previously defined work [6] revealed a multitude of errors and
omissions in the formulations and figures as published in the
open literature, thereby creating the necessity to revisit the bases
for the results as described and documented by the current
authors [6]. With this in mind, as given by Elishakoff and
Arbocz [7] and Arbocz and Williams [8], the initial imperfection
function W
n
(,) can be represented as shown in Eq. (4) below:

w
n
(, 0) = o

cos(in)
N
i
=0
+ _
b
kI
sin(kn) cos(l0)
+c
kI
sin(kn) sin(l0)
_
N
3
I=1
N
2
k=1
(4)

The chosen coordinate system for the cylindrical shell
utilizes axial (x) and circumferential (y) coordinates. In
addition, a
i
, b
kl
, c
kl
are Fourier coefficients (multipliers) of the
respective trigonometric terms. Equation (5) shows the
relationship for the non-dimensional coordinates and in the
axial and circumferential directions, respectively.

=
x
L
, u x I (5a)
0 =

R
, u 0 2n (5b)

The length and inside radius of the cylindrical shell are
represented by L and R. The first half range cosine series
summation term in Eq. (4) denotes the axisymmetric part of the
imperfection and the second half range sine series summation
term denotes the non-symmetric portion of the imperfection.
The axisymmetric imperfections as derived from Eq. (4) are
given by Eq. (6):

w
n
(x) = o

cos [
nx
L

L
=0
(6)

The initial asymmetric imperfections are represented by a
double Fourier sine series. To determine the non-dimensional
critical buckling load, calculation of Fourier coefficients must
first be completed. Fourier coefficients C
kl
and D
kl
, as
represented in Eq. (7), have to be determined in order to
represent the initial imperfections in a simulation of a number of
shell geometries utilized in this study, herein after referred to as
the "GSB shells".

w
n
(, 0) = sin(kn)|C
kI
cos(l0) +
kI
sin(l0)]
I k
(7)

SIMULATION OF CYLINDRICAL SHELLS IN STUDY
The particular cylindrical shell portion of the fractionating
tower has an internal diameter of 4.27 m, a height of 6.4 m, and
nominal wall thickness of 7.9375 mm (0.3125 in.). The
significant geometric and material parameters for the
fractionating tower are defined in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1
GEOMETRIC AND MATERIAL PARAMETERS

Nominal shell wall thickness, t 0.3125 in.
Stack length, L 39 in.
Inside shell radius, R 84 in.
Youngs Modulus, E 30 x 10
6
psi
Poissons ratio, 0.31

Initial imperfections in the Fractionating tower of the
current work are in the form of shell wall thickness variations.
In an effort to calculate the external working pressure, 20
cylindrical shells (identified as GSB1 through GSB20 shells)
were simulated using a random number generator of a
commercially available symbolic math program. The software
utilizes the linear congruence method for generation of random
numbers. Consistent with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code [9], The reduction in thickness shall not exceed 1/32 in.
(1mm) or 10% of the nominal thickness of the adjoining surface,
whichever is less, the simulated shell wall thicknesses were
confined within a range that varied between 0.313 in. and 0.281
in. These values were further consistent with the assumption
that out-of-tolerance dimensions would be detected and
corrected as appropriate in a quality inspection and assurance
program of any reputable vessel manufacturer. A total of 144
"readings" were generated for each simulated shell; 12 readings
axially and 12 circumferentially at each chosen elevation along
the longitudinal direction. Table 3 (at the end of the paper)
displays the simulated and generated shell wall thickness values
for the GSB10 shell.
The shell wall thickness values thus generated represent
asymmetric imperfections (with respect to the circumferential
direction of the cylinder) and can be converted into
axisymmetric imperfections by taking arithmetic mean of all
values at a particular elevation. For example, Fig. 1 shows the
asymmetric variations in the shell wall thicknesses for the
simulated GSB10 shell. These shell wall thickness variations
S
A
M
P
L
E



Copyright 2012 by ASME
4
were transformed into axisymmetric form as shown below in
Fig. 2.



FIG. 1 RANDOM SHELL WALL THICKNESS (GSB10 SHELL)

The initial axisymmetric imperfections are represented by
Eq. (6) from which the respective Fourier coefficients were
calculated. The initial asymmetric imperfections are represented
by Eq. (7) and substitution of the specific range over which the
summation must be performed yields Eq. (8), from which the
respective Fourier coefficients were calculated.

w
n
(, 0) = sin(kn)
16
I=0
|C
kI
cos(l0) +
kI
sin(l0)]
21
k=1
(8)




FIG. 2 AXISYMMETRIC WALL THICKNESS (GSB10 SHELL)

BUCKLING LOAD MAPS & MODE COUPLING
Buckling load maps consist of the predicted critical
buckling loads for different mode combinations of wave
numbers in the axial and circumferential directions. The
buckling loads were calculated for a perfect cylindrical shell
subjected to external pressure by first employing solutions to the
classical simply supported boundary conditions as previously
identified by Donnell [1] in Eq. (1). The imperfections (i.e.,
wall thickness variations) are assumed to follow the double
Fourier sine series as sown in Eq. (9). The load maps are then
used to determine the dominant mode shape.

w = C
kI
sin[
knx
L
cos [
I
R
+
kI
sin[
knx
L
sin [
I
R
(9)

From the literature [5] it has been shown that coupling
between one axisymmetric mode with wave number (i,0) and
two asymmetric modes with wave numbers (k,l) and (m,n) will
occur, if the relationships i=kl and l=n are satisfied. For the
case of one axisymmetric (i,0) and one asymmetric (k,l) mode,
the coupling conditions reduce to the single relation i=2k. The
coupling between three asymmetric modes with wave numbers
(k,l), (m,n) and (p,q) will occur if the relations k+m+p= odd
integer and q=ln are satisfied. If all these coupling conditions
are satisfied, then the resulting critical buckling load of the shell
is generally lower than the buckling load were each mode to be
considered separately. The use of the former conditions results
in an 8-mode failure coupling that is ultimately employed in the
determination of the predicted critical buckling load. This mode
coupling is clearly depicted in Fig. 3 as shown below:
FIG. 3 8-MODE COUPLING TREE FOR GB SHELLS

CALCULATION OF CRITICAL BUCKLING LOADS
Donnells equilibrium based partial differential equation as
given by Eq. (1) was used for calculating and predicting the
critical buckling load of GSB shells subjected to external
pressure. The initial imperfection in the shell wall thickness, w,
is assumed to follow the 8 coupled buckling modes as
graphically defined in Fig. 3. It is this combination of
deformation modes that appear to create the minimum critical
buckling load for the simulated shells under the present
consideration for the external pressure load case.
A vertical bar graph depicting the number of buckled shells
for discrete ranges of the non-dimensional buckling load () is
shown in Fig. 4. This histogram was employed in the
calculation of the reliability function from which the empirical
value of the non-dimensional buckling load is determined for the
series of simulated shell geometries previously described herein.

AXISYMMETRIC ASYMMETRIC

(2,0) (1,5) + (2,6) + (2,8)
+ +
(1,6) (2,4)
+ +
(1,11) (1,10)
S
A
M
P
L
E



Copyright 2012 by ASME
5

FIG. 4 HISTOGRAM OF FOR 20 SIMULATED SHELLS
Figure 5 illustrates the reliability function for the 20
simulated shells. The value of the non-dimensional buckling
load () can be calculated at any desired reliability from this
curve, e.g., for a reliability of 0.95, is equal to 0.86.
At the 95% reliability level, the non-dimensional buckling
load value of the simulated shells utilizing the Monte Carlo
technique, results in value of approximately 0.86, as shown in
Fig. 5. The classical critical buckling load for the predefined
fractionating tower subjected to external pressure as given by
Eq. (2) is 21.163 psi.


FIG. 5 RELIABILITY FUNCTION v.

ASME B&PV CODE CALCULATION OF EXTERNAL
PRESSURE
The maximum allowable external working pressure
calculations are performed in ASME B&PV Code [1] as shown
in Appendix L, example L-3.1. The prescribed design
information is related to a fractionating tower of 14 ft. inside
diameter and designed for an external design pressure of 15 psi
at 700F. The tower is assumed to be fabricated from SA-285,
Gr. C carbon steel. The design length is 39 in. Assuming a shell
wall thickness, t = 0.3125 in., ASME B&PV Code [1] calculates
the maximum allowable external working pressure for the
assumed shell thickness of 0.3125 in. The steps in the Code
calculations are repeated below for the reader as follows:
STEP 1
For the assumed shell thickness (t) of 0.3125 in. and outside
diameter (D
0
) of 168.625 in., calculate ratios (L/D
0
) and (D
0
/t)
I

0
=
S9
168.62S
= u.2S1

0
t
=
168.62S
u.S12S
= S4u
STEP 2
Enter Fig. G at the value of L/D
0
= 0.231; move horizontally to
the D
0
/t line of 540 and read the value of A of 0.0005.
STEP 3
Enter Fig. CS-2 at the value of A = 0.0005 and move vertically
to the material line for 700F. Move horizontally and read B
value of 6100 on ordinate.
STEP 4
The maximum allowable external working pressure for the
assumed shell thickness of 0.3125 in. is
P
u
=
4B
S[

0
t

=
4(61uu)
S(S4u)
= 1S.1 psi
Since, P
a
is greater than the external design pressure P of 15 psi,
the assumed thickness is satisfactory.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results presented herein clearly indicate that the effect
of shell wall thickness variation on buckling load deserves
special attention. Thus, in the absence of initial geometric
imperfections, this particular kind of thickness variation may
constitute the most important factor in the predicted buckling
load reduction. Under the current parameters of the work as
described in the preceding paragraphs, was determined to be
0.86 while employing the Monte Carlo technique. The results
clearly indicate that the mere presence of shell wall thickness
variations as a result of non-repeatability in any particular
manufacturing process (even within industry accepted tolerance
limits), that the load carrying capacity of the shell decreases by
approximately 14%. Furthermore, it can be concluded that
imperfections in shell wall thickness within the defined
tolerance limits have been sufficiently considered within the
ASME Code [9] as has been demonstrated in example L-3.1.
The load carrying capacity must be reduced due to the
known presence of imperfections. The results obtained from the
evaluation of the non-dimensional buckling load when the
fractionating tower is subjected to external pressure while
employing the Monte Carlo technique and the ASME B&PV
Code [9] are shown in Table 2. For the simulated shell
geometries considered in the present study, which are subjected
to external pressure, the non-dimensional buckling load becomes
0.86. The Monte Carlo technique considering asymmetric
imperfections results in a 14% decrease from the classically
computed values described in Eq. (2). In contrast, the load
S
A
M
P
L
E



Copyright 2012 by ASME
6
carrying capacity of a shell under external pressure must
decrease by 20% according to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section VIII, Division 2 rules [9].
There is an obvious difference of approximately 3.2 psi in
the working external pressure for the two methodologies. The
far more conservative results in the case of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code [9] approach may be due to the fact
that the Code has adopted a deterministic approach based upon
empirical relations developed and published by various pressure
vessel design engineers based upon the results and experience
gained by testing of cylindrical shells subjected to external
pressure. The Code does not employ specific measures for
addressing the effects of thickness perturbations throughout a
given shell geometry subjected to external pressure. In contrast,
the Monte Carlo simulations allow various statistical matching
procedures to specifically address any given range of geometric
parameters when seeking a solution to the equilibrium based
differential equation long ago defined by Donnell [1].
In accordance with the rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code [9], the empirical relations developed account for
shape imperfections must be applied to the allowable stresses
utilized in the design calculations for external pressure. The
calculation steps as reproduced in the previous section of this
paper are used to calculate the external working pressure for un-
stiffened cylindrical vessels in accordance with the ASME Code
[9] and are contained in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2
WORKING PRESSURES FOR FRACTIONATING TOWER

ASME B&PV Code 15 psi
Asymmetric (Monte Carlo) 18.2 psi


REFERENCES
1. Donnell, L. H., 1934, A New Theory for the Buckling of
Thin Cylinders Under Axial Compression and Bending,"
Transactions of the ASME, Aeronautical Engineering,
AER-56-12, pp. 795-806, ASME, New York.
2. Roark, R. J., and Young, W. C., Formulas for Stress and
Strain, McGraw-Hill, 5th ed., 1975.
3. Brar, G. S., Hari, Y., and Williams, D. K., 2009, Fourier
Series Analysis of a Cylindrical Pressure Vessel Subjected
to External Pressure, PVP2009-77854, ASME 2009
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, ASME, New
York.
4. Brar, G. S., 2009, Buckling Load Predictions in Pressure
Vessels Utilizing Monte Carlo Method, PhD Thesis,
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA.
5. Arbocz, J. and Babcock, C. D., 1976, Prediction of
Buckling Loads Based on Experimentally Measured Initial
Imperfections, Buckling of Structures, Budiansky B., ed.,
IUTAM Symposium, Cambridge, Mass., 1974, Springer
Verlag, Berlin, pp. 291-311, New York.
6. Elishakoff, I., Li, Y., and Starnes, J. H., Jr., 2001, Non-
Classical Problems in the Theory of Elastic Stability,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Elishakoff, I. and Arbocz, J., 1985, "Reliability of Axially
Compressed Cylindrical Shells with General Non-
symmetric Imperfections," Journal of Applied Mechanics,
52, pp. 122-128, ASME, New York.
8. Arbocz, J. and Williams, J. G., 1977, "Imperfection Surveys
on a 10 ft. Diameter Shell Structure," AIAA Journal, 15, N.
7, pp. 949-956, Reston, VA.
9. ASME, 2001, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,
Section VIII, Division 2, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York.



TABLE 3
SHELL WALL THICKNESS PROFILE OF GSB10 SHELL

\L(in.) 0.75 3.25 5.75 8.25 10.75 13.25 15.75 18.25 20.75 23.25 25.75 28.25
0 0.293 0.287 0.294 0.298 0.294 0.296 0.300 0.306 0.288 0.283 0.310 0.309
30 0.287 0.292 0.288 0.300 0.288 0.289 0.300 0.290 0.306 0.295 0.296 0.298
60 0.297 0.283 0.284 0.310 0.281 0.306 0.309 0.290 0.305 0.290 0.305 0.295
90 0.294 0.291 0.292 0.289 0.306 0.295 0.295 0.305 0.294 0.300 0.294 0.284
120 0.304 0.283 0.284 0.310 0.293 0.288 0.309 0.283 0.298 0.311 0.287 0.284
150 0.294 0.308 0.297 0.301 0.300 0.296 0.286 0.312 0.291 0.294 0.286 0.288
180 0.313 0.301 0.306 0.302 0.307 0.283 0.293 0.282 0.309 0.302 0.295 0.289
210 0.293 0.303 0.302 0.307 0.290 0.287 0.310 0.303 0.307 0.306 0.306 0.308
240 0.289 0.297 0.295 0.300 0.292 0.313 0.296 0.295 0.295 0.292 0.297 0.299
270 0.310 0.303 0.309 0.303 0.296 0.308 0.282 0.285 0.300 0.286 0.286 0.307
300 0.295 0.305 0.292 0.286 0.297 0.299 0.299 0.293 0.312 0.293 0.288 0.284
330 0.291 0.299 0.284 0.281 0.298 0.303 0.307 0.307 0.298 0.293 0.312 0.287