Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 5(9), pp.

897-910, 4 May 2010

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE
ISSN 1992-2248 © 2010 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Determination of thickness and stiffener locations for

optimization of critical buckling load of stiffened plates
Nildem Tay i
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Gaziantep, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey. E-mail: taysi@gantep.edu.tr.
Tel: 90 342 3172422. Fax: 90 342 3601107.
Accepted 7 April, 2010

In this paper, buckling optimization of stiffened plates under uniform edge compression is considered.
The locations of stiffeners are chosen as design variables and effects over critical buckling loads are
observed. For this purpose, two types of conventional stiffened plates which are used in aerospace
industry are investigated. The loaded sides of plates are simply supported and in order to reflect the
other possible conditions the remaining sides considered free, clamped or simply supported. A finite
strip method is used to evaluate buckling loads of plates. Sequential Quadratic Programming algorithm
is used to optimize the design variables. Results are presented to show the influence of size
optimizations and also stiffener locations. A parametric study is carried out in order to investigate the
effect of stiffeners locations on the buckling parameters. The proposed results for the investigated
samples can be used to develop an improved design for stiffened plates.

Key words: Buckling analysis, structural optimization, finite strip, stiffened plates.

INTRODUCTION

Stiffeners provide improvement to load carrying capacity
of structures. The benefit of stiffening of a structure lies in
achieving lightweight and robust design of the structure.
For this purpose they have wide use in structural
engineering domain. Specially, stiffened plates are used
in critical and sensitive structures such as in aircrafts,
ship hulls and box girders in which safety and a perfect
design is crucial. Buckling is the one of the most complex
phenomenon that is inevitable for heavily axially loaded
stiffened plate structures. For this purpose, it is
necessary to carry a deep interest and investigation
about their responses under expected loads to design
such structures safely.
In structural engineering, it is one of the first priorities to
save weight, without loss of any strength in the used of
structural elements against subjected loads. The
approach of the uses of stiffeners to improve structural
response is simple, but the practical stiffened plate
design is a complex task. Due to involving many design
variables, a complete understanding of response of such
structures is not fully figured out. Therefore, a robust
optimization algorithm which is integrating analysis,
shape definition, sensitivity and optimization is necessary
to obtain maximum efficiency from stiffened plates. The
efficiency of structural optimization algorithm is based on
the computational time required in the process. Since
most of the structural optimization methods are iterative,
the number of structural analyses required to complete
the optimum solution is large. To reduce the
computational efforts of the efficient and inexpensive
structural analysis method should be used.
Extensive work has been performed to present the
expressions for critical buckling loads of flat plates under
different load conditions. The analytical solutions for
buckling are presented by Timoshenko and Gere (1936);
Chajes (1974). The stability of simply supported
rectangular plates under patch compression using Ritz’s
energy method was studied by Liu and Pavlovic´ (2007).
Both single and double Fourier series were used as
deflection series to compute the values for buckling
coefficients. But no theoretical solutions exist for more
complicated cases such as stiffened plates. Therefore,
numerical solutions are often preferred to analyze such
complicated responses. Sheikh et al. (2002) investigated
stability of stiffened steel plates under uniaxial
compression and bending using finite element method.
The parameters investigated where; the transverse
slenderness of the plate, the slenderness of the web and
898 Sci. Res. Essays
flange of the stiffener, the ratio of torsional slenderness of
the stiffener to the transverse slenderness of the plate,
and the stiffener to- plate area ratio. Kumar and
Mukhopadhyay (1999) presented a stiffened plate
element for stability analysis of laminated stiffened plates
that the basic plate element was a combination of
Allman's plane stress triangular element and a discrete
thick plate bending element and includes transverse
shear effects.
Brubak et al. (2007) presented an approximate semi-
analytical computational model for plates with arbitrarily
oriented stiffeners and subjected to in-plane loading.
Their estimation of the buckling strength is made using
the von Mises’ yield criterion. Peng et al. (2006)
presented a mesh-free Galerkin method for the free
vibration and stability analyses of stiffened plates via the
first order shear deformable theory. Vörös (2009)
presented the application of the new stiffener element
with seven degrees of freedom per node and subsequent
application in determining frequencies, mode shapes and
buckling loads of different stiffened plates. The
development of the stiffener is based on a general beam
theory and includes the constraint torsional warping effect
and the second order terms of finite rotations. Riks (2000)
investigated implementation of the finite strip (FS)
method that extends the scope of the determination of
the post-buckling stiffness of stiffened panels for wing
structures.
The literature survey shows that, the finite element
method is the most powerful and most preferred method
in structural analysis domain and has the capability of
solving all types of complex geometries, loading and
boundary conditions. On the other hand, it requires plenty
number of elements as input data and creates large
matrix equations to solve. In this regard, these
requirements increase the computational time seriously.
In this point of view, an alternative method that requires
less number of equations, less computational time and
easy to control input and output data is desired. The FS
method has proven to be an inexpensive and useful tool
in analysis of prismatic structures. Structures which are
simply supported on diaphragms at two opposite edges
with the remaining edges arbitrarily restrained, and where
the cross section does not change between the simply
supported ends can be analyzed accurately and
inexpensively using the FS method in cases where a full
finite element analysis could be considered extravagant.
The other important component of structural
optimization is optimization technique which is used. To
obtain the effective, reliable and efficient optimum
solutions, suitable optimization method should be used.
The selection of the optimization method should be
based on type of objective function, design variables,
constraints and also number of design variables used in
optimization problem definition. Studies on structural
optimization of stiffened plates are summarized below.
Iuspa and Ruocco (2008) presented the topological
optimal design of isotropic/orthotropic thin structures
including stiffened panels via genetic algorithms. They
developed a modified FS method used to analyze
parametric structures arranged in form of plates or
stiffened panels with almost arbitrary cross section
shapes. Todoroki and Sekishiro (2008) proposed a fractal
branch and bound method for optimizing the stacking
sequences to maximize the buckling load of blade-
stiffened panels with strength constraints. Bedair (1997)
presented the influence of stiffener location on the
stability of stiffened plates under combined compression
and bending. He idealized the structure as assembled
plate and beam elements rigidly connected at their
junctions. Various researches have been carried out to
optimize the response of plates. Özakça (1993)
investigated SSO of prismatic folded plates under
buckling load consideration. He used mathematical
programming methods.
The literature survey shows that, shape and size
optimization of stiffened plates for improving the critical
buckling load was studied using various analysis and
optimization methods. In these studies, effects of one or
two parameters on buckling load were investigated. On
the other hand, the stiffened panels are complex thin
walled structure. In their design, so many parameters and
interaction between parameters must be considered in
order to obtain safe, economical, robust and reliable
solutions. As a consequence, in the present study, it is
aim to carry out a comprehensive study on stability of
stiffened plates. The objective of this study is to carry out
a deep interest and investigation about critical buckling
load of stiffened plates. Structural optimization and a
parametric study are carried out in order to investigate
the effect of stiffeners location, number of stiffeners,
types of design variable, boundary conditions and plate
dimensions on the buckling parameters. The proposed
results can be used to develop an improved design for
stiffened plates.
In this study, buckling analyses are carried out using
Fortran code which was developed by Özakça (1993).
Theory and implementation of FS method for buckling
analyses are given in Özakça et al. (2006). The buckling
loads will be determined using cubic, C(0) continuity
Mindlin-Reissner FSs. The code uses Sequential
Quadratic Programming (SQP) to carry out structural
optimization process.
STRUCTURAL SHAPE OPTIMIZATION
SSO can be defined as the activity of achieving the best
(optimum) structural configuration to fulfill a particular
structural task. In order to do this, the design must satisfy
certain constraints, e.g. material failure and buckling must
not occur anywhere within configuration. The objective
varies depending on problem types and desired functions
of problem. Critical buckling load capacity of stiffened

plates can be increased to very high values by using
properly dimensioned stiffened plate elements. This may
be achieved by the use of structural shape optimization
(SSO) procedures in which the shape and thickness of
the structure are varied to achieve a specific objective
satisfying certain constraints. Such procedures are
iterative and involve several re-analyses before an
optimum solution can be achieved. SSO tools can be
developed by the efficient integration of structural shape
definition procedures, automatic mesh generation,
structural analysis, sensitivity analysis and mathematical
programming methods. The algorithm which was
successfully used for optimal design of axisymmetric and
prismatic shell structures (Hinton and his co-workers,
1993) is improved in other studies. The basic algorithm
for SSO based on the following algorithm:
(i) Problem definition: Consider the case of the SSO of a
panel structure in which we wish to maximize the critical
buckling load subject to the constraints that the total
volume of the panel should remain constant and first ten
buckling loads should be greater than critical buckling
load. Other types of constraints such as bounds on the
design variables must also be introduced.
(ii) Shape definition: The shape of the panel cross-section
is defined in some convenient form that allows us to
examine the sensitivities of the design to small changes
in shape. Here, we describe the geometry of the plate
cross-section using parametric cubic spline segments
with the coordinates specified at certain key points. The
thickness distribution may also be defined using cubic
splines with thickness values specified at the key points.
(iii) Create finite strip model: The next step is to generate
a mesh of suitable FSs. Here, we use an unstructured
mesh generator with mesh density specified at some key
points and then interpolated through the segments
appropriately. In order to ensure the accuracy of the FS
model, it is necessary to make sure the refinement does
not occur during the analysis in each of the optimization
iteration. This means that, the strip size distribution
(mesh density) remains unchanged during redesign. As
the structural shape changes during the optimization
process, the re-meshing is based on predetermined
mesh density of each iteration, with normal FS analysis;
we must also define the boundary conditions and material
properties.
(iv) Finite strip analysis: Next we carry out a FS analysis
and in the present work, the structure is modeled using
cubic, variable thickness, Mindlin-Reissner, C(0) FSs
described in Özakça et al. (2006). Critical buckling loads
are calculated for each panel.
(v) Sensitivity analysis: The sensitivities of the buckling
loads and volume of the current design are then
evaluated. These design sensitivities are generally
nonlinear implicit functions of the design variables and
therefore difficult and expensive to calculate. Haftka and
Adelman (1989) have given an excellent survey paper on
Taysi 899
the sensitivity analysis of static, transient, and eigen
value problems. The numerical accuracy of sensitivity
analysis affects the search directions that are used in
optimization algorithms. In this study, we use the semi
analytical method to calculate sensitivities.
(vi) Optimize parameters: Using the objective and
constraint functions and their derivatives, the sequential
quadratic programming (SQP) optimization algorithm is
employed to optimize the parameters or design variables.
No effort has been made to study the mathematical
programming methods used for structural optimization
procedures and the SQP algorithm is used here
essentially as a ‘black box’. The new set of values will
result in a modified design. Furthermore, the constraints
must be satisfied if the new design was deemed and
acceptable. If the convergence criteria for optimization
algorithm are satisfied, then the optimum solution has
been found and the solution process is terminated.
(vii) Update optimization model: After optimization, it is
necessary to update the geometric model, that is, the
coordinates and/or thicknesses of the primary design
variables in structural optimization. This is the only part of
the original input data which has to be updated with each
optimization iteration, if no convergence has been
achieved, the new geometry is sent to the mesh
generator which automatically generates a new analysis
model and the whole process is repeated from step 2.
STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION OF STIFFENED PLATE
The buckling optimization of two types of conventional
stiffened plates used by aerospace industry which are
named as profile A and profile B is considered. To initiate
the optimization, the initial geometry of the structure must
be generated. Figure 1 shows Baseline Design (BL) of
the investigated of two types of stiffened plates; profile A
and profile B. Width and length of plates and height of
stiffeners will be constant during optimization procedure.
The profiles A and B have constant volume constraints of
3
691480 - 578280 mm , respectively.
The FS analysis method is used in structural
optimization algorithm. FS method can analyze structures
which are simply supported on diaphragms at two
opposite edges with the remaining edges arbitrarily
restrained, and the cross section does not change
between the simply supported ends. For the sake of
convenience, we adopt the following notation to describe
the boundary conditions of the plates optimized in this
study. A/B/C/D, which implies (boundary conditions on
side y = 0)/ (boundary conditions on side x = a)/
(boundary conditions on side y = b)/ (boundary conditions
on side x = 0), Figure 2 shows these boundary conditions
on stiffened plate with 3 stiffeners. A simply supported
edge is represented by S, a clamped edge by C and a
free edge is represented by F. The stiffened plates are
optimized by following boundary conditions:
900 Sci. Res. Essays

(a) Profile A (b) Profile B

Figure 1. Investigated stiffened plates (All dimensions in mm).

Figure 2. Boundary conditions.

(a) S/F/S/F supports,
(b) S/S/S/S supports,
(c) S/C/S/C supports.
The loaded sides of plates are simply supported. The
plates are loaded under uniformly distributed compre-
ssion force in stiffeners direction. Force applied as a
uniformly distributed compressive load over the plate and
stiffeners. Note that uniform compressive load is
redistributed according to the changes in element
dimensions during optimization process. The stiffened
plates are made of aluminum alloy which is the preferred
material for aerospace industry. The following material
properties are used: Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.33 and

Table 1. The lower and upper bounds of thickness design variables.
Abbreviation
Thickness of plate skin tskin
Thickness of stiffener tstiff
modulus of elasticity E = 73 × 10 N / m . Based on the
9 2
type of the design variables, the stiffened plates are
optimized for following cases:
(i) Only size optimization (TO): Design variables are
thicknesses of plate and stiffener.
(ii) Only shape optimization (LO): Design variables are
the location of stiffeners.
(iii) Size and shape optimization (LTO): Design variables
are thicknesses of plate and stiffeners and location of
stiffeners.
The lower and upper bounds of thickness design
variables which are used for both profiles A and B
optimizations are shown in Table 1. The limits of shape
design variables are shown in Figure 3. Note that, to
maintain the symmetry, the distance from symmetry axes
to right and left stiffeners are forced to equal linking. The
thicknesses of plate skin (tskin) and stiffeners (tstiff) will be
kept equal in baseline design. Their initial values are
computed by satisfying constant cross-sectional area.
Various numbers of stiffeners are also considered in
order to observe the effect of number of stiffeners on
critical buckling loads. In present study, numbers of
stiffeners are considered as:
(i) Three stiffeners plate,
(ii) Four stiffener plate, and
(iii) Five stiffener plate.
Discussion of optimization results
The FS method is inexpensive semi analytical method.
Due to this advantages, very fine mesh of cubic FSs are
used in analyses. The optimization is carried out for two
profile types, three different boundary conditions, three
different types of design variables and three stiffeners
cases. The total 54 stiffened plates are optimized. The
optimum critical buckling loads are presented in Tables 2
- 7 for different numbers of stiffeners and profile types.
The initial and optimum values of design variables, critical
buckling loads and percent improvements of profiles are
investigated and the following results can be obtained:
(i) For the case involving only size optimization, the
improvements in the critical buckling loads are small for
all boundary condition. Two thickness design variables
are used in optimization. Thicknesses of skin and
stiffener have minor effects on the critical bucking loads.
The range of percentage improvement is between
Taysi 901
Min (mm) Max (mm)
1.2 3.0
1.2 3.0
1.04-10.79% for all stiffened plate considered.
(ii) For the case involving only shape optimization, the
significant improvements are obtained for all boundary
conditions. The improvements in critical buckling loads
are minimum of 7.52% and maximum of 73.50%. The
optimization results indicate critical buckling loads which
are so sensitive to location of stiffeners.
(iii) The best improvement is obtained in optimizations
when size and shape design variables are defined
together. It means that, increasing the number of design
variables in optimization process causes increased of the
critical buckling loads. But higher number of design
variables requires more computational time.
(iv) The locations of stiffeners mainly depend on the
boundary conditions. The stiffeners are placed near to
the edge and the distance between the stiffeners are
large at the S/F/S/F supported stiffened plates. On the
other hand, the stiffeners are placed near to the center of
the plate at the S/C/S/C supported stiffened plates.
(v) The effect of number of stiffeners on critical buckling
load is shown clearly from Tables 2 - 7. When the
number of stiffeners increases, the critical buckling loads
also increase in the initial and optimum solutions.
(vi) In order to observe the size (dimension of plate)
effect on the optimization, the optimization is repeated in
profile A and B types where only the dimensions (the
length and width of the stiffened plate) are different. The
improvements in the critical buckling loads show similar
trends for profile A and B.
Parametric study
A parametric study is carried out in order to investigate
the effect of stiffeners locations on the buckling
parameters. To observe the variation in critical buckling
loads due to stiffener location, a series of analysis are
done. In these analyses, skin and stiffeners thicknesses
are kept constant and the positions of stiffeners are
changed systematically. The parametric study is carried
out for two profile types, three different boundary
conditions, and three stiffeners cases. And totally, 18
stiffened plates are analyzed. The critical buckling loads
are presented in Figures 4 - 9 for different numbers of
stiffeners and profile types. Maximum critical buckling
loads are compared with the optimization results.
Discussion of parametric studies
The parametric study shows that location of stiffeners has
902 Sci. Res. Essays

(a) Three stiffener

(b) Four stiffener

(c) Five stiffener

Figure 3. Design variables of stiffened plates for various numbers of stiffeners.
 Taysi 903

Table 2. Baseline design and optimization results of profile ‘’A” with three stiffeners.

S/F/S/F S/S/S/S S/C/S/C

BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO
tskinn 2.237 2.434 2.237 2.434 2.237 2.398 2.237 2.365 2.237 2.434 2.237 2.370
tstiff 2.237 1.200 2.237 1.200 2.237 1.387 2.237 1.566 2.237 1.200 2.237 1.534
S1 293.33 293.33 317.47 317.44 293.33 293.33 221.69 218.11 293.33 293.33 205.22 204.20
Pcr 59.73 62.78 64.25 72.64 90.78 98.34 137.02 144.30 91.53 101.41 158.81 166.81
% imp 5.10 7.57 21.61 8.33 50.94 58.95 10.79 73.50 82.25

Table 3. Baseline design and optimization results of profile “B” with three stiffeners.

S/F/S/F S/S/S/S S/C/S/C

BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO
tskin 2.177 2.326 2.177 2.322 2.177 2.273 2.177 2.235 2.177 2.342 2.177 2.211
tstiff 2.177 1.439 2.177 1.456 2.177 1.699 2.177 1.884 2.177 .1359 2.177 2.003
S1 245.33 245.33 264.71 267.00 245.33 245.33 185.68 184.32 245.33 245.33 171.17 169.90
Pcr 66.08 70.41 73.35 77.36 100.45 104.72 155.31 159.01 101.28 110.11 175.58 180.93
% impr. 6.55 11.00 17.07 4.25 54.61 58.30 8.72 73.36 78.64

Table 4. Baseline design and optimization results of profile “A” with four stiffeners.

S/F/S/F S/S/S/S S/C/S/C

BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO
tskin 2.123 2.325 2.123 2.308 2.123 2.267 2.123 2.220 2.123 2.300 2.123 2.227
tstiff 2.123 1.342 2.123 1.396 2.123 1.556 2.123 1.742 2.123 1.539 2.123 1.715
S1 110.00 110.00 117.04 116.54 110.00 110.00 88.32 87.92 110.00 110.00 82.70 82.56
S2 330.00 330.00 348.66 351.03 330.00 330.000 265.02 262.78 330.00 330.00 248.17 243.64
Pcr 97.56 107.54 110.24 118.91 135.66 144.65 191.57 194.46 136.35 148.08 214.63 219.12
% impr. 10.23 12.99 21.88 6.63 41.21 43.34 8.60 57.41 60.70

Table 5. Baseline design and optimization results of profile “B” with four stiffeners.

S/F/S/F S/S/S/S S/C/S/C

BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO
tskin 2.059 2.173 2.059 2.146 2.059 2.097 2.059 2.014 2.059 2.160 2.059 2.005
tstiff 2.059 1.643 2.059 1.740 2.059 1.922 2.059 2.225 2.059 1.689 2.059 2.257
S1 92.00 92.00 98.19 99.42 92.00 92.00 65.80 75.37 92.00 92.00 62.65 69.14
S2 276.00 276.00 291.81 295.12 276.00 276.00 214.01 223.46 276.00 276.00 202.56 209.10
Pcr 106.87 112.09 121.06 124.03 148.54 150.35 200.51 206.01 149.35 155.65 225.68 231.21
% impr. 4.88 13.28 16.06 1.22 34.99 38.69 4.22 51.11 54.81

a huge impact on critical buckling loads. The results of CONCLUSION

parametric studies show good agreement with the
optimum solutions presented in Table 2 - 7. The
parametric studies and optimization results verify the
necessity of the stiffeners in plate structures for
improvement of the buckling load.
In this paper, structural optimization and parametric study
are carried out to observe the effect of various
parameters on critical buckling load. These parameters
are stiffeners location, number of stiffeners, types of
 904 Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 4. Buckling load of profile “A” stiffened plate with three stiffeners.

Table 6. Baseline design and optimization results of profile “A” with five stiffeners.

S/F/S/F S/S/S/S S/C/S/C

BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO
tskin 2.021 2.195 2.021 2.173 2.021 2.146 2.021 2.106 2.021 2.1784 2.021 1.843
tstiff 2.021 1474 2.021 1.542 2.021 1.628 2.021 1.752 2.021 1.525 2.021 2.580
S1 176.00 176.00 184.48 182.32 176.00 176.00 145.06 145.63 176.00 176.00 135.98 141.02
S2 352.00 352.00 367.90 368.75 352.00 352.00 295.15 291.26 352.00 352.00 276.02 282.31
Pcr 136.55 148.32 155.42 163.72 178.30 185.65 232.75 234.87 178.88 188.44 252.93 255.23
%impr. 8.62 13.82 19.90 4.12 30.54 31.73 5.34 41.40 42.68
 Taysi 905

Figure 5. Buckling load of profile “B” stiffened plate with three stiffeners.

Table 7. Baseline design and optimization results of profile “B” with five stiffeners.

S/F/S/F S/S/S/S S/C/S/C

BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO BL TO LO LTO
tskin 1.955 2.108 1.955 1.957 1.955 1.905 1.955 1.600 1.955 1.976 1.955 1.663
tstiff 1.955 1.794 1.955 1.948 1.955 2.103 1.955 2.999 1.955 1.894 1.955 2.813
S1 147.20 147.20 157.36 155.12 147.20 147.20 100.79 127.35 147.20 147.20 90.78 118.15
S2 294.40 294.40 309.74 308.51 294.40 294.40 230.82 255.83 294.40 294.40 220.83 240.11
Pcr 147.94 151.283 168.02 168.44 181.83 193.32 224.98 245.52 195.09 197.12 247.91 278.36
906 Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 6. Buckling load of profile “A” stiffened plate with four stiffeners.
 Taysi 907

Figure 7. Buckling load of profile”B” stiffened plate with four stiffeners.

908 Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 8. Buckling load of profile “A” stiffened plate with five stiffeners.
 Taysi 909

Figure 9. Buckling load of profile “B” stiffened plate with five stiffeners.
910 Sci. Res. Essays
design variable, boundary conditions and plate
dimension. From the present study the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(i) Increase in the critical buckling load is small when only
size optimization is done. However, shape optimization
gives better results. The best improvement is obtained in
optimizations when size and shape design variables are
defined together.
(ii) The locations of stiffeners mainly depend on the
boundary conditions. The stiffeners are placed near to
edge at the S/F/S/F boundary condition and away from
the edge at the S/C/S/C boundary condition. As expected
S/C/S/C boundary condition gives higher critical buckling
loads. It means that, when the plate is well supported
critical buckling load increases.
(iii) The main increase in the critical buckling load is
obtained when the large numbers of stiffeners are used.
(iv) The parametric study and optimization study show
that, the critical buckling loads are very sensitive to the
location of stiffener.
REFERENCES
Bedair OK (1997). Influence of stiffener location on the stability of
stiffened plates under compression and in-plane bending. Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 39: 33-49.
Brubak L, Hellesland J, Steen E (2007). Semi-analytical buckling
strength analysis of plates with arbitrary stiffener arrangments. J.
Constr. Steel Res. 63: 532-543.
Chajes A (1974) Principles of structural stability theory. Englewood
Cliffs N.J. Prentice-Hall.
Haftka RT, Adelman HM (1989). Recent development in structural
sensitivity Analysis. Structural Optimization 1: 137-151.
Iuspa L, Ruocco E (2008). Optimum topological design of simply
supported composite stiffened panles via genetic algorithm.
Computers and Structures 86: 1 718-1737.
Kumar SYV, Mukhopadhyay M (1999). A new finite element for buckling
analysis of laminated stiffened plates. Composite Structures 46: 321-
331.
Liu YG, Pavlovic MN (2007). Elastic stability of flat rectangular plates
under patch compression. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 49: 970-982.
Özakça M (1993). Analysis and Optimal Design of Structures with
Adaptivity. Ph. D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering University
College of Swansea, U.K.
Özakça M, Murphy A, Veen SVD (2006). Buckling and post-buckling of
sub-stiffened or locally tailored aluminum panels. 25th International
Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences.
Peng LX, Liew KM, Kitipornchai S (2006). Buckling and free vibration of
stiffened plates using the FSDT mesh-free method. J. Sound
Vibration 289: 421-449.
Riks E (2000). Buckling and post-buckling analysis of stiffened panels in
wing box structures. Int. J. Solids Struct. 37: 6795-6824.
Sheikh IA, Grodin GY, Elwi AE (2002). Stiffened steel plates under
uniaxial compression. J. Constr. Steel Res. 58: 1061-1080.
Timoshenko S, Gere J (1936). Theory of Elastic Stability. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Todoroki A, Sekishiro M (2008). Stacking sequence optimization to
maximize the buckling load of blade-stiffened panels with strength
constraints using the iterative fractal branch and bound method.
Composites Part B: Engineering 39: 842-850.
Vörös MG (2009). Buckling and free vibration analysis of stiffened
panels. Thin Walled Structures 47: 382-390.