CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND INTRODUCTION TO SHELL THEORY

by
John Spence
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
SYNOPSIS
Many of the design procedures in BS 5500 and in other standards are based primarily upon
linear elastic small displacement stress analysis. Even where inelastic behaviour is allowed
to some limited extent the design base frequently remains essentially linear elastic. This
section briefly discusses the type of analysis thin shell analysis which underpins much of
the thinking in pressure vessel codes. Typical equations and solutions are given for spherical
and cylindrical shells together with an indication of how junctions between different
geometries are analysed. Although this chapter can only provide a limited introduction to
shell analysis, the important concepts of membrane and discontinuity effects are emphasised
and the inherent limitations of the approach are highlighted.
CONTENTS LIST
1.1 BASIC PRINCIPLES AND THEIR ILLUSTRATION
1.1(a) Introduction
1.1(b) Basic concepts
1.1(c) Illustration of a beam loaded with direct and bending actions
1.2 SHELLS AND SHELLS OF REVOLUTION
1.3 EQUILIBRIUM EQUATIONS FOR A SHELL ELEMENT
1.3(a) Membrane shells
1.3(b) Rotationally symmetric load on membrane shells
1.4 STRAIN DISPLACEMENT EQUATIONS
1.5 CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONSHIPS
1.6 METHODS OF SOLUTION
1.6(a) Rotationally symmetric load on a spherical shell
1.6(b) Rotationally symmetric load on a cylindrical shell
1.6(c) Die out effects
1.6(d) A cylindrical vessel with hemispherical ends under internal pressure
1.6(e) The cylindrical nozzle in a spherical shell type problem
1.6(f) Limitations of shell theory
1.1 BASIC PRINCIPLES AND THEIR ILLUSTRATION
1.1(a) Introduction
The term stress analysis is frequently used, not only to cover the analysis of stress but the
complete behaviour of a body including, on occasions, the distribution of load, stress,
displacement, strain and temperature throughout the body when some external actions such as
load, displacement or temperature act upon the body. The rather obvious justification for
doing stress analysis is that it is one of the main activities that can give a designer a
quantitative yard-stick as to the efficiency of a load carrying component and the possibility of
its failure in service. It is thus a necessary stage in the rational design of most engineering
components but is usually a fairly approximate tool unless the loads and the geometry of the
component in question are simple and well defined. In recent times the ability to conduct
sophisticated stress analyses has increased dramatically; although the understanding of
component behaviour under load has also increased, the design decisions related to these
analyses are not necessarily obvious. Thus stress analysis needs frequently to be liberally
seasoned with engineering judgement.
In pressure vessel standards the basic thicknesses of the main shells are derived from
calculations based upon rather simple methods of stress analysis in conjunction with the
allowable design stress. This may be illustrated as follows. Consider the case of a long, thin
cylindrical shell of radius r and thickness t subject to internal pressure loading. As one might
expect, forces and stresses will be generated in the cylinder wall in the circumferential
direction and if the cylinder has closed ends, in the axial direction. A longitudinal half
section across such a cylinder is shown below in Fig 1.1. In this the circumferential stress is
denoted by

. The stress is assumed to be uniform across the thickness and along the
length, since the cylinder is considered to be long and thin.
By long we mean that the ends are sufficiently far away as not to disturb the stresses in the
main part of the cylinder. Of course near to the end, as we shall see, the stresses may be quite
different but if necessary a different thickness may be employed near to the end. By thin
we mean that the radius is much greater than the thickness; thus at this stage we do not need
to identify the radius as being associated with a particular surface (i.e. internal, external or
mid-surface), although strictly speaking for the analysis which follows we should use the
inside radius.
The forces must be in equilibrium so that
2

tL = p 2rL
i.e.,
t
pr

FIG 1.1 A half section of a Cylindrical Vessel

Similarly by considering a diametral section and taking longitudinal equilibrium we find the
longitudinal stress
x
is
t
pr
x
2

These stresses are frequently referred to as membrane stresses since there are no variations
in the stress through the thickness i.e. no bending stresses. Notice they are obtained from
equilibrium considerations alone. It is useful to consider the stresses as acting at the mid
surface of the shell.
Similar arguments applied to a thin sphere (Fig 1.2) result in uniform and equal stresses in
mutually perpendicular directions.
FIG 1.2 A half section of a Spherical Vessel
t
pr
2



Real pressure vessels, of course in practice, often have a significant thickness compared with
the radius. The complexity of dealing with thick shells is usually considered too involved
for pressure vessel design standards. Consequently in almost all cases the significance of
thickness is ignored and the theory related to thin shells is employed. In fact the above
formulae are remarkably good if r 10t (better than 5%) and they are often used for r > 5t.
More accurate equations are available outwith the standards which take account of the
thickness. For example for a long thick cylinder the Lame equations (see any standard
text on Mechanics of Materials) may be used to give the following result for internal pressure
loading. These are as follows:-
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[ ] 1 ) / ( /
1 ) / ( / ) / ( 1
1 ) / ( / ) / ( 1
2
2 2
2 2


+
a b p
a b r b p
a b r b p
x
r

where a is the internal radius, b the external radius and r any radius within the thickness of
the cylinder. A typical distribution of these is shown in the sketch Fig 1.3.
FIG 1.3 Distribution of stresses in a thick cylindrical vessel
Again the solution is only valid in the plain part of the cylinder remote from any
disturbances. These equations may be useful for high pressure applications although other
special considerations may be required. The Lame equations appear in this form in the
Australian Pressure Vessel Standard AS1210 Supplement 1. However, for a moderately thick
cylinder a reasonable approximation for the circumferential stress, which is usually the
largest, is to employ the thin cylinder theory but use the mean radius or mean diameter
d
m
= D
i
+ t. Where D
i
is the inside diameter
t
t D p
t
pd
e i
i m
2
) (
2
., .
+

If the allowable circumferential stress

is equated to the code allowable design stress f,
then rearranging gives
p f
pD
t
i

2
which is typical of the basic equations, in pressure vessel standards. This is the type of
equation, which is employed for the evaluation of the shell thicknesses, and as a starting point
for design. Later we will discuss the Tresca criteria of yielding and the associated idea of
stress intensities. Simply stated the stress intensity is the maximum difference between the
principal stresses. In the case of the cylinder this would be

-
r
where
r
is the radial
stress. This latter varies from the pressure on the inside surface to zero on the outside
surface. If it is approximated as (p/2) and noted to be negative (compressive) and the stress
intensity equated to the allowable (f) then

,
`

.
|

2 2
p
t
pD
f
i
r


which leads to exactly the same result namely
p f
pD
t
i

2
which is probably fortuitous. The alternative from which also appears
p f
pD
t
o
+

2
is of course identical.
In the case of spherical shells the equations in the standard takes the form
p f
pD
t
i
2 . 1 4

or
p f
pD
t
o
8 . 0 4 +

which is again a reasonable approximation for moderately thick spheres. Note the difference
in the form for the sphere compared with the cylinder since the stress distribution is more
highly non linear through the thickness.
However, it must be noted that where the simple idealised cylindrical or spherical geometry
is disturbed the membrane stress pattern is totally changed. For example where a cylindrical
part is attached to an end closure the stress distribution is more complex. An important case
is when a nozzle is located in the main shell. The resulting stress distribution for a given
loading is more complex than the simple analysis given above and the results depend on the
radius/thickness ratios of both nozzle and shell as well as the size of the nozzle.
The objective of this chapter is to introduce the concepts of thin shell analysis for spheres and
cylinders and carry it far enough to indicate how it can be used to analyse some classical shell
intersection problems and in particular the case of a cylindrical nozzle in a spherical shell
under internal pressure.
In doing so it attempts to set the scene for the detail discussion which follows in later
chapters on various pressure vessel components in order that the reader may appreciate the
advantages and the limitations of the theoretical basis of much of the design methodology in
the Standards. It is not intended to be a full development of thin shell theory but simply an
introduction to facilitate an appreciation of the overall approach in so far as it is relevant to
pressure vessel design. Today the approach has been largely (although not entirely) displaced
by the finite element method or other advanced techniques and is thus less likely to be used in
the future. Nevertheless it remains the essential basis of almost all pressure vessel standards
and routine design.
1.1(b) Basic concepts
In any general stress analysis there are certain fundamental requirements that have to be
satisfied. Briefly these are:
Equilibrium When a body is in a state of rest (or uniform motion) the loading both
externally and internally must be in equilibrium.
Strain Displacement Compatibility When a body deforms it must do so in such a
way that movements of adjacent elements of material are compatible with each other
and with any external support conditions, i.e. they must fit together in their deformed
shape without any gaps or overlapping. This usually reduces essentially to the
application of geometrical rules relating displacements to strains throughout the
components. Bodies with cracks or defects require special considerations.
Constitutive relationships The material behaviour has to be known in so far as
there is a relationship between the loads and the resulting deformation which depends
on the physical relationships between stress, strain, time and temperature. Where the
last two mentioned are unimportant, the term stress/strain relationship is common.
The relationship can only initially be found experimentally but may need to be
idealised and/or generalised to allow analysis to proceed.
When the above three conditions can be satisfied mathematically throughout a body we have
what is usually called in Applied Mechanics terms an exact solution. However the problem
as idealised the mathematical model is rarely identical with the real physical problem and
one should be clear what is conveyed by the term exact. Thus, if the idealised assumptions
are restrictive we may have an exact solution, which is only an approximate representation
of reality. Equally it may be necessary to make mathematical approximations in the solution
of the appropriate equations. Most of stress analysis is concerned with approximate solutions
of either or both types!
Sometimes it is preferred to separate internal and external effects in the above presentation
and describe the external conditions (equilibrium and/or compatibility) as boundary
conditions.
There are alternative but similar routes to a solution. For example, energy methods can be
used. A number of energy principles have been established mainly for elastic materials
which when developed for the appropriate constitutive relationship allow solutions to be
found by optimisation of the energy. Usually these are employed to arrive at approximate
solutions but they have the advantage over some other approximate methods in that it is
sometimes possible to show that the answer obtained (for a load or a displacement) is a
bound. That is to say it is known to be higher or lower than the exact answer. Two
calculations then may allow the exact answer to be bounded, hopefully fairly closely. It
should be noted that bounding of local stresses as distinct from generalised quantities such as
load or characteristic displacement is not easy. At its best an energy approach may become
identical to, or close to, an exact solution if one tries hard enough and obeys all the rules, but
in practice energy is usually used as a powerful approximate tool.
1.1(c) Illustration of a beam loaded with direct and bending actions
Before getting involved with pressure vessel geometries, it is worth illustrating the three basic
concepts: equilibrium, compatibility and the constitutive relations, as they are used to analyse
a simple long straight beam of constant rectangular cross section, breadth b, thickness t and
cross sectional area A. The illustration will be doubly informative because as it happens the
beam analysis and results provide a simple analogue for the shell analysis. The beam is
subject to a direct load P and bending moment M as shown in Fig 1.4a.
Compatibility condition
Conventionally it is usual to start from geometric considerations and examine possible
deformation states for the beam. If each elemental length is to deform in the same way then
it is necessary that plane sections remain plane, i.e. initially straight sections normal to the
axis of the beam remain straight after deformation, for example, the ends of the beam remain
flat. This seems plausible from a compatibility point of view since, because of symmetry,
any other choice such as curved deformed planes would require gaps in the beam. The strain
distribution across the depth of the beam is thus linear (Fig 1.4b) and this can be expressed as
z C C
2 1
+
(1.1)
where C
1
and C
2
are constants and z is measured from the line of the centre of the beam
(centroid).
Constitutive relation
The uniaxial stress/strain relation for the beam material is taken as linear elastic viz.
E
(1.2)
where E is the modulus of elasticity.
From equation (1.1) this is expressed as
( ) E z C C
2 1
+ (1.3)
Equilibrium
The internal longitudinal stress must be in equilibrium with the externally applied forces P
and M:-
(a) In the longitudinal direction:-
dz b P .

(1.4)
Substituting for the longitudinal stress from equation (1.3), equation (1.4) can be written in
terms of the constants C
1
and C
2
. Since the case considered is a rectangular cross-section
beam the breadth b is independent of z and the intervals are from t/2 to +t/2.
( )dz z C C Eb P
t
t
2 1
2 /
2 /
+

2 /
2 /
2
2 1
2
t
t
z
C z C Eb P

]
]
]

+
) where (
1
bt A
EA
P
Ebt
P
C
(1.5)
(b) Moments about the centroidal axis
zbdz M

(1.6)
Substituting as before for the longitudinal stress, equation (1.3), equation (1.6) can be
written:-
( )dz z C z C Eb M
t
t
2
2 1
2 /
2 /
+

2 /
2 /
3
2
2
1
3 2
t
t
z
C
z
C Eb M

]
]
]

,
`

.
|

3
3
2
12
1
where 12 bt I
IE
M
Ebt
M
C
(1.7)
Equation for stress
The final equation for stress (1.3) may thus be written
( ) E z C C
2 1
+
z
I
M
A
P
+
(1.8)
From this it is clear that the direct strain
D
is C
1
and the bending strain
B
is C
2
z. These
may be plotted through the wall thicknesses as shown in Fig 1.4. (b).
From equation (1.8), in the absence of axial load, = 0 at z = 0. Thus the neutral axis for
the bending case is the centroidal axis. The beam in this case, bends to a circular arc, of
radius R and the strain can be shown to be, = z/R. Thus from equation (1.1) C
2
= 1/R,
where R is the radius of curvature of the centreline under bending. The term 1/R is known as
the curvature.
The above equations have been developed for a beam of rectangular cross section in order to
highlight the similarity with the thin shell equations given in the next Section. Usually, the
beam equations are derived for a singly symmetric cross section under pure bending loading.
Whereupon it becomes clear that the neutral axis of bending passes through the centroid of
the cross section. Thereafter, the combined bending and direct loading case is treated by
simple superposition.
1.2 SHELLS AND SHELLS OF REVOLUTION
Stress Resultants and their Relation to Stresses
A shell may be defined as a curved plate type structure. Usually, but not always, the
thickness t is small with respect to the other dimensions. In general the shell is capable of
taking bending moments, twisting moments and transverse shear forces through the thickness
and forces in its own plane. Consider an infinitesimally small element with some possible
force actions, which may arise as shown in Fig 1.5. For clarity the twisting moments, M
xy
and M
yx
have been omitted from the sketch at this stage. For convenience, Figs 1.5 and 1.6
are greatly exaggerated in the surface direction compared with the thickness direction to
show the stresses. The similarity with the beam will be apparent (compare Figure 1.4 with
Figures 1.5 and 1.6).
In shell theory as in any other mathematical development the sign convention adopted must
be strictly adhered to. The equations here follow Flugges convention and development
[1.1]
1
. Other theories and/or conventions will result in slightly different equations. Flugges
convention is similar to that inherent in BS 5500.
As shown the force actions are usually defined in terms of stress resultants which are
assumed to act at the mid-surface of the shell. For example, the direct stress resultant N
xx
is
the direct force per unit length acting perpendicular to the face of the element with constant x
and in the x direction. Similarly, the shear stress resultant N
yx
is on a face of constant y and
in the x direction.
The symbol Q is used for the through thickness shear resultants. For a detailed explanation
of the suffix notation reference should be made to [1.1]. Positive directions are as shown.
Now N
xx
may be thought of as the resultant of direct stresses,
xx
. Fig 1.6 indicates the
stresses at some element of thickness within the shell element. Remembering that ds
y
, for
example, is small but that variations through the thickness are possible, it is found by simple
force equilibrium that
dz ds
r
z r
ds N
y
y
y
xx
t
t
y xx

,
`

.
| +

2 /
2 /
(1.9a)
Note that this equation is exactly analogous to the axial equilibrium equation (1.4) for the
beam. The other direct stress resultants can be found in a similar way,
dz
r
z r
Q dz
r
z r
N
y
y
xz
t
t
xz
y
y
xx
t
t
xy

,
`

.
| +

,
`

.
| +

2 /
2 /
2 /
2 /
;
dz
r
z r
Q dz
r
z r
N
x
x
yz
t
t
yz
x
x
yx
t
t
yx

,
`

.
| +

,
`

.
| +

2 /
2 /
2 /
2 /
;
1
References are given at the end of each chapter.
;
2 /
2 /
dz
r
z r
N
x
x
yy
t
t
yy

,
`

.
| +

(1.9b,c)
Note the negative sign in Q which is a peculiarity of Flugges development because of the
positive direction chosen in Fig 1.5.
In general the stresses will also give rise to moments about the middle surface or the centre
line of the surface. These are represented by moment stress resultants M
xx
and M
yy
and
twisting moment resultants M
xy
and M
yx
, again moments per unit length. From equilibrium
we find the relationship between them as for example
dz z
r
z r
M
y
y
xx
t
t
xx

,
`

.
| +

2 /
2 /
with the others being similar;
;
2 /
2 /
dz
r
z r
M
x
x
yy
t
t
yy

,
`

.
| +

dz z
r
z r
M
y
y
xy
t
t
xy

,
`

.
| +

2 /
2 /
dz z
r
z r
M
x
x
yx
t
t
yx

,
`

.
| +

2 /
2 /
(1.10)
Again this is analogous to equation (1.6) for the beam. The minus signs are again
unimportant but are necessary for consistency with the convention used in these notes. The
term stress resultants, N
xx
, N
yy
, N
xy
, N
yx
, Q
xz
, Q
yz
, M
xx
, M
yy
, M
xy
, M
yx
, describe the ten force
actions on a shell element. In shell theory normally one attempts to solve for these stress
resultants and then finally deduces stresses from them. For example, for a linear elastic
material a thin shell will have (approximately) a linear distribution of stress across it. The
stresses can thus be taken from the simple relations derived for beams of rectangular section,
subjected to a normal force P and a bending moment M i.e., equation (1.8):-
I
Mz
A
P
+
whereupon:-
3
12
t
z M
t
N
xx xx
xx


3
12
t
z M
t
N
xy xy
xy
(1.11)
The different sign in equations (1.8) and (1.11), associated with the moment, is due to the
convention referred to earlier. In the case of eqn 1.11 positive z results in a compressive
bending stress
xx
which is consistent with Fig 1.5.
Shells of Revolution
Here we will restrict our attention to shells of revolution by which is meant geometries which
can be developed by rotation of some curve (a meridian) about a central axis of revolution
(Fig 1.7). A variety of single shapes fall into this category and some are indicated in Fig 1.8
e.g. spherical, conical, toroidal, torispherical, ellipsoidal, cylindrical etc. Notice that the
general shell of revolution is denoted by the angle and the two radii r
1
(the radius of the
meridian) and r
2
(the conical radius from the centre line). The other familiar shapes can be
derived as shown in Fig 1.8 by inserting the specific values of these parameters appropriate to
the desired shape.
Changing x, y to , for the shell of revolution would alter equation 1.9(a) for example to
dz
r
z r
N
t
t

,
`

.
| +

2
2
2 /
2 /


with a similar expression for N

dz
r
z r
N
t
t

,
`

.
| +

1
1
2 /
2 /


(1.12a,b)
The equation for moment (1.10) can similarly be altered to:-
dz z
r
z r
M
t
t

,
`

.
| +

2
2
2 /
2 /


(1.13)
and the others likewise.
Now that we have established these preliminaries we will proceed for the shell in exactly the
same manner as for the beam, namely, by developing equilibrium, compatibility and
constitutive equations and seeking a solution thereafter.
1.3 EQUILIBRIUM EQUATIONS FOR A SHELL
ELEMENT
Fig 1.9 shows a finite mid surface shell element with the force actions and their variations
across the element. The element of Fig 1.9 is cut by two meridians and two parallel circles.
This element is now considered to be of a sufficient size to allow variations of the force
actions across the element. For convenience the direct and bending stress resultants have
been separated in the two parts of the figure. Actions are considered to increase in the
positive co-ordinate direction in proportion to the rate of change of the quantity concerned as
shown in Fig 1.9. Notice it is stress resultants which are shown and not forces.
Surface loadings, p
r
, p

, p
z
are also shown; these have the units of load/unit area. Fig 1.7
shows a section of the shell midsurface detailing the geometric parameters. Note again that r
1
is the radius of curvature of the meridian, r
2
is to the central axis measured normal to the
meridian and sweeps out a conical shape. The horizontal radius, when the axis is vertical, is
r.
Equilibrium conditions for the element can be established by taking force and moment
equilibrium in 3 directions. This results in 6 equations in terms of the 10 stress resultants.
These are detailed in what follows.
For example taking force equilibrium in the direction of the tangent to the meridian we have
the following force contributions
From

d d
rN
rd N d d
r
r d
N
N N

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

+
) (
:
From

d d r
N
d r d
N
N d r N N
1 1 1
:

,
`

.
|

+ +
From


d d r N N cos :
1

From


d rd Q Q :
From
) )( ( :
1


d r rd p p
to a first approximation
Adding these contributions together and cancelling the terms d d gives the first
equilibrium equation 1.14(a). The others follow by force equilibrium along the
circumferential and radial directions together with moments equilibrium in the three mutually
perpendicular directions.
0 cos
) (
1 1 1
+

rr p r Q N r
rN N
r

0 sin cos
) (
1 1 1 1
+ +

rr p r Q N r
N
r
rN

0
) (
sin
1 1 1

+ + rr p
rQ
r
Q
rN r N
r

0 cos
) (
1 1 1

r M rr Q
rM
r
M
0 cos
) (
1 1 1
+

r M rQ r
M
r
rM
0
1 2
+
r
M
r
M
N N


(1.14)
Before proceeding further it is worth mentioning the special class of membrane shells where
bending effects are small, (away from discontinuities) neglected (for convenience) or
impossible (e.g. a childs balloon).
1.3(a) Membrane shells
Suppose then that M

, M

, M

, M

are zero whereupon N

= N

and equations
(1.14) reduce to
0 cos
) (
1 1 1
+

rr p N r
rN N
r

0 cos
) (
1 1 1
+ +

rr p N r
N
r
rN

0
1 2
+
r
p
r
N
r
N

(1.15)
There are thus now effectively 3 unknowns, N

, N

, & N

and 3 equations of equilibrium.
The membrane shell is thus statically determinate, i.e. a solution can be found from
equilibrium alone as we have noted earlier for cylinders and spheres.
These equations may be reduced to those for a particular type of shell of revolution by
inserting the relevant radii of curvature. For example, for a sphere r
1
= r
2
= a. However, a
useful reduction is for rotationally symmetric loading and we shall proceed with this
simplification first of all.
It should be noted in passing that for a shell to be truly membrane the boundary support
conditions must only sustain membrane actions.
1.3(b) Rotationally symmetric load on membrane shells
For rotational symmetry all sections are considered to be the same and if p

= 0 then all
derivatives with respect to vanish.
Then, since partial differentials are no longer required, we have
0 cos
) (
1 1
+ rr p N r
d
rN d

0
2 1
+
r
p
r
N
r
N

(1.16)
Consider the case of internal pressure loading only p
r
= p
Equation (1.16) becomes
0 cos
) (
1

N r
d
rN d

N
r
r
pr N
1
2
2

(1.17)
Solving for N

and N

gives

,
`

.
|

1
2 2 2
2
2
,
2 r
r pr
N
pr
N

(1.18)
These results are for a general shell of revolution under internal pressure. They can be
particularised by inserting the relevant r
1
& r
2
. For example, in a sphere r
1
= r
2
= a whence
N

= N

= pa/2 or for a cylindrical shell of radius R, r

1
= and r
2
= R whence N

= pR/2
and N

= pR. With N/t = these are the same results as obtained earlier from first
principles.
While membrane solutions are very useful and frequently they are the basis on which design
scantlings are settled, it is not long before their limitations are apparent. When one considers
the junction of two different shells problems manifest themselves. For example, in the
junction region of a pressurised torispherical head and a cylindrical shell, the circumferential
stress in the toroidal part turns out to be negative (when r
2
> 2r
1
for the toroid, see eqn 1.18)
while the circumferential stress in the cylindrical part is positive (see Chapter 6). Such a
situation cannot exist in a membrane in the absence of shear forces and moments. At many
other shell junctions the differences are not so obvious but usually it is found that membrane
strains and displacements of the various parts do not match; these may easily be checked by
substituting the membrane stress results into the equations given later in Section 1.5.
Obviously the membrane condition does not apply near to other disturbances such as local
loads, supports, nozzles etc. It will therefore be necessary in general to employ the general
equations of equilibrium as appropriate to particular geometric states.
1.4 STRAIN DISPLACEMENT EQUATIONS
Any point on the shell (Fig 1.10) may have a general mid-surface displacement described by
the three components u, v, w in the , and radial directions respectively. Since the strains
represent the same information as the displacements it is important to have the relationships
between them. First of all we deal with the mid-surface strains only and use the symbolism

,

and

for the normal strains in the circumferential and meridional directions
and the shear strain in the plane, respectively. Then for example using the usual
engineering definition of strain,

= (change in element length in direction)/(original length)
From Fig 1.10 examining the meridional section of the element and noting that the radial
movement amplifies the lengths in the ratio (r
1
+ w)/r
1
we have
]
]
]
]

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

d r
r
w r
d
v
d r
d r
1
1
1
1
1
) ( 1
giving

,
`

.
|

v
w
r
1
1
(1.19a)
In a similar way from a plan view sketch the mid-surface circumferential strain can be
derived as

,
`

.
|
+ +

sin cos
1
w v
u
r
(1.19b)
The shear strain is given by

r
r r
u u
r
1
cos
1
1
(1.19c)
Of course the strains vary not only from point to point on the mid-surface but also through
the thickness. The next step is to evaluate the strains at some radial distance z from the mid-
surface. The procedure is to assign displacements
w , v , u
to the point at the distance z and
to attempt to find
w , v , u
in terms of the original mid-surface displacements u, v and w.
The basic assumption usually made is that during deformation, an original normal to the
under-formed middle surface will result in it remaining normal to the deformed surface. This
can be understood easily from the so-called hair brush analogy; bending a plastic hair brush
leaves the bristles straight (and the same length) although rotated in space. The radial
distance z is assumed unaltered, although of course the various radii are adjusted accordingly
i.e. r
1
becomes r
1
+ z and r
2
becomes r
2
+ z. The secret in the derivation is to draw a clear
diagram whereupon equations 1.19 become the strains at any point and
w , v , u
are used
instead of u, v, w. Thus the strains at any point through the thickness can be written in terms
of the original mid-surface displacements u, v and w. They are usually further modified by
splitting each strain into two parts, a mid-surface direct strain and a bending strain and
written in the form
zk
mid
+
where k is the change in curvature. It will be noted that this equation has a similar form to
that for the simple beam equation (1.1). The detailed derivation will not be given here but the
resulting curvatures are given in equation (1.20).

,
`

.
|

1 1 1
1 1
r
v w
r r
k

,
`

.
|

v
w
r r
u
r r
w
r
k

2 1 2 1
2
2
2
cot 1 1
+

v
rr
w
r
w
rr
k
1
2
2
1
1 cos 2 2
) 2 (
cot sin
1 2
2
2 1 1
r r
r r
u u
rr
+

(1.20)
These equations give minor inconsistencies in that for (u, v, w) displacements due to rigid
body movements all of the strains do not vanish as they ought. Koiter [1.2] discusses the
matter in some detail as does Kraus [1.3]. Sanders [1.4] equations are perhaps the most
satisfactory since they are a consistent set of equations, however, the differences in the
prediction of the stress resultants and displacements are usually unimportant from an
engineering point of view. Equations (1.20) are obtained from Kraus [1.3]. They are the
same as quoted by Gill [1.5] apart from an overall change in sign.
The above expressions at first sight look rather involved but again when dealing with a
particular problem they can often reduce considerably.
1.5 CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Engineers rely largely on mechanical tests to allow them to represent material behaviour. In
particular the constitutive relationship is usually determined from uniaxial tensile testing and
then generalised for multiaxial behaviour. The main relationship is between stress and strain
and it may be elastic, anelastic, linear, non-linear, isotropic, anisotropic, time dependent, etc.
In addition temperature may be important. However in many structures elastic conditions
dominate and in this section attention will be confined to linear elastic isotropic behaviour.
The uniaxial stress strain characteristic for a uniaxial situation is usually written in terms of
Youngs modulus E as
= E (1.21)
where the stress and the strain are both in the loading direction. Transverse to the load
the strain is negative and equal to v where v is known as Poissons ratio (0.25 to 0.35 for
common engineering materials within the elastic range).
If an element of material is loaded in three orthogonal directions the relationships are
)] ( [
1
)] ( [
1
)] ( [
1
y x z z
x z y y
z y x x
v
E
v
E
v
E



+
+
+
(1.22)
If shear is present
) 1 ( 2
where etc, /
v
E
G G
xy xy
+

(1.23)
In the case of a thin pressure vessel the radial stress is usually ignored (
z
= 0, plane stress)
and the equations are rearranged as
] [
1
2
y x x
v
v
E
+

] [
1
2
x y y
v
v
E
+

(1.24a)
or transformed into the plane of the shell in terms of and we have
] [
1
2

v
v
E
+

] [
1
2

v
v
E
+

(1.24b)
These two dimensional stress/stain relations can be applied to any point on the shell. It will
be noted that we have now inherently made two somewhat contradictory assumptions namely
zero radial strain (the radial distance z does not change, section 1.4) and zero radial stress; in
fact this has little effect on the outcome of shell analyses since we are generally not too
interested in the radial direction.
1.6 METHODS OF SOLUTION
Clearly to solve the general shell problem in the standard fashion would involve
unmanageable mathematical complexity and (usually) numerical procedures become
necessary. In point of fact the recent advances in Finite Element software mean that the vast
majority of the pressurised components discussed in BS 5500, can readily be solved, certainly
as thin shells, by the finite element method on a modest desk top computer. However, it is of
value to illustrate the classical approach for certain special cases confining ourselves to linear
elastic behaviour since many of the rules in the Standards are based on this approach.
1.6(a) Rotationally Symmetric load on a Spherical Shell
A case, which is of considerable interest in the context of pressure vessel design, is that of the
spherical shell. It is simpler and convenient to consider only rotationally symmetric loading.
This means all derivatives with respect to disappear and also we put p

= 0. Hence these,
together with the sphere geometric relations r
1
= r
2
= a, reduce the equilibrium equations 1.14
to the following set of ordinary differential equations.
0 sin sin sin ) sin (
0 sin sin cos ) sin (
+ +
+

r
ap N N Q
d
d
ap Q N N
d
d
(1.25)
Under the same conditions, from equations (1.19 and 1.20), the strain-displacement relations
become:-

,
`

.
|

+

,
`

.
|
+
v
d
dw
d
d
a
k
w v
a
d
dv
w
a

2
1
) sin cos (
sin
1
1

,
`

.
|
v
d
dw
a
k

2
cot
(1.26)
The stress/strain relations are, as before, for equations 1.24(b)
] [
1
2

v
v
E
+

] [
1
2

v
v
E
+

1.24(b)
0 sin cos ) sin (

aQ M M
d
d
bearing in mind that in general

zk zk
mid mid
+ + and
Because the shell theory operates with stress resultants we need to recall the relationship
between the stress resultants and the stresses. Typically for N

we have from equation

1.12(a) for example, with r
2
= a
dz
a
z a
N
t
t

,
`

.
| +

2 /
2 /
Thus we can write
dz
a
z a
zk v zk
v
E
N
mid mid
t
t

,
`

.
| +
+ + +

)] ( ) [(
) 1 (
2
2 /
2 /


(1.27)
so that we can relate the strains directly to the stress resultants (rather than the stresses).
Similar results are obtained for the other stress resultants.
Note in equation (1.27)
mid
and
mid
are mid surface strains.
We now have three sets of equations namely equilibrium (1.25) strain-displacement (1.26)
and the constitutive relations (1.27 etc).
Proceeding in an exactly analogous way to that for the beam and assuming the shell is of
constant thickness, substituting equation (1.26) into (1.27) gives
]
]
]

+
]
]
]

,
`

.
|
+ + +
]
]
]

+ + +

cot
) cot (
) cot (
v
d
d
a
K
M
w
d
dv
v w v
a
D
N
w v v w
d
dv
a
D
N

]
]
]

d
d
v
a
K
M cot
(1.28)
where D = Et/(1-v
2
), is known as the direct stiffness, K = Et
3
/[12(1 - v
2
)] is known as the
bending stiffness and
a v
d
dw
/

,
`

.
|

is a subsidiary variable, which is in fact the rotation of the tangent to the meridian. The stress
resultants of equation 1.28 may then be substituted into the equilibrium equations 1.25 to
seek a solution. Classically the equations have been reduced to a pair of similar equations in
Q

and . First of all we will restrict our attention to the case of zero surface loads.
Edge Bending
Assuming for the present that p

= p
r
= 0 i.e. zero surface loading, the first of the pair of
equations is easily derived. Substitution of equation 1.28 (c,d) into equation 1.25 (c) leads to

Q
K
a
v
d
d
d
d
2
2
2
) (cot cot + +
with some manipulation detailed in ref [1.1] the second equation can be obtained as




) 1 ( ) (cot cot
2 2
2
v D v Q
d
dQ
d
Q d
+
This pair of equations describes the state of a spherical shell loaded symmetrically at its
edges (Fig 1.11). As it happens the case of a concentrated axial load at the apex is also
covered but that is not of interest in the present context.
Defining for convenience the linear differential operators

2
2
2
cot ) (
) (
cot
) (
) (

d
d
d
d
L
we can separate the unknowns Q and to obtain an equation in either. For example
LL(Q

)+4k
4
Q

= 0 (1.29)
where
4
) 1 ( 3
2
2
2
2 4
v
t
a
v k
(i) Solution for edge bending for large
If one assumes that is large and cot small then a possible solution of equation 1.29,
which was attributed to Geckler, is
)] sin cos ( ) sin cos ( [
4 3 2 1

A A e A A e Q + + +

(1.30)
where
4
= 3(1-v
2
) a
2
/t
2
and the As are constants. Usually it is taken to apply if > 30.
(ii) Solution for edge bending for all
The Langer asymptotic solution has been used by Leckie & Penny [1.6]. Briefly it is valid
for all and can be written in terms of Bessel functions as
] ker [
sin
4 3 2 1
Z kei A Z A Z bei A Z ber A Q + + +

(1.31)
where k Z 2
Full Solution
Let us return for a moment to the consideration of the loading terms. If p

and p
r
are
included in equation 1.29 it becomes
) ( 4 ) (
4

+ Q k Q LL
(1.32)
where

d
dp
va a p v v
d
dp
aL p aL v
r r
+

,
`

.
|
+ + ) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 ( ) (
Having found the homogeneous solution with the right hand side zero we now require a
particular integral. It turns out that the particular integral is well approximated by the
membrane solution for many common types of loading. For example if the only loading is
p
r
= p, uniform internal pressure, then it is not difficult to show that ( ) = 0 i.e. Q

= 0 or
the membrane solution in this case is adequate. For other symmetric loadings the
particular integral for Q

turns out to be approximately proportional to the reciprocal of k

4
.
Since k is normally fairly large for thin shells it is usual to neglect this solution and
approximate the particular integral by the membrane solution. In other words the required
solution for spherical shells can be found by superimposing the membrane solution for
any surface loads with the edge bending solution neglecting surface loads.
Examples of Edge Bending (large )
As an example of the edge bending solution, consider the spherical shell in Fig 1.11 subject
to an edge force H and moment M. We assume to be large whereupon the solution given
in equation (1.30) can be used. Also equation (1.29) reduces to
0 4
4
4
4
+

Q
d
Q d
(1.33)
with
2 2 4
) / )( 1 ( 3 t a v
It turns out that the constants A
3
and A
4
in equation (1.30) have to be zero since logically one
expects the effects to disappear with increasing distance from the edge while expressions like
e
-

increase with decreasing (i.e. away from the edge). The full equation 1.30 refers to
the situation when there are two edges to the shell and two sets of edge forces. Assuming
here that we are concerned only with one edge and changing variables from to = ( -
) see Fig 1.11, allows equation (1.30) to be written as
) sin(

+

Ae Q
(1.34)
where A and are new but related constants.
The other stress resultants can be found by substituting back.

,
`

.
|
+ + +

,
`

.
|
+
+

4
sin
2
4
sin 2
) cot( ) sin(

Ae
a
M
Ae N
Ae N

vM M
(1.35)
The rotation is
) cos(
2
2

+

e
Et
A
(1.36)
The displacement in the plane normal to the axis of rotational symmetry is frequently of
interest. Since is large, cot is small, consequently N

can be neglected compared with

N

so that can be found directly from the circumferential strain, ( = r

). Thus:-

,
`

.
|
+

4
sin
sin 2

e
Et
a A
(1.37)
We now have a general solution for the edge loaded shell in terms of the two constants. The
constants will depend on the actual loading. As examples of edge loading we consider two
useful cases of axisymmetric self equilibrating loading, namely edge force, H and edge
moment, M.
(i) For the case H applied alone
The constants may be found from
the boundary conditions which are,


sin , 0 , ) 0 or ( , H Q M at
This gives the constants in the above equations as
4
, sin 2

H A
(1.38)
The edge rotation and displacement ( = 0) are then
Et
a H
Et
H

2
0
2
0
sin 2
,
sin 2


(1.39)
The values of the stress resultants at any location may be obtained from equation (1.35)
using the values of A and given in equation (1.38):-
) sin( sin
) cos( sin 2
) cot(
4
sin sin 2

,
`

.
|

e H
a
M
e H N
e H N

vM M
(1.40)
Thus if the loading H is known, the behaviour of the spherical cap under this loading is
completely solved; all the stress resultants (and stresses) and the deformations are
determined.
(ii) For the case of M applied alone
The boundary conditions are,
at
0 , ,

Q M M
and thus
0 ,
2

a
M
A
The edge rotation and displacement therefore become:-
Et
M
Eat
M

sin 2
,
4
2
0
3
0


(1.41)
The stress resultants for this case may be obtained from equation (1.35) using the values of
A = 2M /a and = 0

,
`

.
|
+

,
`

.
|

4
sin 2
4
sin 2 2
) cot( sin
2
2

e M M
e
a
M
N
e
a
M
N

vM M
(1.42)
Again if the loading M is known all stresses and deformations can be found.
It is shown in [1.5] that if the edge force actions H and M are applied to an upper edge of the
shell with = ( - ) instead of a lower edge the above results are similar except that the
expression for N

and M

above change sign and the values of the constant A changes sign
which means that N

and M

are in fact the same. The sign of the rotations alter but the
sense of these should be clear anyway. The end displacement rotations and stress resultants
are tabulated below in Tables 1.1 and 1.2.
Results such as these may be used to solve problems such as a spherical cap, loaded by
pressure or deadload, rigidly attached at its edges or part spheres attached to other shells.
TABLE 1.1 : EDGE SOLUTIONS FOR A THIN SPHERE LOADS AT LOWER EDGE
H & M per unit length is horiz displacement
H ONLY M ONLY
Edge Rotation

=0 Et
H sin 2
2
Eat
M
3
4
Edge Deflection

=0 Et
a H
2
sin 2
Et
M sin 2
2
Q

,
`

.
|

4
sin sin 2



e H

sin 2

e
a
M
N

) cot(
4
sin sin 2

,
`

.
|


e H
) cot( sin 2



e
a
M
N

cos sin 2

He
M

vM

vM

2
2 4
) 1 ( 3
,
`

.
|

t
a
v