Original Article

Journal of Thermoplastic Composite

Materials
Buckling of laminated 2017, Vol. 30(9) 1175–1199
ª The Author(s) 2015
composite cylindrical Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

skew panels DOI: 10.1177/0892705715618741

journals.sagepub.com/home/jtc

Srinivasa Venkateshappa Chikkol1,

Prema Kumar Puttiah Wooday2 and
Suresh Jayadevappa Yelaburgi3

Abstract
Experimental studies were made on isotropic cylindrical skew panels made of Aluminum
7075-T6 and laminated composite cylindrical skew panels under uniaxial compression.
The experimental values of the critical buckling load (Pcr) were determined using five
different methods. The values of Pcr were also determined using MSC/Nastran and
CQUAD8 finite element. The experimental values of the Pcr obtained by different
methods were compared with the finite element solution. The effects of the skew angle
and aspect ratio on the critical buckling load of isotropic cylindrical skew panels made of
Aluminum 7075-T6 were studied. The effects of the skew angle, aspect ratio, and the
laminate stacking sequence on the critical buckling load of laminated composite cylind-
rical skew panels were also studied. It is found that the method IV (based on a plot of
applied load (P) vs. average axial strain) yields the highest value for Pcr and method III
(based on a plot of P vs. square of out-of-plane-deflection) the lowest value for Pcr. The
experimental values given by method IV are seen to be closest to the finite element
solution, the discrepancy being in the range of 5–23% for laminated composite cylindrical
skew panels. For isotropic panels, it is found that the value Pcr initially increases with an
increase in the skew angle and later decreases as the skew angle increases beyond 15 .
For laminated composite panels, the Pcr value decreases as the aspect ratio increases for
all laminate stacking sequences.

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, GM Institute of Technology, Davanagere, Karnataka, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, ACS College of Engineering, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, J.N.N. College of Engineering, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India

Corresponding author:
Srinivasa Venkateshappa Chikkol, Department of Mechanical Engineering, GM Institute of Technology,
Davanagere 577006, Karnataka, India.
Email: srinivasacv@gmit.ac.in
1176 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

Keywords
Cylindrical skew panel, laminate stacking sequence, skew angle, aspect ratio, finite
element analysis, critical buckling load

Introduction
The skew or oblique cylindrical panels find wide application in the aircraft and spaceship
industries. Experience shows that such structures fail frequently on account of instability
arising from the slenderness of the members. The use of fiber-reinforced composite
materials has increased multifold in recent years due to their light weight, high strength,
and stiffness. The application areas of composite materials are continuously expanding
from the traditional areas such as military aircraft to various other areas such as auto-
mobiles, robotics, day-to-day appliances, building industry, and so on. As the compo-
nents and structures composed of laminated composite materials are usually very thin
and hence more prone to buckling, their design requires accurate assessment of the
critical buckling load (Pcr). There are few studies made on experimental determination of
Pcr value of isotropic and laminated composite cylindrical panels, and most of them have
been discussed in detail by Singer et al.1 Becker et al.2 studied the instability behavior of
composite cylindrical panels. Hahn et al.3 investigated the post-buckling strength of
simply supported corrugated board panels subjected to edge compressive loading using a
specially developed test fixture experimentally. Rao and Gopalkrishna4 dealt with the
optimization of the orientation of plies in panels made of composite materials for
maximum buckling strength. Krishna Reddy and R. Palaninathan5 extended the general
high precision triangular plate bending finite element to the buckling analysis of lami-
nated skew plates. They used a transformation matrix between global and local degrees
of freedom for nodes lying on the skew edges and performed suitable transformation of
the element matrices. The accuracy of the formulation was verified against literature
values. The Pcr values for antisymmetric angle-ply and cross-ply–laminated skew plates
with different skew angles, different boundary (simply supported, clamped) and loading
(uniaxial, biaxial) conditions were obtained and presented in graphical form. A sandwich
curved beam subjected to a uniform loading was experimentally investigated by Boz-
hevolnaya and Kildegaard.6 The explicit through-thickness integration schemes for
geometric nonlinear analysis of laminated composite shells by finite element method
(FEM) have been discussed by Prema Kumar and Palaninathan.7 Liang et al.8 used
hybrid genetic algorithm to optimize the design of filament-wound multilayer-sandwich
submersible pressure hulls taking into consideration the shell buckling strength con-
straint, the angle-ply–laminated facing failure strength constraint and the low-density
isotropic core yielding strength constraint under hydrostatic pressure. Arman et al.9
studied the effect of a single circular delamination around the circular hole on the critical
buckling load of woven fabric laminated composite plates both experimentally and
numerically. Han et al.105 investigated the response of aluminum cylinders with a cutout
subject to axial compression using the experimental method and the results were com-
pared with the finite element solution. Li and Batra11 investigated the buckling of axially
Chikkol et al. 1177

compressed thin cylindrical shells with functionally graded middle layers using
experimental techniques. Anil et al.12 have made an attempt to incorporate the effect of
prebuckled stress on the stability analysis of moderately thick/very thick composite
laminated plates with cutouts under in-plane compressive loading using a FEM that
incorporates simple higher order shear deformation theory. Guduru and Xia13 investi-
gated shell buckling of imperfect multiwalled carbon nanotubes subjected to uniaxial
compression. Mittelstedt14 investigated the initial buckling loads and the corresponding
buckling modes of symmetric rectangular laminated plates. Young and Zhou15,16 made
an extensive study on aluminum tubing sections and proposed design equations. The
exact solutions for the buckling analysis of rectangular Mindlin plates subjected to
uniformly and linearly distributed in-plane loading on two opposite edges simply sup-
ported resting on elastic foundation were investigated by Akhavan et al.17 El-Sawy
et al.18 used FEM to investigate the major-axis buckling characteristics and associated
buckling capacity of axially loaded I-shaped steel columns. Extensive numerical anal-
yses were conducted to evaluate the reduction in buckling capacity of castellated col-
umns due to shear and flexural deformations. Havasi et al.19 investigated the buckling
behavior of laminated composite shells with circular cutouts and initial geometric
imperfections. The effects of cutout geometry and size, material properties, fiber angle,
laminate stacking sequences, and initial geometric imperfections are discussed. Maalawi20
presented an exact method for obtaining column designs with maximum possible critical
buckling load while maintaining the total structural mass at prescribed value equal to that
of a known baseline design.
Ozben21 obtained the critical buckling load of fiber-reinforced composite plate using
analytical and FEMs. Topal and Uzman22 performed frequency optimization of lami-
nated composite skew sandwich plates using finite element solution. The first-order
shear deformation theory was used in the finite element formulation and modified fea-
sible direction method was used for the frequency optimization. Shariati et al.23 carried
out experimental studies of buckling and post-buckling of cylindrical panels subjected to
axial compressive load and determined the effects of variation of panel length, panel
angle, and boundary conditions on the critical buckling load. Shariati and Rokhi24
examined the influence of the cutout size, cutout angle, and the shell aspect ratios L/D
and D/t on the pre-buckling, buckling, and post-buckling responses of the cylindrical
shells. Zabihollah and Ganesan25 studied the buckling behavior of laminated tapered
composite beams using a higher order finite element formulation. Morovat et al.26 have
proposed a preliminary methodology to study the phenomenon of creep buckling in steel
columns subjected to fire. Preliminary analytical solutions were presented and compared
with computational predictions for creep buckling. The analytical and computational
results indicated that accurate knowledge of material creep is essential in studying creep
buckling phenomenon at elevated temperatures. Srinivasa et al.27 evaluated experi-
mentally the physical, flexural, and impact properties of composites made of randomly
distributed areca fibers. Tsuji and Meshii28 have proposed an image processing strain
measurement system to evaluate fracture behavior of thin-walled pipes. Prabu et al.29
studied the neighborhood effect of two circumferential short dents on the buckling
behavior of thin short stainless steel cylindrical shell using finite element analysis. Prabu
1178 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

et al.30 investigated the individual and combined effects of distributed and local geo-
metrical imperfections on the limit load of an isotropic, thin-walled cylindrical shell
under axial compression using nonlinear static finite element analysis.
Tahir and Mandal31 have presented a numerical study on buckling and post-buckling
behavior of laminated carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) thin-walled cylindrical
shells under axial compression using asymmetric meshing technique. Upadhyay and
Shukla32 have presented the large deformation flexural response of composite laminated
skew plates subjected to uniform transverse pressure. Third-order shear deformation
theory and von-Karman’s nonlinearity are used for the analysis. Zahurul and Young33
conducted experiment studies on high-strength aluminum tubular structural members
strengthened with CFRP. Laudiero et al.34 investigated the post-buckling behavior of
pultruded fiber-reinforced plastic (PFRP) beams in uniform major-axis bending using a
nonlinear finite element analysis that accounts the initial out-of-straightness. Umbarkar
et al.35 investigated the effects of various geometrical parameters of circular single
perforation on the critical/ultimate buckling load of a circular lean duplex stainless steel
stub column loaded axially using ABAQUS (Version 6.9) finite element software. Zhao
et al.36 used digital image correlation method to predict the buckling load in shells and
concluded that the theoretical value of buckling strength is much higher than the
experimental value. Laudiero et al.37 have presented buckling and post-buckling behavior
of commercial PFRP I-section profiles subjected to pure compression using nonlinear
finite element analyses. The imperfection sensitivity was investigated with reference to
different imperfection shapes. They concluded that at equal cross section area, the narrow
flange profiles may exhibit higher ultimate loads with respect to the wide flange profiles in
a broad range of column slenderness. Najafov et al.38 studied the vibration and stability
behavior of axially compressed three-layer truncated conical shells with a functionally
graded middle layer surrounded by elastic media. A great need exists for an extensive
study of the buckling behavior of skew cylindrical panels. The present investigation deals
with the buckling studies on isotropic and laminated composite cylindrical skew panels
using experimental and FEMs. The experimental results are compared with the finite
element solution obtained using CQUAD8 finite element of MSC/Nastran. In this study,
the effects of skew angle, fiber orientation angle, laminate stacking sequence, and aspect
ratio on the critical buckling load of cylindrical skew panels are investigated keeping the
panel angle constant at 60 and total number of layers constant at 20 .

Determination of the critical buckling load using finite

element analysis
FEM was employed to obtain the Pcr values and natural frequencies using MSC/Nastran
software.
In linear static analysis, a structure is assumed to be in a state of stable equilibrium. As
the applied load is removed, the structure is assumed to return to its original, undeformed
position. Under certain combinations of loadings, however, the structure continues to
deform without an increase in the magnitude of loading. In this case, the structure has
become unstable; it has buckled. For elastic, or linear, buckling analysis, it is assumed
Chikkol et al. 1179

that there is no yielding of the structure and that the direction of applied forces does not
change.
Elastic buckling incorporates the effect of the differential stiffness, which includes
higher order strain displacement relationships that are functions of the geometry, element
type, and applied loads. From a physical standpoint, the differential stiffness represents a
linear approximation of softening (reducing) the stiffness matrix for a compressive axial
load and stiffening (increasing) the stiffness matrix for a tensile axial load.
In buckling analysis, the equations are solved for the eigenvalues that are scale factors
that multiply the applied load in order to produce the critical buckling load. In general,
only the lowest buckling load is of interest, since the structure will fail before reaching
any of the higher order buckling loads. Therefore, usually only the lowest eigenvalue
needs to be computed.
The buckling eigenvalue problem reduces to:
½K þ λ i ½Kd  ¼ 0; ð1Þ
where, K is the system stiffness matrix and Kd is the differential stiffness matrix (gen-
erated automatically by MSC/Nastran, based on the geometry, properties, and applied
load), and are the eigenvalues to be computed. Once the eigenvalues are found, the
critical buckling load is calculated using the equation:
Pcr ¼λ i P; ð2Þ
where, Pcr is the critical buckling load and P is the applied load.
The Lanczos method was used in the present study as it combines the best features of
the other methods and computes accurate eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
Figure 1 shows the geometries of regular and skew cylindrical panel. A linear
buckling analysis was performed using MSC/Nastran software. CQUAD8 and CQUAD4
finite elements were validated in the present study. The CQUAD4 element is a four-node
plate element having six degrees of freedom/node (translational (u, v, w) and rotational
(x, y, z)). The CQUAD8 element is an eight-node isoparametric shell element having
six degrees of freedom/node (translational (u, v, w) and rotational (x, y, z)). Both the
elements take into account the shear deformations. Table 1 shows the results of validation.
It is clear from Table 1 that the CQUAD8 element is more accurate than the CQUAD4
element of MSC/Nastran. Hence, it was decided to employ CQUAD8 element for further
computation in the present work. To arrive at the size of elements to be used in the finite
element mesh for reliable results, a convergence study was undertaken. The entire panel
was taken for discretization. It was performed on simply supported isotropic cylindrical
panels subjected to axial compression. The convergence details are presented in Table 2.
For the finite element study in the present work, the entire skew panel was
discretized with a finite element mesh of size 40  50 CQUAD8 elements. The
straight edges were completely free. One loaded curved edge was translationally
restrained in all three directions and the other loaded curved edge translationally
restrained except in the direction of loading. Figure 2 shows the finite element mesh
of skew cylindrical panel with global and local coordinate systems. u and v are the
displacement components in the global x and y directions, respectively. Since u and
1180
Figure 1. Geometry of the regular cylindrical and cylindrical skew panel.
Chikkol et al. 1181

Table 1. Comparison of critical buckling load for isotropic cylindrical panels subjected to uniform
in-plane load ( ¼ 0.3, t ¼ 0.096 in, and E ¼ 10  106 psi).

Cylindrical panel
dimensions (in) Pcr

Present

a b R Rao and Gopalkrishna4 Timoshenko and Gere39 CQUAD4 CQUAD8

100 10 1000 323 323 336.6 323.7

100 20 1000 89 90 93.9 90.6
50 10 500 329 329 334.7 330.6
25 5 100 1340 1340 1349.3 1340.8

a: length of panel; b: curved width of panel; R: panel radius; t: panel thickness; E: modulus of elasticity of the
material of isotropic panel; : Poisson’s ratio; Pcr: critical buckling load.

Table 2. Convergence study for Aluminum 7075-T6 cylindrical panels subjected to uniform
in-plane load (L ¼ 100mm, R ¼ 40 mm t ¼ 2 mm, E ¼ 71.7 GPa, and  ¼ 0.33).

Pcr (kN)

Mesh size CQUAD4 CQUAD8

10  25 16.20 10.02
16  30 15.35 10.82
22  35 14.96 11.10
28  40 14.10 11.45
34  45 13.58 11.52
40  50 13.46 11.53

Pcr: critical buckling load.

v are inclined to the skew edges, the displacement boundary conditions cannot be applied
directly. In order to overcome this, a local coordinate system (x0 , y0 ) normal and tangential
to the skew edges is chosen and the software performs the required transformation. The
axial load on the specimen was applied as a pressure loading on the end section.

Experimental determination of the critical buckling load

Test specimens
Isotropic cylindrical skew panel specimens made of Aluminum 7075-T6 were used in the
studies. The material was supplied by Rio-Tinto Alcon (Canada). The material properties
of the isotropic cylindrical panels made of Aluminum 7075-T6 are as follows: E ¼ 71.7
GPa, m ¼ 0.33, and  ¼ 2800 kg/m3 and these data were supplied by the manufacturer.
The laminated composite cylindrical specimens were fabricated by hand layup technique
1182 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

Figure 2. Global and local coordinate systems for finite element mesh of cylindrical skew panels.

using unidirectional glass fibers, epoxy-556 resin, and the hardener (HY951) supplied by
Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Mumbai (India). The cylindrical skew panel specimens were
prepared using a mandrel of 600 mm length and 76.2 mm diameter. The surface of the
cylindrical mandrel was thoroughly cleaned using acetone to remove any dust, dirt, or
rust. Then a layer of thin releasing film was smeared over the surface of the mandrel
before wrapping the layers of prepreg around it. The laminate was fabricated using hand
layup technique. After fabrication, the entire surface was covered with a thin layer of
releasing film, whose main purpose was to provide a smooth external surface and to
protect the fibers from direct exposure to the environment. At a time one cylindrical
panel of 500 mm length and 76.2 mm inner diameter was cast and it was later cut into
required specimen lengths. The percentage of fiber and matrix was taken as 50:50 in
weight for fabrication of the cylindrical panels. The test specimens were prepared in
accordance with the relevant American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standards. For laminated glass/epoxy composite cylindrical panels, the material con-
stants E1 and E2 were evaluated experimentally using INSTRON 1195 universal testing
machine (Norwood, Massachusetts, USA) as per ASTM Standard D 3039/D 3039M.40
The average of three experimental determinations was adopted. For the determination of
Poisson’s ratio (12), two strain gages were bonded to the specimen, one in the direction
of the loading and the other at right angles to it. The strains were measured in long-
itudinal and transverse directions using strain indicator. The ratio of transverse to
longitudinal strain gives the Poisson’s ratio within the elastic range. The average of three
experimental determinations was adopted. The shear modulus (G12) was computed using
standard expression available in Jones.41 The adopted material properties are as follows:
E1 ¼ 38.07 GPa, E2 ¼ 8.1 GPa, G12 ¼ 3.05 GPa, 12 ¼ 0.22,  ¼ 2200 kg/m3. In this
study, the skew angle is varied from 0 to 45 and the panel angle is maintained constant
at 60 . The panel lengths considered are 100, 150, and 200 mm. Extreme precaution was
taken to ensure that the compressive load was applied axially and no geometric
imperfections were present in the fabricated test specimens.
Chikkol et al. 1183

Figure 3. Fixture for holding the test specimen.

Experimental procedure
The fixture for holding the test specimen is shown in Figure 3(a) and (b). The test
specimen was inserted between the plates at the ends and the screws were tightened
properly so that no slippage of the test specimen occurs. The tests were conducted on
a computerized universal testing machine after positioning properly the test specimen
using universal vice as shown in Figure 4. The measuring instrumentation consists of
back-to-back strain gages and three linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs).
The strain gages were placed at the center of the test panels on each side. Two LVDTs
were positioned equidistant along the horizontal center line of the test specimen to
measure the out-of-plane displacement; the third one was fixed to the moving jaw of
UTM to measure the in-plane displacement. The testing was carried out with
unloaded straight edges completely free. One loaded curved edge was restrained
completely and the other loaded curved edge restrained except translationally in the
direction of loading.

Methods for determining the experimental value of critical buckling load

Several procedures have been used by different investigators to evaluate the critical
buckling load of regular cylindrical panels (Singer et al.1). These are depicted in
Figure 5. In the present study, five different methods or procedures are used, which
1184 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

Figure 4. Experimental setup for cylindrical skew panel.

are designated as method I, method II, and so on. Method I employs a plot of P versus
out-of-plane deflection (W) at midspan. Method II employs a plot of P versus end
shortening () in the direction of applied load. Method III employs a plot of P versus
square of out-of-plane deflection (W2). In method IV, the P is plotted against the algebraic
mean strain, "A ¼ ð"1 þ "2 Þ=2, where "1 and "2 are strains at the two surfaces of the spe-
cimen at midspan in the direction of loading. Method IV utilizes the fact that the surface
strain on one side of the specimen becomes tensile
 when the specimen
 has buckled. Method
V employs a plot of P versus strain difference "D ¼ ð"1  "2 Þ .

Experimental work
Isotropic cylindrical skew panels: Isotropic cylindrical panels were tested in uniaxial
compression, the skew angle varying from 0 to 45 , panel length varying from 100 mm
to 200 mm (a/b ¼ 2.50–5.00), and the panel angle (Ø) being kept constant at 60 . The
experimental values of the Pcr were determined in accordance with the methods I
through V.

Laminated composite cylindrical skew panels: Laminated composite cylindrical skew

panels were tested in uniaxial compression, varying the skew angle from 0 to 45 , the
panel length from 100 mm to 200 mm (curved width of the panel remaining constant),
and panel angle (Ø) being kept constant at 60 . Four laminate stacking sequences,
 Figure 5. Methods used to determine critical buckling load.

1185
1186 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

Figure 6. A typical buckled shape of the isotropic cylindrical skew specimen ( ¼ 15 , Ø ¼ 60 ).

namely, antisymmetric angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ], antisymmetric angle-ply [þ45 /

45 / . . . /45 ], antisymmetric angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ], and antisymmetric
cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] were considered. The number of layers were held constant at
20 . The total thickness of the laminate was kept at 2.0 mm. The experimental values of
the Pcr were determined according to the methods I through V.

Results and discussion

Isotropic cylindrical skew panels
Figure 6 shows a typical buckled shape of the test specimen. The test results are pre-
sented in Table 3 and Figure 7. The following observations are made:

 Method IV yields the highest experimental value for the Pcr and method III yields
the lowest value. The experimental values given by method IV are closest to the
finite element solution. The percentage of discrepancy between the finite element
solution and method IV is less than about 10%. For any given cylindrical skew
 Table 3. Critical buckling load for isotropic cylindrical skew panels.a

Pcr (kN)

Experimental values

Skew angle () Aspect ratio (a/b) Method I Method II Method III Method IV Method V FEM (CQUAD8)

0 2.50 10.731 (1.22) 10.500 (1.20) 10.385 (1.23) 10.962 (0.90) 10.847 (0.91) 11.539
3.75 6.870 (0.32) 6.722 (0.30) 6.648 (0.33) 7.018 (0.32) 6.944 (0.25) 7.387
5.00 5.451 (0.25) 5.334 (0.24) 5.275 (0.30) 5.568 (0.33) 5.509 (0.26) 5.861
15 2.50 14.505 (0.75) 14.189 (0.80) 14.032 (0.77) 14.820 (0.80) 14.662 (0.82) 15.766
3.75 13.120 (0.85) 12.835 (0.90) 12.692 (0.90) 13.405 (077) 13.263 (0.80) 14.261
5.00 6.736 (0.45) 6.590 (0.50) 6.517 (0.44) 6.883 (0.43) 6.809 (0.40) 7.322
30 2.50 14.200 (0.88) 13.888 (0.90) 13.732 (0.78) 14.512 (0.95) 14.356 (0.85) 15.604
3.75 9.592 (0.55) 9.381 (0.50) 9.276 (0.56) 9.803 (0.60) 9.698 (0.56) 10.541
5.00 6.400 (0.35) 6.259 (0.34) 6.189 (0.34) 6.541 (0.33) 6.470 (0.30) 7.033
45 2.50 13.047 (0.44) 12.747 (0.60) 12.747 (0.39) 13.497 (0.40) 13.347 (0.41) 14.997
3.75 8.544 (0.30) 8.348 (0.32) 8.348 (0.33) 8.839 (0.30) 8.741 (0.32) 9.821
5.00 5.727 (0.24) 5.596 (0.23) 5.596 (0.25) 5.925 (0.26) 5.859 (0.26) 6.583

FEM: finite element method; Pcr: critical buckling load.

a
The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.

1187
1188 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

Figure 7. Critical buckling load for isotropic cylindrical skew panels (Ø ¼ 60 ).

panel, the experimental values of Pcr are less than the value given by the finite ele-
ment analysis. The discrepancy may be attributed to the higher stiffness of the finite
element model arising out of the finite degrees of freedom chosen, differences
between actual boundary conditions in the experiment and idealized conditions con-
sidered in the finite element analysis, and inaccuracies in the geometry and load
application during experiment among others. For any given panel, the discrepancies
among the experimental values given by methods I through V are not much.
 For any particular aspect ratio of the panel, the Pcr value initially increases and
becomes a maximum for a skew angle of about 15 and later decreases.
 The Pcr value is observed to decrease as the aspect ratio increases for all skew angles.
 The experimental values are in good agreement with the finite element solution,
the maximum discrepancy being about 10% (for method IV).
 For a particular skew angle, the Pcr value decreases as the aspect ratio increases.
The rate of decrease is initially large and becomes smaller for higher values of
aspect ratio.
 For a particular aspect ratio, the Pcr value is observed to increase with the skew
angle, the increase being not substantial.

Laminated composite cylindrical skew panels

Figure 8 shows a typical buckled shape of the test specimen. The values of the Pcr for
various values of skew angle, laminate stacking sequence, and aspect ratios are tabulated
in Tables 4 to 7 and the same is presented in a graphical manner in Figures 9 to 12 for
Chikkol et al. 1189

Figure 8. A typical buckled shape of the laminated composite cylindrical skew specimen ( ¼ 15 ,
a/b ¼ 3.75, Ø ¼ 60 cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ]).

skew angles of 0 , 15 , 30 , and 45 , respectively. The following are observed from
Tables 4 to 7 and Figures 9 to 12.

 The experimental values given by method IV are closest to the finite element solu-
tion. The percentage of discrepancy between the finite element solution and
method IV is in the range of 5–23%.
 For any given cylindrical skew panel, the experimental values of Pcr are less than
the value given by finite element analysis. For any given panel, the discrepancies
among the experimental values given by methods I through V are not much.
 Method IV yields the highest experimental value for Pcr for all laminate stacking
sequences and skew angles 15 and 30 .
 Method III yields the lowest experimental value for Pcr for all laminate stacking
sequences and all skew angles considered.
 The percentage of discrepancy between the numerical or finite element solution
and experimental value increases as the skew angle increases.
1190
Table 4. Critical buckling load for laminated composite cylindrical skew panels ( ¼ 0 , Ø ¼ 60 ).a

Pcr (kN)

Experimental values

Aspect ratio (a/b) Laminate stacking sequence Method I Method II Method III Method IV Method V FEM (CQUAD8)

2.50 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 2.117 (0.22) 2.093 (0.25) 2.069 (0.21) 2.165 (0.20) 2.141 (0.19) 2.406
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 3.574 (0.21) 3.533 (0.23) 3.492 (0.18) 3.655 (0.24) 3.614 (0.22) 4.061
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 4.416 (0.18) 4.366 (0.15) 4.315 (0.20) 4.516 (0.21) 4.466 (0.19) 5.018
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 3.311 (0.15) 3.274 (0.19) 3.236 (0.18) 3.387 (0.20) 3.349 (0.21) 3.763
3.75 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 1.221 (0.11) 1.207 (0.10) 1.193 (0.12) 1.250 (0.10) 1.236 (0.11) 1.404
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 1.756 (0.12) 1.735 (0.11) 1.715 (0.15) 1.796 (0.13) 1.776 (0.12) 2.018
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 2.807 (0.15) 2.774 (0.16) 2.742 (0.12) 2.871 (0.12) 2.839 (0.12) 3.226
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 2.275 (0.10) 2.249 (0.11) 2.223 (0.12) 2.327 (0.11) 2.301 (0.10) 2.615
5.00 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 0.740 (0.08) 0.732 (0.08) 0.723 (0.07) 0.758 (0.08) 0.749 (0.07) 0.861
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 1.031 (0.08) 1.019 (0.07) 1.007 (0.07) 1.055 (0.07) 1.043 (0.06) 1.199
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 2.189 (0.07) 2.163 (0.06) 2.138 (0.06) 2.240 (0.07) 2.214 (0.06) 2.545
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 1.798 (0.07) 1.777 (0.08) 1.756 (0.07) 1.840 (0.07) 1.819 (0.06) 2.091

FEM: finite element method; Pcr: critical buckling load.

a
The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.
 Table 5. Critical buckling load for laminated composite cylindrical skew panels ( ¼ 15 , Ø ¼ 60 ).a

Pcr (kN)

Experimental values

Aspect ratio (a/b) Laminate stacking sequence Method I Method II Method III Method IV Method V FEM (CQUAD8)

2.50 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 2.394 (0.21) 2.366 (0.20) 2.339 (0.22) 2.450 (0.20) 2.422 (0.21) 2.784
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 3.701 (0.22) 3.658 (0.23) 3.615 (0.23) 3.787 (0.21) 3.744 (0.22) 4.303
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 4.180 (0.32) 4.131 (0.33) 4.082 (0.33) 4.277 (0.30) 4.228 (0.31) 4.860
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 3.485 (0.27) 3.444 (0.28) 3.404 (0.28) 3.566 (0.25) 3.525 (0.24) 4.052
3.75 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 2.366 (0.18) 2.339 (0.20) 2.311 (0.21) 2.422 (0.20) 2.394 (0.19) 2.684
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 2.816 (0.21) 2.783 (0.22) 2.750 (0.22) 2.882 (0.19) 2.849 (0.18) 3.313
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 3.360 (0.23) 3.321 (0.22) 3.281 (0.25) 3.439 (0.20) 3.400 (022) 3.953
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 3.363 (0.26) 3.324 (0.24) 3.284 (0.25) 3.443 (0.23) 3.403 (0.24) 3.957
5.00 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 0.715 (0.11) 0.706 (0.10) 0.698 (0.10) 0.732 (0.05) 0.723 (0.06) 0.851
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 1.094 (0.08) 1.081 (0.07) 1.068 (0.06) 1.120 (0.06) 1.107 (0.06) 1.302
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 1.992 (0.11) 1.968 (0.10) 1.944 (0.09) 2.039 (0.08) 2.015 (0.07) 2.371
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 1.530 (0.11) 1.512 (0.12) 1.494 (0.06) 1.567 (0.05) 1.549 (0.06) 1.822

FEM: finite element method; Pcr: critical buckling load.

a
The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.

1191
1192
Table 6. Critical buckling load for laminated composite cylindrical skew panels ( ¼ 30 , Ø ¼ 60 ).a

Pcr (kN)

Experimental values

Aspect ratio (a/b) Laminate stacking sequence Method I Method II Method III Method IV Method V FEM (CQUAD8)

2.50 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 2.291 (0.10) 2.263 (0.11) 2.236 (0.09) 2.345 (0.08) 2.318 (0.09) 2.727
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 3.955 (0.12) 3.908 (0.13) 3.861 (0.09) 4.049 (0.10) 4.002 (0.11) 4.708
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 4.079 (0.13) 4.030 (0.14) 3.982 (0.13) 4.176 (0.12) 4.128 (0.12) 4.856
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 3.796 (0.10) 3.751 (0.11) 3.706 (0.10) 3.886 (0.10) 3.841 (0.11) 4.519
3.75 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 1.165 (0.05) 1.151 (0.06) 1.137 (0.05) 1.194 ((0.05) 1.179 (0.04) 1.421
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 2.145 (0.06) 2.119 (0.05) 2.093 (0.05) 2.197 (0.06) 2.171 (0.05) 2.616
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 2.270 (0.07) 2.242 (0.05) 2.214 (0.04) 2.325 (0.04) 2.297 (0.04) 2.768
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 2.030 (0.06) 2.005 (0.07) 1.980 (0.04) 2.079 (0.050 2.054 (0.05) 2.475
5.00 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 0.665 (0.02) 0.657 (0.03) 0.648 (0.02) 0.682 (0.02) 0.674 (0.02) 0.842
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 1.270 (0.01) 1.254 (0.02) 1.238 (0.01) 1.302 (0.01) 1.286 (0.01) 1.608
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 1.309 (0.02) 1.292 (0.30) 1.276 (0.10) 1.342 (0.10) 1.326 (0.11) 1.657
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 1.149 (0.05) 1.134 (0.06) 1.120 (0.04) 1.178 (0.05) 1.163 (0.04) 1.454

FEM: finite element method; Pcr: critical buckling load.

a
The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.
 Table 7. Critical buckling load for laminated composite cylindrical skew panels ( ¼ 45 , Ø ¼ 60 ).a

Pcr (kN)

Experimental values

Aspect ratio (a/b) Laminate stacking sequence Method I Method II Method III Method IV Method V FEM (CQUAD8)

2.50 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 2.558 (0.20) 2.526 (0.21) 2.494 (0.20) 2.622 (0.18) 2.590 (0.19) 3.197
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 3.717 (0.22) 3.670 (0.21) 3.624 (0.20) 3.810 (0.20) 3.763 (0.18) 4.646
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 3.377 (0.22) 3.335 (0.21) 3.292 (0.22) 3.461 (0.21) 3.419 (0.20) 4.221
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 3.500 (0.30) 3.456 (0.31) 3.413 (0.20) 3.588 (0.24) 3.544 (0.25) 4.375
3.75 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 1.180 (0.10) 1.164 (0.11) 1.149 (0.10) 1.210 (0.10) 1.195 (0.10) 1.532
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 2.205 (0.11) 2.177 (0.11) 2.148 (0.10) 2.263 (0.18) 2.234 (0.15) 2.864
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 1.595 (0.11) 1.574 (0.10) 1.553 (0.15) 1.636 (0.12) 1.615 (0.12) 2.071
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 1.658 (0.09) 1.636 (0.08) 1.615 (0.09) 1.701 (0.15) 1.679 (0.12) 2.153
5.00 Angle-ply [þ0 /0 / . . . /0 ] 0.637 (0.05) 0.628 (0.06) 0.619 (0.04) 0.680 (0.05) 0.671 (0.05) 0.872
Angle-ply [þ45 /45 / . . . /45 ] 1.405 (0.07) 1.385 (0.08) 1.366 (0.09) 1.501 (0.12) 1.481 (0.13) 1.924
Angle-ply [þ90 /90 / . . . /90 ] 0.831 (0.07) 0.819 (0.08) 0.808 (0.07) 0.888 (0.07) 0.876 (0.07) 1.138
Cross-ply [0 /90 / . . . /90 ] 0.864 (0.06) 0.852 (0.06) 0.841 (0.05) 0.924 (0.07) 0.912 (0.06) 1.184

FEM: finite element method; Pcr: critical buckling load.

a
The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.

1193
1194 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

Figure 9. Critical buckling load for laminated composite cylindrical skew panels ( ¼ 0 , Ø ¼ 60 ).

Figure 10. Critical buckling load for laminated composite cylindrical skew panels ( ¼ 15 ,
Ø ¼ 60 ).
Chikkol et al. 1195

Figure 11. Critical buckling load for laminated composite cylindrical skew panels ( ¼ 30 ,
Ø ¼ 60 ).

Figure 12. Critical buckling load for laminated composite cylindrical skew panels ( ¼ 45 ,
Ø ¼ 60 ).
1196 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

Conclusions
The following conclusions are made in respect of buckling of isotropic and laminated
composite cylindrical skew panels under uniaxial compression:

 All the experimental values are less than the corresponding FEM/numerical
values.
 The percentage of discrepancy between the numerical or finite element solution
and experimental value increases as the skew angle increases.
 The Pcr value decreases sharply as the aspect ratio increases from 1.0 to 2.5 for all
the stacking sequences.
 For both isotropic cylindrical skew panels and laminated composite cylindrical
skew panels, method IV (based on a plot of P vs. average axial strain) yields the
highest experimental value for the Pcr and method III (based on a plot of P vs.
square of out-of-plane deflection) yields the lowest value.
 For any given cylindrical skew panel, the experimental values of the Pcr are less
than the value given by finite element analysis. For any given panel, the discre-
pancies among the experimental values given by methods I through V are not
much.
 The values given by method IV are closest to the finite element solution. The per-
centage of discrepancy between the finite element solution and method IV is less
than about 10% for isotropic skew panels and may be neglected for all practical
purposes. It is about 5–23% in case of laminated composite cylindrical skew
panels. This information is of importance in the design.
 For a particular skew angle, the value of Pcr decreases as the aspect ratio
increases, the rate of decrease being initially high and becomes smaller for larger
values of aspect ratio. This trend is observed both in isotropic and laminated com-
posite cylindrical skew panels for all laminate stacking sequences.
 In case of isotropic cylindrical skew panels, the value of Pcr initially increases and
becomes a maximum for a skew angle of about 15 and later decreases for any
particular value of the aspect ratio.

Acknowledgements
The first author would like to thank the Management and Principal Dr P Prakash of GM
Institute of Technology, Davanagere, Karnataka, India, for the kind encouragement and
support provided. The second author would like to thank the Management, ACS College
of Engineering, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, for the kind encouragement and support
provided. The third author would like to thank the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru
College of Engineering, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India, for the kind encouragement and
support provided. Authors would like to appreciate and acknowledge the reviewers for
their useful comments and suggestions.
Chikkol et al. 1197

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
1. Singer J, Arbocz J and Weller T. Buckling experiments: experimental methods in buckling of
thin-walled structures. Vol. 1 & 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2002.
2. Becker ML, Palazotto AN and Khot NS. Experimental investigation of the instability of com-
posite cylindrical panels. Exp Mech 1982; 22: 372–376.
3. Hahn EK, Ruvo A, Westerlind BS, et al. Compressive strength of edge-loaded corrugated
board panels. Exp Mech 1992; 32(3): 259–265.
4. Rao KP and Gopalkrishna HR. Optimization of composite cylindrical panels for buckling by
ranking. Compos Struct 1992; 21: 131–140.
5. Krishna Reddy AR and Palaninathan R. Buckling of laminated skew plates. Thin Wall Struct
1995; 22: 241–259.
6. Bozhevolnaya E and Kildegaard A. Experimental study of a uniformly loaded curved sand-
wich beam. Compos Struct 1997; 40(2): 175–185.
7. Prema Kumar WP and Palaninathan R. Explicit through-thickness integration schemes for
geometric nonlinear analysis of laminated composite shells. Finite Elem Anal Des 1999;
32(4): 235–256.
8. Liang CC, Chen HW and Jen CY. Optimum design of filament-wound multilayer-sandwich
submersible pressure hulls. Ocean Eng 2003; 30(15): 1941–1967.
9. Arman Y, Zor M and Aksoy S. Determination of critical delamination diameter of laminated
composite plates under buckling loads. Compos Sci Technol 2006; 66(15): 2945–2953.
10. Han H, Cheng J and Taheri F. Numerical and experimental investigations of the response of
aluminum cylinders with a cutout subject to axial compression. Thin Wall Struct 2006; 44:
254–270.
11. Li SR and Batra RC. Buckling of axially compressed thin cylindrical shells with functionally
graded middle layer. Thin Wall Struct 2006; 44: 1039–1047.
12. Anil V, Upadhyay CS and Iyengar NGR. Stability analysis of composite laminate with and
without rectangular cutout under biaxial loading. Compos Struct 2007; 80(1): 92–104.
13. Guduru PR and Xia Z. Shell buckling of imperfect multiwalled carbon nanotubes-experiments
and analysis. Exp Mech 2007; 47(1): 153–161.
14. Mittelstedt C. Stability behaviour of arbitrarily laminated composite plates with free and elas-
tically restrained unloaded edges. Int J Mech Sci 2007; 49(7): 819–833.
15. Young B and Zhou F. Aluminum tubular sections to web crippling part II: proposed design
equations. Thin Wall Struct 2008; 46: 352–361.
16. Young B and Zhou F. Aluminum tubular sections to web crippling part I: test and finite ele-
ment analysis. Thin Wall Struct 2008; 46: 339–351.
17. Akhavan H, Hashemi SH, Taher H, et al. Exact solutions for rectangular Mindlin plates under
in-plane loads resting on Pasternak elastic foundation part I: buckling analysis. Comp Mater
Sci 2009; 44(3): 968–978.
1198 Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 30(9)

18. El-Sawy KM, Sweedan AMI and Martini M. Major-axis elastic buckling of axially loaded cas-
tellated steel columns. Thin Wall Struct 2009; 47(11): 1295–1304.
19. Havasi A, Rezaeepazhand J and Khorsand A. Effect of initial shape imperfection/cutout on
buckling of composite cylindrical shells. Int Rev Aerospace Eng 2009; 2(4): 235–239.
20. Maalawi KY. Optimization of elastic columns using axial grading concept. Eng Struct 2009;
31(12): 2922–2929.
21. Ozben T. Analysis of critical buckling load of laminated composites plate with different
boundary conditions using FEM and analytical methods. Comput Mater Sci 2009; 45(4):
1006–1015.
22. Topal U and Uzman U. Frequency optimization of laminated skew plates. Mater Des 2009;
30(8): 3180–3185.
23. Shariati M, Sedighi M, Saemi J, et al. An experimental study on buckling and post buckling
behaviour of cylindrical panels with clamped and simply supported ends. Ind J Eng Mat Sci
2010; 17: 86–90.
24. Shariati M and Rokhi MM. Buckling of steel cylindrical shells with an elliptical cutout. Int J
Steel Struct 2010; 10(2): 193–205.
25. Zabihollah A and Ganesan R. Buckling analysis of tapered composite beams using a higher
order finite element formulation. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010; 29(17): 2663–2683.
26. Morovat M, Lee J, Engelhardt M, et al. Analysis of creep buckling of steel columns subjected
to fire. In: D Ames, TL Droessler and M Hoit (eds) Proceedings of Strucures Congress, Vir-
ginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 14–16 April 2011, pp. 2929–2940.
27. Srinivasa CV, Arifulla A, Goutham N, et al. Static bending and impact behaviour of areca
fibers composites. Mater Des 2011; 32(4): 2469–2475.
28. Tsuji M and Meshii T. Extending image processing strain measurement system to evaluate
fracture behavior of wall-thinned pipes. Nucl Sci Des 2011; 241(9): 3605–3612.
29. Prabu B, Raviprakash AV and Venkatraman A. Neighbourhood effect of two short dents on
buckling behaviour of short thin stainless steel cylindrical shells. Int J Comput Aided Eng
Technol 2012; 4(2): 143–164.
30. Prabu B, Raviprakash AV and Rathinam N. Numerical buckling analysis of thin cylindrical
shells with combined distributed and local geometrical imperfections under uniform axial
compression. Int J Comput Aided Eng Technol 2012; 4(4): 295–320.
31. Tahir ZR and Mandal P. A new perturbation technique in numerical study on buckling
of composite shells under axial compression. World Acad Sci, Eng Technol 2012; 70:
10–27.
32. Upadhyay AK and Shukla KK. Large deformation flexural behavior of laminated composite
skew plates: an analytical approach. Compos Struct 2012; 94(12): 3722–3735.
33. Zahurul Islam SM and Young B. Web crippling of aluminium tubular structural members
strengthened by CFRP. Thin Wall Struct 2012; 59: 58–69.
34. Laudiero F, Minghini F and Tullini N. Buckling and postbuckling finite element anal-
ysis of pultruded FRP profiles under pure compression. J Compo Constr 2014; 18(1):
04013026.
35. Umbarkar KR, Patton LM and Singh KD. Effect of single circular perforation in lean duplex
stainless steel (LDSS) hollow circular stub columns under pure axial compression. Thin Wall
Struct 2013; 68: 18–25.
36. Zhao C, Matsuda H, Lou S, et al. Visualization of buckling on thin-walled cylindrical shell by
digital image correlation method. Appl Math Inf Sci 2013; 7(3): 999–1004.
37. Laudiero F, Minghini F and Tullini N. Postbuckling failure analysis of pultruded FRP beams
under uniform bending. Compos B-Eng 2013; 54: 431–438.
Chikkol et al. 1199

38. Najafov A, Sofiyev A, Ozyigit P, et al. Vibration and stability of axially compressed truncated
conical shells with functionally graded middle layer surrounded by elastic medium. J Vib
Control 2014; 20(2): 303–320.
39. Timoshenko SP and Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability, International Students ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1986.
40. ASTM D 3039/D 3039M. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix
composite materials, 2006.
41. Jones RM. Mechanics of composite materials. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 1999.