doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2006.08.013 
Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Indentation of ring-stiffened cylinders by wedge-shaped indenters—Part 2: Scale model tests
C.G. Karrouma, S.R. Reidb and S. Lia, 
, 
aSchool of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, P.O. Box 88, Sackville Street, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
bDepartment of Engineering, College of Physical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, Scotland
Received 15 November 2004;
revised 8 August 2006;
accepted 8 August 2006.
Available online 20 October 2006.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Abstract
The main objective of this account was to examine the effects of scale on the deformation and penetration processes of ring-stiffened thin metal cylindrical shells with fully fixed ends under quasi-static loading by wedge-shaped indenters. To this end three sizes of geometrically similar shells of the same material with outer diameters of 157.7, 236.5 and 315.4 mm were tested under geometrically identical conditions. The shells, which incorporated flat ring-stiffeners and deep frames (bulkheads), were loaded laterally at the midsection to failure. The results demonstrate that they conform to simple scaling laws.
Keywords: Wedge-shaped indenter; Ring-stiffened cylinder; Plastic deformation; Experimental stress analysis; Scale
Fig. 1. (a) Basic specimen geometry and (b) specimen details (all dimensions in mm unless otherwise specified).
Fig. 2. Gauge layout for specimens A1–A6.
Fig. 3. (a), (b) Gauge layout for “B” and “C” sized specimens.
Fig. 4. The rig and profilometer for specimens A1 and A6.
Fig. 5. The rig and profilometer for specimens “B” and “C” with specimen B1.
Fig. 6. Basic geometry of loading wedge.
Fig. 7. (a) Load–deflection for rectangular frame ring-stiffened cylindrical shells and (b) load vs. non-dimensional displacement, δ/D, for rectangular frame ring-stiffened cylindrical shells.
Fig. 8. P/σyt2 vs. δ/D for rectangular frame ring-stiffened cylindrical shells.
Fig. 9. P/σut2 vs. δ/D for rectangular frame ring-stiffened cylindrical shells.
Fig. 10. (a) Profile of loaded cross-section of A6 at various stages of unloading and (b) profile of top generator of A6 at various stages of unloading.
Fig. 11. (a) Profile of loaded cross-section of B1 at various stages of unloading and (b) profile of top generator of B1 at various stages of unloading.
Fig. 12. (a) Profile of loaded cross-section of C1 at various stages of unloading and (b) profile of top generator of C1 at various stages of unloading.
Fig. 13. Specimen A6 after testing.
Fig. 14. (a) Outer axial strain gauge results along the top generator of A6, (b) outer axial strain gauge results along the top generator of B2 and (c) outer axial strain gauge results along the top generator of C3.
Fig. 15. (a) Inner axial strain gauge results along the top generator of A6, (b) inner axial strain gauge results along the top generator of B2 and (c) inner axial strain gauge results along the top generator of C3.
Fig. 16. (a) Inner and outer axial strain gauge results along 15° and 30° generators of A6, (b) inner and outer axial strain gauge results along 15° and 30° generators of B2 and (c) Inner and outer axial strain gauge results along 15° and 30° generators of C3.
Fig. 17. Inner and outer hoop strain gauge results along 15° and 30° generators of A6, (b) inner and outer hoop strain gauge results along 15° and 30° generators of B2 and (c) inner and outer hoop strain gauge results along 15° and 30° generators of C2.
Fig. 18. (a) Outer hoop strain gauge results along the top generators of B2 and (b) outer hoop strain gauge results along the top generator of C3.
Fig. 19. (a) Inner hoop strain gauge results along the top generator of B2 and (b) inner hoop strain gauge results along the top generator of C3.
Fig. 20. (a) Inner hoop strain gauge results along the loadline of A6, (b) inner hoop strain gauge results along the loadline of B2 and (c) inner hoop strain gauge results along the loadline of C3.
Table 1.
Specimen details
a The bay width is the distance between two consecutive ring stiffeners.
b The overall specimen length of C2 was made equal to the machined bay section length. This was done to test the effect, if any, of the overhang (the unmachined thick tubular portion beyond
L to the specimen end) on the test results. The effect was observed to be insignificant.
Table 2.
Mean material properties
Table 3.
Results of flat ring stiffened cylindrical shell under quasi-static loading by a wedge-shaped indenter
Abstract
Purchase PDF (743 K)
E-mail Article
Add to my Quick Links
Cited By in Scopus (0)
Purchase PDF (1382 K)
