NASA NTRS2018
From the 1920s to the early 1970s, many shell buckling experiments were conducted in an effort to understand the complex buckling behavior exhibited by thin-walled cylindrical shells, to provide data to correlate with new shell stability theories, and provide design guidelines. Typically, the experiments yielded buckling loads that were substantially lower than the corresponding analytical predictions, which were based on simplified linear bifurcation analyses of geometrically perfect shells with nominal dimensions and idealized boundary conditions. The seminal works by von Kármán and Tsien, by Donnell and Wan, and by Koiter identified small deviations from the idealized geometry of a shell, known as initial geometric imperfections, as a primary source of the discrepancy between corresponding analytical predictions and experimental results. However, the computational tools and capabilities at that time could not perform the nonlinear analyses needed to assess the effects of these imperfections on the buckling behavior of thin-walled shells. Thus, buckling design allowables were determined by establishing lower bounds to test data. Specifically, empirical design factors, that have become known as knockdown factors, were determined and were to be used in conjunction with linear bifurcation analyses for simply supported shells; that is, these empirical factors were used to "knock down" the value of the unconservative simplified analytical prediction. This approach to shell buckling design has proved satisfactory for most design purposes and remains prominent in industry practice, as evidenced by the extensive use of the NASA space vehicle design criteria and recommendations. Unfortunately, the current design guidelines have not been updated since they were first published in the late 1960s and may not be able to take full advantage of modern materials, precision manufacturing processes, and new structural concepts.