See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282175788

Three-Dimensional FEM Parametric Analysis of Stiffened Steel Liners in

Hydroelectric Pressure Tunnels

Article  in  Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · September 2015

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000218

CITATION READS

1 45

2 authors, including:

Juan Carlos Mosquera

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
30 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gestión sustentable para del abastecimiento de agua potable a poblaciones en un contexto de cambio climático en Uruguay View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Carlos Mosquera on 24 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1
3D FEM Parametric Analysis of Stiffened Steel Liners in Hydroelectric Pressure Tunnels
2

3
J.L.G. Valdeolivas*, J.C. Mosquera**
4
* Hydropower Engineering Division, Gas Natural Fenosa
5
** Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. ETS Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos
6

7
Corresponding author: jlgarciav@gasnatural.com
8
Phone number: +34 91 2578000. Fax +34 91 2578001
9
C/Acanto, 11 Edificio A 1ªPlanta 28045 MADRID (SPAIN)
10
Abstract

11 The availability of tools for safety evaluation of a pressure liner is a relevant issue in both

12 structural and hydraulic engineering. Parametric studies for assessing the stability of stiffened

13 steel liners in hydroelectric pressure tunnels, as well as practical design guidelines, are presented

14 in this paper. First, a review of the design methods for steel liners is outlined, with certain key

15 aspects for the critical buckling load assessment of a steel pressure liner being considered. The

16 methodology involves 3D nonlinear finite element modelling procedures, in which liner

17 constraining and the presence of stiffeners are taken into account. In addition, both large

18 displacements and a surrounding elastic medium are assumed in the model.

19

20 Key Words: nonlinear buckling, steel liner, pressure tunnel, stiffener, hydropower plant
21

22
Introduction

23 The increase of wind power generation and the need to introduce regulation into the electrical grid

24 have led to the development of new large-scale pump-storage schemes. These involve high flows

25 and heads, which entail large diameters for hydraulic pressure tunnels. In addition, it has become

26 necessary to assess the safety of existing hydroelectric power plant penstocks, some of them

27 having seen more than 50 years of operation (Amdahl, 2010).

28 External pressure is often the most demanding load for the analysis of a steel liner encased in a

29 hydraulic pressure tunnel, which may often fail by buckling or instability. A large variety of buckling

30 solutions for cylindrical shells under a variety of support conditions may be found in the literature.

31 Some such solutions are available for unconstrained cylindrical shells subjected to various types

p. 1
32 of loading either with or without stiffeners, for example, buried pipes, submarine and offshore

33 structures, aircraft structures (Amdahl, 2010; Det Norske Veritas, 2002 and ECCS, 1988).

34 Currently, the Jacobsen (1974), and Amstutz (CECT, 1984) formulations are among the most

35 applied for practical design of stiffened-encased steel liners. Buckling failure occurs when most of

36 the strain energy, stored as membrane energy, is transformed into bending energy, involving

37 large deformations and deflections, which may result in catastrophic and brittle failure. Another

38 type of failure may occur when the elastic yield stress is reached for the steel, which may lead to

39 inelastic buckling (Vasilikis and Karamanos, 2009). Historically, some practical measures have

40 been implemented in order to prevent buckling, for example, by increasing either the liner wall-

41 thickness or the shell stiffness by attaching frame-type elements (stiffeners).

42 Thin-walled unstiffened cylinders, with low buckling resistance, are prone to collapse by

43 asymmetric bifurcation buckling (multiple-lobe mode in a free cylinder and either single-lobe or

44 two-lobe modes for encased cylinders). However, for stiffened cylinders, both the thin-walled shell

45 and the stiffeners may collapse altogether due to external pressure too. Such a type of failure is

46 known as general instability. Otherwise, if stiffener resistance is adequate, the thin shell span

47 between two consecutive stiffeners may collapse, which is usually called local collapse.

48
49
Stiffened steel liner design review

50 Ring stiffeners are recommended when a high degree of liner thickness is required (up to 38 mm)

51 [8]. Stiffeners may also behave as connectors, which restrain the longitudinal displacements of

52 the liner whereas transmitting load effects to the concrete backfill (Valdeolivas and Mosquera,

53 2013). The Jacobsen (1974) and Amstutz (CECT, 1984) methods (from the 1970s) remain the

54 most representative approaches to the design of stiffened steel liners. These methods have

55 several practical limitations due to their assumptions, for example, plane-strain hypothesis and the

56 assumption of extreme fibre compression yielding. Hence, it is advisable to perform a deeper

57 analysis of the behaviour of a stiffened liner, based on the finite element method (FEM). Jacobsen

58 proposed the simultaneous solution of three transcendental equations from which the critical

59 pressure may be obtained. Hence, buckling analysis of cylindrical steel pressure liners in

60 hydraulic tunnels and penstocks could be grouped into the following approaches (Berti et al,

61 1998):

p. 2
62 • Multiple-lobe buckling: A cylindrical thin shell with unrestrained radial displacements,

63 subjected to uniform external pressure is considered. Depending on shell geometry, its boundary

64 conditions and the external pressure magnitude, the symmetric deformed shape of the steel liner

65 is likely to include two or more lobes. These approaches are useful for obtaining the buckling

66 pressure on liner sections between two consecutive stiffeners and the overall buckling pressure in

67 aerial pipes as well.

68 • Radial symmetry buckling: The liner is considered to be encased in the surrounding medium,

69 so there is a uniform radial confinement provided by the concrete liner or rock around the shell.

70 The deformed layout of the liner is assumed to include two or more lobes symmetrically.

71 • Single-lobe buckling mode: It is assumed that the liner is unlikely to remain centred with the

72 same initial gap all around, for example, when the cylinder is supported against the surrounding

73 material on one side while there is a radial gap on the opposite side. Should the outside pressure

74 reach a critical value, the cylinder buckles under a single-lobe mode.

75
Winderburg and Trilling’s equation (1934) for determining the number of waves n in the complete
76
circumference of the steel liner at collapse (multiple-lobe buckling or radial-symmetry buckling) is:
77
(USACE, 1997):

78
6π 2
n  79 (1)
2 t
4
 L 
80   1 ν 2
 R  R
81

82 where t, R are respectively the liner thickness and radius, L is the spacing between stiffeners and

83 ν is the Poisson modulus.

84

85 Moreover, several formulations have been applied throughout the last decades: Donnel [10] and

86 Timoshenko (Timoshenko and Gere, 1965) derived formulations for buckling of unconstrained

87 shell (elastic buckling), whereas von Mises, Roark, Donnel (USACE, 1997) developed formulae

88 for the buckling of shells under radial symmetry conditions. Vaughan and Borot (USACE, 1997)

89 derived formulations for multiple-lobe buckling in the particular case of constrained shells when

90 used for multiple-lobe buckling. Amstutz (CECT, 1984), Montel (El Sawy, 2010) and Jacobsen

91 (Jacobsen, 1974) (in the inelastic range) and Boot (Boot, 1998), Glock Thepot El Sawy and Moore

92 (El Sawy, 2002 and 2010) (in the elastic range) developed expressions for single-lobe buckling.

p. 3
 93
94
Nonlinear buckling of constrained steel liners

95 Linear analysis cannot be directly applied for the case of a constrained steel liner, since it is

96 encased in a rigid or deformable boundary. Therefore, both the backfill concrete and rock

97 constraint and stiffness must be considered in the analysis. Nonlinear analysis is the most

98 suitable tool for the assessment of real structures response, since imperfections may also be

99 taken into account within the model. Equilibrium equations are posed for the deformed

100 configuration of the structure. An initial imperfection is necessary in order to trigger the buckling

101 process.

102 Both geometric (large displacements) and material nonlinearities may be considered. The former

103 may be properly applied for buckling analysis, for example, for snap-through buckling and post-

104 buckling behaviour, and the latter for inelastic buckling analysis. The general-purpose nonlinear

105 finite-element program SAP2000 (CSI, 2009) may provide two suitable methods for this type of

106 simulation: nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear time-history analysis. The latter yields better

107 and more accurate results. Hence, the dynamic response of a structure subjected to a specified

108 time-varying loading is obtained through a step-by-step direct integration technique. However, the

109 computer effort is larger than when applying modal analysis.

110

111 Moreover, both direct integration results and convergence are highly sensitive to time-step size.

112 For this reason, the direct-integration time-history analysis seems to be computationally more

113 efficient, leading to accurate and realistic solutions, rather than those offered by nonlinear static

114 analysis. By applying this method, both the structural stability and stress conditions may be

115 checked at each time step.

116

117 Nonlinear buckling analysis may be carried out by performing a nonlinear incremental step-by-

118 step stress analysis by checking, as load increases at each step, the stress level and the slope

119 variation along the pressure-deflection curve.

120
121
3D finite element modelling for buckling analysis of a steel liner

122 In this study, a numerical procedure based on the FEM for assessing the buckling response of a

123 stiffened steel liner encased in a hydroelectric pressure tunnel was developed. Numerical model

p. 4
124 has been validated with experimental results (Kiesling, E.W, 1970), with comparison of traditional

125 calculation methods and with a failure occurred in 2010 in Spain with accurate results

126 (Valdeolivas and Mosquera, 2013). A unidirectional contact-finite-element was implemented to

127 account for the existing gap surrounding the liner. Four-node quadrilateral shell elements with six

128 degrees of freedom per node were used for 3D modelling of the thin-walled cylindrical liner. Thus,

129 the shell model became an assemblage of 80 elements along the circumference length. The size

130 of elements along the longitudinal direction of the cylinder was arranged in order to obtain a well-

131 shaped regular mesh (see Figure 3).

132 The formulation applied combined membrane and plate-bending behaviour. The transverse shear

133 effect was neglected (thin shell theory), with it being assumed that there was no friction between

134 the steel shell and the surrounding concrete. Beam-type elements were used for modelling the

135 stiffeners.

136 A variety of common methods are available for performing direct-integration time-history analysis.

137 The Hilbert-Hughes-Taylor (HHT) alpha method, with alpha taking values between 0 and -0.33,

138 was used by default. Since direct integration results are extremely sensitive to time-step size

139 (CSI, 2009), the selection of appropriate values for time integration parameters was found to be

140 highly relevant.

141
142
Modelling of the surrounding boundary of the penstock and ground-system interaction

143 Interaction between the steel liner and the surrounding concrete and rock should be properly

144 simulated in order to assess the system response. Thus, given that nonlinear support conditions

145 may arise during system deformations, a nonlinear contact-type element was used in order to

146 account for the ground-system interaction. Since friction was disregarded, a 1D-gap finite element

147 was implemented in the static model. This link-type element was assumed to withstand only

148 compression forces. The key parameters for defining its behaviour are the initial annular gap g

149 and the axial stiffness k, so that, for a initially given gapo (Figure 2):

150  k =Er/R, when g<gapo, with Er being the Young’s modulus of the rock or backfill and R

151 being the radius of the penstock.

152  k =0 if g>gapo.

p. 5
153 In addition, an initial non-uniform annular gap was considered for all the encased models in this

154 study.

155

156

157
158
3D nonlinear finite element analysis of a constrained stiffened steel liner

159 A 3D model of a length of 15,000 mm of liner was carried out with a 4,000-mm diameter and

160 variable thickness (Figure 3). Due to symmetry, only one half of the cylinder was modelled.

161 Stiffeners were modelled as beam-type elements with a standard L-shaped cross-section, in such

162 a manner that they could either restrain or not the nodal displacements for the cross-section to

163 which they belong.

164 The key features and assumptions in the analysis were:

165

166 - Liner inner diameter: D = 4.0m.

167 - Liner length: 15 m, in order to neglect edge effects in the mid-span response.

168 - Wall thickness: t = varied from 7.5 up to 32 mm, this is to say a D/t ratio ranging from

169 125 to 570, which is typical for steel liners in hydropower penstocks.

170 - Young’s modulus: E = 210 GPa

171 - Yield stress of steel: variable.

172 - Poisson’s ratio: = 0.3

173 - External pressure: load applied through a linearly incremental procedure, starting

174 from zero up to the maximum pressure load.

175
- Friction between the liner and the encasing concrete was disregarded.
176
- Due to symmetry conditions, only a half of the cylinder was modelled.
177
- A nonlinear direct-integration time-history analysis, including large displacements and
178
P-delta effect, was performed. A linear step-by-step increase in the external pressure
179
was applied.
180
- The following parameters were chosen for P-Delta analysis:
181
 Substep size between 0.1 and 1e-4.
182
 Maximum constant-stiff iteration per step: 30.
183
 Maximum number of Newton-Raphson iterations per step: 30.

p. 6
184
 Line-search iterations: 30.
185
 HHT method, with α=-1/3.
186

187 The 3D modelling of the stiffened liner was satisfactory. Conversely, 2D modelling including

188 stiffeners was inadequate, since it may not represent the actual 3D response of the structure due

189 to the uncertainty about the length of its effective width (Valdeolivas and Mosquera, 2013) that is

190 to say, the area portion of shell that may be considered attached to the stiffener.

191
192
Parametric analysis of the response of a steel liner

193 Parametric studies involving several ranges of values of the main parameters of the steel liner

194 were performed over the model described in Section 4. The ranges of variation were the following:

195  Diameter to thickness ratio (D/t). This was assumed as a representative measurement

196 of the slenderness of the structure (mainly in the case of unstiffened liners) and a range of

197 D / t between 100 and 570 evaluated (EPRI, 1987).

198  Ratio of length spacing of stiffeners and diameter (L/D) with different D/t. In the

199 parametric study a range from 0.25 to 1.88 was considered (EPRI, 1987)

200  Steel yield strength. The steel types may be classified into the following: conventional

201 steels, with yield strength values under 355 MPa, medium-strength steels (between 355

202 and 500 MPa), high-strength steels (between 500 and 690 MPa) and very high-strength

203 steels (yield strength between 690 and 1100 MPa) (Gordon, 1978).

204 The steels covered by the parametric study are summarised in Table 1.

205  Backfill stiffness (k). The stiffness value assigned to each gap element in the model was

206 related to its area and expressed as k = E * A / R (kN / m) where A is the area of the

207 element, E is the Young’s Modulus, and R the radius of the tunnel. For the model of R =

208 2.0 m the influence of the following stiffness values was evaluated in the parametric

209 study: 975 kN/m (E=50,000 MPa), 487.5 kN/m (E=25,000 MPa), 78.5 kN/m (E=4,025

210 MPa) and 4.875 kN/m (E=250 kN/m).

211  Ratio of initial gap to the liner diameter g/D. Ranged from 0.00015 to 0.0024. (USACE,

212 1997)

p. 7
213  Stiffener or connector behaviour [9]. Three different types of constraint were evaluated:

214 stiffeners, connectors with all the displacements restrained and connectors with only the

215 longitudinal displacement restrained.

216 An extensive parametric study was addressed with the aim of covering the usual range of

217 parameters in the design of liners (and penstocks) of hydropower plants. The results obtained

218 were compared with the formulation of Jacobsen (overall instability) and of Roark (local instability

219 between stiffeners).

220

221 Effect of steel quality

222 Steel quality was depicted through its yield strength in this work. Slender liners, which are likely to

223 fail due to geometric instability, are hardly sensitive to steel quality. However, rigid liners (which

224 are more likely to fail due to yielding) are more sensitive to a variation in steel quality. For such

225 rigid liners, an increase in the yielding strength of the steel involved a significant increase in the

226 critical pressure (Figure 4).

227 The results obtained by applying the FEM were compared with the formulation of Jacobsen

228 (Figure 5). As shown in Figure 5 for D / t = 400 (i.e. a slender liner), the Jacobsen formulation

229 overestimates the critical pressure for medium and high-strength steels The reason for this is that

230 Jacobsen considered failure due to yielding (inelastic buckling), something that is not entirely

231 applicable in the case of slender liners.

232

233 Effect of diameter-to-thickness ratio D/t and spacing between stiffeners L/D on the critical

234 pressure.

235 Both the spacing of stiffeners and the variable D/t are the most influencing parameters in

236 assessing the critical pressure. Here, a study was conducted by varying the ratio L/D between

237 0.25 and 1.88, which are usual values in the field of hydroelectric shields. As shown in Figure 6,

238 critical pressure is rather sensitive to changes in the spacing of stiffeners for low values of L/D

239 (lower than 1), regardless of the liner slenderness.

240
241
242 Effect of backfill stiffness on the liner stability

p. 8
243 The influence of the backfill stiffness (concrete, rock or altered rock) in the critical pressure of the

244 steel liner was also examined. It was found that for high values of stiffness (concrete or rock of

245 medium and good quality) the results did not change appreciably, though poor-quality rock led to

246 a minor reduction in the critical pressure obtained. Figure 7 shows the results obtained for several

247 ratios D/t.

248

249 Effect of the initial gap on the liner stability

250 In the case of unstiffened liners, the influence of the initial gap on the critical pressure as the main

251 imperfection to consider has been traditionally studied (Berti, 1998). Similarly, in this parametric

252 study the influence of the initial gap expressed as a function of the diameter of the liner (g/ D) on

253 the behaviour of stiffened liners was examined.

254

255 Figure 8 shows the variability of the critical pressure for a set of initial gaps and D/t ratios. It

256 should be noted that all cases are for L/D = 0.625. It is shown that the influence is greater for

257 lower values of D/t (for rigid liners). That is to say, between a gap of 4.8 mm and 2.4 mm, the

258 variation in the critical pressure for D/t = 400 is approximately 2%, and that for a liner with D/t =

259 160 it is 26%.

260 Figure 9 compares the results obtained with the formulations of Jacobsen and Roark for L/D =

261 0.625 and D/t = 400. The Jacobsen method was applied in cases in which significant gaps

262 provided unsafe values.

263

264 Effect of either stiffener or connector behaviour on the liner stability

265 The response of the liner in the case of stiffeners being restricted in the degree of freedom (and

266 thereby operating as connectors) was also examined. Often, the actual behaviour of such

267 structures will be closer to the case in which the stiffeners are completely anchored in the

268 concrete.

269

270 In the case of connectors, the predominant failure is due to elastic instability with the formation of

271 n lobes (figure 10). Only in the case of extremely short distances between stiffeners does failure

p. 9
272 occur due to yielding, either in the section between stiffeners or at the junction between stiffener

273 and plate (the most common).

274 As shown in Figure 11, the results differ greatly depending on the type of behaviour considered:

275 either connector or stiffener. The stiffener effect is more relevant for ratios L/D greater than 1.0,

276 whereas the connector effect seems to be more effective for ratios L/D lower than 1.0.

277 As regards the stiffener behaviour, a particular case consisting of restraining only the nodal

278 displacements along the longitudinal direction of the pipeline was analysed. The results obtained

279 are very similar to those when no restraints on nodal displacements are assigned to the stiffener.

280 This means that friction along the axial direction has negligible effect on the pipeline response for

281 stability purposes. Conversely, the connector effect acting along the radial direction changes the

282 liner response drastically.

283
284
Influence of the slenderness of the stiffened steel liner / elastic and inelastic buckling

285 Vasilikis et al. (2009) considered a slenderness parameter for unstiffened liners, λ, which stands

286 for the elastic or inelastic form of the instability (Figure 12). For a typical hydropower steel liner the

287 ratio D/t ranges between 100 and 400 (EPRI, 1987), and the parameter λ indicates that buckling

288 occurs often in the inelastic range.

289 As shown in figure 10, the most common failure mode in the case of connectors is by elastic

290 buckling with the formation of n lobes or due to yielding. However, when taking into account only

291 the behaviour of stiffeners, the usual failure mode is due to yielding (Kiesling, 1970) especially for

292 low- and medium-quality steels.

293

294 For stiffened liners the parameters that could provide a better idea of slenderness are:

295
D3L
I1 
296 I rig (2)

297

298
D Lt3 D3
299 I2  (Irig  ) (3)
t 12 L
300

301
6
 D  LD3
I 3   
 t  Irig
p. 10
302 (4)

303

304

305

  
I4 
L  1 200 D306
1 
(5)

D   t 
307

308 From previous expressions, the only one capable of showing the behaviour of stiffened liner is I3

309 (based on spacing between stiffeners, the moment of inertia and the liner thickness), as shown in

310 Figure 13. In addition to this, the different trend for slender and rigid liners (logarithmic scales)

311 should also be noted.

312 Figure 13 illustrates that the Jacobsen formulation applied for rigid steel liners yields conservative

313 values and would propose unsafe values to slender liners.

314
315
316
Conclusions

317
318 The behaviour of the concrete-encased thin-walled shell and stiffeners may not be accurately

319 simulated through 2D models. Hence, a full 3D nonlinear finite element model must be performed.

320 Moreover, the effect of the surrounding medium in which the liner is encased (for example, rock

321 and concrete rigidity, the annular gap) should be accounted for in more accurate models.

322

323 Yielding failure (inelastic buckling) appears to happen more frequently in failure mode than

324 buckling failure in actual hydroelectric steel liners, due to the usual values of thickness-to-

325 diameter ratios. Buckling failure may occur in the shell span between stiffeners (multiple-lobe

326 buckling mode).

327

328 Increasing the steel quality may be beneficial for thicker-walled liners, which fail due to yielding,

329 but may not be for slender liners, which fail due to geometric instability. Backfill stiffness could be

330 considered as infinitely rigid and has no relevance except for very poor quality rocks or soils.

331 The effectiveness of stiffeners is increased for L / D ratios lower than 1.0. Major spacing between

332 stiffeners, have a relatively small effect, although it causes an increase in the critical pressure and

333 modifies the mode of failure (elastic buckling or yielding) in a slender liner as well. The operation

p. 11
334 of the stiffeners as connectors is not always desirable since the critical pressure may become

335 reduced and is particularly unsuitable for values of L / D near or above 1.0. Geometric instability

336 failure is much more likely for connectors than for stiffeners. In the range of normal parameters for

337 steel liners in hydropower tunnels, the most usual mode of failure of stiffeners would be the

338 yielding of the plate in the section between stiffeners.

339

340 While Jacobsen's method would seem to be too conservative in the usual range of parameters of

341 hydropower tunnels, this may not be so either in slender liners or with significant gaps, with

342 checking of the layout in a finite element model being recommendable.

343

344 A suitable parameter for relating the geometry of the liner with the critical buckling pressure and

345 for predicting the failure mode (elastic or plastic) has been highlighted in this paper: the general

346 slenderness I3. This practical parameter, as would be expected, entails a combination of the

347 moment of inertia, spacing of stiffeners, thickness and diameter of the shield.

348

349 In order to take such consideration further, additional research is needed in the response of high-

350 strength steel liners to cyclic load and in the inclusion of other types of imperfections, in particular

351 geometrical weld induced imperfection, which may have a relevant effect on elastic buckling.

352
353

354
References

355 [1] Amdahl, J., (2010) Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Marine Structures, Chapter 5, Buckling

356 of cylindrical Shells. TMR4205, MTS-2010.01.11.

357 [2] Berti, D., Stutzman, R., Lindquist, E., and Eshghipour, M., (1998) “Buckling of steel tunnel

358 liner under external pressure”, J. Energy Eng.,124(3), 55–89.

359 [3] Boot, J.C. (1998). “Elastic buckling of cylindrical pipe linings with small imperfections subject

360 to external pressure”, Trenchless Technol. Res., 12(1-2). 3-15.

361 [4] CECT (Comité Européen de la Chaudronnerie et de la Tólerie). (1984). “Recommendations

362 for the design, manufacture and erection of steel penstocks of welded construction for

363 hydroelectric installation”.

p. 12
364 [5] Computers and Structures Inc. (2009). CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP 2000, ETABS

365 and SAFE.

366 [6] DNV (Det Norske Veritas). (2002). “Recommended Practice DNV RPC201 Buckling Strength

367 Shells.”

368 [7] El-Sawy K.M. (2002). “Inelastic Stability of Loosely Fitted Cylindrical Liners.” J. Struct. Eng.

369 128 (7) 934-941.

370 [8] El-Sawy K.M., Sweedan M.I. (2010). “Elastic Stability of loosely fitted thin liners. A proposed

371 simplified procedure and evaluation of existing solutions.” Tunneling and Underground Space

372 Technology. 25, 689-701.

373 [9] EPRI (Electrical Power Research Institute). (1987). “Design Guidelines for Pressure Tunnels

374 and Shafts”. EPRI AP-5273, University of California at Berkeley, California.

375 [10] ECCS (European Commission for Constructional Steelwork). (1988) “Buckling of steel shells,

376 European Recommendations”, Technical Committee no. 8.

377 [11] Gordon, J.L. (1978). “Design criteria for exposed hydro penstocks.” Canadian Journal Civil

378 Engineering. Vol 5.

379 [12] Hachen, F.E., and Schleiss, J., (2009) “The design of steel-lined pressure tunnels and shafts”,

380 The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams, 16(3), 142-151.

381 [13] Jacobsen, S., (1974) “Buckling of circular rings and cylindrical tubes under external pressure”,

382 Water Power & Dam Construction, 26, 400-407.

383 [14] Kiesling, E.W., DeHart R.C and Jain, R.K. (1970). “Testing of Ring-stiffened Cylindrical Shells

384 Encased in Concrete.” Instrumentation and Procedures. Experimental Mechanics 251-256.

385 [15] Valdeolivas, J.L.G., Mosquera, J.C. (2013) “A full 3D finite element model for buckling

386 analysis of steel liners in hydroelectric pressure tunnels”. Journal of Pressure Vessels

387 Technology ASME. 135(6).

388 [16] Vasilikis D., Karamanos, S: (2009) “Stability of confined thin-walled steel cylinders under

389 external pressure”. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. 52 21-32.

390 [17] Timoshenko, S.P., Gere, J. (1961). Theory of elastic stability. Mc-Graw-Hill. New York. USA.

p. 13
 391 [18] USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design). (1997). “Tunnels and

392 Shafts in rock.” EM 1110 2-2901.

p. 14

View publication stats