Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1106/
Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author
A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or
study, without prior permission or charge
This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the Author
The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the Author
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the
author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given
by
September 1994
A. C. Morandi 1994
4a'-
ABSTRACT
11
A closed form solution for the elastic Frame Tripping pressure, based on
energy methods and showing good agreement with FE and other numerical
results, was introduced. FE parametric studies showed the effects of initial
tilting angles of up to 40 to be considerably less harmful than an initial o-o-c
of 0.5%R, supporting the use of a modified Tangent Modulus approach for
inelastic Tripping.
On the Structural
reviewed,
failure
implemented
probability
Reliability
side, different
reliability
methods
were
levels
of various types of existing structures were reviewed
safety
and target safety levels were proposed for externally pressurised, internally
ring-stiffened
partial
factors.
cylinders
in the four
modes under
consideration.
Finally,
111
To my wife, Nadine
iv
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in this thesis was made possible by the Grant 200686/91-7
from the CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e
Tecnolgico, Brasilia, Brasil (National Research Council of Brazil) whose
support is gratefully acknowledged.
The work was carried out under the joint supervision of Professor Douglas
Faulkner, Head of Department, and Dr. Purnendu K. Das, Lecturer, of the
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, to whom I wish to
express' my gratitude. Their advice, encouragement and technical excellency
made possible the successful completion of the present work.
I also wish to acknowledge the encouragement and support given to my
attendance in conferences and other activities by the Department of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering as well as the friendly and efficient help
given by the departmental staff whenever necessary: Mrs. I. Faulkner, Mrs. M.
McGrady, Mrs. A. Byrnes, Mrs. J. Zhu and Mr. D. Percival.
I also would like to thank Dr. S.B. Kendrick, Dr. D. Creswell (DRA
Dunfermline), Prof. V. Zanic (Zagreb University), Mr. I. E. Winkle (NAOE
Dept. ) and my friend and collaborator Mr. Costas Tolikas for useful
discussions during the course of this work.
I wish to thank my wife for being so supportive, even when my mind seemed
to be floating somewhere else while she was trying to talk to me 1
Last but not least, I thank my family and friends for their vital moral support.
vi
CONTENTS
Abstract
Page
i
Acknowledgements
Contents
vi
List of Figures
viii
List of Tables
Notation
xi
xiii
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1) Aims and Scope
1.2) Outline of the Thesis
1.3) Literature
1
8
Review
1.3.1) Overview
1.3.2) Basic Concepts of Column and Shell Buckling
1.4) Present Deterministic Design Criteria
1.4.1) Submarine Design Thinking
1.4.2) Codes of Practice
9
11
16
17
28
30
34
35
41
42
43
45
46
vii
48
50
3.1.3)ClassicalBuckling Estimates
50
51
53
57
51
58
62
62
66
68
69
72
73
82
83
84
85
89
92
95
REFERENCES
103
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 7-
Structural Proportional
Limit, [61]
134
135
135
135
136
132
133
133
133
Figure 14 - Post-Buckling
130
131
132
External Pressure
136
136
137
139
139
(Mean
Curve)
Model
Uncertainty
COV
the
of
and
138
140
143
144
141
140
142
145
ix
146
148
149
150
151
151
152
152
Figure 34 - Redefinition
152
153
153
154
157
155
156
157
158
158
158
159
160
161
159
159
161
162
163
164
162
165
165
165
Methods
166
167
167
168
168
169
169
170
171
173
Studies [12]
172
174
174
175
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
186
187
188
185
189
xi
190
192
191
193
194
194
LIST OF TABLES
195
195
195
196
Table 4-
196
197
198
198
199
'200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
210
210
210
211
xu
212
213
214
215
215
217
217
218
218
218
219
219
219
216
216
217
219
220
235
244
249
268
272
xlii
NOTATION
(valid unless a different local specification is found)
a,b,c
Cg
d
dl
s2
3v2L
+
nR m
e
E()
er
E
ES
Secant Modulus
Et
f
Tangent Modulus
Scalar Safety Factor, eq. (67)
DW
dW
Fmax
Fmin
G
G'
IC
Ip1
Is
IZ
Ip
ka
kl
kt
kl-k6
J
1
Le
L.
I
-S
L
Compartment Length
Effective Length of Shell, eq. (37)
Modified Effective Length of Shell, eq. (64)
Spacing
Unsupported Length of Shell, L= LS- tW
No f
Nor, Noy
nc
nf
n fr
ni
xv
nw
P
p
p
Pax
PcI
PcIII
pa
pc.
pa.
Pd
pexp
Pf
PM
pn
Ps
ps,
P.0
psB
pt
Pti
Py
Py
py f
R
Rc
pyp
RS
xv
t
tom,
Shell Thickness
Web Thickness
tf
Flange Thickness
Displacement Components, Fig. 20
u, v, w
uu, vv, ww
xy, z
Xa,
XM
fY
Xafy
Xmf '
y
Xmfy "
(56)
to
stresses,predicted value according
eq.
Same, but: observed data from FE models including residual
stresses,predicted value according to eq. (65)
Xmft
Model Uncertainty
Xm
ic
Xm
my
Xm1
zs
Weight
Sensitivity Factor of Variable i, eq. (77)
SafetyIndex
ai
1- v2
Sp
Displacement
(D(
cp()
rl
Bpi
x
Sr,
Probability
IX9
Yf
r
r1
F2
xi
1,3
i
v
0
p
a
ab
aC
rl + 12
acri
a;
ps
o'm
6rci
rc2
arf
at
ti
aau
ayf
yp
al, a2
ad
6Q
TQ
RatioQt/pt,4=af`
P,.
1R$
Chapter 1- INTRODUCTION
for
military
used
though,
inspection
and recovery
of sunken
following
in
depth
'two
values are
which
of ocean
highlighted:
1500m, which would possibly cover most commercial
Fig.
4
100%
the
of
ocean.
6000m,
almost
applications, and
which would cover
depth
the
hull
plotted
for
collapse
materials,
shows,
some candidate pressure
[11].
from
Recent
against the estimated W/E ratio, for ring-stiffened cylinders,
and
titanium,
showed
[12],
limited
aluminium
to
steel,
optimisation studies
Fig. 3 gives the distribution
similar trends but with somewhat larger W/0 ratios, when actual code
formulations and fabrication constraints are considered. It seems that for
depths less than about 1500m, steel and other metals can provide feasible
be ' cheaper to use; for deeper operations
solutions
The unstiffened sphere may be structurally the most efficient hull form for
high external pressure but can lead to difficult interior arrangement and
draft
problems.
and
Pressure hulls, whenever possible, consist of a stiffened cylinder closed by
domed ends, with a shallow stiffened truncated cone sometimes being used as
incurs large hydrodynamic
design
dominated
by
Their
is
structural
ultimate
element.
strength considerations (buckling), serviceability ones (fatigue and fracture)
being less important and less influential on weight.
a transition
technical
improvements
forms such as fuel cells or Stirling Engine, suitable for smaller and cheaper
boats. Alternative materials such as titanium and aluminium alloys are now
easily available. Intensive research is under way on composite materials
[11,13,14] and it is hoped that enough information will be disclosed for it to be
considered in the future. Future designers will be in a much better position to
tackle the two major technical problems involved in the design and
operation of such vessels: obtaining an air-independent propulsion and a
pressure hull light enough for neutral buoyancy tobe achieved at even very
large depths. The impact on both commercial and military applications is
likely to be high.
Traditional safety factors used in' the design of other marine, structures pay
high regard to the uncertainties in wave induced loading and in material
however,
In
the
behaviour.
submersibles,
properties and structural
operational
loading
hydrostatic
being
the
known
is
very precisely,
sea
pressure for the required design diving depth. Moreover, because of the
dominance of compression loading in the pressure hull of submersibles, the
need for high standards of notch ductility and for fatigue inspections is much
less than those required for internally pressurised vessels and for marine
structures generally. The quality of material selection and construction is in
for
higher
than
any case much
most other marine structures.
It would therefore seem that the reasons for having a safety factor in
hull
(PH)
design
pressure
are:
(a) possible accidental or intentional excursions below the design diving
depth
(b) the sensitivity of collapse of compression structures to the effects of
shape imperfections and residual welding stresses
(c) the uncertainty over the magnitude and distribution of welding
in
residual stresses real structures
(d) the modelling uncertainty associated with collapse prediction,
frame
in
those
collapse
with
particularly
modes associated
(e) the sudden and explosive nature of collapse with no reserve strength
structures)
Other factors, not explicitly allowed for in PH design, are also expected to be
These
factors.
complex
are
all
quite
by
the
sufficiently, covered
safety
in
dynamic
nature:
them
phenomena, some of
5
(g) the effects of damage, due to collision, grounding
docking,
and
on the
predicted
Other factors: factors (g) to (i) cannot, at present, be explicitly included in
PH design although new research [20-221has been reported in some of
design
by
in
of
a careful
these areas. These can be tackled, general,
(FE)
Element
Finite
details,
analyses
structural
with the aid of
Factors (e) and (f), coupled with the difficulty in predicting collapse from
during
(for
deep diving
taken
example,
strain gauge or other measurements
trials), suggests that proof testing of the completed structure would be
[15,17,23].
Unfortunately,
for
appropriate
applications
external pressure
does
difficulties
the
this
to
requirement
and
not
practical
seem
preclude
appear in design codes. This places a premium on the use of well validated
design and assessmentmethods as well as on their constant improvement.
The present constant safety factor approach could be improved, particularly
for
in
for
diving
designing
deep
the
applications,
commercial
and
when
following grounds:
1) in naval submarines, operational as well as design and fabrication
factors have to be allowed for in the safety factors used in PH design. The
former suggest a safety factor depending on the diving depth: an
designed
be
harmful
PH
to
50m,
to
more
a
say, would
overshooting of
designed
Design
1500m.
to
300m
to
than
and
operate
one
at
operate at
fabrication factors alone, on the other hand, suggest a safety factor
independent of the-diving depth
2) in commercial submersibles and other externally pressurised vessels in
have
in
be
it
to
that,
which overshooting may not
order
a real risk, appears
the same notional safety as in naval submarines, only design and
fabrication factors would need to be considered. It is interesting to note
that the same safety factors are often used in their design as for the design
of naval submarines [24]
3) in extreme conditions, the captain of a submarine may be faced with a
choice between overdiving and risking a structural collapse or not
The
detection
present
effects.
overdiving and risking
and/or weapon
decision
for
basis
such a
methods do not give a rational
)
is
(o-o-c,
imperfection
for
e.
g.
4) if the maximum value allowed
a shape
like
the
imposed,
be
large
operational
have
reducing
to
penalties
exceeded,
depth of the vessel. It may well happen that, although the maximum
value is exceeded, the spatial distribution of the imperfection is
favourable: the predominant mode of the imperfection may not coincide
with the critical mode of the structure or the maximum stress under
external pressure may occur in a region where the yield stress of the
material is higher than assumed in design, e.g.
To address such limitations, a pilot study on the application of reliability
methods to naval submarine PH design, was initially undertaken for the
MoD [25-27]. The potential forusing such methods was demonstrated but,
because of the geometry supplied for the' study (not representative of RN
designs at all), rather
focused at tee ring stiffeners, but some attention will also be given to other
forms of stiffening, such as flat bar ring frames.
The work here described involved many different aspects. Frame design
formulations were reviewed and compared with experimental data and FE
analyses [28-34]. Improvements to these formulations were implemented
when necessary. FE models for both Elastic Eigenvalue Analysis and NonLinear Analysis (Riks method) were validated in view of experimental results
later
behaviour
handle
The
type
analysis
material
of
can
and mesh studies.
beyond the elastic limit, shape imperfections and residual stresses. The
[35]
FE
Both
ABAQUS
used.
and experimental results were used
was
program
in the selection of adequate values for the mean and coefficient of variation
(cov) of the modelling uncertainty associated with collapse prediction in the
[34].
implemented
Different
methods
were
and
reliability
various modes
formats
[36,37].
Suitable
and target reliabilities were
code
compared
investigated [37]. Multi Criteria Optimisation techniques were used to find
[24]
design criteria, for different
5500
BS
the
to
solutions, according
operational pressures, radii, compartment lengths and materials, which were
further used in partial safety factor optimisation [12,37].
Although
formulations
the
associated with
used in
10
the Det norske Veritas (DnV) classification notes for mobile offshore units
[41], largely based on research programmes'undertaken in Norway [42]
the recently issued Germanischer Lloyd (GL) [43] rules for underwater
technology
the American Petroleum Institute (API) bulletin on stability design of
cylindrical shells [44] which is part of API's Tension Leg Platform code
development and follows earlier RCC work [45]. API has also recently
issued a Level I reliability based design code for fixed offshore platforms
[46]. Shape tolerances are given in [44,47]
A major source of information on the subject is the extensive research on
externally pressurised cylinders, combining theoretical and experimental
work, carried out in the UK and in the USA in the development of pressure
hulls for naval submarines and rescue submersibles, between the mid-50s and
the mid-70s. Such a work was carried out mainly in the DRA, Dunfermline,
UK (formerly NCRE - Naval Construction Research' Establishment) and the
DTNRC, Washington, USA (formerly DTMB -'David Taylor Model Basin).
The DRA work has been partly released to the public by authors such as
Kendrick [18,19,23,48-60],Faulkner [17,61-63], Creswell [64-67], Wilson [68-70]
and others [11,13,71-73].The DTNRC work has also been partly released by a
number of authors [74-105]. The subject also attracted, at that time, the
attention of other researchers in different areas [106-118].
Intense research on stiffened cylinders has been carried out in recent years
[119-141] for the offshore industry. There has also been renewed interest on
experiments
in
been
reported
submarines and submersibles, with recent
Japan [142-148], Canada and The Nethelands [21,149]. As far as the numerical
Bushnell
is
the
buckling
in
work
of
concerned,
modelling of shell
general
[150-161] provides the best reference. More recently, improved methods have
been developed to calculate snap-through loads in shells [162-164] and
in
has
the
calculation
of
collapse
been
to
'attention
numerical
particular
given
a General Instability mode [165-170].
11
<<
F,
F1aQe,
=
Q,=
where:
E'
(1)
12
1+I:
-k
(3)
(4)
for
depending,
be
columns
obtained
and a structural stress-strain curve can
basically, on their section and residual stresses distribution. If the later is of a
'block' shape, the structural stress-strain curve tends to be discontinuous, Fig.
it tends to be rounded, Fig. 7a. For
[233]
Bleich
proposed a set of
materials with a yield plateau, Ostenfeld and
7b, while for a 'spikey' distribution
13
Q(QY-
(5)
p, 6r - Cfp,
Cycr
au -Q
(6)
leading
initial
is
to
to
a condition of
correspond,
yield,
and collapse
assumed
to the following expression for the collapse stress:
Cy,
6Y =
1+V+-
(1+V+)2-4V
2?2
14
and as a consequence the structure may fail quite catastrophically. These other
equilibrium positions may be dramatically different from the fundamental
one: for instance, thin, shallow domes convex to a pressure loading may
buckle in a shape which is concave to the pressure. Or cylinders under
from
different
buckle
in
the
external pressure may
a wavy pattern quite
fundamental axisymmetric equilibrium. Such a gross change in geometry is
often called Snap-Through.
The structural stability of shells is a complex problem to be dealt with. The
apparently simple case of an unstiffened cylinder under axial load puzzled
engineers for many years, because of the drastic discrepancies between test
results and predictions of the classical approach even for very carefully made
[150],
Figs.
10
from
13,
Bushnell's
to
show the
specimens.
compilation of
discrepancy between test and classical theory for axially compressed cylinders,
externally pressurised cylinders, cylinders under torsion and spherical shells
under external pressure.
Koiter [236] formally showed that these discrepancies are due to the effect of
unavoidable shape imperfections. He employed an asymptotic expansion of
the structural response around the bifurcation buckling load of the
for
formulae
in
the
It
simple
resulted
corresponding shape-perfect structure.
15
pre-buckling and the post-buckling response of the structure and for the effect
of unimodal shape imperfections on the buckling strength. Classical
loads
for
the
at which neutral
analysis searches
Koiter's
fundamental
theory
the
than
one
exist.
equilibrium positions other
aims to investigate the stability of the equilibrium in these other positions, in
bifurcation
buckling
16
from
be
used,
will
now on, to refer to bifurcation
buckling of an initially shape-perfect shell while the term 'collapse' will refer
to an initially shape-imperfect one.
failure are selected and the corresponding collapse pressures are estimated
with fairly simple analytical methods, assuming no mode dependency effects.
Deterministic
a) Interframe Shell Collapse: the shell deforms between the frames, either
axisymmetrically or with n circumferential waves , Fig. 15b. Its critical
form is usually associated with short wavelengths in both the
circumferential and axial directions (n > 10, m=Lc/2LS ).
b) General Instability: shell and frame deform together between bulkheads,
Fig. 15a. Its critical form is usually associated with long wavelengths in
both the circumferential and axial directions (n -r 2,3, m=1/2 ).
its
to
the
Frame
Tripping:
frame
attachment
point
of
the
twists
about
c)
shell, Fig. 15c. Its critical form is usually associated with n-4-8, say, and a
17
d) Local Buckling of the Web: the frame web deforms like a plate under
compression supported by the shell and the frame flange, Fig. 15d. Its
critical-form is usually associated with n> 10, say, and a half wave along
the frame depth.
As the reader may observe from Fig. 15, the distinction between them is
buckling
for
The
FE
instance,
purely artificial.
model,
modes calculated with a
tend to be a combination of these idealised forms. Furthermore, design has to
be based on collapse rather than on elastic buckling so that material plasticity,
shape imperfections and residual stresses have to be accounted for, further
complicating the problem.
Submarine designers, however, realised that Interframe Shell Collapse is
the mode which most directly governs the pressure hull weight and can
usually be empirically predicted with good accuracy. So a reasonably simple
design method was devised retaining this artificial distinction [17-19].
Interframe Shell Collapse is arranged to have an adequate but not excessive
safety margin. The other buckling modes require less material for them to be
prevented in traditional submarine hulls and received far less attention. They
are conservatively estimated, and the additional safety is supposed to cover
in post-buckling behaviour and possible effects of residual
stresses and mode interaction. This is the rationale behind the design method
developed at DRA-Dunfermline
(formerly NCRE) for designing RN
uncertainties
submarines. This was partially released to the public in the early 70's and
formed the basis for the external pressure section of the BS 5500 [24] which in
turn forms the basis for the relevant European regulations, ECCS [40].
1.4.2) Codes of Practice
18
Rte,/t z 150). Their requirements may be substantially different, since these are
derived from different databasesand tend to be influenced by local specialists.
Comparisons between them can be found in the literature [119,235] so this
section will simply summarise the major aspects. The common point
between them is the submarine design thinking explained before in which
Interframe
Et /R
P, =
n2-1+0.5
R
Lm
212+
n2
L
nRm
+1
tlt2
12RZ -v2
mC
2i
nZ-1 +
Lm
(8)
between
in
is
the
the
shell
midway
Pc5
pressure causing membrane yield
stiffeners:
a"'t
PCs=
Rm(1+ yG)
(9)
19
aE =Cl
n2E
12(l - v2) L.
(10)
be
It
Fig.
17.
in
that
C.
is
buckling
using
seen
can
a
where
coefficient given
C0' (hydrostatic pressure), the von Mises solution (non-deflecting simple
20
supports at the frames) is obtained. The code recommends, however, a
reduced buckling coefficient which takes into account the effect of shape
imperfections on the elastic buckling:
CP = 4411 +0.025Z
(11)
ay
(12)
Finally usage factors r relating a,,, to the maximum acting hoop membrane
stress e are imposed. These are dependent on the type of structure and
loading condition. For shells of single curvature and functional loads:
(13)
lip1= 0.6a'
where:
a'=1.0
if X5 0.2
a'=1.05-0.25
if 0.2<%51.0
a'=0.8
if ? >1.0
Other German submarine designers [238] use similar procedures, but with
for
[97]
Krenzke
to
Pulos
by
the empirical curve of Fig. 18, given
account
and
21
the effect of shape imperfections and residual stresses. The curve compares
results of machined models with results of fabricated models and shows a
function
factor
is
between
1.0
0.75
a
reduction
which
of the ratio
and
elastic/inelastic buckling pressure. Maximum reduction corresponds to the
transition between elastic and elastic-plastic buckling, similarly to columns
under compression, Fig. 9.
API RP2A [46] has a reliability based Level I- also referred as Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) - code format and covers cylinders with Rm/t
< 150. The recommended design pressure Pd is given by:
Pd = 7dP,WHz
(14)
where Yd is a loading partial safety factor (1.3 for normal operation or 1.1 for
density
HZ is the
is
the
p,,
extreme environmental conditions),
sea
water
and
r
design diving depth.
The following requirements are given for Interframe Shell Collapse:
fhS 4hF,,,
(15)
(0.8
is
for
factor
fh
/
is
the
2t,
4,,
where
resistance
a partial safety
= pdD
recommended) and F. is the nominal hoop buckling stress given by:
for F,,, 5 0.55a., (elastic buckling)
Fhc= FM
FM = 0.7ay,
(16)
[.J0.4
ay.
S ay,
F,, is the elastic buckling stress, taking into account the effect of
imperfections, given by:
Fhe=2C,, Et/D
(17)
22
M1.6D/t
Ci, =0.44t/D+0.21(D/t)3
M
Ch =0.737/(M-0.579)
0.825D/t5M<1.6D/t
C,, = 0.80
M<1.5
(18)
1.5:5 M<0.825D/t
LU 'D
,
M=
where
The o-o-c is defined in [47] as the difference between the major and minor
diameter
1/8
1%
diameters
the
of
or
of
nominal
and shall not exceed
outside
the shell thickness, whichever is the most critical, if the shell thickness is
in,
is
2
in.
If
the maximum othan
2
thickness
the
than
smaller
shell
greater
/4
in.
limited
1
is
to
o-c
API Bul 2U [44] covers cylinders with Rm/t z 150. In the case of hydrostatic
pressure, it is imposed that:
(19)
F <F
FS
yr =1.2
if FML5 0.55Fy
/
FY
Fm,
0.444
yr =1.444 -
yf=1.0
if FmL=Fy
(21)
Fy is the yield stress and FkL is the inelastic buckling stress given by:
FhcL= i1Fh
(22)
23
if 1/? :50.55
if 0.55<1/V 51.6
'n =V
if 1 /X,2 z6.25
(23)
1.6<1/X2 <6.25
(24)
(same
buckling
is
the
where peL
elastic
pressure
as pm) calculated with eq. (8),
R. is the radius of the outside shell, aeL is an imperfection factor assumed as
0.8 and KOLis given by:
KBL=1.0
KOL=1- CW
0'85
where e=
1+Let/A
and
,A=A,
if Mx Z 3.42
if Mx < 3.42
tV=1.0
if Mx S 1.26
V=1.58-0.46MX
if 1.26<Mz <3.42
yf =0
(25)
Rm-t
(26)
if Mx z 3.42
FO in eq. (19) is the hoop stress in the shell midbay between ring stiffeners,
PR'
kOL.
given by F8 =
t
24
all = S,
PdQ f
Pyf
+ S2
Ed6n(n2 -1)Pa
Rm2 (Pn
(27)
S S4cryf
S3Pd )
where:
for hot formed or fabricated frames
BS 5500 [24] and ECCS [40]: S1=S2=S3=1.8
for cold bent frames
S1=S2=S3=2.0
54=1.0
S1= 1.7
GL[43]:
S2=3.0
S3=S4=1.0
DnV[41]:
S1=S2=S3=2.0
S4=0.9for cold formed frames
the
structural
of
them
out-of-roundness
assume a maximum
of
compartment with an amplitude of 0.5% of the radius and calculate pn using
All
Pn =
(n2
+
22
LZ
n2-1+
n2+
Lm
31EI
RmL.
(28)
25
The BS 5500 [24] and the ECCS [40] recommend also pn> Si Pd
The API RP 2A [46] requires that the stress corresponding to the elastic
General Instability pressure pn has to be at least 20% above the Interframe
Shell elastic buckling stress (given by 1.25F,. ). pn is calculated for n=2 with
the second term of eq. (28) only, assuming that the shell does not offer any
[46]:
following
derived
frame.
The
is
to
the
additional support
requirement
D2
Ic =FtL,
8E
(29)
The API Bul 2U [44] similarly requires the General Instability stress F,,,,
G:
aOCPCR'
FheG_
Kec
(30)
to be at least 20% above the Interframe Shell elastic buckling stress, now
factor
by
FDL.
(28).
is
imperfection
is
to
given
pc;
equal
cc,,
an
p, eq.
0.8
K.,
is
by:
as
and
given
assumed
Kt+
L.
where
=1.56
0.85L. t
__As + Let
(31)
S Ls
tom,
Frame, Tripping
As far as Frame Tripping is concerned, the BS 5500 [24] used to have a very
for
in
the ring,
buckling
the
stress
conservative requirement,
which
elastic
had
be
by
ignoring
to
the
the
shell,
rotational constraint provided
calculated
higher than the yield stress of the frame:
at =A
R=Z
..
> 6yf
(32)
26
It was assumed that such a procedure would guarantee that the actual elastic
buckling stress (including such a constraint) would be at least 3 times the yield
stress. The present version of such a code allows a relaxation by requiring
that, for flanged stiffeners, the Tripping stress has to be higher than the
axisymmetric component of the stress acting at the stiffener considered as
perfectly circular at the design pressure pd:
t =
EI
AsR1z1
> , z =
Pdyf
axisymmetric
(33)
pyf
(8).
is
then given
at
eq.
by Tables 3.6(4) and 3.6(5) of the BS 5500 [24], based on Kendrick's theory of
Ref. [57]. The ECCS, in the future, may allow a further relaxation, by requiring
that at, calculated now including
the rotational
constraint
component [49].
at =
-A
AW+(tf /tW)ZAf
+3A
Wfw3
t=
Gf
dA
2+
EI=
+A, Rmdw
(34)
27
3
F"
3C+0.2
=
C =1.56
where:
and
C+0.2
Rt
tt
=p+o.
G'
"z
(Uw)
W
(35)
fw
m
These are intended to be used with a Perry-Robertson type column curve for
lateral-torsional buckling:
if ,S0.6
ah/ayf =1.0
/a=
a
l++V
(l++V)2
22
-4V
if ?>0.6
(36)
defined
A
factor
is
g=0.35(%-0.6).
similarly
where
usage
recommended,
to the plating case,eq. (13).
Local Buckling of Webs and Flanges
The slenderness of the webs and flanges has to be restricted to avoid local
buckling. This is usually achieved by imposing that the local elastic buckling
stress exceeds the yield stress by a certain margin. In this way, it is possible to
derive upper limits to the slenderness ratios of webs and flanges. These limits
are shown in Table 1 for some of the various codes.
is sometimes regarded as local buckling, despite the fact that
in
buckling
the
tripping
with
comparable
wavelengths
are
seldom
modes
do
[41]
[44,46]
tripping
DnV
API
require
not
cross section proportions.
and
Tripping
28
2.1.1Analytical Modelling
As shown in the previous chapter, pn is calculated in all codes surveyed
with the Bryant formula, eq. (28). Other simple formulae combining shell and
frame contributions were early on proposed by other authors, but eq. (28) has
days
because
for
it
the
to
tended
to
present
persisted
usual cases, with'
agree,
the more accurate theory proposed by Kendrick [54]. Originally an effective
breadth Le equal to a full frame spacing was assumed in the calculation of the
frame moment of inertia to be used in the second term of eq. (28). It has been
however,
that a reduced effective breadth is necessary. The present
realized,
Bijlaard
the
uses
expression:
work
1.556 RtN
Le_
1+0.5n
+0.577n2
(37)
R
The BS5500[24] method given in Appendix 6 can also be used. Very small
differences were found when comparing the failure probabilities calculated
[28].
breadth
two
these
alternatives
of
effective
with
Kendrick's solution [54] is based on energy methods and assumes a mode
in
boundaries,
the
to
simply
corresponding
supported
compartment
shape
form:
u= Al cos(n6)cos(7cx/Lc)
v=
Bi sin(ne) sin(7cx/Ld+
B2 sin(nG) [1-cos(2nx/Ls)]
w=
Cl cos(n6) sin(nx/Ld+
C2 cos(n6) [1-cos(2nx/LS)]
(38)
29
interaction
that
mode
so
is considered. The
Nox = -pRm/2
(39)
It is pointed out in [51] that there could be modes associated with smaller
but
loads, flatter at mid-compartment
19,
in
Fig.
the
buckling
as
for
buckling
in
the
reduction
usual geometries,
corresponding
pressure, again
difficulties
be
too
to
the
small
compensate
additional calculation
would
involved. Kaminsky [93] and Ross [110] have proposed similar theories, based
also on energy methods,
fixed
boundary
partially
unconservative
fixed
for
or
pressure
be
to
seemed
solutions
but their
conditions
buckled
they
shapes that
workable
equations,
assumed
with reasonably
displacements
boundaries,
from
the
thus
the
overestimated
away
[51,85,110].
the
collapse
pressures
overestimating
Eq. (28) and Kendrick's method, on the other hand, always seemed to be on
the safe side in relation to the experimental results available. But in these
difficult
it
is
degree
to
there
tests
since
was always some
of end restraint,
30
obtain experimentally
a simply
supported
boundary
condition
and at the
same time ensure proper sealing of the model. Such an end restraint may
buckling
[116]
Singer
the
raise
considerably
pressure and
pointed out that the
in-plane
displacements
the
tends to be a lot more important than
of
restraint
displacements. Such an effect may be
the restraint of the rotational
[150].
for
important
[74]
discussed
in
6
in
Chapter
of
n=2, as
and
particularly
So there would
be an uncertainty
are. Nevertheless,
how
on
conservative
such equations
been
has
considered
uncertainty
not
actually
important in the past, given the overall conservative nature of the design
fact
in
be
the
the
that
and
some
also
present
end restraint will
methods
compartments of a real submersible. In a reliability based approach such an
uncertainty
could be properly
this
quantified
by a modelling
(Xmi)
parameter
31
(40)
(K+)AK)v=0
where:
AK =Differential stiffness
2, =Eigenvalue
v =Eigenmode
The buckling
load
corresponds
to the live
load
multiplied
by the
The
load
'dead'
eigenvalue.
was taken as zero so that non-linear pre-buckling
effects were neglected, since they were not found relevant.
Riks analysis: a reference 'live' load is applied on the structure by means of
is
increments,
load
the
to
and
equilibrium
magnitude
corresponding
small
for
each of these increments, defining the load-displacement curve
calculated
of the structure. The increment size is controlled by the program, according to
the path length along the load-displacement curve. The total load magnitude
for each increment is given by:
P=Po+%
(Pw-Po)
(41)
loads
loads
Po
'dead'
the
than
taken
other
reference,
as
where:
=
Pref = reference load
XP = load factor given by the program
This type of analysis allows for the calculation of limit points and of the
behaviour
of the structure.
postbuckling
Type of Element
32
f.
have
d.
in
total
the
number
of
smaller
o.
model,
generated many spurious
modes, and were therefore discarded. For the same number of d. o. f. in the
S8R
leads
faster
S4R
to
than
element
and was
model,
a much
convergence
therefore preferred. Plating, frame webs and frame flanges were all modelled
by shell elements in order to allow for mode interaction effects. The shell
located
were
at the mean radius, for the plating, and at the mean
elements
boundary
different
for
the
modes
some of
that the restriction of the axial displacement
buckling
the
raises
considerably
important for n=2.
is
that
this
particularly
effect
pressure and
33
A mesh study was then undertaken, with several mesh alternatives being
tested under the restriction that no element should have an aspect ratio
exceeding 2.0. First only the discretization of the hull plating was refined,
being each bay modelled by a grid of 10 by 10 S4R elements and results agreed
for
Table
2
is
This
fact
1%.
those
the
the
that,
to
of
within
with
attributed
critical
General Instability
to the buckling
(given
by
first
)
(28),
in
the
term
eq.
e.g. is quite small in comparison
pressure
frame
the
contribution (second term in eq.(28)). As a consequence it is
with
the modelling of the frames that is critical; Table 3 shows results for different
alternatives of mesh and element used in the frames. Element S4R needed
less nodes and apparently underestimated the stiffness of the structure, but
S8R
faster
converged
element
much
and was therefore preferred.
The results
boundary
using
and
conditions of the axially restrained case. Table 4 shows that the experimental
results were approximated within a margin of 3%-10%, which was considered
displacements
in the experiments were probably
the
since
satisfactory
axial
fully
better
do
the
restrained
and
much
experimental results
not
not agree
than that between themselves. This is shown by models 3 and 10, which
having
had
dimensions,
the
same
nominal
experimental
although
different.
7%
pressures
Riks
buckling
Analysis
conditions.
but
with twice as much elements in the circumferential
ones
to the previous
direction, since
imperfection
to
the
growth.
of
is/n
an
angle
was
considered
now
model
Different values for the out-of-roundness amplitude, ranging from 0.002% to
* this is unusual since the stiffnessusually decreaseswith increasing mesh refinement
34
with
axisymmetric
predominantly wavy ones, as the bifurcation load is exceeded, Figs. 24a and
25. For larger imperfections there is no clear bifurcation, Figs. 24b, and the
bending deformations, in the form of Fig. 25b, are predominant even for
small loads. In all models a slightly stable, quasi-neutral postbuckling
behaviour was verified with the structure being able to withstand loads
higher
limit
data
has showed some correlation was the 'Bodily Factor' x proposed by Yokota et
factor
[147],
Such
Fig.
27.
is actually a clever combination of geometrical
a
al.
and material properties:
73
s
z.
6yf L 2R
Iio.
Api + AS
xE_
2R t
Ic
Api
(42)
35
if 1.0 <X<9.0
pcr/pyf =1.0/X
The model uncertainty
following
have
the
would
(43)
for
data,
(43),
this
associated with eq.
group of
statistical properties: bias= 1.03, cov = 16.5%. The
restraint may not only raise the buckling pressure, but also raise the critical
Reynolds
of
n.
value
and Blumenberg [741 explained this effect as being
equivalent to a shortening of the compartment length. A graph of buckling
pressure versus compartment length tends to reveal a series of intersecting
curves, one for each mode (n=2,3,... ). On a flat portion of such
curves a change of the length would lead to a small change of the pressure,
but for a steep slope such a change may be large. It is proposed in [741 that a
'sky-jump'
Milligan et. al. 11091:the 4 experimental results were much above the
corresponding theoretical ones, possibly due to the shallow stiffeners used,
and were therefore not included further in the analysis. They suggested
however that an externally framed vessel may be weaker than an
internally framed one, as far as the elastic General Instability is concerned.
This possible weakening effect is not predicted by the BS 5500 [24], since in
36
the second term of eq. (28) the mean shell radius Rm is used. It was found
more appropriate to use Rc instead of Rm in the second term of eq. (28), for
framed
models.
externally
Galletly et. al. [85], Reynolds and Blumenberg [741: in these two references
34 experimental results obtained non-destructively are reported, in which
the models had always the same nominal dimensions, except for the
compartment length, but different boundary conditions. First, 24 results are
given, corresponding to different compartment lengths and 5 different
types of boundary conditions. Fig. 28 shows some of the results obtained
in comparison with F.E. results for the axially restrained and for the axially
boundary
non-restrained
conditions and it can be seen how difficult it is to
anything close to a non-restrained condition. It is
perhaps worth noting that, in a model with Lc/Ri-14, the effect of end
restraint virtually had vanished and both eq. (28) and Kendrink's method
had converged closely to the experimental value obtained.
obtain experimentally
smaller compartments
which probably
also
'end
an
as
restraint'. Fig. 29 shows these experimental results
acted
compared with F.E. results for idealised boundary conditions and Fig. 30
shows them compared to the most extreme boundary conditions obtained
discs
in
It
be
the
the
that
were able to
experiments.
previously
can
seen
buckling
It
be
the
to
the
also
to
case.
pressure
restrained
raise
closer
axially
37
for
for
how
the
even
such a restraint greatly affects
n=2,
shows
results
large compartments, while for n=3, it is relevant only for smaller
had
length
buckling
That
is,
the
still
curve
pressure versus
compartments.
it
for
for
large
tended to
slope
while
compartments,
n=2 even
very
a steep
become flat faster for n=3.
Blumenberg [801 and Reynolds and Blumenberg 1791:in these two reports
the authors investigated the effect of intermediate deep frames of different
Only
in
those
stiffness.
results
which the deep frames were effectively
limiting the structural compartments were used in the present analysis.
Since the authors were careful in producing models divided in
had
length
frames
deep
the
relatively
and
compartments with similar
small torsional stiffness, these results were probably the closest possible to a
boundary
15%
They
above the
supported
condition.
were still about
simply
F.E. results, about 5-10% above predictions of Kendrick's solution and about
all of them.
Midgley and Johnson r1131:the authors tested many thin shells, 8 of them
failing by elastic General Instability. These were internally stiffened and
had relatively short compartments failing with n> 3.
38
Seleim and Roorda 11361:in these more recent tests, 10 models were tested,
5 of which failed by elastic General Instability. The degree of end restraint
high.
was again relatively
Yokota et al [147], Yamamoto
et al [1481, Morihana
The
against
X.
statistical properties of X,nl were:
plotted
again
bias = 1.25,cov = 15.5%, Kendrick's method
bias =1.25, cov = 15.2%, eq. (28)
39
Group B: remaining 52 models, with larger end restraint, like bolted end
33.
In
be
Fig.
boundary
this
the
to
group,
rings,
conditions are expected
closer to axially restrained and in most cases, experimental buckling
occurred with n immediately after the minimum theoretical one
For the models of group A, both theories gave quite accurate results:
parameter:
For
n=2
-
For
n=3
-
For
n=4
-
40
if
be
for
is
important
It
that,
the
that
seen
end
can
restraint
quite
n=2.
clear
the end restraint is not relevant, the scattering of the modelling parameter is
be
For
15%
therefore
than
used.
can
a cov of somewhat smaller
reduced and
information
however,
Lc/Ri>4.0
there was no experimental
or
n>4,
n=4 and
available.
For each of the experiments, F.E. results were obtained using both simply
for
boundary
the minimum
conditions,
supported and axially restrained
and for the experimental
be
The
15%.
exception
could
approximated within a margin of
experiments
in
buckling
to
the
the
a
pressure
which
end
restraint
raised
models
were
value approximately
as the observed
would have the
that a correlation
exists between
the boundary
buckling,
in
in
vibration
and
provided that the modes are similar.
conditions
By determining the natural frequencies of vibration of the loaded model and
be
it
theoretical
them
possible
would
with appropriate
predictions
comparing
boundary
the
conditions.
to estimate equivalent elastic restraints representing
be
boundary
information
could
If such
conditions
was available, the
data
by
in
F.
E.
the
springs
models, probably minimising
approximated
due
to end effects and providing
scattering
41
Fig. 36 shows the ratio between the buckling pressures obtained with the
restrained F.E. models and those obtained with the axially
bias
for
for
70
be
The
the
trend
the
would
of
general
restrained ones,
models.
decrease
to
the
cov
and
with increasing n and increasing compartment
non-axially
length, as the end effect progressively vanishes. This trend is apparent in Fig.
36 for n=3; it is not so evident for n=2 because this mode is important for
long compartments
and
42
ABAQUS
buckling
increased
to
the
the axial restraint
pressure, according
[35] results, from 18% in a 8.8 m length compartment to 9% in a 14 m
it
for
For
was not possible to obtain
n=3.
n=2 and n=4
compartment,
axially
'case
for
the
even with the overthick shell
restrained
results
by
Instability
General
the axisymmetric stress
modes, affected
some
found
in
the
with
models ends, were
concentration
21.5 N/mm2, for n=2, and 20.3 N/mm2, for n=3,
to the compartment
buckling pressures of
insensitive
almost
and
their local nature. Table 7 shows
length, indicating
Fig.
37
in
to
modes without such effects, as
only results corresponding
The other design cases were analysed only on their critical n and results
in
important
Table
The
8.
observations are:
most
are summarised
E.
F.
analytical
for
the
refined
more
the
methods,
n =2,3, approximate well
be
(28)
frames,
For
though,
somewhat
may
external
eq.
models.
in
been
the
because
second
the
used
shell
radius
of
mean
unconservative
term
the effect of end restraint is much more pronounced for n=2 .
for n> 4, the buckling modes are mostly associated with Frame Tripping
Shell
buckling
Interframe
and
2.1.6. MODELLING
UNCERTAINTY
X1
for
reliability
are proposed "
(n=2,3,4)
bias
12.5%
)
1.10,
ignoring
the
end restraint:
cov =
a.
=
43
2.2) INTERFRAME
SHELL BUCKLING
The elastic buckling in the Interframe Shell and Frame Tripping modes
in
be
treated
the same section, since they are highly similar and related,
will
as shown in Figs. 15b and 15c: the only difference is that, in the former, the
displacement
displacement
frame
the
radial
axial
w predominates over
shell
in
latter
happens.
the
the
opposite
while
u,
2.2.1)Analytical Modelling
Eq. (8) gives a analytical solution for Interframe Shell Buckling which is
be
known
is
in
Chapter
1,
to
the
as
shown
code
and
used,
review of
widely
(if
frames
the
accurate
are not closely spaced) and slightly
reasonably
It
assumes a unstiffened cylinder pinned at non-deflecting
conservative.
frame
both
ignoring
the radial
the
therefore
positions,
cylindrical supports at
displacement and the rotational stiffness of the frames.
A similar approach is often used for Frame Tripping, assuming the frames
pinned at non-deflecting cylindrical supports and ignoring the shell radial
displacement and rotational stiffness, and leading to the solution of eq. (32).
The problem is that by ignoring the rotational constraint provided by the
in
least
buckling
factor
is
by
three
the
of atpressure underestimated
shell,
a
many cases.
44
Kennard [92] early on proposed a solution for the elastic Tripping stress as
for
the stresses due to an initial tilting, but considering the frame
as
well
clamped at the shell. Kendrick has developed an accurate analytical solution,
based on energy methods, which properly takes into account the rotational
[23]
provided by the shell. Such a solution involves, for practical
constraint
determinant and is implemented in the N9E
cases, the solution of a6x6
code. It is somewhat time consuming for hand calculation and for reliability
analysis.
A simpler solution was proposed by Faulkner et al. [239], working on flat
(allowing
for
is
by
the
plating
stiffened panels:
modelled
a rotational spring
with plate buckling)
interaction
spring
[25]
has
itself.
Faulkner
the
around
an
enforced axis and
section
for
adapted
such
a
solution
cylinders, neglecting the radial stresses at
recently
the frame and using a spring constant which takes into account the possible
interaction
between Tripping
and Interframe
Shell buckling.
The Tripping
by:
is
stress given
(Rm
+Con
c'J+EF
a-
Coll
Rm
(R)2
2
(44)
I+
Pte, n
for
frames
[35]
ABAQUS
tee
were carried out with
-results
[28,29] and it was verified that this solution gave accurate predictions for n
Comparisons
2-4. For n- 5- 10, buckling no longer occurred with the section rotating
deformation
the
the
effects
connection with
uniformly around
shell and web
be
into
buckling
For
taken
the
modes were
account.
should
n> -10,
deformations
Interframe
local
Shell
and
mostly
with
web
associated
and
Frame Tripping was no longer relevant. Still working on flat stiffened panels,
45
k4+k2k3 -2k5k6)+(k,
k3 -k5)=
(45)
stress itself, a
is
form
A
solution
needed.
closed
solution was pursued, more
numerical
suitable for hand calculation and reliability analysis. The Tripping stress in
this solution is given by :
6t _
The derivation
b-
b2 - 4ac
2a
(46)
Appendix 2.
The program ABAQUS [351 was used for the FE calculations and the
is
modelling used summarised in Fig. 38.
Type of Analysis
Eigenvalue Analysis, see 2.1.2.
Type of Element
Quadrilateral curved shell elements SSR.were used for the shell and the
frames. The shell elements were located at the mean radius, for the plating
flange
for
the frame flange.
the
mean
radius,
and at
46
conditions
The hydrostatic axial load component pR/2, was applied in the middle surface
in
in
border,
displacements
the
one
shell,
axial
while axial
were restrained
of
the opposite border. Four S8R elements were used for the shell between
frames in the axial direction; two for the web in the radial direction and two
direction, the
for the flange in the axial direction. In the circumferential
number of elements was always chosen to avoid the aspect ratio of the shell
different
Finer
did
2.0.
lead
to
exceeding
appreciably
meshes
elements
not
results than those obtained with the above arrangement.
2.2.3 Parametric Studies
Comparisons between analytical and numerical, results were carried out for
Cases 1,2,3,4,4b, 5,6 and 7 of Table 6. Most of them had internal tee frames,
the most usual configuration
tee framed
47
Results of eq. (46) agree well with F.E. results where Tripping is dominant.
For n=2,3, however, the stiffener is effectively clamped at the shell and the
buckling mode assumed in 'eq.(46) may not be critical; this can be simply
[23]
N9B
Kendrick's
comparing
or with
such a solution with
checked
Kennard's theory [92]. An example of such a situation is given by Kendrick in
[48], where buckling modes were accurately calculated with BOSOR 4 [153] for
Case 6b of Table 6. This is not important, however, because the minimum
Tripping pressure tends to be associated with n>3, where the frame is no
longer clamped at the shell and the mode assumed in eq. (46) is critical.
48
d4w
dew
pRm
tw=
+
+y
+
dx`
2EI
Rn, dx2
IR
P(1-v
/ 2)
(47)
EI
I=
/12(1-V2)
t3
where
The second term reflects the effect of the axial pressure on the bending
deformations and produces 'beam-column' type non-linearity. By neglecting
it, the analysis is greatly simplified. Eq. (47), without the second term, was
on
solved for uniform ring-stiffened cylinders by von Sanden and
early
Gunther [98]. Wilson improved their solution by using a more rigorous
frame
the
modelling of
rigidity [68]. Referring to Fig. 40, the more important
results obtained were:
Pressure at which the elastic mean circumferential
stiffeners equals the yield stress of the plate material:
t
Pc5=
Rm1+I G)
(9 repeated)
A(1-v / 2)
Y
A+twt+2Nt/a
(48)
where:
49
A=A, (Rn,/ R, 2
131-v2
Oc=
n2
lammt
=
Z
1.285
mt
(49)
for v=0.3
(50)
cosh(aL)
cos(aL)
N=
sinh(aL) + sin(aL)
G=-2
(51)
Pressure at which
[_aftRf
Pyf_2
R.
(1
-v/
2)
1+Atwt
+ 2Nt /a
(52)
(53)
50
3.1.2) Shape-Perfect Shell - Stress Analysis beyond the Elastic Limit
The stress analysis of an initially stress-free, perfectly circular shell has also
been extended beyond the elastic limit for bays far from end disturbances such
deep
frames,
bulkheads,
cylinder-cone
as
intersections,
disturbances
Such
etc..
because
basically
induce
a region of axisymmetric stress concentration,
usually
different forms of shell, having different radial stiffness, usually deform quite
when subjected to external pressure. Compatibility forces may then
hinge
formation
leading
juncture,
the
the
to
of a premature plastic
appear at
bay.
the
to
collapse
of
adjacent
premature
and
differently
Sufficiently far from these, however, yielding usually starts in one of the
following positions, depending on the frame size: at the outside surface of the
inside
between
frames
in
direction
the
the
or
at
circumferential
shell midway
frames
In
direction.
longitudinal
in
the
to
the
the
the
shell
adjacent
surface of
latter case, the pressure at which a subsequent yield condition is then reached
be
that
to
the
similarly
provided
calculated
can
previous
section,
midbay
at
the boundary condition at the frame is changed [99]. For the former case
[69].
Again,
[100]
by
Lunchick
Wilson
this
were
proposed
and
approximations
type of stress analysis can be performed with FD or FE programs such as
BOSOR 5 [154] and ABAQUS [35).
These solutions did not become popular for direct use in design because
buckling tends to be more critical than axisymmetric shell yielding. As
Faulkner points out in the discussion of [69], their merit would be to give an
for
Pc5 that could perhaps reduce the scattering of the
value
/pc5.
Fig.
16
of
when
plotted
results
pes,
against
experimental
improved
51
methods and Finite Difference or Finite Element codes as BOSOR 4 [153) and
ABAQUS [35].
The BOSOR 5 [154] program can be used to estimate the elasto-plastic
buckling load of initially shape-perfect axisymmetric shells. Approximate
for
the plastic Interframe Shell buckling pressure, using a
solutions
analytical
[75,81],
Modulus
Tangent
have been proposed and are
approach
modified
used in some codes of practice as shown in Chapter 1. A modified Tangent
Modulus approach was used for the plastic General Instability pressure in [76].
A modified Tangent Modulus approach was used for the plastic Frame
Tripping pressure by Faulkner in [25].
3.1.4) The Effect of Boundary Conditions
task in laboratory
conditions is a difficult
be
be
to
can
expected
and
even more difficult in a real structure. So
conditions
it is usual to assume simply supported boundary conditions in design and
Determining
ignore the effect of restraints present in the structure which then provide an
additional safety margin.
3i. 5) The Effect of Shape Imperfections
In Chapter 1 the concept of imperfection sensitivity and postbuckling
behaviour was introduced and the work of Koiter and its followers
has
however
This
been
in
its
to
unimodal
restricted
summarised.
application
52
Ed8 (n2-1)p
Rm(Pn-P)
(54)
Similarly, the pressure causing first yield in the shell plating can be calculated
from:
-6Yf
RmL.
P
Pyf
Gyp
=
'
L, t
Ed,5 (n2-1)p
+
Rm(p - P)
(55)
'f
Q=
Rf
A
p RE,L
py' R`
L, t
Ed18 (n2-1)p
+
(p1
Rm
2
- p)
(56)
(57)
tee
frames, it is usually sufficient to consider the first six values of n.
For
Kendrick proposed a simplified method to calculate frame collapse due to
which compared well with more accurate incremental
out-of-circularity
[23].
Results
of such a theory showed that the overall collapse
methods
be
flange
first
to
the
in
the
close
can
pressure
pressure
or
causing yield
[23].
For very small imperfections, yielding
than
this
more
value
considerably
'""" ""* the 'hungry horse' deformation:
"--
is also important and may reduce the interframe shell collapsepressureby up to 10%
53
first
in
the
that
tends
to
shell
plating
so
occur at a
collapse
actually
occurs
flange.
first
Tsang
Harding
than
that
the
causing
and
yield of
pressure smaller
[127] proposed a rigid-plastic mechanism approach to General Instability, but
for
n>5.
only
applicable
As far as tilting
is concerned,
the bending
for
the geometry
stresses
of
(bigger
50
than
tilt
angle of
of about
[18].
found
in
in
Table
from
For
17,
Ref.
tilt
of
practice)
shown
are
a
usually
(2.5)
[18]
be
is
51400
in
the
to
thickness
psi,
maximum
stress
quoted
one web
[141]
larger
in
Harding
25%
Louca
than
than
a perfect cylinder.
and
not more
very recently
numerical
investigations
in which
the
did
be
the
tilt
to
stiffener
on
collapse
pressure
of
relevant,
not
seem
effect
To
loads
for
imperfections
taking
rings.
calculate
collapse
slender
shape
even
into account, 3-D models and a program such as ABAQUS [35] is necessary.
Cold bending of the shell plating: when a plate is rolled to a radius R, the
be
distribution
is
if
the
can
easily
calculated
assumed
stress
material
residual
to be ideal elastic-plastic and the Bauschinger effect is ignored [61]. There is a
distribution
for
in
Fig.
43
zig-zag
as
shown
a particular structure,
characteristic
from [18]. Fig. 44 shows measurements in aluminium cylinders given in [150].
Lunchick [82] proposed apparent stress-strain curves, Fig. 45, for such a
by
12
stations
averaging
at
condition
effective
stresses
and
strains
prestressed
through the thickness of the shell wall. It can be seen that the greatest
inelastic
in
transition
the
of
residual
stresses
effect
occurs
elastic/
weakening
buckling.
54
Cold bending of the stiffeners: in the same way, when the stiffener is cold bent
to form a ring frame, the distribution of residual stresses again has a zig-zag
distribution through the depth. Shama [240] gives a method for predicting
in
frames.
bending
stresses
cold
Weld shrinkage actions
Welding temperatures are about twelve times greater than the range to
in
resisted thermal expansion of structural steels. It is therefore
cause yield
despite
forces
that,
small weld cross-sections, contraction
not surprising
kiloNewtons
These:
to
many
per
weld
arise
on
cooling.
amounting
(a) leave a system of self-equilibrating
considerations:
*lt may actually be no remedy at all as it may reduce the yield stress of steelslike HY80(QIN)
55
z
2+(t)=
211-C,
=t
Gyp
t
1+
t -2+I
tt)
1T,
(58)
and
ALt
(59)
(60)
ax = x1+ K2
(61)
The effect of residual stresses on the collapse load of stiffened cylinders has
been of concern to many authors. Some of their conclusions can be
summarised as:
Cold rolling of the shell seems not to greatly affect Interframe Shell
Collapse. This was verified experimentally [18] by testing a pair of models of
them
dimensions,
It
the
that
of
one
stress
relieved.
verified
was
equal
lowered
After
the
the
actually
material.
yield stress of
stress relieving
for
the
that,
the
did
to,
cold
change
rolling
stresses
not
appear
allowing
in
[241]
Khaw
significantly.
obtained similar -results
collapse pressure
,
parametric studies using energy methods
56
cold bending of the shell alone caused only small reduction in the
(about
7%)
strength
collapse
overall
Kirsten and Slankard [102,103] tested two nominally identical ring-stiffened
fabricated
by
the
the
shell
machined
and
other
one
rolling
cold
cylinders,
flat
bar
390
Collapse
it.
540
to
and
psi
stiffeners
pressures were
and welding
57
indicating
imperfection
Although
28%.
the
a
reduction
of
psi respectively,
level was not given, this reduction compares reasonably well with the
Fig.
18
of
curve
empirical
Khaw [241] carried out parametric studies on the effect of welding residual
Interframe
Shell
Collapse
loads,
in
Table
18.
the
summarised
on
stresses
Differently from cold bending, welding residual stresses became more
detrimental with increasing out-of-circularity.
the collapse pressure of 18% was found for r=6
A maximum reduction in
enough
an optimised
to accurately
solution
would
of the buckling
in
all modes
predict collapse
be achieved by designing the
has
been
fail
load
This
in
the
to
these
at
same
given
all of
modes.
structure
literature
in
the
to
as the 'naive approach' because such a-structure
referred
For
due
interaction
to
to
tend
collapse
prematurely
effects.
mode
would
instance, an Interframe
o-o-c, would
yielding
of the
was present.
failure.
interaction
between
due
being
the
to
two
the
effect
modes of
as
Two approximate solutions for the Interframe Shell Collapse accounting
for mode interaction with General Instability are proposed in [731:
58
paY+ Ed'S"(n2-1)p
Sa
a)
'
Rm(p,,- p)
Pc5
(62)
p
b)
(63)
pyf
ayJ + ab _<Gyp
Lz
L
1a2
PC
(64)
A reduced moment of inertia and modified neutral axis are then used to
bending
be
be
These
the
to
stress
modified
b.
solutions
seen
can
calculate
(35)
for
the calculation of the plate yield pressure
of
eq.
modifications
for
frames.
Figs. 48 to 50 show comparisons
the
the
o-o-c
of
accounting
parameter.
3.2) FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
The modelling uncertainty is estimated usually in view of experimental
information
But,
little
tests
is
there
are
often
since
costly,
sometimes
results.
failure
for
Additionally,
particular
mode
of
a
or geometry range.
available
59
boundary
on
conditions,
Behaviour
60
[35])
ABAQUS
low
to
the
according
scale
manual
and
strain rates.
absolute
The material was considered to be isotropic before yield and therefore with a
Kinematic
hardening
into
Mises
it
takes
surface.
yield
was adopted, as
von
form,
in
Bauschinger
basic
is
the
that
the
simplified
a
concept
account,
effect:
the yield surface shifts in stress space so that straining in one direction
in
direction.
Rate dependency effects were
the
the
stress
yield
opposite
reduces
ignored.
Shape Imperfections
Unimodal imperfections were considered in order to use symmetry in the
directions.
For
the comparisons with experimental
circumferential
and
axial
imperfection
in the critical overall buckling
an
equivalent
unimodal
results,
(with
The
minimum
pn)
was
used.
amplitude was chosen so that the
mode
frame yield pressure with the equivalent imperfection, calculated with eq. (54)
be
frame
the
the
same
as
yield pressure calculated with eq. (56)
would
imperfections.
the
measured
considering
Residual Stresses
Shell cold bending residual stresses were modelled by the Lunchick's
Fig.
45. The modelling of welding
strain
x
stress
material
curve
of
effective
is
difficult
task, though. These can be modelled as an
a
more
residual stresses
initial stress field, but the residual stresses given by eqs. (58)-(61) tend to
deform the structure even without external load. This effect could be
[35]
ABAQUS
by
in
using an initial step without external load and
minimised
displacements,
although some unbalanced component is
with constrained
loading
to
the
subsequent
carried
steps. An alternative simple
probably
cross-check
to
that
was used
modelling
results consisted in altering the
initially
the
tensile and compressive regions in the models,
on
curve
material
Fig. 54.
61
imperfections
to
the
the
to an equivalent unimodal
need
reduce
and
stresses
[23]
Kendrick
[140]
The
Esslinger
Geier
of
results
were
and
and
one.
approximated quite well.
62
found.
were
Overall,
ABAQUS
15% margin)
with
results.
_33)
MODELLING
UNCERTAINTY
63
F.
E.
(see
detailed
3.2),
information
with
results
somewhat
gave
comparison
The
the
others gave only information on the maximum deviation
o-o-c.
on
from the mean radius, which was used in eq. (56) as the amplitude of an
Even
detailed
information
in
Figs.
o-o-c.
without
cases,
such
many
unimodal
59 and 60 show that the wide scattering normally associated with this failure
frame
depends
therefore
the
on
py/pc5
and
on
o-o-c.
mode
4 illustrates such a collapse behaviour:
in a very imperfect
frame
yielding may occur prematurely, when the shell plating is
model,
Such
small
stresses.
a yielding may then spread considerably
relatively
under
Appendix
before final collapse. In a slightly imperfect model, yielding in the frames may
be
by
Collapse
in
the
or
even
preceded
shell.
may
membrane yielding
coincide
little
frames.
in
One
in
Figs.
the
the
or
even
no
with
yielding
of
models
occur
59 and 60 had actually Pc5< py ( which is unusual) and Xmfy < 1.0.
Using eq. (56) for collapse prediction,
be:
uncertainty
would
modelling
bias
2.48,
cov = 62%
models:
all
=
0.3
5e/RS1 only: bias = 1.80, cov =16.7%
with
models
An accurate definition of the modelling uncertainty requires models
fabricated with an o-o-c similar to that recommended by the codes, 0.5%Rm.
Also the fabrication process must be similar to that used in real structures.
Therefore just the 4 models indicated in Fig. 60 would be useful for this
had
But
bar
flat
these
models
sections which
ring
stiffeners
with
purpose.
tend to have a higher shape factor than tee sections. Therefore parametric
with
studies
information.
the experimental
64
from
frames,
[12].
Table
taken
23 gives the
optimisation
studies
slender
finite
for
the
obtained
seven, geometries considering
collapse pressures
(with
S4R
free
for
elements),
stresses
condition and
a
residual
compartments
for shell cold rolling residual stresses only. For the smaller imperfections, pc5
tended to be smaller than py and the results were therefore heavily
influenced by shell membrane yielding. For an o-o-c of 0.5%Rm, the shell cold
have
influence,
in
to
stresses
seemed
only
a
small
agreement
residual
rolling
with the previous results surveyed in 3.1.6.
Table 24 shows results for the ten geometries, considering the same finite
(with
S4R
(with
infinite
elements)
as
well
as
compartments
compartments
S8R elements). A constant value of the o-o-c of 0.5%Ra, was considered in the
General
Instability
possible
mode. Fig. 61 shows the results obtained
worst
ignored
stresses
are
residual
and the variability of the modelling
when
factor
found
be
to
was
relatively small:
uncertainty
(56),
bias
using eq.
= 1.09, cov = 7%
Fig. 62 shows results for the seven geometries, when welding residual
in
FE
the
are
considered
models and the collapse pressure is predicted
stresses
(56).
The
(58in
FE
the
to
stresses
residual
eqs.
with eq.
models were according
61), with Ti=4 and B. = 0.1t. Eqs. (58-61) originate from similar expressions,
for
flat
There
is
far
plates.
more uncertainty over their
well accepted
frames,
In
though.
to
the present study, the total residual stress at
applicability
the frame was taken as the compressive Qrcl, eq. (58) (due to longitudinal
(59)
(due
Such
to
the
tensile
to
transverse
arf,
added
eq.
shrinkage).
shrinkage)
is
It
(61),
for
to
that
the
similar
rather
of
shell
plating.
eq.
used
a composition
for
be
large
frame,
the
compressive
residual
stresses
can
at
may give
which
frames.
Results
from
known
the
to
the
spaced
only
measurement
closely
[63]
found
it,
tensile
contradict
since
at the
residual stresses were
author
flange.
Such a modelling is thought to lead to results which are conservative but
investigations
than
those
of
accurate
previous
more
similar numerical
65
[72,242] which did not even considered arf. For closely spaced frames, such as
in Cases 1 and 2, the compressive residual stresses are quite large, while for
frames,
It
is
that,
they
spaced
surprising
are
small.
not
relatively
widely
more
found:
(56)
for
large
is
collapse
prediction, quite a
variability
when using eq.
bias = 0.823,cov = 20%
The flange yield pressure, however, remains a good estimator for the
if
flange
instead
is
the
the
the
absolute
stress
of
at
considered
pressure
collapse
incremental stress. Fig. 63 shows results when the collapse pressure is
(56)
by
to:
altering
eq.
estimated
Pcryf
+
a=Yr
P
Ed6(n2 -1)p
+a
Rm(pn - p)
(65)
66
for
form
is
Tripping
in
the elastic range,
solution
proposed
predicting
closed
Appendix 2. For inelastic Tripping, Faulkner [25] proposed a modified
Tangent Modulus approach in which fabrication effects of welding or cold
bending of the frames are approximately allowed for. For shorter wave
EtE is considered to govern collapse, mainly because secondary
lengths,
local bending effects and hence uneven compression stress distributions are
Tripping
longer
lengths
For
than
the
with
marked
with
columns.
wave
more
Tangent Modulus is used. This can be summarised as follows:
(1-p1)X2]
[1-p,
h =a,
')'1
),
(1-p,
6tj= Qyf[l+p,
Qh= t
if X> ps-0.5
(66)
VcY,
/
X=
t
where
frame
fabricated
is
if
0.8
flanges
the
to
recommended
ring
webs and
are
ps =
the required radius or if they are stress relieved after cold bending to the
0.5
is
bent
if
to the
the
ps
recommended
radius;
=
cold
rings are
required
required radius.
Table 25 shows results from the FE models (with S8R elements) in which
different initial tilting angles were considered. Two variations of Case 4 were
flanges
did
initial
in
tilt
the
these
narrower
with
and
even
cases,
considered
The
influence
for
the
collapse
appreciably.
main
small
a
affect
reason
such
not
is that,
perhaps
Tripping
design
criteria
are
overconservative, even the critical pa is still greater than pc5. Therefore, the
67
FE models tend to show a collapse mode that is mostly associated with shell
between
at
yielding,
a
pressure
pis and pti, even if the shell is
membrane
frame
has an initial tilt. This is a situation similar to
the
circular
and
perfectly
that experienced previously in the General Instability modes, for small
imperfections. It follows that the present results suggest that a 40 initial tilt
less
harmful
is
than a 0.5%Rm o-o-c; this can also be
considerably
angle
by
Table
25
Table
23.
those
comparing
results
of
with
of
verified
For Cases 1-7, the maximum reduction attributed to a 40 tilt, in relation to
the predictions of eq. (66) with ps = 0.8, was 8% for Case 7. Such a smaller
favours
imperfections
to
shape
a Tangent modulus approach as
sensitivity
(66).
in
used eq.
Table 25 also gives results for two Titanium hulls obtained from previous
[12],
for
having pc5 < Pti" In this case a more
studies
chosen
optimisation
harmful effect of the initial tilt is observed. Care must be taken when using
frames
improved
be
fulfil
the
materials:
slender
may
such
obtained, which
design
deterministic
but
criteria,
are more sensitive to initial tilting.
present
Other numerical results appeared in the literature at the same time as the
been
study
was
carried out: Louca and Harding [141] used LUSAS and
present
found initial tilting also not to be very influential on the collapse pressure,
for geometries typical of offshore platforms, even for slender frames.
When introducing residual stresses in the FE models, the fact that those
in
the shell plating than in the frames, according to eqs.
greater
usually
are
(58-61), led to the shell membrane yielding being even more dominant over
frame
due
the
to the initial tilt. Therefore it was
yielding
at
any premature
find
in
Tripping
had
had
to
results
which
any relevant
possible
clearly
not
influence.
small influence of an initial tilting angle on the
Tangent
Modulus approach of eq. (66) is believed to
the
pressure,
collapse
further
to
in
It
be
well
predict
mean
reasonably
values.
used
could
work
Given the relatively
68
in
bias
factor
connection
studies
with
a
uncertainty
modelling
with
reliability
1.0 and a conservative value for the cov. A value of 15%, similar to that
for
as
a
peak
columns under compression is suggested.
assumed
usually
3.3.4) Summary of Proposed Values
The following
fy
69
Structural
Reliability
treatment of uncertainties
TO STRUCTURAL
engineering
RELIABILITY
the rational,
probabilistic
for
the
and with
methods
has
is
It
the
safety
and
serviceability
of structures.
a subject which
assessing
in
has
from
being
for
topic
recent
years
rapidly
and
evolved
a
academic
grown
developing
to
set
of
a
well-developed
or
methodologies with a wide
research
[175,176].
Conf.
(Intl.
The
ICOSSAR'93
applications
of
practical
recent
range
Structural Safety and Reliability), for instance, had numerous papers in which
in
different
approach
was
used
areas such as buckling,
a probabilistic
vibrations,
geotechnical engineering.
The simplest code format for any design check can be expressed as follows:
R:
Q
f
(67)
Q and R are the load and the, resistance, respectively. The deterministic
design
has
been
impose
to
to
that the structure has a certain safety
approach
(expressed
by
factor
f)
the
scalar
safety
against a given set of pessimistic
margin
however
likely
(or
of
such
parameters,
unlikely) such
combinations
be.
The
factor
f
is
may
safety
supposed to 'sufficiently' separate
combinations
Q from R in order to cover the uncertainties involved in their calculation. It
is often a constant, as in the case of tension members, or may vary with a
for
in
design
as,
example,
parameter
column
particular
where sensitivity to
initial
imperfections
has
in
and
variations
eccentricities,
support conditions
led to safety factors which vary with the slenderness ratio.
70
known
by
be
is
This
that
the
to
was
practice
satisfactory.
experience
codifying
basis of most present day codes of practice for structures, which are
deterministic in nature.
In structural reliability, it is recognised that the major parameters affecting
the response of a given structure, such as load, material properties, shape
imperfections, etc., have an essentially random nature. In its general sense,
Structural Reliability is the ability of the structure to fulfil its design purpose
for some specified time. In a more narrow, mathematical sense, it is the
(ultimate
limit
that
structure
a
attain
will not
each specified
state
probability
during
a reference period.
or serviceability)
Ideally,
design-for-reliability
a
factor,
to
a
safety
cost or some other measure of the
as opposed
failure
be
failure
to
the
of
can
assigned
probability
consequences
be
failure
can
probability
understood by people other than structural
a
designers. This may allow a better integration with other members of a
design team. More important, it does give a framework in which risk
levels may be adequately understood and perhaps established by society
between
levels
different
be
types
risk
check
of
cross
of structures may
facilitated
Q
R
be
information
on
and
may
readily translated into weight savings,
new
desirable
has
the
effect of reducing costs
which
design proceduresmay be obtained which can be applied with more
forms
design
to
new
of
and construction
confidence
71
Reliability
furthermore,
important
advantages
difficult
failure
to
they
the
materialise,
as
require
probabilities
seemed
be
[176]:
According
Madsen
to
to
to
as
close
reality as possible.
et. al.
calculated
'it seemeddifficult to justify replacing a design "rationale" that is irrational but works, with
but
irrational'.
complicated
also
more
one,
another
Since the mid-70's,
however, - theoretical
developments,
data
and a
new
particularly
loss of human
where structural
deterministic
the
than
safety factors.
uncertainty
The deterministic codes are slowly being superseded by semi-probabilistic
(or
I
Level
LRFD - Load-and Resistance Factor Design) which
type
the
codes of
introduce separate partial factors for load and resistance variables, [40,46,171-
72
174]. These cover a wider range of structural elements, load combinations and
failure modes and incorporate the results of much experimental and
[175].
Their use is expected to have a number of potential
theoretical research
benefits:
the same or more consistent levels of safety can be obtained with reduced
costs
design
deterministic
the
pressure,
considered
as
:
dW,
LS,
Fig.
R,
40:
t,
tN bf, tf, Lc. The assumption of normal
:
distribution is the usual practice in reliability assessment
Dimensions
Properties : yp, ayf, E. The values on the table for the cov of the
from
0.2%
219
to
two-test
proof stress
correspond
results
of
sets
stresses
yield
frame
from
Q1N
hull
Q1N
for
448
0.2%
plating and
proof stress results
values
Material
by
MoD
them
their
the
tests,
acceptance
of
all
provided
and
meeting
material
log-normal
the
distribution
[26].
The
for
the
and
stresses
yield
criteria
in
for
Young's
E
is
the
the
reliability
modulus
usual
practice
properties
Poisson's
0.3.
The
deterministic
be
to
at
was
ratio
assumed
assessment.
73
Shape Imperfections : the MoD empirically derived equation was used for the
frame out-of-circularity:
8(n) =
bi
n2
b
following
in
R
in
the
mm and
m,
where, with a and
(68)
mode independent
(69)
the bar denotes mean values and subscripts k denote the upper three standard
deviation values. The above equation usually leads to quite large values for
the cov, in the order of 50%. The shape imperfections were assumed as
(68)
Eq.
RN
the
the
of
giving
may
reflect
practice
normally
half
In
in
design
the
tolerance
to
of
cases
only
used
work
with.
shipbuilder
(68)
be
be
the
not
relevant,
may
can
assumed,
eq.
usual
unimodal
o-o-c
when
distributed.
distributed in the worst possible mode, with a mean amplitude of 0.5% of the
If
such a conservative modelling is used, a somewhat smaller cov, of
radius.
20% say, can be assumed.
Parameters: see 2.1.6 and 3.3.4 for bias and cov. All modelling
distributed
in
assumed
were
as
normally
reliability
usual
as
parameters
General
Instability,
it
For
ignored
the
as
effect of end restraint was
assessment.
Modelling
74
Level I Methods
Design methods in which appropriate levels of structural safety are
factors,
by
the
use
of
partial
safety
related to the nominal values of
provided
the main structural and loading variables:
Pz
ire
'
[rfQ,]
(70)
Qi
design
Pc
the
are
values of the structural strength and of the
and
where
load effects, respectively. The partial safety factors (PSF) as identified in this
include:
equation
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Load factors y,
Consequence factor yc
Modelling PSF y.
(iv)
(v)
to.
used
are
Level II Methods
Approximate methods in which the probability of failure is evaluated from
the means and standard, deviations of the design variables. An idealization of
the failure region as well as a simplified representation of the joint probability
density function of R and Q are normally required.
For the one dimensional case,the safety margin can be simply expressedby
Z=R-Q, Fig. 64. If bothR and Q are normally distributed with mean Rm and
75
Pf - (D (-)
defined
distribution
is
is
index,
i
the
the
standard
normal
safety
and
where
[177]:
as
R-Q
(72)
SR +SQ
x2,..., xn)>0
(73)
depends
"of
the
g
nature
on the structural type and limit state under
where
failure
A
linear
be
defined
Z=O
surface
may
a
and
consideration.
as
be
found
by
Taylor
to
this
the
can
using
series expansion:
approximation
Z=gx;
g
where gi(x') =
)gi(x')
(74)
i
the point of maximum probability of failure density when all the variables
distributed.
If
the
variables are transformed to a standard
are normally
normalised space ui =x,
cri
Fig.
defined
65.
The
to
the
index
is
origin,
as
closest
now
safety
surface
Zm/sz (Z,, sZ are the mean and standard deviation of the safety margin Z) and
76
from:
obtained
`j _ Xi Jgl lX J
-
(75)
c(ziV)a
X1= l - a; a,
factors
influence
the
the
the
sensitivity
of
each
reflecting
ai
are
relative
where
design variables has on the strength model:
gtjx)at
It{g(x'
(77)
)aj}2]
In the standard normalised space, the sensitivity factors give the direction
defined
by
For
design
the
the
the
given
vector
of
origin
point.
and
cosines
be
,
initial
iterative
i
and
an
can
value of
procedure
an
values of pi and
(75-77).
failure
(71)
The
by
is
the
to
eqs.
using
solve
probability
eq.
given
used
final obtained. If any of the design variables have non-normal distribution,
the following transformation is adopted:
N = Xi - (D
{F(x, *)lCyN
(78)
[0-'IF(x, )11
N
1 =fN
f(X*)
(79)
'
deviation
the
mean
and
standard
a'N
are
;
of the equivalent normal
where
distribution, F(x) is the cumulative distribution function of xi, f(x) is the
function
density
fN(x)
density
is
the
of
xi,
and
normal probability
probability
function which has the effect of equating the cumulative probabilities and the
densities
distributions
the
at
of
actual
and approximating normal
probability
*.
design
the
point x,
77
AFOSM gives partial safety factors for each variable as the ratio between its
design
its
the
point
mean value:
and
at
value
(80)
-In
)
c-a)ncax,
Pi
(81)
failure
the
the
n-1
curvatures
of
surface which are assumed as
where ici are
for
[180].
fitted
is
This
the
valid
paraboloid
the curvatures of
approximation
x,<1.
The curvatures can be found, for instance, as the eigenvalues of the
Hessian which is the matrix of the second derivatives of the failure surface
78
For small values of , eq. (81) may lose accuracy and may be replaced by the
three term approximation [186]:
(82)
p, -A, +A2+A3
where:
n-1
A1=(D(-)fl(1-f1
1)
i-l
'i2
A2
-fl(1-((3+1)Ki)
i-l
i-i
lix
1
1+ix
nca
n(
-1/2
-Re
c
)[a
ca
a
ca
ca]
3=
jz
It is often the case that a structural design problem is defined not by one but
by a number of limit state equations and therefore a number of design points
This
indexes.
be
by
tackled
problem
can
safety
using the concept of
and
systems reliability, assuming each mode as part of a series system. Bounds to
the total failure probability are given by [187]:
7n
Tn
Y,
Pf, -7, max(pfk npfI
Pf:
(83)
iri
j-1
Emax
+
prZ pi, j-T
pr-
)1
Sprr n pt
10
k-1
(84)
failure
for
is
the
is
failure
the
number
of
modes
m
probability
and
pfj
where
The
bounds
j.
the
influence
the
of
numbering
and
modes
mode
may
therefore one has to investigate the different possible numberings. These
bounds become very narrow for the small values of pf usually of interest.
79
(r,
f=,,
Pr =J
q) dr dq
(85)
WI
(r,
is
fr,
joint
is
density
function
Q
in
R
the
q)
probability
wf
and
and
where
q
the failure domain where Z=R-Q < 0. The above integral cannot, in general,
be solved analytically. Numerical integration techniques can be used but, as
of variables increases, computations become very time
defining
failure
Furthermore,
domain
is
the
usually
explicitly
wf
consuming.
difficult. These techniques are often useful only for problems with a small
the number
less
form
in
than
of
variables
generally
six - and with wf
a special
number
hyperparaboloid,
hypercube,
[1881.
a
etc.
as
such
Simulation methods offer an alternative [188-200]. The basic one is Monte
Carlo Simulation (MCS) [188-190] in which combinations of the basic
by
failure
is
the
sampled,
are
random
generation,
probability
and
variables
between
failures
the
the
ratio
as
number
of
and the number of
estimated
formally,
(85)
More
is
eq.
rewritten as:
non-failures.
(86)
W,
basic
f(x)
density
is
function
(the
the
the
probability
of x
vector of
where
[g(x)]
function
I
is
(g(x)
failure
in
1
<_0)
the
a
and
with
value
case of
variables)
(g(x)>0).
first
in
(86)
Eq.
the
the
case
of
non-failure
zero
or
represents
[g(x)]
I
by:
that
is
so
an
unbiased
of
estimator
of pf given
moment
)])
[g(X,
E(I
Ps=
=NNi
I [g(x1)]
(87)
(i=1,2,...,
from
N
is
N)
the
the
sample
size
and
xi
are
samples generated
where
f(x). The name Monte Carlo derived from the fact that the complex problem
(85)
is
to
hit-and-miss
reduced
eq.
a
gamble-like
evaluation
solving
of
has
become
MCS
for
a
quite
popular
method
approximating
problem.
integrals
Physics
Nuclear
its
in
multi-dimensional
since
complex
application
has
50
received considerable
years ago and
some
help from
the fast
80
(88)
C%=2001(1-p')l
L NPs
is
in
95%
level
there
that
the
that
the
a
confidence
states
actual
error
which
for
less
N
is
if
follows
It
than
that
c
small pf
samples
are used.
estimated pf
for
instance,
N=
100/pf
For
a
samples
are
necessary.
pf =10-4,
and e=20%,
be
would
necessary.
samples
million
In order to improve the efficiency of MCS, various variance reduction
techniques have been proposed. The most used one is Importance Sampling
[191-1961 in which the sampling is biased towards the region with most
likelihood of failure. More formally, eq. (86) is rewritten as:
Pr =fI
w
[g(x)]
hf x))
(89)
h(x) dx
by:
be
estimated
which can
Pr =EI
[g(x)]
hxN
()
f (xi)
ZI tg(xi)1
h(xi)
i-i
(90)
(87),
but
to
is
to
the
a
eq.
with
according
samples
similar
now
generated
which
function
h(x)
located
likelihood
density
in
the
region of maximum
sampling
failure
for
(88)
be
Eq.
failure
error
points.
and giving more
used
can
of
81
but
being
'success
is
the
the probability of
with
pf
now
rate'
which
estimation
failure
For
'success
point.
a
a
rate' of about 50% and e= 20%, only
obtaining
100 samples would be necessary, for instance. The choice of h(x) tends,
however, to influence the results quite heavily and a poorly chosen one can
lead to inaccurate estimates even for large samples.
from a previous Level II analysis to
improve the efficiency of simulation methods. For instance, in Importance
Sampling Using Design Point (ISPUD), h(x) is centred at the design point
It is common to use information
from
[188].
AFOSM
Another possibility is to use
a
previous
analysis
obtained
information from AFOSM and SORM to limit the sampling region as in [202204]. These methods are important to improve AFOSM and SORM results in
the case of a highly curved failure surface, but lead to the same restrictions
Level
II
with
methods, regarding discrete variables and multiple
associated
failure.
[197]
To
Sampling
these
in
Adaptative
overcome
problems,
modes of
[198-200]
Simulation
likelihood
Directional
the
of
region of maximum
and
failure is located as the simulation process advances, without resorting to a
II
Level
analysis.
previous
In most of the practical'cases, the failure surface is relatively smooth and
AFOSM gives accurate results with relatively small computing time, but it is
have
for
to
implemented
the
one
or
some
of
other methods
always useful
MCS,
particularly
when feasible.
checking purposes,
Results from AFOSM, SORM, ISPUD (500 and'5000 simulations) and MCS
(10000 and 3 million simulations) were compared for Cases 1,2 and 3 of Table
6. The four collapse modes were considered; for the total failure probability,
Ditlevsen bounds, eqs. (83,84) were used in connection with AFOSM, SORM
SORM,
In
found
the
ISPUD.
'
curvatures
were
as the eigenvalues of the
and
Hessian and eq. (81) was used to estimate the failure probability. Figs. 66 and
67 show typical results for Tripping and for the total failure probability. The
[36]:
main conclusions were
S2
For the design cases considered, the four methods gave somewhat similar
far
failure
the
as
probabilities of the individual modes were
results, as
The
only exception was MCS with 10000 simulations, for values
concerned.
lower
be
1%,
than
as
should
of pf
expected from such a number of
simulations. ISPUD gave reasonable results with only 500 simulations
failure
for
small
very
probabilities
even
As far as the total failure probability
bounds in connection
results in comparison
million
simulations
AFOSM is the most convenient method for use in design in this case,
giving accurate results with smaller computing
time
83
impact on the failure probability (as shown above). Such a drastic reduction
in
for
frame
be
if
the
real
structures,
a very
collapse
modes,
possible
may
distribution
by
in
is
indicated
FE
stress
present,
as
analyses
residual
adverse
Chapter 3. For Interframe Shell Collapse, on the other hand, there is a well
bound
lower
Such
in
Fig.
16.
to
the
a
curve
experiments, as shown
established
lower bound has been confidently called 'guaranteed collapse pressure', and is
below
defined
15%
the
mean
curve
only about
failure
probabilities
associated
with
this mode
the
PC1
Z Pd
f'
(91)
four
for
factors
f1
the
the
safety
and collapse pressures
and pc1 are
where
This
is
format,
in
deterministic
the
essentially
which
present
modes.
collapse
the same notional safety is; used irrespectively of the design pressure and of
for
is
be
the
a
real
possibility
calibrated
overshooting
or
and
will
not,
whether
design
equations proposed.
new
Format II:
JYom,,,
YsPd
(92)
84
fabrication
is
PSF
design
modelling
a
covering
y,
uncertainties
and
where o,
load
PSF
depth
For
is
commercial
covering
accidental
yj
a
overshoots.
and
in
For
is
1.
there
which
y,
no
possibility
of
overshooting,
=
submersibles
0p
+
Pd
increase
factor
F=
the
yf
would
with
overdiving
submarines,
naval
Pd
(Ap being a 'design overshoot'): for deep diving vessels (F -* 1), yf would also
higher
As
F
increases,
the
the
values
unity.
yf would approach
approach
corresponding to shallow water vessels.
For Interframe Shell Collapse, values depending on pm / pc (a form of
be
large
difference
introduced
to
the
of
owing
slenderness measure) will
data
/
between
data
in
in
1.0
2.5
the
the
5
<
of
and
region
pm
pc5
scattering
/
2.5.
Internally
framed
be
The
tee
>
pc5
of
pm
considered.
vessels
will
region
Flange
Yielding
Plate
Yielding
included
and
pressures calculated with
study
the o-o-c given by the MoD formula, eq. (68) as well as in the more usual way:
0.5% of the radius and distributed as a half-sine wave over the axial direction
of the compartment.
4.6)DESIGN SPACE
For the choice of a target reliability as well as for the partial safety factor
a
is
it
important
have
to
number of designs carried out
optimisation,
(design
investigation
the
An
the
to
on
present
practice
space).
according
pressurised
to
vessels was
externally
application of alternative materials
[12],
[24]
BS
5500
design criteria. Different steels,
the
out
using
carried
recently
alloy and titanium alloy were considered and the mechanical
in
Table
31.
Three geometries were considered:
are
given
assumed
properties
Ri=1m
large
Lc=5m,
vessel
with
and
research
a
research vessel with
a small
aluminium
R;=4m and Lc=12m similar to that assumed in [17], and an offshore service
similar
[9].
Ri=2.5m
Four
Lc=15m
in
to
that
with
and
proposed
submarine
design
depth
6000m.
1500
300m,
600m,
and
of
were
considered:
alternatives
The following internal space and fabrication constraints were imposed:
85
Maximum
tf/tw
S 2.5
fail.
difficult
is
This
to
often
since structures are supposed not
structure).
Table 32 illustrates how little the risk of death due to a structural failure is in
death
in
life:
taken
other
risks
as a
our everyday
comparison with
is
due
to structural
'acceptable'
than
car
a
of
accident
much
more
consequence
failure.
86
uncertainties
excluded).
Fig. 72, from [208] shows the range of lifetime reliability indices found in
both
forms
in
Some
Europe
States.
United
the
of
construction
of
and
various
are notional in that they have been determined from
P
in
the range of 3 to 4 can be seen to cover land-based
studies.
comparative
[209]
The
RCC
structures.
offshore
selected =3.72 corresponding to
and some
these indices
lifetime
TLP
the
10-4
target reliability. Assuming a lifetime of 20 years
as
pf of
this would correspond to a yearly value of 5.10-6. The Eurocodes on steel and
[40,173]
assume yearly target reliabilities in the range of
concrete structures
10-4-10-6.1
87
in
their
target
them,
values vary widely
are essentially notional and
calculate
different structures and codes, as shown above. A reasonable way to
designs
by
is
investigating
the
this
of
average reliability
problem
overcome
Such
to
tends
to
the
reflect
average
an
present
practice.
carried out according
far
for
levels
tolerated
the particular type of structure
implicit
of
risk so
the
for
be
target
the
therefore
choice
good
and
may
a
under consideration
lifetime
[2101,
for
target
instance,
Mansour
a
proposed
et.
al.
reliability.
(
longitudinal
hull
for
7.10-4)
the
ship's
girder
pf
=
reliability of ,P=3.2
designed
to
300
based
the
according
ships
on
average
reliability
of
strength,
the ABS rules. This would correspond to a yearly target of pf=3.5.10-5, again
lifetime
20
of
years.
a
assuming
For the pressure hulls under consideration, Figs. 73 to 82 show the
for
Overshooting
found
design
levels
the
various
cases considered.
reliability
is not included. The geometry of the pilot study [26] is included in the figures
have
frames
Its
the
paradoxical results previously obtained.
to explain
inadequate dimensions and it can be seen, from Figs. 78 to 82 that the safety
indices for Flange Yield and Plate Yield fall below the average values. These
lower
due
in
the
indices
the
to
conservative
study
even
pilot
were
safety
for
The
these
two
of
modelling
modes.
conservative
assumed
modelling
Frame Tripping also reduced, the safety index for this mode of -failure in the
Shell
Interframe
Collapse,
hand,
For
the
the
geometry
on
other
study.
pilot
less
is
2.5,
fell
there
the
scatter
>
where
considerably
region of pm/pc5
on
used
is
It
therefore
therefore
natural
and
the
a
smaller
cov.
results
experimental
of
for
Interframe
for
the
this
notional safety calculated
particular geometry,
that,
Shell Collapse is much higher than for the frame collapse modes.
It can be observed that present day designs (indicated by black squares in the
figures), tend to fall in the region 1< pm/Pc5 < 2.5 and to have in general a
Shell
for
frame
Interframe
for
the
than
higher notional safety
collapse modes
for
But
from
design
thinking.
the
Collapse, as expected
usual submarine
be
in
falling
the
2.5,
the
designs
region of pm/Pc5 >
opposite result can
expected.
frame
for
BS5500
yield
Table
6,
Lc
just
the
design
to
criteria
For
of
adjusted
was
meet
*
the
cases
88
Finally, the figures show results for two designs failing by elastic Interframe
Shell buckling pIIn/Pc5 < 1. These have a much smaller notional safety than
the others due to the large scattering normally associated with elastic
buckling. These points are not included in the calibration.
Tables 33 to 35 show the average values for and pf as well as the range of
for the 37 geometries
89
have
target
a
would
reliability equal to the average reliability
overdive
from
37
15
%
the
their
to
models
considered
as
overdiving
above
obtained
(minimum
Pm).
A
to
pressure
reliability
expected
submarine
operational
F=1.15
have
the
to
maximum
value
of
would
a target reliability
overdive
from
37
the
the
to
average
reliability
obtained
models without
equal
(maximum
I3max).
86
In
83
Figs.
to
this
were
reliability
way,
overdiving
for
function
the
target
the
of
reliabilities
giving
as
a
various
modes
obtained
the factor F.
For Interframe Shell Collapse, the target reliabilities used in the partial
factor
optimisation always corresponded to the average values obtained
safety
from the designs with 1< pn, /Pc5 < 2.5, as the typical present day designs tend
to fall in this range.
90
sw,
Ilog(pf, )
i-i
-log(pf,
)]
(93)
failure
design
is
ith
the
the
the
to
code
probability
of
according
pf;
where
format using the trial values of the partial factors, pf, is the target reliability,
design
i
M
is
in
is
to
the
the
total
the
given
and
weight
number
of
models
wi
y, wipf, = Pr,
(94)
i-I
and
M
(95)
w1=1
defining
AFOSM,
is
with
evaluated
p1
PCB
g(x) = X.
_
IPCI Yi
as:
(96)
factor,
XmI,
the
the collapse
and
psi,
pc,
are
modelling
uncertainty
where
for
is
j
the
the
yi
mean
collapse
and
and
pressure
mode
respectively
pressure
factor
for
for
designs
j.
the
the
collapse
safety
mode
wi
was
assumed
partial
=5
for
designs.
6
Table
the
w;
and
was
used
remaining
=1
of
Partial safety factors were derived for Format I, using the values given in
Tables 33 to 35 as target reliabilities, and results are shown in Tables 36 to 38.
Partial safety factors were then derived for Format II in the following way:
for each mode a single safety factor fj was obtained for various values of
+ AP,
pd
F=
according to the target reliabilities of Figs. 83 to 86.
Pd
It was then verified that fj tended to increase linearly with F, Figs. 87 to 90, and
fj could be decomposed in a constant component yXmj ( design and fabrication
PSF) and a component yf linearly varying with F (operational PSF). Table 39
compares the values obtained with the present practice.
Table
6,
Lc was adjusted to just meet the BS5500
design
of
For
cases
the
"
criteria for frame yield
91
Based on the present practice and on the partial safety factor optimisation
(Finax=1.15),provisional values are recommended for the safety factor yxmjYf:
(i)
requirement
(F -41), yyf=1can be
factors:
leading
to
the
safety
used
Flange Yield: 1.75 with eqs. (56)+(68) or 1.55 with eq. (56)+0.5%R
Plate Yield: 1.80 with eqs. (56)+(68) or 1.75 with eq. (56)+0.5%R
Frame Tripping: 2.0 with eq. (66)
Interf. Shell Col. (mean curve): 1.55 for 1<pm/Pc5<_2.5or 1.3 for pm/pc5>2.5
(ii) For vessels with overdiving requirement in the range (1.15:5 F: 51-30),
be
leading
factors
to
can
used
safety
similar to the present practice:
yf=1.15
Flange Yield:, 2.0 with eqs. (56)+(68) or 1.8 with eq. (56)+0.5%R
Plate Yield: 2.1 with eqs. (56)+(68) or 2.0 with eq. (56)+0.5%R
Frame Tripping: 2.3 with eq. (66) (see also [32,331)
Interf. Shell Col. (mean curve): 1.75 for 1<pm/Pc5<_2.5or 1.5 for pes,/pes>2.5
(iii) For vessels with overdiving requirement
linear interpolation in F should be used.
92
Chapter 5- CONCLUSIONS
5.1) CONCLUSIONS
A Level I code format is proposed for the buckling design of ring-stiffened
independent
Depth
shells
under
external
pressure.
partial safety
cylindrical
factors yxm to be applied to the resistance (collapse pressures), are proposed
,
for the four modes considered Unterframe Shell Collapse, Frame Yield, Plate
Yield and Frame Tripping), covering design and fabrication factors. A partial
be
factor
load
(external
to
to
the
yf,
applied
pressure), and varying with
safety
the design pressure and the maximum expected overdiving, is proposed to
factors.
cover operational
The values for
levels
designs
the
target
same
safety
of
carried out according to the present
a
[241)
(BS5500
in
diving
in
For
deep
overdiving
conditions.
vessels
or
practice
in
is
the
of
risk
overdiving
which
not relevant, it is proposed that the
cases
factors
design
in
YxmI
-ff
used
could be smaller than those presently
safety
This
imply
hull
the
to operate at
would
allowing
pressure
recommended.
higher
levels
than
The
those
implications on other
presently
accepted.
stress
failure modes such as fatigue and fracture should be_assessed before fully
factors.
accepting such smaller safety
It is also proposed that smaller safety factors can be used for Interframe
Shell Collapse in the range of pm/pes > 2.5. The values proposed in Figs. 87-90
largely
39
Table
are
a, consequence of the statistical properties of the
and
(Fig.
[26].
be
16),
It
in
the
uncertainty
obtained
would
pilot
study
modelling
important to check them in view of the raw data and perhaps some new data,
in
discussed
be
the
next section.,
as will
93
for
it
is
increase
t
increase
to
2.5:
to
or
such
ratio
necessary,
a
given
material,
<
decrease LS or a combination of both. But this inevitably leads to an increase
in structural weight. Therefore, solutions in the range of pm /Pc5 < 2.5 will
for
designs.
On
the
these
traditional
the
other
minimum
weight
ones
remain
hand, for deep diving vessels (with stockier geometries), the smaller safety
factors could extend the range of application of some materials as illustrated
in Fig. 91.
In order to obtain such partial safety factors, different aspects of strength
had
Structural
be
On
Reliability
the
to
strength
and
addressed.
modelling
modelling side, the work was focused on the frame collapse modes.
Seventy
machined
validated
two
models
experimental
failing
results
by elastic
were
General
compiled,
to
FE meshes were
further
used
and
results
Instability.
in parametric
corresponding
to variations
but
describing
large
the
to
the
the
modelling of
plating,
a
sensitivity
mesh
on
Analysis.
The effect of boundary
the frames, when using Eigenvalue
in
General
Instability
investigated
the
elastic
pressure Pn was
conditions on
Statistical
both
FE
the
properties
experiments
and
results
of
models.
view of
for
the model uncertainty associated with pn.
were obtained
94
95
were identified,
like
of welding residual
have
severe
stresses and combinations of residual stresses, which may
implications on frame collapse. The appropriate modelling of fabrication
further
for
for
future
is
therefore
collapse
analysis
area
a major
procedures
work.
Strength Modelling
The modelling
the failure
quite strongly
'physical'
the
at
obtained,
expense
of
variables such as
more
probabilities
dimensions, imperfections and material properties. This was a consequence
formulae
for
the
used
collapse prediction.
simplified
of
96
Design methods more accurate than the present simplified formulae may
be considered in the future. In deterministic design, simple formulae are
inaccurate:
even
when
somewhat
since the overall procedure
often preferred
is in general conservative, improvements in the calculation of individual
based
little
On
hand,
in
the
often
prove
of
use.
other
reliability
parameters
design, improved methods (in the sense of leading to a smaller scattering of
their modelling uncertainty) may be readily translated into weight savings, as
the failure probability usually depends heavily on the cov of the modelling
factor,
into
improved
formats,
influence
the
and
of the
code
as
uncertainty
'physical' variables is made clearer.
Several of these design methods were reviewed: Chapter 2 showed
Kendrick's accurate energy methods which are suitable for the elastic buckling
in all modes and simply involve the solution of eigenvalue problems. These
could be used to a more accurate estimation of pes,,pn and pt. Chapter 3 also
better
by
theories
which
allow
a
correctly
estimation of Pc5,
reviewed
including the 'beam-column' effect. Also in Chapter 3, several modified
Tangent Modulus approaches for inelastic buckling were reviewed and
Kendrick's method for predicting frame collapse, including the effect of shape
imperfections and residual stresses was mentioned.
work is still needed as far as mode interaction effects are
design
Frame
in
future,
the
should,
concentrate on obtaining
concerned.
keep
Shell
interaction
Interframe
to
scantlings
mode
with
minimum
Further
Collapse
residual
For more specialised design, the pilot study [261 gave many suggestions for
future work, like the use of FE models representing discrete frames, sections
hull
between
bulkheads
(cylindertransition
the
pressure
as well as
regions
of
)
be
by
could
which
validated
experimental results and then used to
cone, e.g.
define the failure surface for reliability analysis or to investigate both material
imperfection
have
the
These
spatial variations.
and geometric
models could
97
interaction
the
as
as
well
modes
advantage of considering
between them. FE models were validated in the present work, but the
is
FE
in
inclusion
the
an area
models
of welding residual stresses
accurate
in
further'
A
proposed
clever method was recently
work.
which needs
all buckling
[242,243], where ADINA was used to estimate the effect of residual stresseson
[242]
loads
and tubulars under axial
stiffened
plates
the collapse
of
follows,
Fig.
92:
[243].
be
The
summarised
as
procedure can
compression
Step 1: Create an initial geometry including measured shape imperfections
fabrication
Assign
from
including
a
processes,
welding.
all
resulting
to
the
to
thermal
the
weld
elements
adjacent
of
expansion
coefficient
in these elements to produce
file
The
in
is
updated
nodal
a
stresses.
geometry
stored
residual
reversed
98
failure
function.
be
inexpensive
then
surface
as
a
will
used
computationally
The most advanced approach deals with the inclusion of probabilistic
has
formulation
finite
This
in
the
the
opened a new
of
elements.
concepts
basic
[220-223],
in
Stochastic
Finite
Elements
the
which
area of research,
distribution
having
which
are
a
spatial
recognised as
random parameters
depends on their location in the- structure, therefore forming random fields
fields
discretised
These
that
the
than
so
random
are
random
variables.
rather
(i.
local
input
consist
of
a
of
e.
averages
will
vector
random variables
random
field
the
random
across each element) whose covariance matrix
underlying
of
depends on the finite element mesh [221].
99
inspection.
Closure: Putting in Perspective..:
The present work was aimed at steel structures for operation at depths
below 300m where design solutions usually involve relatively stocky
buckling
(R/t<120)
in
play
which yielding and elastic-plastic
cylindrical shells
design.
forms
in
Future
dominant
of shell
role
work should consider other
a
domes
in
Recent
thinner
as
and
well
work
as
cylindrical shells.
such as cones
China [244] proposed that, when designing externally pressurised steel and
General
(R/t
hulls
Lc/R<2.6),
titanium
with unusual geometries
>150 and
modes with more than one half-wave along the compartment
length may become critical. It is also shown in [244] that, in these modes, axial
become
Thinner
relevant.
may
shells and smaller compartments
stiffening
Instability
in
steel offshore structures operating at smaller pressures
are also common
long-compartment
is
interesting
to
that
it
note
offshore
codes
use
and
100
design
frames.
For
to
their
criteria
size
offshore structures, axial
submarine
loads
have
be
in
bending
to
to
external
would
considered
addition
and
pressure.
Partial safety factors for elastic buckling
type of buckling
detail
in
treated
as this
were not
direct
here.
buckling
be
But
those
of
as
considered
may
elastic
stocky shells
design
by
in'
indicated
the
thinner
the work on
of
shells as
relevance
[227-229].
structures
aerospace related
Structural
minimised
efficiency;
weight,
tends to imply
given
loads
with
shells. In practice,
however, the material selection will largely determine the degree of efficiency
depends
The
factors,
being
choice
of
material
on
a
cost
number of
achieved.
important
for
designer
is
if
the
the
commercial
most
often
-structures:
(as
in
improved
industry),
the
aerospace
an
prepared
leading
be
in
to
thin
chosen
which elastic
walled structures
material may
buckling may be dominant.
to pay for efficiency
If the designer is not prepared to pay much for efficiency, less improved
be
has
be
this
stockier
used
and
structures
often
may
may
obtained;
materials
been the case in marine structures. Things have been changing, however: for
instance, in the field of fast transportation, aluminium alloys are largely used.
Composite materials of very high yield stress are also being considered for
deep water and other marine vessels [11,230], maybe also leading to much
thinner structures.
From a historical point of view, until perhaps the last century, structural
design and construction was carried out by master builders, based on
kept
knowledge
judgement.
The
and
well
empirical rules were
empirical
is
is
by
In
times,
the
task
and
carried out
structural engineers
secrets. modern
based on the rational treatment of load and strength. The uncertainties
In
however,
these
treated
a
quantities,
empirically.
are still
associated with
broad sense, the codes of practice aim to incorporate
updated scientific
101
knowledge, for loads and resistance, as well as the experience and judgement
both
field,
in
for
the
the
treatment
of uncertainties, and make
of authorities
available to the general public.
In this context, the application of Structural Reliability theory aims to be a
in
by
in
further
treating
a
such
an
evolutionary
uncertainty
process,
step
basis,
For
judgement.
the
the
reducing
element
of
and
empiricism
scientific
time being, the failure probability has only a notional value due to the
in
in
the
the reliability
made
strength
modelling
as
well
as
simplifications
does
Even
it
formats
derivation
the
so,
allow
of code
with partial
calculations.
factors
based
deterministic
than
the
which
are
more
rationally
usual
safety
factors.
safety
Future developments may lead to the failure probability being less notional
for
direct
decision
to
the
of
a
real
measure
of
risk
assistance
making
more
and
[176)
(referred
Level
in
IV
to
therefore
as
a
reliability
and
method)
process,
fully materialising the benefits of applying Structural Reliability in design,
fabrication and operation. It is interesting to note that some work is under
in
but
to
treat
uncertainty
methods
on
a
rational
non-probabilistic way,
way
for cases in which the limited information available is not sufficient for a
[226,231].
of
statistical
properties
proper choice
The understanding of structural instability has been realised to be useful to
in
nature.
problems
other similar
Leonard Euler himself was not concerned only with structures, but was
fascinated
by
the
the
mathematician
a
and
calculus
of
variations
rather
for
deal
devoted
He
of
search
maximums
and
great
minimums.
a
consequent
different
the
to
to
of
such
application
methods
physical problems.
many
work
One of such problems was that of determining elastic curves and, as part of it,
he determined the bifurcating equilibrium configurations of a compressed
elastic column
[245]. Although
published
until
did
beyond
it
because
the elastic range.
not
work
simply
102
Simple
as we assume it today,
Euler's
column
equation
is very
important,
[233]:
by
Bleich
'structural
design is normally concerned with the determination
stressed
as
between
based
internal and
the
tacit
that
upon
assumption
stable
exists
equilibrium
of stresses
This
forces.
is
limits,
is
to
the
that,
say,
equilibrium
such
within
certain
any slight
external
loading
the
condition does not produce disproportionate increase of the stressesor
of
change
Hence,
distortions
the
of
system.
adherence to a certain stress - the allowable stress elastic
determines the degree of safety of the structure. The buckling problem presents an entirely new
aspect - the investigation of the potential unstable equilibrium between external loading and
the internal response of the structure'.
103
Reynolds, T., Lomacky, 0., Krenzke, M.: 'Design and analysis of small
hulls',
Comp.
& Struct., 3, pp. 1125-1143,1973
pressure
submersible
Flemming,
N. C.:
'Functional
Aeronautical
submersibles',
for research/work
requirements
journal, 72, pp. 123-131,1968
Wenk, E., DeHart, R.C., Mandel, P., Kissinger, R.: 'An oceanographic
RINA,
for
',
Trans.
15000ft.
submarine
of
aluminium
operation at
research
102,pp. 555-578,1960
10 'Submarine super yachts and sports boats', Ship & Boat Intl., pp. 27-33,
April 1994, (No author given)
104
11 Smith,
C. S.: 'Design
of submersible
pressure
hulls
in
composite
on the
Intl.
to
of
alternative
vessels',
pressurised
materials
externally
application
Conf. Structural Materials in Marine Environments, London, 11-12 May
1994
13 Dow, R.S. and Bird, J.: 'The use of composites in marine environments',
Intl. Conf. Structural Materials in Marine Environments, London, 11-12
May 1994
14 Hansen, A. B. and Lundh, T.: 'Composite
Achievements
Conf. Structural
in Norway
Materials
in marine structures:
1988-1993 and programmes 1994-2000', Intl.
in Marine
materials
Environments,
London,
11-12 May
1994
15 Faulkner, D. and Das, P.K.: 'A new risk approach for structural design and
adequately safe operation of submarines', UDT Conf., Microwave
Exhibitions and Publishers Ltd., London, February 1990
16 Faulkner, D.: 'The safe design and construction of steel spheres and end
closures of submersibles, habitats and other pressurised vessels', BOSS'79,
105
19 Kendrick,
S.: 'Collapse
of stiffened
cylinders
under external
Conditions,
pressure',
Paper C190/72,
London,
1972
33-42,
pp.
A. C.: 'The design of shell combinations in externally
Structures
J.
Marine
Paper
to
submitted
pressurised vessels',
20 Morandi,
22
of ring stiffened
Applied Science,1991
26 Das, P.K., Garside, J.F. and Faulkner, D.: 'Pilot study into the application
for
design
to
structural
analysis
a
code
externally pressurised
of reliability
Feb.
1988
BMT
Ltd.,
Wallsend,
120,
MoD
with
contract
pp.
vessels',
27 Faulkner, D. and Das, P.K.: 'Application of reliability theory to structural
design and assessment of submarines and other externally pressurised
Ed.
Integrity
in
Offshore
Structures-3,
of
cylindrical structures',
D. Faulkner, M. J. Cowling and A. Incecik, Elsevier Applied Science, 1991
106
A. C., Das, P.K. and Faulkner, D.: 'An outline of the application
of reliability based techniques to structural design and assessment of
28 Morandi,
pressurised cylindrical
structures',
Rep.
A. C., Das, P.K. and Faulkner, D.: 'An outline of the application
of reliability
based techniques
to structural
cylindrical
structures',
30 Morandi, A. C., Das, P.K. and Faulkner, D.: 'Reliability based design of
An
investigation
submersibles:
on the general instability of externally
pressurised vessels', Proceedings OMAE-93, Glasgow, June 1993
31 Morandi, A: C., Das, P.K. and Faulkner, D.: 'Buckling of ring stiffened
cylinders Part I: Elastic general instability', Rep. NAOE-93-30, NAOE
Dept., University of Glasgow, Nov. 1993
32 Morandi, A. C., Faulkner, D., and Das, P.K., -'Buckling of ring stiffened
cylinders Part II: tripping', Rep. NAOE-94-19, NAOE Dept., University of
Glasgow, Mar. 1994
33 Morandi, A. C., Faulkner, D., and Das, P.K., 'Frame tripping in ring
stiffened externally pressurised cylinders'. Paper submited to Marine
Structures, 1994
34 Morandi, A. C., Faulkner, D., and Das, P.K., 'Buckling of ring stiffened
cylinders Part III: collapse prediction', Rep. NAOE-94-26, NAOE Dept.,
University of Glasgow, Mar. 1994
35 ABAQUS Manual, Version 5-2, Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc., 1991
107
36 Morandi,
reliability
submersibles
and other
externally
pressurised
in
Structural
vessels',
11
108
45 Rule Case Committee, 'Model code for structural design of tension leg
(draft)',
CONOCO-ABS
Rule Case Comitee, ABS, New York,
platforms
1983
46 American Petroleum Institute, 'Recommended practice for planning,
designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms', API RP 2A, Draft,
1989
47
American
Petroleum
Institute,
'Specification
for fabrication
of structural
Spec
API
2B, 1977
steel pipe',
109
frames',
R255,
Rep.
NCRE
of ring
in cylinders
110
NCRE
Rep.
R643A,
I',
Dunfermline,
part
-
shells
NCRE
Rep.
R643C,
Dunfermline,
III',
- part
68 Wilson,
cylindrical
shells
of a circular
by equally spaced circular ring frames', Reps.
under
uniform
pressure
Conference,
Charles
Smith
Memorial
on submarines and submersibles',
DRA, Dunfermline, Scotland, July 1992
111
of ring-stiffened
cylindrical shells subjected to external hydrostatic pressure', DTMB 1324,
Jun. 1959
of cylindrical
hydrostatic
pressure', DTMB 1392, Aug. 1960
external
shells under
development
of a titanium
for
vehicle
operating depths of 15000 and 20000 ft', DTMB
oceanographic
1677,Sep. 1963
aspects of hydrospace
Engineer's Journal, 77(4), pp. 597-606,1965
vehicles', Naval
79 Blumenberg, W. F., Reynolds, T. E.: 'Elastic general instability of ringstiffened cylinders with intermediate heavy frames under external
hydrostatic pressure', DTMB 1588, Dec. 1961
80 Blumenberg, W. F.: 'The effect of intermediate heavy frames on the elastic
instability
strength of ring-stiffened cylinders under external
general
hydrostatic pressure', DTMB 1844, Feb. 1965
81 Lunchick,
M. E.: 'Plastic
112
of ring-
circular cylindrical
113
92
of T-shaped stiffening
DTMB
Nov.
1079,
1959
pressure',
external
analysis of the
114
investigation
of the shell
cylindrical
shell under
105 Palermo, P.: 'Experimental stress analysis goes deep', Naval Engineer's
Journal, 87(4), pp. 67-82,1975
106 Dunham, F.W., Heller, S.R.: 'Comparative
behaviour
of submarine
hull
different
structures
of
scales under uniform
pressure
Naval
Engineer's
journal, 75(2), pp. 397-404,1963
pressure',
external
107 Barry, T.M., Ballowin L. D.: 'Elastic instability of relatively thick circular
hydrostatic
to
shells
subject
cylindrical
pressure', 76(4), Naval Engineer's
Journal, pp. 621-631,1964
108 Gerard, G.: ' Plastic stability theory of stiffened cylinders under hydrostatic
Journal
Ship
Research, 6(2), pp. 1-7, Oct. 1962
of
pressure',
109 Milligan, R., Lakshmikantham, C. and Gerard, G.: 'General instability of
shallow-stiffened orthotropic cylinders under hydrostatic -pressure',
Journal of Ship Research, 11(1), pp. 269-279, March 1967
115
postbuckling behaviour of
cylindrical shells under external pressure', J. Math. Phys., 47, pp. 223-235,
1968
118 Hutchinson,
J.C.: 'Imperfection
sensitivity of
eccentrically stiffened cylindrical shells', AIAA J., 5, pp. 392-401,1967
119 Ellinas, C.P., Supple, W.J., Walker, A. C.: 'Buckling of offshore structures',
Prepared for the U. K. Dept. of Energy by J.P. Kenny & Partners Ltd.,
Granada, London, 1984
J.E., Dowling,
120 Harding,
121 Vojta, J.: 'Buckling of ring and stringer and ring (only) stiffened steel
large
CBI
Industries,
tests',
Plainfield, January 1982
scale
cylinders -
116
J.E.: 'Buckling
behaviour
under pressure of
cylindrical shells reinforced by light ring stiffeners', Proc. Inst. Civil Engs.,
79(2), pp. 365-382,1985
127 Tsang, S.K., Harding, J.E.: 'A mechanism approach for the prediction of
the collapse strength of ring-stiffened cylinders under axial compression
Thin
Walled Structures, 2, pp. 325-353,1984
pressure',
and external
r
128 Tsang, S.K., Harding, J.E.: 'A plastic mechanism formulation for the
instability
dominated
of
ring stiffened cylinders under pressure
general
loadings', Intl. J. Mech. Sci., 27, pp. 409-422,1985
129 Estefen, S.F., Harding, J.E.: 'Ring stiffener behaviour and its interaction
buckling',
Proc. Inst. Civil Engs., 75(2), pp. 243-264,
panel
with cylindrical
1983
130 Croll, J.G. A.: 'Elasto-Plastic buckling
loaded
of pressure and axial
Proc.
Inst.
Civil
Engs., 73(2), pp. 633-652,1982
cylinders',
117
131 Croll, J.G.A.: 'Lower bound elasto-plastic buckling of cylinders', Proc. Inst.
Civil Engs., 71(2), pp. 235-262,1981
132 Croll, J.G.A.: `Stiffened cylindrical shells under axial and pressure
loading', in Shell Structures, Stability and Strength, ed. R. Narayanan,
Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1985
Ring stiffened cylinder tests - final
1984.
NAOE-84-24,
Glasgow,
Mar.
NAOE
Dept.,
University
Rep.
of
report',
July 1992
87,1987
138 Gonsalves, P.B., Batista, R.C.: 'Buckling
and sensitivity
for
ringestimates
1Sc.,
27(1),
Int.
J.
Mech.
cylinders
under
pp.
external
pressure',,
stiffened
11,1985
139 Miller, C.D., Kinra, K.: 'External pressure tests of ring fabricated steel
OTC
Vol.
III,
81,
pros.
pp. 371-386,1981
cylinders',
140 Esslinger,M., Geier, B.: 'Flat bar steel ring stiffeners on cylinders subjected
to external pressure', Thin-Walled Structures, 15, pp. 249-269,1993
118
initial
with
circular
shells
of
deflections (1st. Report)', J. Soc. Naval Arch. Japan, 158, pp. 395-405; Dec.
119
149 Bosman, T.N., Pegg, N. G., Keuning, P.J.: 'Experimental and numerical
determination of the nonlinear overall collapse of imperfect pressure
hull compartments', RINA Intl. Symp. Naval Submarines, London, May
1993
150 Bushnell, D.: 'Computerized
buckling
of shells - pitfall
Jnl., 19(9),
Sep.
1981
1183-1226,
pp.
152 Bushnell, D.: 'Plastic buckling of various shells', J. Press. Vessel Tech.,
104, pp. 51-72,1984
153 Bushnell, D.: 'Stress, stability and vibration of complex branched shells of
Comp.
Struct.,
&
4, pp. 399-435,1974
revolution',
154 Bushnell, D.: 'BOSOR5 - program for buckling of elastic-plastic complex
including
large
deflections and creep', Comp. &
shells of revolution
Struct., 6, pp. ' 221-239,1976
155 Bushnell, D.: 'Analysis
157 Bushnell, D.: 'Effect of cold bending and welding on buckling of ring
Comp.
& Struct., 12,pp. 291-307,1980
cylinders',
stiffened
158 Bushnell, D.: 'Buckling of elastic-plastic shells of revolution with discrete
Int.
J.
Sol.
Struct., 12, pp. 51-66,1976
ring
stiffeners',
elastic-plastic
120
handles snap-through',
of Pressure Vessel
solution
procedure
that
164 Lam, W. F., Morley, C.T.: 'Arc-length method for passing limit points in
J.
Str.
Div.
ASCE, 118(1), pp. 169-187,1992
calculation',
structural
165 Moradi, B., Parsons, J.D.: 'A comparison of techniques for computing the
buckling loads of stiffened shells', Comp. & Struct., 46(3), pp. 505-514,1992
166 Subbiah, J.: 'Non-Linear Analysis of geometrically imperfect stiffened
March
journal
Ship
29-36,
Research,
32(1),
pp.
of
shells of revolution',
1988
167 Subbiah, J., Natarajan, R.: 'Stability analysis of ring-stiffened shells of
Journal
Ship
Research,
1982
June
26(2),
125-134,
of
pp.
revolution',
168 Subbiah, J., Natarajan, R.: 'Stability analysis of ring stiffened shells of
Comp.
Struct.,
&
14(5-6),
pp. 479-490,1981
revolution',
169 Subbiah, J., Natarajan, R.: 'Stability analysis of ring stiffened shells of
Comp.
Struct.,
&
13,
pp. 497-503,1981
revolution',
121
122
R.: 'Quadratic
limit
states in
Journal
Eng.
105,
661-676,1979
Mech.
Div.
ASCE,
reliability',
pp.
structural
181 Madsen, H. O.: 'First order vs. second order reliability
analysis of series
Structural
Safety,
2(3), pp. 207-214,1984
structures',
182 Hochenbichler, M., Gollwitzer, S. Kruse, W. and Rackwitz, R.: 'New light
on first and second order reliability methods', Structural Safety, 4(4), pp.
267-284,1986
1987
184 Der Kiureghian, A. and De Stefano, M.: 'Efficient algorithm for second
Journal
2904Eng.
Mech.
Div.
117(2),
ASCE,
pp.
analysis',
reliability
order
2925,1991
185 Breitung, K.: 'Asymptotic
integrals',
186 Tvedt, L.: 'Two second order approximations to the failure probabiliy,
Veritas Report RDN/20-004-83, Det norske Veritas, Oslo, 1983
187 Ditlevsen, 0.: 'Narrow reliability bounds for structural systems', journal
of Structural Mechanics, 7(4), pp. 435-454,1979
188 Schueller, G.I. and Stix, R.: 'A critical appraisal of methods to determine
reliability
123
190 Pulido, G.E., Jacobs, T. L. and Lima, E.C. P.: 'Structural reliability using
Monte Carlo simulation with variance reduction techniques on elasticComp.
Struct.,
419-430,1992
43(3),
and
pp.
structures',
plastic
191 Melchers, R.E.: 'Search based importance sampling', Structural Safety,
9(2), pp. 117-128,1990
192 Melchers, R.E.: 'Importance sampling in structural systems', Structural
Safety, 6(1), pp. 3-10,1989
193 Melchers, R.E.: 'Radial importance sampling for structural reliability',
Journal Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE, 116(1),pp. 189-209,1990
194 Fu, G.: 'Variance reduction in simulation for first order problems', in
Structural Safety and Reliability, Ed. G.I. Schueller, M. Shinozuka, J.T. P.
Yao, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1994
195 Wang, G.S. and Ang, A. H. -S.: 'Adaptive Kernel method for evaluating
G.
I.
Structural
Ed.
in
Safety
Reliability,
and
structural system reliability',
Schueller, M. Shinozuka, J.T.P. Yao, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1994
196 Yonezawa, M. and Okuda, S.: 'An improved importance sampling density
for
Safety
in
Structural
and
structural
reliability
assessment',
estimation
Reliability, Ed. G.I. Schueller, M. Shinozuka, J.T. P. Yao, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1994
197 Bucher, C.G.: 'Adaptative
sampling - an iterative
Structural
Safety,
5(2),
pp. 119-126,1988
procedure',
198 Ditlevsen, 0., Olesen, R. and Mohr, G.: 'Solution of a class of load
4(2),
by
directional
Safety,
Structural
problems
simulation',
combination
pp. 95-110,1986
124
sampling
an engineering approach', Mc
method
for probability
of failure
Safety,
3(2), pp. 109-115,1986
'Structural
calculation',
203 Sweeting, T.J. and Finn, A. F.: 'A Monte Carlo method based on first and
second order reliability approximations', Structural Safety, 11(3-4), pp.
203-213,1992
204 Hochenbichler, M., Rackwitz, R. and Ruediger: 'Improvement of second
order reliability estimates by importance sampling', journal of Eng.
Mech., 114(2),pp: 2195-2198,1988
205 Sharp, J.V., Kam, J.C. and Birkinshaw,
and maintenance of North
OMAE-93, Vol. II, Glasgow, June 1993
inspection
Proceedings
206 'How
125
210 Mansour, A., Lin, M., Hovem, L. and Thayamballi, A.: 'Probability-Based
(Phase
design
1) -A demonstration',
Report to the Ship Structure
ship
Committee, SSC-368, Washington,
211 Brown, C.B.: 'A fuzzy safety measure', Journal Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE, 105,
pp. 855-872,1979
212 Yunlong, Z., Fujimoto, Y. and Iwata, M.: 'On reliability assessment of
framed structures based on Monte Carlo simulation - Application of
importance sampling and Neumann Expansion', Journal Soc. Naval
Arch. Japan, 167, pp. 199-204,June 1990
213 Murotsu, Y., Okada, H., Hibi, S., Niho, O. and Kaminaga, H.: 'A system for
collapse and reliability analysis of ship structures using a spatial plate
element model', Proceedings OMAE-93, Vol. II, Glasgow, June 1993
214 Sigurdson, G., Skjong, R., Skallerud, B. and Amdahl, J.: 'Probabilistic
G.
jackets',
in
Structural
I.
Ed.
Safety
Reliability,
analysis
of
collapse
and
Schueller, M. Shinozuka, J.T.P. Yao, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1994
215 Maymom, G.: 'Direct computation of the design point of a stochastic
finite
element code', Structural Safety, 14, pp. 185-202,
structure using a
1994
126
217 Muzeau, J: P., Lemaire, M., Besse,P., Locci, J.-M.: 'Evaluation of reliability
in case of complex mechanical behaviour', Proceedings OMAE-93, Vol. II,
Glasgow, June 1993
218 Lee, J: S., Krakovski,
for
reliability
surface
M. B., Yakubovich,
A. N.: 'Investigation
analysis of structural
of response
127
concept of reliability',
Structural
buckling
233 Bleich, F.: 'Buckling Strength of Metal Structures', McGraw-Hill Inc., 1952.
128
234 Johnston, B.G.: 'Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures',
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1976
235 Beedle, L. S.: 'Stability of metal structures -a world view', Structural
Stability Research Council, Bethlehem, USA, 1991.
236 Seide, P.: 'A reexamination
behaviour
and imperfection
of Koiter's
sensitivity
theory
of initial
of structures',
postbuckling
in Thin
Shell
Structures, Ed. Y. C. Fung and C. C. Sechler, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey,
1974
129
P. C., Prion,
and residual
H. G. L.: 'Finite
element
modelling
of
tubular
columns',
in
stresses in fabricated
J.A. Alaez,
Science, 1992
244 Zuoshui, X. and Jiping, X.: 'On the overall stability of submarine circular
diameters
Shipbuiding
large
thicknesses',
thin
shells
with
and
cylindrical
of China, 2, pp. 82-88, May 1994 (in Chinese)
245 Euler, L.: 'Methodus
inveniendi
proprietate gaudentes
Michaelem Bousquet, Lausanne and Geneva, 1744
246 Thompson,
engineering',
and
catastrophes
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1982
in
science
and
130
Four centuries BC: Aristotle wrote of diving bells for divers -30m
1934: Bebe & Barton reached 923m in a lowered cast steel bathysphere
(Scientific/
Environmental)
Oceanographic
surveying
(Titanic, e.g.)
Exploration
sunken
of
vessels
(Touristic submersibles, e.g.)
Recreational
-
History
Brief
Exploitation
Exploration
and
Figure 1- Inner Space
-
131
PROPELLER
FUELING
MANIFOLD
VENT
WATER
BALLAST
TANK
PROPELLERS
RELEASE
MAGNETS
VENT
GASOLINE TANKS
KS n
IIII
ACCESSTUBE
WATER
BALLAST
TANK
BULKHEADS
PROPELLER
BALLAST TUB
-PELLET
HATCH
BALLAST MAGNET
-MECHANICAL
ARM
WIRE
PRESSURE
SPHERE
VIEW PORT
II
C
RESCUE CAPSULE
SOX TANK
,
l rl11
CRANE
ACCOMMODATION
450m
CARGO E
ENGINE ROOM
OP THRUSTER)
ROY GARAGE
RISC
, AUSTIN
[91
(1991)
Submarines
Service
Offshore
1500m
op"N
-^00
C
Ofc
General arrangementof
Nomad with passengerspace
lardout US yacht The faired
yacht hull enclosesthe
,
,
hull.
pressure
Nomad
_,,
1"
`. -'`"
'
_;.:
.
=
low
1000 (1994)'[101
132
.
Continental
Shelf
-1500m
5000
10,000
Mean Depth
15,000
r..
120,000
-6000m
25,000
30,000
35,000
0
10
20
60
70
30
50
40
80
Percent of Ocean Less Than Indicated Depth
Figure 3- Distribution
90
t00
[761
Ocean
Depth,
of
1400
loon
1000
90
a
to
9e
Sfr,
el
r7
5000
Ip
anno
_.
.,
e"f
eS
01
0/
00
woo
Cylinders,
[11]
Stiffened
for
Depth
W//
Collapse
4vs.
Figure
. Si.
w.. air..
ital:
Lf. Z'1'
"-r..
t: wL_ZY..
-3
b: i.....
at:
i..
Y:.. w....
. 'a:..
i:.
a N:.
': d.:.,.
r`.
`_{.:
.__
j_
"l.
":
iiY
133
Reduced modulus
KU
Shanley
pi
"o'
Tangent modulus
1.0
Inelastic
P
PC
Elastic
P
t
P.
Euter
d
Lateral deflection
tP
Figure
Figure 5- Bifurcation
Buckling,
6- Post Buckling
[2341
Plastic
ire
vas -
o1
--
IZ
%N-
U1
oy/E
0
Plastic
o__
5 T____`
pr
Plastic
pn Strtss free
arc
___
0,
'
...
pm Welded
ErI; I " 1
pe
Y
Q.
0F
Behaviour
ar
Elcstit "
E
oC
A _1b/r1 -y/
Fig. 7b " Welded Box-Column Strength
Limit, [61]
in the
134
1.0
0.5
o
a
2.0 X
1.0
buckling
Cross section
buckling
perpendicular
curve
to axis
hollow
Any increase
section
YY
zzz
Y
YY
-+- I
zz
I
-+-
--+--
Zzz
welded
box sections
y-y
b
zz
tZ
IL
h1z
rolled
yy
zz
1-sections
s>1.2;
Y-Y
z-z
b a)
80mm
y-y
b (a)
80 mm
z-z
C (b)
y-y
z-z
y-y
z-z
y-y
t < 40mm
U>1.2;
and
welded I-sections
tl
40 <t<
h<1.2;
t<
80 mm
t>
<
ao)
40 mm
I t2 z it,
z it
YY
tl > 40mm
-Y
z -z
zz
U., I, -, T. and solid sections
YY
zzzz
'
C_
"rrL
Y.
YT--Y
r
Z
r -t-
I-
rr
-+
zz
zzz
steels with
data exist,
135
N=447
es
f
1.0
Oo
tccs
(bI
0-5
I
o. to
0.15
JRA
I*
a6,6
"'-'ti
Cw-s
Saue C1
O. 5
1.0
1.5
2.5
2.0
Test Results
ka
e"
IRSt.
ea
ee %e. e
$ A8
100
iao
A08.
to
00
IL
I
10
100
1,000
11,000
z
_
10
SW
saw
iv. '.
136
,
kt
6.9
A ymm-strlc
Symm.
..,
tr
Theory
"
. iba~19.
-----""
Theory
t. l
000
..,
O-..
.. I.
IfMtl
Rld
t."
aur.
TI110n p,
u,
o.I
""!
i1i...
l:
"
.. 1
.. 1
..
.
4.1
M1
X.
Figure 13 - Comparison between Test and Theory
Clamped Spherical Caps, Ext. Pres., (150
NI
N_
ou oc
0.
A,
=2
L, t
EI,
=10
D, L,
e'
IN
F1
= t2
b Gj
UNSTIFFENEO
CYUNOER
iu
4
N7
a+
r_
L1. J
CA
II
INSIDE
---
---------
OUTSIDE
0 -
.,
UNSTIiiENCO
L,. J
10
Z
Fig. 14b - Ring-Stiffened in General Instability Mode, [1181
Z
11171
Mode,
in
Interframe
Ring-Stiffened
Unstiffened
Fig. 14aand
az
b
V"
,,
NydroslouaPressure
latuof
"0.6
--
Pressare "
- --------
. Qe101
101
----
.....,.
10.
" -_
10
G
Behaviour
of Cylinders
137
=r-;
1
1 11. + ., i
! 1! '1 l
t
r1
1I
i
1+
t' i
1
u>
,1'
!fI1
:lf
'j
.M.!
'"
")
-i
1(i
138
2
0
I
u
..
t
w
>
C)
V
rC
ee)
L^
mo
I1
P.
"GaV
00
yO
C)
"
CJ
"c",
-0
.Ca
".
ii=
no
to
,nC
C)
I.;
eC
. Q
r..
44
O'
w
i "
r. r
.
Ci
Fd
IJ"+"i".
r "f "
ter` \
CN"i
1
.G"
40
es
60.0
do
"1
WO
vp
t:
I --
LO
UV
.-
V-"
. r
Iy.
hr
139
111111
Ce
I(1/11
12Z2
:
(1 +n )2
CB
+
rr4 n=(1+
Cv
a
tot
=)=
(l+n
;' 2)2
min
1222
4 (n
3Z
CB(I) a
)
2
^
1v
rr
+ i)
(1 +n
ne
10
min
'
III
li
rI
Z(1)
!I
ce
Coy
4-
2;
c912,1
Ii
I.
. c
_ ... WIDE
IL
PL ATE
I
f.
!1
LONG PLATE
II
irr
Cgll
III
: n(6>Z)
3a
)2
: n2
_V
CBO
--
TUBE
+
n"
LONG
Z(1)
f.
If
i.
1
Ll
v2)
2732
2
()
1
10
Figure 17 - Buckling
102
Coefficient
103
1.2
Pc/Pcrl
Machined
Models
Ld
"
0.8
Fabricated Models
0.6
0.4
0.2
OD
?3T5
fi.
769
/
Pcr Pcrl
106
140
2.80
2.5 7
1.40
1.33
crU
CL
Cl-
0.0
1.60 -
(c)
MODEL S
it
TvITle
e-r.
030
0.0
0.77
Sn/t
0.0-p
0.0
2.00
1.00
8n/t
1.60
2.40
1.10
Sn/t
-1
2.67-
0.80
1.33
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.20
2.4o
0.0
Sn/t
1.60
0.60
$n/t
141
Buckling
Bound. u
uu
vv
ww
B1
B2
B3
B4
**
**
**
**
*CasesI to V:
CaseI:
CaseII:
all free
w restr.
uu vv
ww
**
(simply supported)
Case III:
Case IV:
u rests.
u, vv restr.
CaseV:
all restr.
(clamped)
'vvwB1:
pR/2
.
**
142
9E"Q1
0ISPI_,:i. E7 MEH
MG.
F4C'CCR=-o. SE"01
DIPL, ZCEDMESH
ORICVNPL MESH
ry4.
FFC'TGR3-b. BE402
OISPI.ACI
ti
GRIGUxt. r''ES'l
143
11
nI
11
fizG.
DISPLACEDME
OISFL,.=
MESH
]RIGJrat. ri! -s
MaG. FrCTGR
SE-10141
DI=P acm t a1
QRIGT.PL MESH
144
cI
1-
cr,
Ia
f_
il
Ul
CI
7M
cm
.r
ja
Fig. 24a: 0-o-c = 0.001 mm
C4V4
i
f
m
.`
`'.
-...,,
",
'".
.`.
,
U,
QMN..
92
d5IQ
Fig. 24b: o-o-c = 0.9 mm
145
",
1-12
MG.
WZ.
FFCOR a-4. E.
146
1
7
(*1x*-2)
su
Forth
"I. A E"if
1
LC. D
Q
(4104x-1)
8
(10x'-1)
'
FX
#I. 30E. 49
a
3
(+iaIIx-1)
Fig. 26b: Model 3 of [1361
b
(*12Iw-2)
SGYf
"L dVE"
3
N
Q
.1
ii
LCAD
f*10x*-1)
1i
SPIE
"L aaE"+a
3
u
a
0
1
i
-1
_o
L=
Fig. 26d: Model 8 of [136]
from
FE
Riks
Behaviour
Analysis
Postbuckling
26:
Figure
Radial Displacement at Mid-Compartment (Cont. )
Cal+-1)
148
P exp"Pyf
1.0 -r-
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
a.2
no
0.1
0.0-t
0
123456789
10
x
Figure 27: Experimental Data - Elastic General Instability
149
O-iING
PRESSURE
SEAL
1i
11111!!
f
I
fi4
1(
\c\-iI....
EL1jE
41
lq
rp
rcrr;;
Cl
111
y/
PAESSURE
IriCITC
i,
C?
rrrrrrr
:G
TANK
C4
r rrrrI
CS
Pexp (N/mm-)
6Exper. with Cl
FE without axial restr.
`"
'"
"
-.
p._
---o-
Exper. with C3
"---3-
4-
3-
A.
1 . ----r'
oo
CN
LdRi
150
Pn (N/mm=)
7
FE Wirr axial restr., n-2
FE witl i axial restr., ns3
----x-
"'"
tt
l
1
ti
1t
b
1b
1+
1k
IO
at
"+
t
"""
'S
tQ
t
"'q"
n=3
3 n=3
'"ti
"",
` n=3
n22 .c
n=2t
2
n=2
LdR1
151
5
Pexp (N/mm2)
Exper. with Cl
4s
_..
--o-"
3s
3
2.5
1.5
Lc/Rj
Experiments
[85]
of
2.0
'Y'in
o
1"
Eq. (28),with R.
Kendrick
11
.
1.8
"
"
"o
1.6
""
"
s
1.4
"
"
o
"
00
O
0
"
"O0
i7
O
'.+ "
I.
00
O
O
"
"
000
1.2
"
O
"""
"
O
"
"a
"
S
"
1.0
"
OO
0.80
Q
0
123456
Figure 31: Xm, vs. X, 72 Experimental
7
Results
15?
29.12'"
"
c0
"cc,
1c
rC1'e "V
C..
-=5
1C
IG
11
IG
IE
(i`
18
(9
G7
:
7
'+
24
P
I
X-, = DX/AX
(n
CX/AX
=2)
-
_X/BX (n =3)
n=2
X
Figure 34: Redefinition of Xml for Group B Models
Inceasing End
Restraint
L/R.
'153
1.8
"
n=2
n=3'
n=4
"
n_5
1.6
f
""
""
"
"
1.4
"
"
"
1.2
0$
1.0
1000
0
0.8
o
"
0.6-}
0
10
15
L Ri
3
PcIII / PcI
n=2,
o n=31
Td n=4'
n=5
IN
11
0
0
0
i1
0
a
i
1
aa
0
0
a
aa
ann
a
ac
o
'"4
1
02468
0
0 o0
8
0000
C:o
10
12
LcRi
154
vo
w
n
CD
D)
0
plq% rr
C'
r.. r
r"
it
cm
O
LL
CD
0
011'
h
r-I
CD
A3
CD
"C3
III
iA
5''.:
L:'ti:...
i. e. a"
.
":.
^:
v. ': 1'
w/'. rti..:: ~... 1.
iy...
.
%r.a"ws-+'.
iu.
x".
+..
".
c.
ir'..
"`
".
;"..
: '.I"''...
rr: a ;. ""
q?'"""
.
.
21a..
t.
...."
rp:
'r. r
155
Preuckling
Buckling
Boundary
uu
vv
ww
v,
uu
vv
w",v
Bi
B2
B3
B-1
0
1
10
I
10
`I
0
0
10
I0
0
I0
1
1
11
`1
01
1
(0
1
10
I1
0
0
1-1
1
0'
1
0
1
0
11
`1
11
vv
pR/2
156
Pa (N/mm2)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
12345678.9
10
11
12
13
14
16
15
n
157
Le
rW
tW
er
dj
Z5
(With Le)
dW
Frame Centroid
Rc
Axis
TP
(Without Le)
Id
E
i
tf
bf
_p
out-of-circularity
initial
6n
Frame Y etc'. c
",
tilt
eo
I1(
1It
tt
",
le
it
11
it1
It
--n_4
n=3
n=2
n=1
n=0
Frame
3 at 43"
70304
I'
I"
28 at 45"
43"
D04r,,,
IZ'
30.
106' \od
212`Ldic
318 I dio
Od
R1
3ST9"
II
13
IS
42
0'32"
7.361
40
11.04"
0,48"
'
0.64
Stress
(tension positive)
/surface
t1
suurrface"1.
1"o
..
a* cold rolled radius
2
v
i
0.8
Col.
iiP
h
06
eti
0-4
0.2
Iz
-A
13,4
0A7a9
0I2
10
Stress
Residual
Distribution,
Cold
Rolling
Typical
43:
Figure
[18]
BOSORS
-----QuccNU t OEA"ocus
0 TIuL 1
rtelntmut. Polars
jE
TruLs 2[3
"25
6061a
"20
"15
4
00
"10
.5
0"
K"
_
K#n;oo1 " 20 osl
64 asl
n"0.185
E" 107 slt r"0.33
n"0.0253 IN.
"5
R"0.9771 t+
tr " 1.2501ts
lai.
2588
o*
6 10'61"
-10
-15
20
-25
hJ
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2
CDMVIIISIDE
11Dt
CONCAVE
3
FROM
ET
S
CENTER
(
DISTANCE
HE
IN. 10 )
t
AT""Z888
INSID[
OUTSIDE
Stress
Cold
Rolling
Distribution,
Residual
Measured
44:
Figure
[1501
159
FLAT PLATE WITHOUT
RESICUALSTRESSES`
It
1,5(HYDROSTATIC
PRESSURE)
LUI
Z
0.91
o.a
W oa
PRESSURE)
"2.0 (HYDROSTATIC
--
ONLY)
4 .0 (ENDPRESSURE
.0.6
O
0.4
0.3
O
2
(LATERAL PRESSUREONLY)
O; " STRESSINTENSITY
py . YIELD STRENGTH
. STRAIN INTENSITI
y . YIELD STRAIN
Y - CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS
AXIAL STRESS
0.2
0.I
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.1
2.0
1.6
1.8
,
1.3 ' 1.7 ' 1.9
, 2.1
STRAIN,e; /f,
NONOIMENSIONAL
Original
outer
surface
+v
J.
4-..
R R9
!
.... w.:.
`1--Ci.
i:
..
.
w.. i. -
^'......
--
J.
-.:
_.
'"
; ,
'";
"';:
wy.
1"
--
v`'f'`yii`.
4s; titr,:.
}..
i"'
.
l. +.(i,,,: i",'ir
160
Pc;
CR
.
.g
0.1
0.2
0.3
6(n2)(
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
OF RADIUS)
Figure 48: Collapse Prediction eqs. (62,63)(Lines) vs. STAGS, Thick Shell, [731
i%"w:.;
"--...
e".
..:
"'4
:.
A
: "w. /1...
{I: -'.
L+. rY".
: 2": ::.:
r "w..
. ":. M.
r
a. ...... ^.
V;
. "a ,: "+..:.,,`"
. 'ai..
7: L,:
ti -)...
v" __
..
___t".
w.
T. , ""; "_
""1".:
4V
". h
r"f.
`.
n. 1'"
."^i
__
161
P58
i- Interframe Collapse
g- General Instability
i. 2
PSB
CRUSH
Pyf = 1.".
PAX
Pn (2) = 2.1
Pay 2.7
jj
"I
.1
P58
"jg
P'
PC
FQ
1o
.9
( )
(62
.9
0.1
0.2
" 0.3
0.4
0. S
0.6
Sn(n=2)(,.
0.7
OF RADIUS)
Figure 49: Collapse Prediction eqs. (62,63) (Lines) vs. STAGS, Moder. Thick Shell, (731
- STRESSRELIEVED
1.5
CRUSH
sa
0Cl
"-
1.4
Psa
BUILT-UP FRAME
- COLD-caENOPLATE, COLO-ROLLED FRAME
AS Q BUT WITH SMALL n: 12 INTERFRAME NUCLEATOR
PYf
= "7
Pn (2) = Z. 5
pIn = 2.2
1.3
F59
i. Z
"
Pc6
.i
Eq" (63)
i. 1
Fq' (63)
Pc
1,0
i- Interframe Collapse
Instability
General
g-
Fq" i63)
TPI:
of
'
09
9
3'
PiFq.
QI
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
'
.
0.8
Sn(n=2) (X OF RADIUS)
Figure 50: Collapse Prediction eqs. (62,63) (Lines) vs. STAGS, Thin Shell, (731
162
"
00//!
! /r
"o.
30
W
C6
16
22
///
0,
CLASTIC
ti
ID
COLLAPSC
"as
RING
STIFFENER
AREA
PARAMETER,
(Argad)2
101
T-ST1FFENEe
O'T. D'ar
0'7 a 215 N/m. 2
E4210000
N/002
[1221
Stiffener
Capacity,
Effect
Size
Load-Carrying
51:
Figure
of
on
Curve
Stress-Strain
Modified
by
Stresses
of
a
means
of Residual
163
Boundary
ww
uu
vv
BI
B2
1'
B3
B4
v, vv
pR/2
N,
Ls/?
.u
Compartments
164
Boundary
uu
vv
ww
BI
B2
B3
134
Y,v, vv
pR/2
165
HiD3AY
RING FmAME
*COLLAPSE I
tr
COW1
9
pPSE
`"
COLLAPSE2
/IOINA COLLAPSEN. 3
sz
r
N
Ifs
NNd
"
w
cc
NN
-------------
4YIELD 1
a
a
\\0.
.
t
4
i--.
40 HM
62.7Z
`ELD 3
-o, YIELD 2
KENDRICKYIELD
MM
MM
iu
20
40
30
50
AMPLFRJDE IMPERFECTION % SHELL, Th CKNESS
520 mm
0 OCC - Max.Dev.
M-
W-
w- (",
_.
F9 4
60491/r'
{0
15
60kt f /rt
xa a
t(I
5, /, 11""
ILI
tt:
JIG : "-I
[1421
Morihana
al.
Experiments
et
of
Figure 56:
IAW201
60tt f /r'
11
t9
t (r)
L5
{c
L (r)
960.5
1 920.0
ti
On(m)
437. S
9950
995.0
S 0.0
I00.0
100.0
!7
7b-4TK-z
I (r)
Ito-LliE"
(r)
=t:
nrqft
:2:
?S,.t x oil4ifer.
T.
F. 3. C )"
14. SxLS
:1:
1000.0
xt wtwgrt,
N/mm
0,1$7
1.0
Pq^1A
Biullast
0.268
I0.375
0.1
0,2
(a)
'^'^
0.3
point8
(b)
F. a. (! t)"
40x5
.
li
000.0
S.0
0,156
601cs
f /r,
Oo(r)'
7 L-Azlt
t, 5
)8
!a
500.0
!AXN<na
,!
litt
1 60kcf /inr
60ki f /r'
5.0
1920.0
F. S. ()$)*,
1,21x5
166
t"al .1
70l
i,
O1S1
11
1
l
ft" o. o
o"ouf
"l0'
(.
STA.
OAao
OM
%ICT.
CCO.
CT\I
Geometry of ring-stiffened
"
cylinders
rouuroN
VOA
7U
a
iO
FOR
LIZ ATfO"
21 SUCXLI-G
41,
OAp
ti
ij
Mt
OI
STtT"r
element idealisation
r"t--,
"T
1 r(ruu
no
"1
1
1
T(M il l[
VIEW
"ILO
-O SO0SI,
p(SIOU
r ILO-INOUCCO
CONDITION
(
".
O
L fT. [SS (O', /O'T)
4.
/'t
'1
"'
PLATING
-..
,/'
.0`
il
Residual
stiffened
CONDITION
"'"T[NSIL[
VI(LO
o
O
O"$
"I
COLO-e(NO1Nc
at S. Ou.
"l"O
-O"s
GOtO-SCNDINO
""""
O
(ilouAi.
as
""I'S
COLD
" [[NT
CONOI TION
lTIII[M(11
Tst[
3
COLD-It"?.
IN COy0041i1ON)
I"a
'47,14fT)
CONO1110N 3
(CAICNL*now
N.. 3$,
?4$t. 1 woof"
" 21)
", /
01
si.
in
1. O
Q'Or)
stress distributions
cylinders
in ring-
[721
167
Xmfy
,, oacw
6.000
5.500
5.000
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2500
f
o
2.000
o 800
1.500
00
00
1.000
Typical Range(Approx. )
0
0.500
s8888$888
Od0000c00..
.,
..,
py/pcs
Figure 59: Xm
Xmfy ,
6.500
0
6.000-
5.500-
5.000, 1,
-4.5004.000-
::
sooBS5500Tolerance
3.000
2.500-
2.000
100! 0
0.500
_OO00--N
C14
NN
r1
Figure 60: Xmfy vs. e/R, 35 Fabricated Models Failing by General Instability
t-
en
e/R (%)
168
X'
a'fy
LAIC
1.24
1.22
1:
1.18
1.16
00
0
1.14
1.12
1.1
O
pOOO
1.08
00
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
00
0.96
0.94
0.92
0
4
52
cri
9040ae,
r
in
Znna
00
0do
fy
Py/PC5
"
1.100
1.050-
,o0
C
00
0
0
0
1.000
0.950-
0.900-
0.850-
0.8000.750-
0
0.7000
0.6500.600-
0.550
v
*1
In
OOOp..:
1
V%n
119
%n
ll
CnCwR o0
09
to
40
wl
ON
..:
^:
,..;
..:
Py/Pcs
169
Xxmfy
1.100
0
1.050-
1.000-
00
0.950-
0.900-
0.8500
0.300
oo
`'
I.,
m'
ogoo
I`n'
'$
"c
Ic
ci
0000
t-
0c-
rl
go0o
C%
09
'o
00
c.
Py/Pcs
Figure 63: Xm
SAFETY
MARGIN
fI
B,sZ
Qm
Rr
Z=R
-Q
Lm
Strength
Loading,
Safety
[25]
Margin
Distributions,
Idealisations
and
of
64:
Figure
170
Z=R-Q
=g
<0
20
j...... f f(xi,
x:...... x, )dxidx:... dx
Pf =
*1 M
Dom.
Safe
Unsafe
Analytical Methods
(lLcvel
ul
I/
r-)
pf ` (D(-)fl(l +
am.
u1*
g=O, -+7-K1u;
(186]
integral
Tvedt's
or
Problems:
Multiple
modes
Highly
curved g
-
U2
1
95ORM
Simulation
9AFOSM
Methods
(Tevel TIT)
'arlo:
number of failures
Pr
number of samples
ul*
Ul
100
Pr
171
Pf 1o0
--$
AFOSM
SORM
-^
MC10000
-o^^'
-t--
MCS 3 million
IS 5000
--'
ISSO0
--
l
lo'
10'2
10"3
10'2
4
10*
10.3
10.4
10'5
io
10'6
10'6
2.3
2.8
3. B
3.3
10'7
123456
78
p (N/mm2)
p (N/mm2,
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
AFOSM
SORM
6.18E-07
5.48E-06
4.04E-05
250E-04
1.21E-03
4.87E-03
1.63E-02
4.56E-02
1.04E-01
2.04E-01
3.44E-01
552E-07
8.67E-06
5.67E-05
2.40E-04
1.11E-03
5.06E-03
1.63E-02
4.62E-02
1.05E-01
2.03E-01
3.41E-01
MC 10000 MC 3.106
1.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.40E-03
4.70E-03
1.57E-02
4.49E-02
1.04E-01
2.06E-01
3.43E-01
4.20E-05
2.42E-04
1.23E-03
IS 5000
IS 500
5.80E-07
5.30E-06
4.17E-05
256E-04
1.25E-03
4.93E-03
1.66E-02
4.49E-02
1.04E-01
2.04E-01
3.44E-01
5.60E-07
4.95E-06
3.96E-05
2.39E-04
1.14E-03
4.35E-03
1.45E-02
3.99E-02
9.84E-02
1.98E-01
3.23E-01
4.3
172
Pf
100
1
10'
-
-+--a--e--t-'
AFOSM
SORM
IS500
MC 10000
MC 3 million
100
10'2
lo'
10'3
10.2
10'3
10,4
C 3auu on
10'411 -f
2.3
2.8
,
3.3
3.8
4.3
1
, o"5-1
23
T78
456
p (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
AFOSM
SORM
IS 500
MC 10000
2.00
230
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
4.28E-05
5.42E-04
4.74E-03
2.88E-02
1.15E-01
3.21E-01
6.00E-01
8.05E-01
9.42E-01
9.89E-01
9.99E-01
5.28E-05
6.33E-04
4.45E-03
2.93E-02
1.07E-01
3.18E-01
6.04E-01
8.09E-01
9.46E-01
9.93E-01
4.36E-05
5.65E-04
4.95E-03
2.96E-02
1.18E-01
3.28E-01
6.07E-01
8.11E-01
9.47E-01
9.91E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E-05
3.00E-04
6.00E-03
2.91E-02
1.19E-01
3.21E-01
6.07E-01
8.45E-01
9.57E-01
9.93E-01
9.99E-01
1.00E+00
MC 3.106
5.50E-04
4.86E-03
2.89E-02
1.16E-01
173
W/n
W/'x
R=1m, Lc = 5m
""
4"'"
R=2.5m, Lc=15m
'o
Y
"
Ism.
,,,,,.,
I.
.a
I,
ai
"
.a
07
os
I.
"
. ao.
os
"
e"
e.
KV'
"
03
43
"
13.
02
"
..
at
""".
".
".
1. O.
as
01
so
t
ea
[TS
Hreo
NYIao
IWO
W/t
R=4n1, Lc=12m
tkm.
IOOe
7.
e
HTS
HYIO
HY100
NSLA"1400
ALUM LLf
n"
Material
Material
HYIJO
HY170
HSLA"1400
ALUM US
Ti 6.4
Material
174
M
Risk cannot be justified
save in extraordinary
Unacceptable
Region
circumstances
,"
<i"'r"
region
Necessary to maintain
assurance that risk
remains at this level
Broadly acceptable
region (No need for
detailed demonstraton of ALARP)
Negllgibie risk
RISK EXPERIENCES
100
10-1
0
10'2
10-3
Canvey refineries
ro
10-4
Canvey recommended
Estimated US dams
10'5
10-6
Lives (oast
.-10
Cost in $. :1m
100
1000
.1
10 m 100' m. 1 b'
.
10000
10 b'
Consequence of failure
175
J_
AIM I. Iform Ai
%%;;"" Gulf of Mexico """" 'Do
0.1
LL' C
.............
0.001
of Movies
Without
1ler/re
=
mein plea lefr
Gulf of Mexico
........
With
My
Oa
CCT
QCL
z
Yerlne
Growth
Marginal
--N-
i...........
'E'
Platform
.......
"..................
Control
Cook Inlet
Alaska
t..............
'
"....
.....
Growth
viper Alpha
nh See
C. rlbo
Veneiuele
iii,
""""411M""".
Existing
Now
Platforms
... "......
Conbol
Al"
.
"""
It
...........
......................
...
Alu Platform
I
Gulf
Co so ...... ""
Nothing'
0.01
-o
Jv
.rC
mn
--*--Acceptable
"
Platforms
Maul
""j...... "
i
Now Zealand
bete
Pivot
Nenh 36.
Goodwyn
NWS AuolrvlIa
1GI
1
10
100
1000
104
Only [207]
IC-t
+-
USAsus1.DI0d:trat EARTHCu.KtS)
U_&su1to6Mcs
I
ctwwH
FIXED
pt AT FOON-3
.
iAt
u. 0 IN
GES
Qf#%-OAR(
IOA:
10Tir
TARGET
.2
"MIOCU
u-'
+EaC+. Hr cNr=
IC-.
Safety Index
176
%T
6
10
0
00
0
Deo
0
00
00
0a
A:
5
000
40x
20
cv
4U
60
80
Pm/PcS
177
0
0
0
0
f
o
0
Co0
0
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pm/Pc5
178
7.0
6.0
5.0
4. C
3.(
2.'
0
10
20
30
40
50
6o
Pm/Pc5
1-19
a
7 -t--
5 -ob
00
0
C0
0
o
0
0
0000
2-t
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pm/Pc5
180
(pf)
log
5.0 -r--
0
0
4.5
0
0
0
4.0
0
0
o0
o
oa
o0
00
0
3.5
an
o
t
0
3.0
2.5
2.0
18
1.5
1.0-t
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pm/PCs
181
7.
0
m o
e
o
0
o
0
Q
0
Pilot Study
4
2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.
Pm/PcS
182
00
0
00
0
aso
O0
00
0
0o00o
000
Pilot Study'
3
2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
/P
Pa.
183
a
7.i.
Pilot Study
0
5
00
0
0
a
0
0
m0
0.0
0.5
1. o
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.
Pm/PcS
Figure 80: Safety Index, Interframe
184
7,-
0
0
0
00
00
00
0000o
0o0
IOo
Pilot Study
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Pm/PcS
Figure 81: Safety Index, Frame Tripping,
185
..
log (Pf)
i.
t
1
'r
<
f
3
i
NC
.I
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Pin/Pct
Figure 82: Total Failure Probability,
186
a
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.313
4.74.6-
. 13
4.54.4-
eld
4.34.2
4.14-
3.9-
3.8-
ri4P'1`
3.7-
QO
3.6-
3.53.43.33.2
p,
3.1-
Yid
te
3
0
29
2.8-
0
ghell
e
2.7
Collapse
2.6-
2.5- 1
p
tl
in
00
to
in
v1
e! '
=1.15
187
a
4.1
3.9
po
0
3.3
80
3.7
ru
ei44,
3.6
3.5
0po
3.4
3.3
12
3.1
4ate
3
2.9
CO
2.3
A4
2.7
2.6
11
VI
F
Figure 84: Target vs. F, o-o-c = 0.5% R, F
=1.15
188
a
5.2
5.1
5
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
2
age1
QO
ti4pg
eO
Ie,
Op
2.5
2.5
2.1
2. E
41ate
2`
2.4
2.'_
2:
2. ]
S%
Co ,4
O
tesrae
t+
a
G1
tr1
r
c-,
"""
OOOOOOOOC
w-i
c-
W%
---,
-+
cv
--+
cn
-
vn
-i
%Z
.
t. -.
Co
-i
ry
eV
N
M"
CV
CV
vi
%0
NNN
I-
oo
CV
c-;
c!
r
ci
189
0
4.1
4
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.3
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
00
Q
C% ""
CT
C'4 c-.
O
C
-r
O
,
O
c.
O
c-
W
O
O,
..
"-
N
. -.
M
.j
V,
W1
co
0%
001 rr
(3
Target
86:
Figure
vs. F, o-o-c = 0.5% R, Fmax_ 1.30
v9
%a
00
C% er1
190
"lxmjYf
2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.52.4s
G
A
2.4
2.35
F=es'
2.3
2.25
2.2
2.15
2.1
A
0
O
2.05
2
OQ
Q
1.95
0
13
4late
1.9
1.85
1.s
Ou0
1.75
`lied
Flagge
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
Inte
1.5
0
7.5
Colla'pse
Shell
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
EH
>2.5
Intrame
Shell Collapse
ER
Pm/pc5
1.15
1.1
1.05
F
Figure 87: ,y,
F,
(68)
Eq.
for
F
vs.
f
o-o-c,
mjy
=1.15
191
Yxmj'Yf
2.752.72.652.62.55'2.5
2.45
2.4
2.35-
'
FIS
2.32.25-
2.22.152.12.0521.95-
1.9-
Yield
plate
1.35
1.8
1.75-
0Q
e1S
1.7
Inteczrame
0o
1.65
1.6
zS
<
pm/pc5
Shell Collapse
13
Qo
1.55
Flange Yield
1.51.451.4-
Inraine
Pm/Pc'
Shell Collapse
ES
ES
1.351
1.3
E9
1.25
G1
C'
%M C'
V1 "-+ h_
GOOnOOO
Wn M
NOO
U1
!r
%M v1
v1
v1
r-
v1
l
xf
v1
as
C%
CT
. "r to
"O..
."
v9
..
N
.r
v1
e"1 v'1
'0'
V'1 y1
v1
F
Figure 88: ^f
F, o-o-c = 0.5% R, F
yf
vs.
mj
=1.15
192
YxinYE
2.75
2.7
"
2.65
2: 6
2.55
2.5
2.45
2.4
2.35
2.3
2.25
2.2
2.15
2.1
2.05
2
er44'r4.
4ta`
1.95
1.9
1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
O0
Flange
td
.I
0
1 p`ri14
Oe
lrte
Sri
2S
C0a4se
e
`
lztesfrll,
2S
a'9se
COI
Shell
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
r+
^,
Cri
'-i'"
193
Y,anjYf
2.752.72.652.62.55-
2.5-
2.452.4-
2.352.32.252.22.152.1
.,Poo
2.052-
"tas
'SrtQ4
1.95
1.91.85-
1.80
1.75C
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
Yea
O
co at
1.5
a
0
1.45
1.4 -
C]
1.35-
1.3
1.23
`-5
14
,
SaIv
ES
. eld
>2.5
pC,
Pm
Collapse
Interfraa,e Shell
1.2
,.,
=1.30
194
W/o
ay/E
Figure 91: Effect of using yxm,If =1.4 for pmlpcg> 2.5
STAGEA
STAGE8
I
STEPI
STEP2
STEP3
STEP4
STEP5
4NPUTINITIAL -INCREASE
TEMP.
GEO. AS-DECREASE
TEMP. "APPIYAXM.
"UPOATED
IYPEAFECTnciGENERATE
REVERSED
INITIAL
DISH.
GEOMETRY
RESIDUAL
-GENERATE
RESIDUAL
STRESSES
STRESSES
4JPDATE
GEOMETRY
Figure 92: Procedure to Include Imperfections and Residual Stressesin FE Models, [2431
195
Slenderness
Table 1- Limiting
Code
(dam,
/t,, ) Qyf/E
(bf/tt) of/E
BS 5500
API
D nV
1.1
1.0
1.35
0.5
0.375
0.4
Int.
2.33
2.35
4.31
4.32
4.32
2.06
2.43
Lateral Pressure
n=3
Ext.
1.73
1.75
3.93
3.95
3.95
2.01
1.97
Int.
3.65
3.65
3.84
3.84
3.84
3.29
4.06
n=2
Ext.
2.42
2.43
2.66
2.66
2.66
3.13
3.35
Int.
2.45
2.46
4.41
4.44
4.44
2.09
Ext.
1.81
1.83
4.04
4.06
4.06
2.03
Int.
3.74
3.74
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.33
Ext.
2.52
2.53
2.72
2.72
2.72
3.17
n=3
2.96
3.17
accoraing
to Figure 20
Type of Element
pn (N/mm2)
S4R
S4R
S4R
S4R
S8R
1
2
3
4
1
2.06
2.71
2.83
2.86
2.92
S8R
Model 3
2
(Experimental)
2.91
2.96
Model 10
(Experimental)
3.17
. i ...
'.
It .. . -.
w-..
. -...
..!
"'
...
....
wi..
...:
t.:
T.: w
u..
.
,.
..L.....:
Ji...:.
v.
r.
196
Table 4: Comparison
Model
3 (136)
10 (136]
1 (1361
5 (136]
8(1361
6(1101
Experiments
Exp. Pressure
(N / mm2)
2.963
3.171
3.031'
3.275
3.583
1.296
vs. FE Eigenvalue
ABAQUS
(N / mm2)
2.914
2.914
2.766
3.100
3.152
1.403
Analysis
Exper. /ABAQUS
1.017
1.088'
1.096
1.057
1.137
0.924
3
3
3
3
3
4
Number
Material
of models
Int. /Ext.
Bound.
Hyd/Lat
Geometry
Frames
Condit.
Pressure
Range
[85]
24
Steel
Ext.
Various
Hydr.
[74]
10
Steel
Ext.
Discs
Hydr.
(136]
Alum.
Ext.
End Rings
Lateral
[109)
Alum.
3 Ext.
1 In t.
Hydr.
0.3<Z<0.6
Lc/R; =1.0
[941
Alum.
Ext.
Hydr.
1.5<Z<4.1
1.2<Lc/R; <1.9
[110]
Alum.
Ext.
Hydr.
Z=9.3
LC/R1=3.9
[113]
Alum.
Int.
Hydr.
4.0<Z<5.5
L'c/I=2.3
[142]
Steel
Ext.
Hydr.
Z=3.9
Lc/Rj=3.9
(1471
Steel
Ext.
Hydr.
Z=3.9
Z=8.9
3.8<L/R<10.3
Z=8.9
4.8<Lc/R; <9.3
8.9<Z<29.2
Lc/R. =7.0
Lc/I1=3.9
[148]
(80]
[791
Steel
.4
Ext.
Hydr.
Z=7.0
2.0<Lc/IZi<4.0
5
Alum.
Steel
Ext.
Ext.
Deep Fram.
Hydr.
Z=2.0
Hydr.
1.5<Lc/Rl<2.5
Z=9.4
Lc/Rj=3.5
197
q q
5
3
v
v
N
O
V
CnO
tO
"D]
r0
k
vS
b
x
t',
'
N
C!1
O
cr
::
N
OV
(ii
Vt1
O
ppp
r
rD
^"
OV
rp
OO
th
ti )
W
OV
7
v
i*
VNN
-'
"
N
VI
` +
O
tV
CN
Ja
"fa
cl
.: r
hi
Co
Co
w
.+
Z:
Co
w
N
OV
N
0%
Co
:j
b3
N, ->
CDN
-+
U'
\Q
Oo
O
x
x.
+
V1
is
-2
cn
N
tr
r
H
r+
CD
r"
N
bp
gyp.
V
%0
+
r
GD
N
jv
:q
t"
A.
r+
O
V
Ut
'Nj
C
r
c
.r
r
C
r
v
0=
198
8827
Case I
Case III
11543
14259
26.85
26.92
23.39
21.21
8827
11543
14259
8827
11543
14259
33.14
n=2
Eq.(28) Kendrick
7533
69.37
>34.28
42.78
26.62
40.91
26.45
Comparison
Analytical
31.89
26.70
23.16
>37.77
CIII/CI
>1.28
1.01
1.02
29.78
24.56
22.57
n=3
28.56
24.82
23.30
1.18
1.14
1.09
0.90
0.95
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.91
40.59
39.42
39.02
n=4
40.61
.
40.43
40.40
>1.14
0.85
0.82
t(mm)
Lc(mm)
Case2
Case4
Case5
20
22
25
9900
11400
20250
16.68
12.55
5.65
Case 6
25
21170
3.35
15.92
Case 1
34
12880
n=2
Case III
Analytical
Eq.(28)
Kend.
Comparison
CIII/CI
15.63
11.04
5.05
16.69
11.81
5.57
1.47
1.49
1.46
1.07
1.14
1.12
1.0
1.06
1.01
5.99
4.04
3.82
1.79
0.83
0.88
n=3
17.78
15.67
16.29
1.12
1.02
0.98
-24.48
18.67.
8.22
199
r
CJ
.. +
P.
...
W
V
0.
W
NO
V
N
co
C%
V
"
N
%0
G'
Y. J
to
to
...
+
.&
O
110
03
ON
Cn
Ni
'O
0'
V
O
O'
O
00
\O
01
1-
0 -4
. A
r.. A
I. d
cn
to
a',
c%
Q,
X1.7
CCJl::
Ni
D
%D
p
Q'
0000 0'
Ni
03
!e
C)
0
Ni
'A.
Q\
co
co
j-
-A
f..
do
Go
00
00
Q1
"o
Ni
co
C'
LN)
Ul
03
00
WP.
03
%0
00
Ai
V
:
-+
01
pNi
N
Ni
'O
j
w
V
O
Cfl
'O
o
CC
N
0
tn
0o
r. +
Q'
'O
%0
'O
.+
00
o
-+
O'
%0
00
00
V
A
00
p
0
rT1
a
..
1.0
h
'P
O
0'
O
01
W
03
-
Ni
0o
N
-+
000
00
O'
W
N
0
C11
00
01
03
O
Ni
W
CO
N
03
0w
co
-"
. P.
ON
++
QO
C
r9
N
P3
Cn
k.
-+
ONO
Ni
N
N
O
o
0111
O
o
Ni
r+
00
o
-+
00
W
'0
-e
N
%D
00
n. e
N
V
01
.+
N.
00
S
.+
V
"O
Oo
N
Q'
i-+
Oo
A"
N
0.4
Co
1
rn
0
-
03
na
-p
O
N
W
O
V
Ul
O
V
CC
V
N
C
0o
O\
-1.0
+
o
co
'-O
10
--+
-
QO
O
00
%0
'
,
C.
O\
. +
Ln
'-+
. +
O-+
'4
a.
-&
.+
0-+
"
r+
.. +
Q'
03
N
2.
Q'
Q'
b-A
eD
CN
200
.. +
Cn
CI1
-+
(J1
O
r+
-A.
.+
W
.&
N
.A
b-+
00
.+
Ln
W
Cn
La
Co
W
N
Q,
O
10
Ql
00
NJ
W
r
O
kO
00
ANA.
N
OV
C%
Vt
Ak
O
"
N
V
Q+
Cl
Ln
A.
e&
VA
CA
ON
(n
N
CM
b
Co
-i
2)
N
NJ
W
W
W
N
a
ONO
C:
W
\
P
,p
W
N
ia
.C%
co
eo
0
r
OV
00
.. a
N
V
N
91,
%-3
D
%(ON
'C
N
Cn
tJ
C'
'
CM
4
t~n
CO
4
-I?
CM
QO
"f
.
p~
O
ON
CM
N
i
N
-'
N
O
-4
00
C.
Q,
Ul
NV
N
N
0
'C
-'
C
((j,
ll
Vl
Wp
VI
(M
o
Cl1
CM
CJl
CO
O
co
C1ti CJ1
tri
"C
91
00
C11
to
43
zo
to
co
N
00
CCM
CM
p0
43
60
y
N
-%
t0
ts'1
r0
O
00
OOD Ja
Q
.+
O
Vii
O
-+
o
Q
V1
r-
%D
-+
W
00
\
0
. L1
0
tsi
W
\0
coo
'O
Q
O
CJi
r. +
cn
CO
N
N
O
0"
Aa
rr
C'
201
C! 1
A.
Ni
C
. +
N
CO
0
N
O
W
A.
N
62
t
w
FJ
FJ
bd
"+
"
wN
Q'
b.-
W
A
%0
Co
cl% (A
W
V
N
.Fa
N
,a
(n
N
O
Cp
CO
(n
+
CJ1
C\
N
C'
C'
C'
CS
C
. i. 1
Y.
b"
Pd
*-&
14
w.. e
-b
A.
(ii
(A
0%
is
ul
.+
N
.P
l . 1
.p
Co
..
r-+
M-1
ca
CD
N
V1
CD
%0
CD
(>
N
V1
W
N
Q%
Co
.+
QQ
C
0%
00
CO
'O
A.
W
'O
...
'O
IV
po
P
'O
00
%M
CO
0%
o
Cil
X
Oo
cr%
CO
W
V
V
00
ON
N
V
V
V
C
0%
i
G
0
A.
0%
V1
0%
cja
-+
V
. -+
r.
N
+
Q'
9%
V
~
p
O
CO
+
D.
"
CY%
K7
. L
O
Co
'O
\O
C%
0o
cii
V
CT1
O
C77
W-+ -'
W-+
~
r .+
Co
N
CO
N
OO
W
O
5
5
5
'
'e
5 5 5
-i
-i
ii
V
Cl1
CO
k"
52
N
CD CD
l
H H bH
C
"
'
'n
t+
al
2
v
,fa
fD
ti
LL
C'
202
Cll
"
r. +
O
N
...
"+
l.
%G
Co
(PC
'0
Pj
O%
Vt
j.
V1
OVo
Oo
Cn
O,
:x
O+
u
N
a
,
p%
Q
p%
W
QN
O
p%
W
N
51
Cn
00
00
hi
Co
00
Vt
QI
00
CO
C!1
Co
00 ,0 00
"''
'
O
00
cJ
.
OVO
C>
Im
O
(ii
O
Sc.
F. 8
1. d
"
p%
577
00
i; lb
C11
00
No
Li
Oo
Ni
CO
G\
J
Q\
N
V
Q'.
C~71
>..&
W.A
-p
'A
. .
tri
NJ
00
bi
ew 90
O
tV
g
S
QO
v
V
N
Co
Ni S,1
v%
N
1..
(11
j
w"
Q, %
N
b4
C%
WO
(11
S
00
N
00
Cp
CVlI
N
00
g
Q1
W
Ni
+
Cll
(ii
171
'
""
Cn
Q>
2-
hj
NJ
~
$
N
$
tl1J
g
Q
.
V
CTI
Co
h
Oo
'
(J1
CTl
%M
-+
1.0
Vt
W
Oro
1
C%
p
,fa
r. a
nit
"'1
!n
ors
S
t
+
.-
1
; '^
0"
r+
ii
(11
M"
ti
mst
f4
n'^
Q.
Yi
C
i
C
i"
V
i"
V
203
+
W
o
1
u
N
Ch
+
OV
. +
N
r. +
-+
"+
O
Qp
C11
A.
"
N-4
ti
&%
41
Zn
Ja
w
H
Q'
~
V
9'
N
N
Q\
w
O
W.A
.. +
Go
. e
.+
W
O
r-
.+
Co
O
.r
N
b-d
W
(J1
Co
S
.A
rr
Co
N
O
. +
'O
V
tri
.A
Ab
m
C
.r
n
0
r-
w
C:7
as
0
w
n
n
0
C
7
00
O
IJ
ONO
C
V
W
O
W
pia
W
N
Q,
J1
2
co
A.
'm
W
"
0
O
0
u'!
O
N
-
&%
'O
Vt
Ln
W
V
A.
CO
0o
W
'c
Ni
CO
CO
rD
T
U,
w
Q
Co
00
O
0
CD
c"'i
S
Q
S
ti
wX
r.
w
N
rA
w
C
CW V
wO
GW C,1 Co
00
Co
S
%c
'O
1:1
TS
5D
Co
P
Co
w"
CZ
bo
cm
'o
10
Ul
w"
p
b"
"
b-&
"
b-b
b"
\o
%0
0.-
s"
Q'
Q\
lD
U
V
'0
tl1
'0
Coo
-3
C'
204
E
n
JL
'O
o'
n
0
C
N
v
A.
v
W
..
N
.. +
+
..
O
Oo
Co
Co
1%o
N)
Na
;,j
"
&
oo
(A
(A
(>
W
O%
to
A.
,.
W
4L
n
n
N
+
U1
troll
00
O
V
"',,
,
-'
N
Cn
(
N
00
j
D
IJ
bo
a
w
H
A
O
-t
ti
n_
as
c
hi
V
Oo
V
W
-+
W
.A.
. ca
NAt
ON
Cn
N
N
Co
00
W
O
%0
j
O
m
A
A
0
C
C
T
to
.
0
O
A
v
Cl%
hi
+
r%j
Vt
W
(ii
V
vi
Vl
Co
Co
-
%0
Ui
N
O
O%
P
v
t
rD
cn
CA
(D
-a
O
X
H
r
QV
O
4. i
s_a
"-+
O-
O
-4Ln
O
CT1 V
"
C
O
pd
00
>
-
%0
L
W
N
O
;:.
. -.
a%
r
rn
TS
O
o
O
D
N
O
U
O
O
OVi
i-+
.+
Vi
. -a
s
G'
w"
O
0'
N
O
02
CT''
i7
0
t9
C'
a'
V,
r1
N
W
b"
Wa
Ui
V
j
Wb
0.-4
Oho V
w"
00
N.-4
>A
.O
m
Qd
Co
205
ft
to
b>.
03
V
W
C%
C\
-+
N
W
Cil
OD
V
G_
Ni
w"
Co
W
14
OO
N
\O
V
Ni
G%
O
W
O
%.
CO
V
GQ
(ii
pia
N
V
Cll
Q'A'
Vl
ON
W
w
-
pW
O
-+
pp
ONO
O
bi
A
f
*
tll
p
A].
N
J
U
tJ1
Co
rT1
v
CVJI
Lri
L1. n
.. +
W
r. +
N
_4
v
. +
"+
+
r+
. +
r. +
.. +
. +
-A
N
r+
W
+
CJl
hi
9
V
hi
Gn
.+
. +
V
r-.
00
r. +
O
N
O
AZ
V1
O
2.
0o
O
Z
to
O
C!
e
eo
V
V
V
O
V
W-
00
W
V
&
00
'. O
CD
Ui
\O
00
A
00
VW
Q
"_'
. ,,
(m
Co
W
La
-I
Co
V
"
,
CD
N"
Vl
Coil
Gn
00
C
b-b
O~0
Qo
V
ON
1
. C]
Ni
tri
P
i17
CD CD 0
N
CD CD
N
.
s"
N
CD
W
c12
v
CD
W
4>.
s.-6
'A
a%
N
.G
a'
h. 4
1.
>. d
V1
_M
,'
- 4
F-1
1-
VOl
O
lii
10
(kiD
y'
206
~i
W
W
o7 V
13
h
Oo
Ala W
W
V,
p
Ri
W
O
h
Oo
tll
0% 00
.,
O) o
m"
iA
V
CT1
NA.
1-1 w"
N
00
W
N
w"
4i
U7
O
W
OD `
,
V
S
O~o
p
O
Vl
m
.,O
`C
CD
Q>
h
Oo
(:
vi
bo
i
c>
O
0,% V
O
;4
N
Co
2.1
Vl
b-,
N
$
W
a
C4
CD
rt
A
C
A
L
a
ti,
W
c1
ids
oo
(31
O
bi
dQ
b
M
CD
v
C
(J1
e
00
iA
p
bhd
+
pia
CJ1
Ni-i
O
e
VI
p
p
-+
r"+
-+
""
CJ1
z
.G
'z Z L>bi
t9
Oro
Co
)+
Ol
W
\c
(11
06
V1
5 5 5 5 5 5
(l1
\.c
&
N
'P
V
O
.G
C3'
rr
O'
207
Table 17 - Bending Stresses due to Initial Tilt for the Geometry of Fig. 42 1181
Table 17a
Distance
al ong web
(in. )
BENDING
DUE To Axis
STRm
zwniuc
(APPLIED
PRESSURE 568 psi)
1.84
3.68
5"52
0.184
0.368
0.552
0.018
0.062
0.119
7.36
0.736
0.176
Distance
al ong w eb
(in)
0) INITIALTILT
Table
(n
17b
BENDING
0
0.022
3.68
5.52
7.36
0.368
0.552
0.736
0.075
0.138
0.195
41,162
18,973
11,508
4338
-5603
-4943
-4247
-41,968
-42,628
-43,325
-1,668
-1027
-3511
-44,060
-19,291
-7168
(n Q 3) INMAL
18,868
-41,343
0
1.84
62,892
-6229
6229'
-5603
-41,343
-41,968
-4943
-4247
-3511
-42,628
-43,325
-44,060
TILT
Bending stresses(psi)
Radial
78,408
47,558
Circumferential
23,322
13,162
3020
16,314
-5908
-12,273
-35,852 -12,881
208
R/t
LS/R
0.675
133
=
=
,
a 941
= 0.110
cri/ay
,'n@4.5
SIMPLE
SUPPORTED
IR= 3*
IR = C*
% LOSS
iS
IR
1369.4
1287.6
6.0
1687.9
1561.5
7.5
0.05
1273.0
1191.8
6.4
1569.2
1443.8
8.0
0.10
1189.3
1108.6
6.8
1466.1
1341.5
8.5
0.20
1051.0
971.2
7.6
1295.8
1172.7
9.5
0.30
941.5
862.4
8.4
1160.. 9
1038.9
10.5
0.40
852.7
774.2
9.2
1051.5
930.4
11.5
0.50
779.2
701.1
10.0
9G0.9
840.6
12.5
0.60
717.4
639.7
10.8
884.7
765.1
13.5
5n/R '
_
'0.00
Pressures
in kN/_a=
* It =0-
without
* IR =3-
with
LS/R
0.675
133
=
=
,
E/c
y=
CLAMPED
IR =3t%
=31
=0
welding
welding
841
% LOSS
residual
residual
strosses
arc Ic=0.125
,1=5.0
ZR=
0.00
1369.4
1277.7
6.7
1687.9
1546.6
8.4
0.05
1273.0
1182.0
7.1
1569.2
1429.0
8.9
0: 10
1189.3
1098.8
7.6
1466.1
1326.8
9.5
0.20
1051.0
961.6
8.5
1295.8
1158.1
10.6
0.30
941.5
852.9
9.4
1160.9
1024.6
11.7
0.40
852.7
764.7
10.3
1051.5
916.2
12.8
0.50
779.2
691.7
11.2
960.9
826.4
14.0
0.60
: 717.4
12.1
884.7
750.9
15.1
1
.
630.4
SIMPLE
IR =0
E/QY
SUPPORTED
IR =3
LOSS
..
.%.
0=
841 ,
'R.
CLAZ1PED
( %LOSS
ZR=3
Qrc/0'
0
s,tr. essec
SISPLE SUPPORTED
IR=0
IR =3
%LOSS
6R
..
E/a
==0.154
t1 - 6.0
CLAMPED
IR =3
% LOSS
0.00
1369.4
1257.6
8.2
1687.9
1516.5
10.1
0.05
1273.0
1162.0
8.7
1569.2
1399.2
10.8
0.10
1189.0
1079.0
9.2
1466.1
1297.2
11.5
0.20
1051.0
941.9
10.3
1295.8
1128.9
12.9
0.30
941.5
833.4
11.5
1160.9
995.5
14.2
0.40
852.7
745.4
12.6
1051.5
887.4
15.6
0.50
779.2
672.6
13.7
960.9
797.8
16.9
0.60
717.4
611.3
14.8
884.7
722.5
18.3
209
Table 18 Cont d
= 133
LS/R
= 0.338
SIMPLE
SIMPLE
/R
Sn/Rid
T9
IR =0
i,
= 841
= 0.154
arclay
SUPPORTED
SUPPORTED
,nm3.0
CLAMPED
CLAMPED
1d
TO
IR
*2'
TA[.
=3
[.
TT
LOSS
IR
A(
..
=0
TT
IR
www
-AIs.
% LOSS
=0
0.00
2839.7
2745.6
3.3
4077.2
3930.7
3.6
0.05
2650.8
2557.2
3.5
3807.7
X661.7
3.8
0.10
2485.5
2392.2
3.7
3571.6
3426.0
4.1
0.20
2209.9
2117.2
4.2
3177.5
3032.5
4.6
0.30
1989.3
1897.0
4.6
2861.7
2717.3
5.0
0.40
1808.8
1716.0
5.2
2603.0
2459.0
S. S.
0.50
1658.3
1566.6
5.5
2387.2
2243.6
6.0
0.60
1530.9
1439.5
6.0
2204.5
2061.1
6.5
Table l8e
R/t
L.
133
=
, 5/R
0.338
E/a
= 841
SUPPORTED
SIMPLE
Q/a
y
r=0.250
,n=4-
CLAMPED
IR =0f
IR
0.00
2839.7
2692.5
5.2
4077.2
3852.9
5.5
0.05
2650.8
2504.3'
5.5
3807.7
3584.0
5.8
0.10
2485.5
2339.5
5.9
3571.6
3348.5
6.2
0.20
2209.9
2064.7
6.6
3177.5
2955.5
7.0
0.30
1989.3
1844.8
7.3
2861.7'
2640.5
7.7
0.40
1808.8
1664.8
8.0
2603.0
2382.5
8.5
0.50
1653.3
1514.8
8.5
2387.2
2167.2
9.2
0.60
1530.9
1387.8
9.3
2204.5
1984.9
10.0
$_/jZ
E/Qy
=3I
% LOSS
IR
=0I
IR
3I
s LOSS
210
Model
Mod. 2,[1491
Mod. 3,[1491
W1, [1421
W3, [1421
Other FE
ABAQUS
Experimental
Element
6.24
6.49
S8R
S8R
450
6.22
6,2,-,24
6,2,-,24
S8R
S8R
4,2,-,14,
4,2,-,14
I 6.58, ADINA
I 6.85, ADINA
6.16
6.47
4.52
6.68
5.17'
4.26
4.00"
S4R
4,2,2,20
4.01
1.134
1.15
3.73"
S4R
1.135'
1.138"
S8R
S8R
4,22,20
16,8,-? 0
6.39"
Geom A, [231: 1
o-o-c 0.25%R
o-o-c 05%R
D92a, (1401
D921, [140]
o-o-c(O1oR)
1
2
16,8,-,20
Ref. (721
ABAQUS
4.97
6.42
7.04
5.33
6.38,6.37,'
3I
0.5
0.1
0.02
2
2
2
13
0S
5.94
14
6.23
0.1
6.96
15
0.02
7.22
6.36,"
6.36'
[721
* Pc5= 6.23N/mm2
4
5
16
17
o-o-c(%R)
Ref. (721
2
4
2
4
4
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.5
2
2
3
3
2
5.85
4.05
5.92
4.05
new
new
0.1
0.5
2
3
new
0.1
new
[72]
1 ABAQUS *
5.72
4.36
5.69
4.42
3.56
ABAQUS ""
6.1
4.74
6.05
5.46
3.61.
4.19
4.5
4.05
4.42
4.33
5.05
211
Table 22 - Interframe
Pc/Pc5
Collapse - Empirical
Pm/Pc5
0.0
0.0
0.200
0.25
0.400
0.50
0.600
0.75
0.734
1.00
0.790
0.831
1.25
1.50
0.865
1.75
0.894
2.00
0.9: 9
2.25
0.941
0.960
2.50
2.75
0.977
0.992
3.00
1.004
3.50
1.017
3.75
1.028
4.00
1.038
4.25
1.047
4.50
1.055
4.75
1.063
5.00
1.070
1.077
1.084
1.091
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
1.098
6.25
1.105
6.50
1.112
6.75
1.119
7.00
3.25
Design Curve
212
G
O
n
C.
n'
Qi
nr
<
Cl'
EI
cr, a. V C, a' bo .a w w o
0o "o
fV Vl
.P
CN CJI Vl
'' " cn cN
n '1
G1
r+
CA C.
O
(O
Qn
O
O
ca
O
co
a
cn
00
W
Ul
O
r
W
0 0 o
`O `O `0
a
a
ni
(3
14
0
N
O
Qo
.+
00
O
W
:O /O
ON .O
W C%
IV
-A
03
V
o
Clt
N
e
z
O O O
%o %o
110 C%
c-n
ui
"o
CR
00
W
. "+
Cn
r-+
F,
W
N
Qq
Ati
Cn
41.
C1
`N
O
N
*14 CQJI
0.
CA
Ma
0-b
aa
P
O
Cn
P
O
W
.A.
SVA. W
A
C
,fa
000
Li
W
N
i
N
O
W
N
! t
.A.
C r
(I,
N.
fD
N
C
(O
(.n
O
(.O
O
cO
co
W
p
V
W
Cn
""'
A
W
:p.. N
V
-
W
GVG
,ra
W
N
N
co
N
V
G
W
pp
pia
dl
M
a
-r
H
W
C1'
r.
CVJi
00
CN
^W.
W
W
W
e
CJ1 N
00
"
W
C
dl
C'
W
Cn
W
N
N
0
O
W
N
N
W
W
Op
213
I
-CC
I
a
"-"
.
(7
'
t/
r0
N
N
b
N
W
N
n
u,
(Tt
cn
I~7
n
.p
W
cn
(4
L3
Cri
CT ;
N
r
V
`r
'-
Gl
W
Cl.
CTi
W
01%
W
W
QN
"
00
p
fyif
y
Cn
u'
I7
N
I y
Cnl
C% W
w
;A
Cn V
ti
"'
n
,vvA.
cn
.-,
11t
`+
CJt
Zn
(7% ,
to
..
b%
W
Z
Vy
A'
5r%
W
cc
so
.A
a %
Oo
co
-'
I'D
W
N
W
C%
.is
W
ts
W
W
cc
Q o
'
.ia
e
Q
N
A.
GN\
W
C1t
W
.+
1`' 8, '
C
C% N
V
Nj
i
'
00
"
iI
1
I
Q i
j IN1W
. r>
'
t
D
N
O
N
W
W
G1
W
Q%
W
N
O
O
+
p+
a1
;,,r
W
L+
Vt
W
O
00
W
W
O
(: N
O
tj,
N
W
W
J:.
r
N
r. +
N
00
N
-
CIO
W
O
W
-i
N
N
N
CV\
C'
`nj
N
co
Q
Q
h
W
N
CJt
V
J
M
...
N
"r
r
0
OV
o 00
-+
00
N
Gn
N
A
N
W
N
W
`nj
N
,A.
N
co
n
v
CT
C;
r3
Iy
QN
C%
W
P
zPlb
r
Q
10 n
0% ON
H
W
N
CN
W
Q,
"'
CJ7
C,,
I
C,
c
0
A.
I I
. 4.
I I
PS
fil
1,3
I N%
(7,
I I
00
00
0
C
n
90
Co
oo
II
I NCC
00
u,
cn
n
b
c%
214
2)
G
om
Cr
CTS n
.. +
:+
-3
W
IIIII
0
co
00
00
CJl
pia
CTS
II
i
WW
`C7
in
zz
1y
,p
co
,p
'
A.
tll
"r
.P
CJ CJl
1Q
Q
W
.rN
N
N
CA
0
n
V
v
Cn
Cil
v
CO
w
Cn
GO
.P
Ij
V
t
CN
-"
.
CT
..
t
r9
5
e
03
r
r+
.
N
00
"
CO
A"
'I
N
co
CO X
C'
-
01
O
O
pia iA
A.
iA.
l1 1 . Ls
O
G A
iA.
A
O
A.
ii].
A.
.
O
a
N
W
O
: {a
O
iA
O
.'
G
n..
O
N
,,,
C11 C11
N
0% 61
A.
O
tVJI
CL
1J
N
co
).-A
XN
b
b
00
ti
.L1
4A.
kA
bA
kt. Q'
W
-,O
. fa
O\
O
in.
QJ
T
00
00
00
w
00
W
N
t,
p
i-+
. +
"O
W
00
LW
the
just
to
meet
* Lc adjusted
frame
for
yield
BS5500criteria
Distribution
Gyp
Log-Normal
432
Qyr
Log-Norval
4.61
Normal
Normal
t
L
Normal
Normal
dW
Normal
t,,,
Normal
bt
Normal
tf
Normal
Lc
Normal
0-0-c
Normal
(68)
Xm
Normal
Table 27 - Sensitivity
+
c.o. v. (%)
see text
Case 1
Case 2b
Case 3(
Case 4
Case 5
0.92
0.94
0.91
0.78
0.94
0.20
0.20
0.16
0.18
-0.07
-022
-0.06
-037
-0.02
Sn (n=3)
-0.18
-0.07
-0.14
-0.09
-0.13
Xtn1,(n=2Y
0.02
0.14
0.02
0.36
0.01
-0.13
-0.15
-0.12
-0.19
-0.11
variable
Xm
C'yf
S. (n=2)
0.21
Values of a.1
Xm.
yf (N/mm2)
Case1
Case2b
Case3
Case4
Case5
1.1/0.6
1.1/0.53
1.1/059
1.1/0.68
1.1/0.49
550/524
615/586
540/513
390/376
390/371
3.94/7.62
5.32/5.71
Sn (n=2)(mm)
7.88/927
3.94/624
7.88/9.26
Sn (n=3) (mm)
3.56/522
1.78/2.13
3-56/5
1.78/2.2
2.4/333
Xm1 (n=2)-
1.1/1.09
1.1/1.01
1.1/1.09
1.1/0.88
1.1/1.1
R (mm)
4000/4079
2000/2047
4000/4079
2000/2056
2700/2751
Values of x, x*
Case1
Case2b
Case3
Case4
Case5
054
0.48
0.53
0.61
0.44
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.96
0.95
Sn (n=2)
1.18
1.58
1.18
1.94
1.07
Sn (n=3)1
1.47
1.2
1.4
1.24
1.39
Xm1,(n=2)1
0.99
0.92
0.99
0.80
1.00
R"
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.02
5.476
4.932
5.903
"
Xm,
yf
Values of PSF
4.942
5.108
216
Case 2b
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
0.97
0.98
0.96
0.98
0.16
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.14
-0.03
-0.10
Values of (Xi-.
.
-0.02
-0.14
-0.01
Case2b
Case3
Case4
Case5
1/0.48
1/0.46
1/0.42
540/525
390/381
390/379
7.88/8.23
3.94/5.17
5.32/5.40
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
0.97
Xn
yp
,
Sn (n=2)
Case1
;(m
oyp(N/mm2)
1/0.53
1/0.55
550/535
595/579
7.88/8.32
3.94/4.64
$n (n=2)(rrmm)
Values of x, x*
I
Case 1
Case 2b
Xi
0.53
0.55
0.48
0.46
0.42
yp
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.97
1.06
1.18
1.05
1.31
1.02
5.476
4.932
5.903
6n (n =2)
1 Valuesof PSFI
3.745
5.108
0.97
Case2
0.97
yp
0.12
0.12
0.14
Case3
0.97
Case4
Case'S
0.97
0.97
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.15
0.17.
0.16
Case2
1.06/0.61
Case3
1.06/0.59
595/585
540/531
Case4
1.06/0-58
390/383
Case5
1.06/0-56
390/383
34/33.6
18/17.8
Values of x, x*
34/33.5
17.9/17.6
25/24.6
Case1
Case3
0.56
0.98
0.98
0.98
Case4
0.54
0.98
Case5
0S6
Case2
0.57
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.98
3.124
3.243
3.343
Case1
Xm
YP(N/mm2)
t (mm)
Xm
Qyp
t
1.06/0.59
550/540
0.14
Values of ai., .
0.53
0.98
Values of PSF
3.123'
3.012
217
Table 30 - Sensitivity
Studies, Tripping
Case1
Case2I
Case3
Case4
XM.
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.99
Case5
0.99
ayf
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.09
0.10
Case2
Case3
Case4
Case5
Values of Cti
Case1
1.0/0.45
1.0/0.45
1.0/0.42
1.0/031
1.0/0.31
550/538
615/602
Valuesof x, x"
540/528
390/382
390/382
Case1
Case2
Case3
Case4
Case5
Xm-
0.45
0.45
0.42
0.31
0.31
6yf '
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
3.921
4.647
4.367
0.095
0.06
Xm;
ayf(N/mm2)
Values of PSF
'
3.733
3.71
(%a)
upper Ditl.
0.109
0.157
0.042
P (ton/m3)
Material
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
2.8
4.5
HTS (EH-36)
HY80 (Q1N1) 1
HY100 (Q2N)
HY 130(Q3N)
Aluminium L65
Titanium 6.4 1
E (Ki /mm2)
355
550
690
890
390
830
207
207
207
207
70
110
Exposure
Mountain
Risk of Death
per Hour per
10" Persons
Exposed
Hours of
Exposure per
Person Exposed
per Year
Risk of Death
per 10"
Exposed Person
per Year
Ratio of
Wounded to
Number of
Deaths
2700
100
27
59
2900
17
120
1000
12
21
1600
3.3
56
400
2.2
20
2200
450
100
1.7
1.2
2.1
5500
1.1
2000
5500
0.4
0.0&
5500
0.001
climbing
(international)
Trawl fishing
(deep sea,
1958.1972)
Flying (crew)
Coal mining
Automobile
travel
Construction
Flying
(passengers)
Home accidents
Factory work
Building fires
Structural
failure
7.7
120
0.15
0.002
<<
<<
218
Table 33 - Average Reliability,
I
Avers
Pf
No Overdiving
Average (
2.01E-07
5.08
min
4.89
2.67E-05
4.04
3.60
4.77
5.15E-05
3.88
3.56
5.01
Plate eld-0.05%
1.15E-04
3.68
3.34
4.91
Tripping
4.23E-05
3.93
3.71
4.99
Interf., 1<Pm/Pc5<2.5
6.90E-04
3.20
3.01
3.74
2.10E-07
5.07
4.73
7.34
15% Overdiving
Average13 I
Average Pf
max
5.90
min
max
6.42E-06
4.37
4.14
5.42
3.87E-04
3.36
2.94
4.01
4.48E-04
3.32
2.95
4.60
9.69E-04
2.18E-04
3.10
3.52
2.70
3.26
4.49
4.74
3.98E-03
2.65
2.44
3.27
4.11
3.72
6.62
2.03E-05
Average
30% Overdiving
'
min
max
1.17E-04
3.68
3.42
4.67
3.40E-03
2.71
2.20
3.30
2.78E-03
2.77
2.35
4.19
5.87E-03
2.53
2.07
4.06
3.11
2.82
4.49
In erf., 1<Pm/Pc5<2.5
1.69E-02
2.12
1.88
2.81
6.77E-04
9.48E-04
4
1
3.20
2.75
5.92
219
min
, max
2.02
4.66
5.30
1.74
3.57
4.43
2.08
3.84
3.93
2.00
3.61
173
2.48
3.94
3.96
Interf., 1<Pm/Pc5<2.5
1.81
3.15
3.26
1.40
3.15
3.26
Tripping
inin
Rmax
1.75
3.85
4.50
1.55
2.99
3.74
1.80
3.21
3.30
1.75
3.05
3.17
Tripping
2.15
3.50
3.51
1.55
2.57
2.65
1.30
2.57
2.65
fI
1.55
3.19
1.35
2.26
1.60
1.55
Interf., 1<pm/Pc5<2.5
1.40
1.25
Interf.
2.68
anux
3.82
2.89
I
2.48
1.90
3.08
{
2.59
{
2.12
2.12
2.76
3.10
2.31
2.31
1.55
1.35
1.6
1.55
1.9
1.4
1.75
1S5
1.80
1.75
2.15
1.55
1.25
1.3
Fmax=130
F=1.15
Present
?f maxi
_12Lj
2.02
1.75
2.10
2.00
2.50
1.80
1.75
1.40
1.75
-1.8
..
220
APPENDIX 1
TEXT BOUND
INTO
THE SPINE
221
Cn
Ut
. -+
CD
-+
CD
i-+
CD
<-"
(r
O
pp
0o
.P
O
W
D
'O
D
%
V
N
V
N
W
O
W
D
N
%0
O
bo
CO
%p
'A
O
W
O
W
N
%D
O
W
N
O
O
po
Go
':
N
%0
O
bo
Oo
>,
N
O
O
o
Oo
0
\O
O
\O
W
%0
W
%0
'0
N
O
rn
Ni
%O
N
,
p
N
;,
A-
N
pA
vi
i.. +
V
( Jl
vi
(A
il
O
Cn
O
S
O
bo
Co
Oo
"
N
_A
O
N
:. +
pi--a "
N
-+
W
O
i. +
V
( Jh
O
0
"0
W
O
p'P.
O
1, 0
"
"
N
s p
p
22
Ui
O
Cn
O
W
N
W
0,
0o
N
p
N
N
p
N
pi
O
'0
W
O
Co
CD 00
A.
g
iA
S
A.
g
A.
g
, p.
g
W
OO
.Li
,C.
00
D
'0
V
N
M,
5;
00
C)
O
<
pgip,
O
00
Ni
V
$
V
$
V
$
Co
00
Oo
CO
Oo
CO
$
'
'
.
N
SO
W
N
r..
0'
-+
b-
N--4 00
W
V
N
O
Vi
V
C,
i, )
t'
DA.
O
;A.
W
N
O
Ni
%M
JO
N
4b
e
u
p
Co
Ni
%C
-4)A.
>Cn
N
ZO
O
':
9
bo
121 W
O
Cn
N
p
N
00
p
pp
W
Co
Cpn ZO
O
Ui
(Jl
V
$
O
(71
tJ
V
$
N
O
W
N
41
g C,g
Li
O
W
N
V
Q\
N
00
%Z
"O
"O
00
A.
e
W
Cn
lii
CIN
O
C.n
B^
uo
Vi
O
o
00
%0
_/b
o
00
%
O
in
O
00
o
00
O
Li
a
O
W
00
O
n
O
Co
1+
1"
bo
00
-4
CD
O
bi
O
00
0
-I.
O
O
O
S
Z]
N,
V
V
CD
V+
CD CD
*, j
O
p
N
1-4
V
O
p
L,
C
.o
0
O
:.
N
CD
O
C7
0
O
V
N
W
O
'o
Zi
O
cn
\o
O
(ii
O
W
W
V
W
V
ii
Vt
Q%
cn
O
W
O
N
N
A.
CD (Z
N
v+
cz
"
~
C
,
O
l
i,0
V1
O
0
,
2,
D
CD
W
O
V.+
qv+
Q
O
V
W
w
W
w
V- V- V+
$
$
O
W
w
.. +
L
w
. ,
w
w
V+
O
V+
O
V+
V+
$
V+
$
rn
g
R
\
i17
g
O
z
'm
V
+
W
i. +
W
V1
W
V+
CD
Cll
W
N
CA,
N
*
W
w
-
F' V
A
N
%Z
Clt
V
N
Q'
V
O
W
V
V
(
1
iA
222
i.
V
Oo
A
V
00
A
!
V
W
A
W
P
W
P
w
W
O
M
`A
. fa
N
%0
00
i--
"+
N
O
pp
J
p
N
r+
n
CO
o
Z
. +
.. +
Co
iA
W
C71 (! 1
Ala
L)
V1
L1
V1
LJ
`
T
N
J
:1
1.D
N
o
p.
,W
O
. -+
O
%Z
,a
W
V1
-'-+
G
%O
V
O
i
-+
D
V
D
W
W
()
O
Oa
r+
W
N
W
N
W
N
W
N
r. +
r+
r-+
O
Oo
N
CWJI
.+
eta
00
N
O
O
Z0
'.O
O
b
N
P
%0
Co
00
Il
'A.
O
N
V
G`
V1
W
O
N
A.
W
Q
(n
o
N
A.
vi
]
v
-.
,ia
1
o
P
,A.
G^J
O
"-"
Cn
V
n+
ity
. +
N ii
0
ON
O
Q
+
Ni
O>
N
0
00
W
QN
N
W
-a
W
Cn
O
W
V
N
O
N
Vii
O
A
Qo
10
v
w
e
Cll
'O
O
O
N
C
c%
\O
00
W
N
S
00
Cn
W
Q
Q
O
pp
0o
O
W
''
V
0o
V
N
00
CJl
i
Q
p
,
\D
N
p
O
p>
C
^
, J
Na
CD
D
'v
Ni
C7
.+
N
..
W
j
pp
N
N
00
ri
~-
.
(A
N
00
Zc
~
r~+
Cji
N
Oo
i +
Q-
i-+
~-
tn
,
y
O
~- ~"
Vi
Vi
~.
+
N
%n
%0
~-+
00
00
00
'. O
o
~
~
r -+
:o
~
.+
N
W
~
-
N
W
p
O
~
N
W
V1
.. +
W
pwp
'. '
tJ
V
v
'i''
;
~
-
~.
+
N
W
00
V
N
, 4.
+
jJ
W
p
O,
'0
wp
G
w
V
W
=
10
pw
Q
W
V
W
W
O
L.
"
ir,
Zil
V
W
COJI
N.
Cll
iA
N
iA
W
A
Co
1
1
2
Cn i-+
O
p
V
p
Cn
p
Oo
V
C,
N
(n
w
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
.A
Z
pnp
.la
CTi
O
A.
0o
01
Na
gis
-+
(11
to
(Jl
cy,
N
J1
N"
m
V
N+
A.
bo "
N
'
1,0 fi
CJ1 W
V
$
V
$
V
$
V
$
V
$
OWO O
O
CJi
W
V
71
Q
Li
W
(W
4b
-+
r-
00
000
Oho
.+
i -i
000
000
-+
T1
tJ
=y
rt
""
II
"
J1
Z1
Jl
00
00
'
C
0o
\
N
Cn
g
N
JI
Q
O
N
I t
Q
O
N
J1
p
O
N
71
p
O
-L
223
0
0
NA
,
r
fJ
W
P.
-+
b
pp
pN
A.
Oo
(n
W
vi
-
iV-+
O
Ci
A.
N
W
Oi+
Oo
W
Ci
O
A
OO Q
V
CT1
D
O
00
(A
O
O
V
00
O
O
V
00
O
O
\O
O
O
O
0o
-+
N
CD
0o
N
W
O
D
D
N
O
N
W
. -+
N
W
-
g
O
N
O
o
N
O
O
N
p
o
O
0
Wo
po
52 O
O
O o
Cott Cwi
N
0o
N
Oo
r-+
o
N
O
N
O
o
Q',
W
N
CD
Oo
OWO +
W
W
-+
O
o
00
O
cn
O
O
0
oo
O
Cn
O
O
V
Cn
O
...
O
O
Cn
W
O
O
2,
N
0
Wp
O
N
O
+
ZA
N
o
W
A
O
Co
Oo
O
O
0
oo
O
W
p
Q
W
p
Q
o
W
W
p
O
V
W
O
W
p
O
iA
Ul
"O
o
N
Q:
-
op-
-+
IV
N
w
o
k
1-0
m
.
Co
N
W
,ia
Lo
Jt
C
0
N
O
N
CJ1 n
11 CN
tt
Chit
O
10
W
O
o
CA
O
O
00
",
O
O
bo
0
111
O
O
o
p
O
O
V
O
`J
O
V
o
O
N
-E
O
N
O
N
CO
O
D
O
0
p
O
0
O
V
O
0
o
O
o
o
O
o
p
O
O
V
o
p
;P
N
O
:a
N
O
Co
O
(3
O
fi
(A
O
;ii
\O
V
o
N
W
b
-A
r. +
N
ii
iGo
Z.
+
00
"
Co
9
D
%Z
N
\O
m"
Q
O4
N
O
CO
S
O
O
S
W
o
41-
O
V
00
O
O
V
0
N
%O
O
V
00
O
0o
O
b.-6
O
o
C!1
O
0
N
w"
N
O
\O
N
O
w--4
0
O
.
W
00
;p
7C
'
N
Cp
(11
i+
W
O
O
o
pp
P
00
O
V
O,
"+
CDg
i-+
N
b
r+
+
bo
O
V
.. +
00
CJt
'O
o
00
.
Q%
iP
V
W
Q,
Z,
V
W
O%
iA
V
W
QN
pia
V
W
?'
O
-'
"
O
OC)
V
O
Z
Oo
Q
`
%O
;P.
N
o
Cpl1 iP
N
o
W
WzO WV
a
Cl1
9
"+
I7
CD
O
7C
`Q
^
S,
2ij
D
N
CJt
N
_
C.,
/iJ
C7
Cn
P
p
00
ul
;A
"
"
CW
pA
W
0o
CTt
W
(ii
WN
(ii
W
N
rP
N
W
N
Ii
hi
p
Q,
CD
'A'
N
W
A.
; -+
W
"
ji
"
Oo
',"
O
00
00
00
00
%0
\o
00
00
00
OD
("
C(D
)
h
h
(p
rr
b
z
fil
CO
00
-+
52
GO
'"
W
p
O
'
u"'.
W
S
ch
W
N
W
S
pip
N
00
N
N
W
P
-+
CD
til
T
I7
M. y
CD
D
'v
'v
...
224
Co
N
000
N
000
N
W
g
W
g
W
g
W
g
-+
i-+
". "
(ii
N
Cn
N
(ii
N
(J1
N
. -+
~
+
A"
A.
Ala
-+
Q
O
D.
o
pia
.+
tJ1
CO
b..&
C
gyp,
A" _
p
V
P.
V
s"
N
00
N
b
00
Vl
W
.
-+
O-"+ N
O
N
O>"
00
Clt
A.
O
y
pia
\
r+
-+
60
pVp
V
VI
N
\O
%,
O
Q:
iVA
O%
V
.+
00
. +
00
N
VQ
p"+
CJl
O
' 10
O:
i
i
0%
A.
00
+
W
i.
+
00
i".
00
Co
00
ti
(i
r+
W
L,
W
W
La
W
fl
W
W
"
00
%D
r. +
W
:.
N
N
%O
p
00
V
O
00
O
00
O
p
,p
Cn
Cn
Cn
O
QO
tsi
F
CO
Ui
O
pp
iA
vi
O
po
P
vi
N
i.
-.
N
w-
pp.
"
%0
%0
52
-+
%O
IO
o
W
;-+
N
tJl
ZO
N
i-.
D
"
CO
N
-+
P
V
Oo
V
00
A
V
O
Vt
V
V
Oo
W
C4J
p
5D
5D
'.O
%0 CD
OO O
W
W
+
O
pp
CO
O,
Ul
CO
tJl
%0
0o
W
W
W
W
le
%0
W
LJ
%
,0
*-o
"+
V
p_
Q\
C'
1,0
'. O
Qi
%0
Co
Oo
N
i. +
-+
OV
V
00
Co
V
V
00
00
V
V
Co
Co
N
V
pp
OO
3
Z.
a
Cn
0%
+
C
.. +
Z.
.+
-+
i-+
Ni
; fl
Cs7
. f
N
"
-4
CD
D
a
a
-A
fD
CO
CY,
v
( J1
CD 0
W
-+
b-+
-+
Na
9
O\
W
0o
Cn
N
n.r
r+
CD
N
O
G
O
W
a,
-+
N
O%
W
V
W
O
U1
O
p
O
Q,
W
V
N
W
.
V
tli
O
N
W
+
(11
W
iii
N
N
r+
V
O
e0
Oo
\O
V
O
C,
V
. d
V
O
00
;+
A
'j
Q
-+
V
O
CO
Q
N
O
!W
P
il
bb
2
P
41 cm h-
W
i-+
N
p
p
N
N
CD
-,O
O
O
V
O
V
O
V
o
p
%O
bz
O
N
00
C>
N
0o
N
O
ON
N
>-+
-h
r+
. +
.+
\
~1
225
,p
...
.. _.
A
a
b0 b0 bO bo b0 0
"
>
A.
>
iii
a
"
a
Z4
81
>
>
"
a
bo
o bo
"
a
pia
>
A
a
eta
a
41.
a
P
a
00
(J
,
a
W
9'
W
a
w
a
v
Vt
.:,,:
>
%jD
N-4
p
W
O
W
O
W
O
W
_
p
W
"'
"D
0
%,
%wo
.n
V_
W
(n
V
W
Cn
V
2.
"D
D
O
c>
u1
O
O
V
pp
P
1D
%O
0o
N
O
-'
%0
V
Oo
Oo
(>
7
V
W
.
V
N
1, 0
tJ
O>
N
'O
N
N
N
N
%O %O \O
N
N
N
Q,% 0% Q\
..
r-+
0..&
o-
1--
,p
"
O'
p
Wp.
O\
r-+
-
D
O
Q
b0
Co
0
%,
N
W
C
b3
Co
'O
N
D
C
ZDO
00
1,0
N
O
%
.
W
>"
O
bo
Co
'. O
N
1,0
O
W
w"
bo
00
\O
IJ
%M
O
W
.o
O
%D
V
Q
O
V
W
>...
O
V
W
o
W
.. +
O
.o
O
W
p.
. P.
O
W
"'
PV
'. p
W
u
V
OW
V
W
gyp'
o
.'O
pW
_
O
W
O
W
%D
O
%Q
lb
.+
N
eA.
C
V
b--4 r-+
O
O
2
N
s"
N
O
N
0%
-+
bo
00
'. O
N
%0
A.
N
o
.IV
N
\ wO
N
0%
C'
r-b
c0
00
%0
N
%0
N"
"
tJ
%
O
N
O%
. +
0%
-.
OO
Oo
1,0
Z0
N
%0
IJ
,O
W
N
tO
N
00
140
N
N
%O O
N
N
O%
-
O%
b"
bo
00
00
%M
c0
00
1,0
00
IJ
1,0
W
%0
W
%G
p
W
"O0
O
%0
O
%0
%O
0
%O
I.
. +
O
r-
O
. +
O
p
D
V
00
O
V
Co
O
V
N
'O
N
O
0%
0%
N
'
0.
tJ
N
%O %.
0
0'
0
N-4
7O
0
%D
%O
00
O
V
Co
O
V
V
(J
7
. i
+
Co
O
00
O
Co
O
N
%O
0\
N
'. O
N
0
%G o
w-+
0%
" +
N+
--. +
00
CA
60
Co
Co
co
Co
00
00
OO
QO
00
Oo
00
00
00
GO
00
OO
OO
O
%.
%e
r. +
%O
\o
%C
N
O
%0
"O
%0
%0
tJ
tJ
O
%,
iD
%0
%m
%0
O
%.
%D
"O
%0
--I
N
O
'
SJ
O
p
C7
7 7O
N
O,
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
N
O
V
O
C
O
G
O
CD
O
O
O
CD
O
G
%0
D
%.
"O
'.O
'0
%Z
%0
'0
%0
'O
,0
%0
1,0
'.O
110
'0
10
%0
'.O
%0
%M
%Q
'O
%Q
'0
"0
CD O
N
2
-+
W
N
V
%M
n.+
ZTl
b..
L1
W
r+
W
W
r. +
IJ
IVJ
N
Q
7
N
i
..
V
N
r-+
C
N
V
(J,
W-+ N
11 O
(, 7
V
(J ,
,p
N
Co
,p
00
p
,A
r+
00
C%
P.
C11 . +
CY%
m"
Ni
CD
v
v
226
N
L1
c)
000
N
L9
CD
000
-'
L,
OV
COo
. -+
N
.. +
. +
W
. -+
-'
]
.+
,p
,P
. +
.. +
r-+
r-+
b-4
. +
r-+
>r+
N
iP
W
W
1,0
V
O
tJl
00
W
r-'
o-''
"o
FJ
14
F-
Ul
(4
Flt
CJt
p
9
p
Ul
Pb.
)
%0
"'a
'"`
00
,o
.. 1
C.
W
O+
-+
N
(O
-+
N
W
r+
IJ
W
-'
IJ
W
_1
IJ
W
Jl
r+
tJ
W
L1
.+
!
LPN. .P
r+
OVO OVO
-+
.. +
r-A
-+
i
00
A
O
Q
iP
iP
.A
C
g
r..
O
.
00
O0
V
P...
O
i
00
.r
O
0
%,
o~
i
r. A
C
C!1
V
p
ip
p
V
-+
. -+
. -+
r. +
.. +
, .
,..
. +
LN
LN
dO0
hi
1.3
WWWr+
Q
V
W"
1-
M.A
1.. h
1.. b
%0
tat
r-+
r+
Q
. -+
O
-+
O
u1
MVP
N
Vo
FJ
00
C! 1
N
p
6O
-'
'P
N
tJ
S
a+
W
V
,ta
N
to
0
co
N
L,
)P
-+
r+
N
CJt
N
V
C
n
C'
tn
"
.,
p-
F.
Jl
tJ
(, n
.P.
r-+
r. +
N
r+
IJ
r+
N
h
-4,
O
+
fJ
O
Vt
0o
L,
ANA
V
W
V
W
V
W
WV
Cll
Vl
4d
Zu
to
..
CJ
0o
Li
p
Q
Oo
Oo
r+
.. +
N
it
N
N
0'
N
r+
N
-+
pAp pP
P
P
P
r-
Cpp
r+
cnp Po.
p.
A.
P.
-a
SD
v
.p
,p
,a
00
Co
Q,
O,
b,
Ni
00
00
r. +
r+
r. a
r+
r+
.-
. +
CJ1
Cll
C71
Cl1
(J1
CJ1
(I1
(J1
C! 1
Cll
c11
52
V
N
%p
0
%,
%0
W
C71 O
00
i+
-+
wW+
W
N
VO VD VO VO D
N
13
Co
;O
QU
'. O
00
'O
CO
'O
00
'. O
r''
)--b
r+
r+
%e
00
Co
,
to
1
bp.
G
C,0
O
Co
'. '
00
00
Ul
O
W
00
Oho Cl1
Q
00
p
V1o
-+
CJ1
CJ1
J1
Vp
VO VO
J1
VO VC
t3
VO
N
13
00
'O
00
'. O
00
00
OO
>..b
r+
>
-A
13
00
'. O
00
'. O
OD
'.O
b--,
r+
i-+
V
t+3
00
Ul
'-+
tJi
"
pia
N
"
-+
. +
J1
C?1
Cli
tJl
vi
tJ1
V I
VO VO
vO
VO VO vG
00
Co
Co
04
Co
.+
>.+
Co
Co
00
V
t
rh
b.4
"
r. +
N
Ze
W
r+
r+
r+
N-
b-- r+
r+
r+
N-+
w-
r-+
O
00
O
Co
O
N
%D
W
N
N
14O
W
W
ti
N
%Z
W
N
%0
W
N
1,0
W
N
ie
W
-+
r-+
Wp
Q\
b-A
-a
00
CWit
ih
pA.
i. +
W
"
t3
"
Q\
t3
pbA
G\
O
W
O
V
t3
,P
O
W
O7 VD O
O
N
IJ
IJ
00
Co
00
ZA
rr
r. +
r+
0o
V
S
V
$
.+
N
'. +
oV
(
r+
-+
N
IJ
-6
227
o
N)
N
Co
A
"
N
W
+
N
W
W
(jj
P
;
-+
V
P
N-+
C1 C!t
V
O
CD
"o
O
o
p
p
O
o
S
O
1J
N
O
tJ
N
O
fJ
N
CD
W
tJ
CJj
.
.
.A
V
W
v
w
;la
O
bo
Oo
O
O
o
N
O
Ni
r"
W
tJ
CJj
N
W
N
Cn
N
(r)
N
Cn
N
O
CIl
r-&
N
V
N
W
iA
W
iA
W
-P.
N
a
00,0
0
00-,
O
' i-'
p-p'
V
O
W
v
V
-+
i-&
,O
O
Cll
Ni
N
J7
N
,A"
V
Cn
N
W
r+
O
N
00
('ni
N)
Co
Ja
,p.
,A.
b>
P.
OWO W
O
N
V
hi
O
W
0
pp
O
k13
O
C
S
0
o
Cn
O
0
o
Oo
O
O
O
S
0
o
N
O
O
pN)
.. +
:. +
V
C
".
-A
Q'
N
G-b
O
N
N~
.+
. &
W
1O
V
N
N
N
W
CO
"
W
t.
.
cOJt
r. +
Vt
0
'D
S
O
N)
N
O
O
N
N
.+
. -+
O
W
9
p
i-+
O
C
-
N
W
N
"
V
CJl
N
g2
r.+
O
W
ui
0
N
N
O
0_ 0
V
Q
Ab
r. +
.. "
Cll
op
\O
Q
A.
g
C
A
g
W
%e
Q
A.
pA. S
OVO p
o
0
Ui
Ui
eta
g
-+
ON
%m
Ui
O
p
0
'o
O
'O
-+
O
b-+
O
O
ZD
Co
O
O
'O
00
O
r-+
0
O
.
O
.
0
o
%M
O
O
N
cc
Co
O
N)
V
j
O
W
W
Oy
. +
O
Q
p
%M
p
00
O
%
W
O
'D
'O
Cn
N
.p
. +
i. +
W
. +
+
r.
+
W
..
N
k
ODD Ul
N
b
VI
N
IJ
N
N
N
N
CTS
IJ
Co
W
C>
;A
Ul
N
Q\
;>
Ui
N
Qh
iA
Vl
N
N
L&
w
V
N
+
W
V
N
00
W
Q
W
QO
N
L
N
W
N-
to
(Z
Cn
oo
N
W
gyp
,
Can
p
p
p
Oo
r-+
r+
00
N
V1
Cn
Cl1
P
Co
A
00
O
N
,p
W
(J1
(J1
as
P.
p-
00
pp
-+
p
S
Co
Co
Co
O
C'
g
O
N
O
O
g
O
ZO
Cn
C'
..
w"
N
G\
+
pN
O
.
Qi
N
iA
to
W
pi
Qi
lo
c0tl
W
o
Cn
N
N
Q
Cn
V
O
o
S
0
IJ
%0
V
(rW
O
V
O
bo
N
Ab.
A
N
W
00
V
W
O
V
(7 N
V
O
..
2
p
OOV
O .
W+
cc
O
+
O
N
N
N
Wpp Wpp W
O
P
A
V
W
O
V
Co
N
O
+
U1
O
N
Clt
J'.
'
t.
A
Cn
N
O
O
%Z
00
. +
(I1
a
iN
V
O
vi
W
pi
(A
Co
00
A.
O
W
O
Z
-+
+
ON
iA
S
-
. {a
S
Q%
Oo
(11
V
W
. +
.
a
W
r..
-+
+
W
,,
. +
i.
-+
W
.,
. +
A.
S
r+
A.
S
-.
A
S
N
N
N
N
N
CO
N
N
N
00
N
N
I3
0o
\O
N
N
Oo
%D
N
N
w
%0
N
to
Co
%0
N
fJ
00
%Q
W
V
W
V
W
V
Cll
-+
(ii
+
Ul
i-+
(Jt
i-+
V1
N
L
N
LJ
V1
03
N
ilk
N
iC.
N
i0.
N
iA
Oo
vi
CA
Cn
CO
N
iP
(ii
Ul
8i
Vt
tit
V1
(n
Ul
-+
-+
.C.
N
tJ
N
p
ONO
N
NJ
W- Ul
(JJ
clI
N
L
%0
%0
N
%Z
,O
W
00
Cn
ifil
]
V
00
CI
Co
-+
IV
Co
W
Co
cC
228
,P
Ni
--
r. +
.. +
r-+
-'
A
N
.A.
Vt
.+
SJ
Q
Q
--
IV
n
N
-'
r-.
W
V
V
r-+
IV
(,
99:.
N
( Ti
O
N
CTl
W
N
CJi
Oo
pp
,0
pp
W
A.
O
\O
w
,, i, 1 L tW
W
W
,p
.P
"
>
iA.
00
..
t11
t]
^V+
-+
N
0'
N
Q
EO
N
V
Ul
N
C
"
b
vi
w
W
w
W
- '
i. +
W
+
i. +
W
+
-+
W
r+
i. +
W
-
i-+
W
r+
iP.
S
iA.
S
A
S
pia
S
iii
S
p
p
6N0 ONi
O
N
A.
Ui
N
A
Ui
Ui
J
y
`,
OD
J
y
",
GD
tl1
N
O
Oo
W
Q
w
-
W
QO
`
O
N
..
W
N
i..
W
N
;+
W
N
it
W
N
+
W
N
'
Cn
N
F
C!1
N
A.
Cn
U1
Ul
L
L
Li
W
W
W
Li
W
Li
W
L7
L3
ta
L3
W
W
W
W
i. W W
L W
tW W
cW W
i, W
cW is
W
F
w
W
W
r-'
-'
-'
bo
0
%,
CO
\p
t
O
22
bo
-+
%e
W
O
Co
o
O
00
CO
O
00
CO
O
00
D
-+
CD
CD
N
Clt
%0
O
CO
CO
Oo
O
CO
%O
-+
Q'
O
CO
G
bp.
O
CO
CO
V
O
00
Q
V
O
o
Ui
W
O
00
CO
W
Ui
V1
>+
"-
"-+
-+
N
CO
N
N
Ui
O
W
%0
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
%0
Ui
O
Co
"0
Ui
C,
Vl
O
00
CO
W
O
00
CO
W
U+
N
O
CO
CO
W
9
Ui
O
J
CO
W
O
Co
,O
O
W
CJI
O
Co
,O
O
O
o
"O
O
-I
CD
D
v
-L
ip
N
w
N
N
rr
Ni
O
W
W
O
cri
W
,0
CIi
W
Cn
O
N
N
N
jJ
V
( Jl
N
N
N
p
_&
r
W
CVT1 G
`r
>"
r--
r. +
N+
p
P
v-+
00
W
-+
"0
w"
r+
N
OO
V
( Il
C
V
CJ1
N
C2
N
U)
-'
N
jN
W
W
N
i.1
V
00
N
iA
O'
O>
N
cn
'
O
N
Q'
O'
v
W
U)
CO
N
b+
r'
.. +
.+
. +
r. +
N.+
t:
O
CY%
Cl%
r-+
.+
r. +
CO
Cll
. &
-.+
r+
-&
i-+
-'
O\
0'
W
OO
G
W
CQ O0 OQ CQ CQ 27
V
Vl
O
O
O
O
O
+
-+
.P
V
r+
CO
%O
i-+
..
. +
'. +
CO
04
C
Co
Oo
Oo
CO
%O 1,0
CO
1,0
N
N
(rl
i"+
N
N
to
b.+
N
N
Cn
N-
N
N
Cn
"+
N
N
Cn
r+
fJ
N
C
Q
N
Q'% O
N.+
. +
---
. +
--+
r. +
s.
r+
r+
r-+
w"
fi
WI
V
CJI
229
'21
12
- w
(ii
b-+
. +
WO
p
p
%0
b-+
OW
+
W.
OW
-+
S
+
W
"O
o
A
%O
. -.
.-+
Oo
f
1
tJ
a+
%
N
%Q
p
D
%0
Go 0
CO
O
co
O
P
N
P
N
O
V
Og
ti
Na
O
Na
O
Na
O
ON
V
Q
N
Co
O
V
N
O
U,
(A
-+
'0
t)
'
IV
1,0
1J
CY%
N
O
b"
\0
O
%Z
\D
O
CO
0
%.
N
,O
co
O
rA
NJ
%0
W
CO
O
rA
NJ
'D
W
Ui
W
A.
N
'O
W
A
N
'O
C\
O\
V
N
CY%
0
'(ii
%0
O
O
w
O
O
w-
Ni
O
N
O
O
QV
%
\O
O
O
'O
O
O
W
O
b-
:.+
a
"
N
O
C
V
Q
00
O
w"
.
e-+
W
r
(a
00
O
'.
V
V
O
O
-+
-+
V
V
O
O
V
V
p
O
. +
V
V
a
O
NJ
O
S
Zn
V1
N
O
N
A'
O
S
l
N
vi
N
O
. a
N
A.
S
(n
O
O'
do
(n
D
O'
"
Co
. +
.
Cn
O
O\
CO
C)
b-
Co
o.
.CO
%
V
Co
%0
00
Na
O
0\
00
%M
cm
N
O
V
zjl
g
O
O
O
O
O
g
O
g
O
S
NJ
L,
Li
L)
OL1 S
O
p
S
w
"
tu
..
N
... +
CIN to
..
W
.
W
*lO
%0
Ni
p
NJ
NJ
rP
W
io..
W
4i
. -+
r+
i. + "
\O
m
i
p
i-+
--I
N
i-..
N
+p
pr.
P
N
N
Hp-p+ i-+
N
N
rpp
Q
:
V
.P
N
Q
V
CT
V
O
V
Q
V
Q
V
Q
V
Q
V
N
pJl
O
CD
N
tll
S
N
pll
O
N
C71
S
SN
Vp7
O
N
tpll
O
N!
tpJl
N
+
p+p p+p
P
pia
D
a.;
a
-L
'
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
NJ
hi
OV
OV
9
00
L1
bi
r..
r+
N
O
W
D
-V+
. 4
b..a
'
'-,
`"'
"A
b"
N
bA
b-A
Li
W
N
iA.
N"
N
pia
N
A
N
iA.
N
N
gyp. ,p.
Vl
Q%
IM
pp
CJ1
Qp
LJ
LJ
LJ
Ti
-+
-+
-+
A.
vi
N
O
Z. 6060o
&
%0
%0
N
iA
ei,
Cn
CW
0.O
W
O
WOo
ON
%O
O
0
%0
tJt
O
.. +
zp.
A
CA
%0
pia
Ca
Qas
i.
pa
:
,a
p
P.
CJ1
~
A.
Vl
W
00
1
N
Na
hi
N-6
iii
rA.
rA
00
C,
S
,,
^
Q;
%0
"0
In
In
O
z2
O
CVn
"
A .Ji
rC.
rA
O
N
s .
230
t,,
C!1
(11
A.
Co
00
11 ",
O
W.
11
,
--
Cll
W
WN
G
W
G.W
N
p
O
Cn
b')
%M
Q%
Cn
. P.
N
Vl
. +
.r
-'
piAo N
'"
p
tJ
i- +
W
. "+
N
V
J
Q
Ut
N
p
Cn
h
"
C%
%Q
00
V
6o
ao
,p
,p
"''
(., W W
.A.
Hd
w..a
r. +
r. A
8.. 6
N
Q
N
CO
V
00
rA.
ci,
W
N
w"
W
Ni
O
W
W+
W
N
PO
O
O
N
D
. -+
oo
o
op.
r+
r
W
O
V
v
""
W
G
rr
C7
Ni
o
C
. +
.+
V
C>
-+
V
Q\
V
N
V
Oo
V
-+
cO
OC
WA
. +
CO
,O
>
Q*.
O
N
. 1
Cn
Q
WV
WV
WV
i
Oo
O
00
IJ
.+
OO
'0
Can
.?
O
O
N
O
W
V
+
Cho
WV
.A
iA
pJ
O
N
CD
v
a
N,
hi
NJ
(n
U7
'*
Wp
zp.
00
vi
Oi
(n
.a
W.4
Vt
r-A
Cn
-+
-+
Vi
b"
b,
Cn
N
p
Oo
>"
Wa Oo
r%M
.
Wa
00
O
ON
A
-+
r+
O
W
N
N
iii
O
+
N
p
OC
%M
%0
%O
CD
Ni
"
Vl
Cn
N
V1
Ul
Ci,
O
Q
P
%M
N
e
00
O
Co
c0
Owo
N+
V
rN+
V
b"
V
Oo
Oo
Oo
f
U
"O
ti
V
O
"O
L)
V
O
gyp. W
(i
(i
1
W
,-A
V1
00
- +
-+
00
+
00
r+
.. 4
N
O
W
"
N.
N
O
W
CO
CO
r>-+ i+
-+
00
O
O
V
O
0--+
N
N
O
O
W
W
,0
V
Cn
W
A.
Un
N
. +
A
Ln
a
Li
Cn
(ii
00
0
fil
zp.
r1
1.-h
Q% "
ONO ONO
rp.
0
e
N
N
Co
AA
W
!A
Chit
"
W
60
W
60
bo
CV
71
W
i
00
Lo
N
Oho 0000 00
tJ1
bo
P
iA
-&
N
O
W
'"'''
'""'
N
IvV
V
Na
r0
V
. +
G
CJl
%0
O
00
O
W
0
00
W
( ,
O
W
N
P.
r. +
. +
'-+
231
cn o\
Co
I1
N
O
0'
A
S
CD
A
4
[9
e
A
pu
.. +
"
%o
"
Oo
CJt Q
G
O
O
O
O
D
01
Oo
'
p
Q
cG7
-
g
O
W
IJ
V
r+
(A
-&
V
'O
o o
;A- k
C)
0
;a
'
0
iN. V Co
vi
i-+
Oo
Cn
hi
N
O
Oo
N
N
O
W
Ni
N
p
0'
N
Qi
N
Q
VP.
OVo QV
Q1 V1
O
p
52
p
i.
O
0)
O
co
04
(A
O
V
O
O
W
O
O
W
O
g.
CJt
W
O
A
tIl
A.
r. +
r+
rr
O
CD
W
00
Oo
rA
-+
u'
O
Co
ONO
Z
gyp.
O
W
<_n
Vl
O
O
(ii
V
vii
vi
0,,
0,
0
w"
w
00
oCo 0
%0 o> N %0 V
. +
00
V
--+
O
O
O
N
O
Q
O
+
V
Q
0o
>-+
V
N
V
-+
do
Oo
V
OO
O
w
1.1
-+
0)
CIN
1,0
O
V
Co
N
p
Vt
Co
w-
OO
O
N
00
la
Vt
O
>-+
OD
V
O
CJ1
03
o
A
O
;.. +
.
o
0
O
00
O
O
C)
11
V1
W
O
V
O
Co
O
%0
Oj
(W
O
"
Cn
W
O
W
V
V
O
(u
V
O
O
41
V
A.
.. +
w-+
b+
a. +
r. +
c:D
r. +
C
N
Oo
O
O
V
tJt
O
V
Vl
W
Oo
00
O
V
W
Q
O
C
0O
W
V
O
O
Co
bes
ivi
1V
e4b
i..
CnN
,p.
i+
N
CJ
CD
OO
O
Co
O
O
"
O
O
Co
o
oo
S
O
WV
p
O
.0
0
O
O
'. O
p
O
O
'. 0
'
O'-
i
p
O
O
pp
.A.
N
O
Q
O
N
O
W
V
Q
O
Ln
O
1T
O
Cl1
V
O
O
P
O
O
O
Jl
W
O
O
tJ
P.
N
O
IJ
A
N
O
N
P.
N
. +
.. +
*r+
ED
. +
zo
-+
r. +
00
Oo
i
Vi
V1
V
W
to
P.
W
N
W
t?,
4"
CJl
Jj
O
.P
W
N
0
N
V
,0
A.
Nii
Co
00
CD
'D
-4
r-+
CVJI
"+
r+
O
CD
o
`
O
O
;p. ;:
V
r+
W+
r-+
Ul
O
cq
Co
Q
pap
W
N
r-+
Oo
w
CJl
OVo
+
rA
-L3
r+
b.+
ONO
. +
-4
w
V
N
. +
-"
g
%O
pq
iii
a
bi
O+ W
00
o 60
V
O
N
o
b%
-"
p''p O
vi
Ch cy
C%
W
;2
81
O
Q
v
-+
>"
00
o
v
Co
00
(JI
o
012
00
N
'p'
N
A.
IJ
tJ
N
:P
r+
W-+ W
CY%
bo
W
%D
-co
0
00
000
00
hi
tJ
CD
0%
W
232
Ui
c
W
N
Ui
o.
o
G
o
O
Ui
iVA
V
O
O
eta
Vl
O
C)
O
O
O
V
W
ONO Ui
r+
+
V
i-+
O
ZO
-+
N
00
OVo
at'.
Ln
V
O
ZO
A.
-A,
N
V
Ui
OHO
co
Q,
OQ
N
W
N
N
N
V
V
O
d0
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
'0
W
'0
W
'0
C)
C)
C)
'. O
%o
'.O
10
pia
;"
ry
.
O
a's
03
00%0 c%
o
W
F3
-
W
LJ
_
ap
i.. +
N
. +
"
,p
A
W
V
O
V
O
V
O
CWn (Wit
Ui
U-n
.+
:. +
..
vi
1a
00
03
Ab.
. +
A.
Ln
. +
Oo
V
O
"
r.
"
N
NJ
A.
AN
W
L3
W.
, o
I'
Ui
OHO
p.
00
r+
.+
o
C
Cl.
C
ID
cis
WA
'"'
'"'
""'
Q
a
C)
""'
'""'
I-
03
03
C
V
Cn
O'
N
'4C
O
-"
O
(Vn
N
O
C)
C)
O
C
O
b0
N
O
"
%
O
"
'0
O
kG
-4
CD
D
'Q
'v
U,
C)
"'a
II
O
g
W
W
V
iii
D
,A
V
iA
N
ilk
'0
W
10
%p
W
00
-'
IV
iA
L3_
"
tUo (n
ON
:.
00
O
Cp
'D
.+
k
N
P.
N
-+
C!1
Os
Ul
W
Con Coil
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
0."
"
W"
Cn
P"
Gn
- -
-+
W
to
W
01
W
VI
-+
VVi
OOo co
00
O+
O
N
op.
Cn
N
V
'
%C
OWO . +
O
N
-+
14
--+
.+
0"
Q
N
En
as
N
g
"
+
V
P"
N
N
N
N
W
V
W
"..
VI
W
pS
O
233
nrii
Co
r.
%0
rn
o\
to to
%0 ,o
C rn
to tr
%0
CN
%D
Vt
NNN
OOOO
%0
V
N
NN
Co
%0
QO
N
O
%0
%0
"0
OOO
tJ
tJ
O
OOOO
W
.
V
O
LJ
00
%0
V
~+
VV
i-+
OD
ONo
-+
p:
p
-I
s
cC
NA N
N
Cjl
D
v
.. L
CD OOO
OO
OOOO
OOOO
Z
OOOO
%0
%0
NNNN
VVVV
SOS
OOOO
W
W
CJ1
234
C)
000
WQN
.. J
N
NJ
-
co
N
cQ.
g
OO
co
OOOO
00
0-6
co
V
00
fn
+
0
OOOO
U,
WNN
W
%0A
CJb-A
1
rP
SoN
00
-4
CD
D
'v
'C7
235
APPENDIX 2
236
A) FLANGED FRAME
to the shell
plating
The rotational constraint provided by the shell is first calculated
linearly
is
decrease
is
it
then
to
the
with
assumed
stable;
shell
assuming
for
for
destabilising
2pn,
to
to
pt
up
valid
allow
actions
the ratio pt/pm
buckling
Mises
Von
from
the
of
shell
arising
The mode number n for the complete left and right tripping waves of
length.
Von
Mises
frames
the
with
coincides
mode
n
and
wave
the ring
This has been verified in F.E. eigenvalue buckling analyses
for.
A deformation function is assumed for
is
deformation
Web
allowed
in
is
described
the
terms of us
centerline
on
web
point
any
the web and
in
s
the
the
the
the
of
section,
assumed
centre
of
centre
shear
of
and
flange, Fig. A2.1
The relation between external tripping pressure pt and the tripping stress
frame
from
hoop
the
the
is
axisymmetric
stress at
centroid
at that arising
for
deformations
the
normal
axisymmetric
of
stable
allowance
making
framing:
/
4.
in
is
Variation
hull
this
pt
at
stress
shell
and
=
pressure
frame
Radial
the
ignored
throughout
cross
section.
stresses acting at
then
the frame are also neglected
deformation
[104]
function
beam
the
assumed
Adamchack
cantilevered
of a
force
by
loaded
flange
the
a
and
a
moment
and
at
other end:
the
at
2i2s
d2
Z
1-d
s
o.
-sc'd
uW. d<
d
dz-1
+c'd 1-d
u,+
<<
dCs
(a2.1)
237
the
Displacement
gshear
centre
rotation
of
and
us,
in the cross section
directions
in
the
Displacements
x,
z
of
a
point
u, w direction of a point in the web
in
the
Displacement
x
uw -
Xif
--_.
238
Cdc
4D
C'=
where:
CdC
1+
4DW
(a2.2)
C=Con(1-Pt/Pm)i
and
(a2.3)
The factor C' in the deformation function leads to a solution in the form of a
6th.
degree.
So
in
derivation
the
this
of
a deformation function
polynomial
beam
to
flange
loaded
the
a
cantilevered
at
corresponding
and
only by a
force
the
at
other end was assumed:
supported
simply
uW =us-s(d,
-z)-0.5(u,
dd
z
)
d,
-,
i
3-
dd z
(a2.4)
)/d,
(u3-,
d,
y=1.5
(a2.5)
The strain energy stored in an element of the web with thickness t`,,, and
length dy is:
21
d
)dz
(du
Eta
EI
i
(u.
dz
ad)
dV =2f
=2 4d,
o
(a2.6)
d}2+
Et 3
4dc
(u.
)2
,
d,
(a2.7)
derivatives
indicate
in
relation to y.
where primes
.
load
is
the
of
energy
The potential
given by:
Uw ='
fff
(a2.8)
239
For the flange: u= us, w= -x(3s.For the web: u= uw, eq. (a2.4), w=0
Substituting
1
UW
Jt
20
(a2.9)
(a2.10)
ao
a
d anus'd2
cD
=0
au,
Y
y2
aau3"
a
d s
as
yY
(a2.11)
a
a2
+
a2
(a2.12)
=0
differentiations
doing the proper
we obtain:
Eta
9C
4d2
ccc
u' + at As -
18
i
tWdus +EIus 35
EtW 1 9C
4d3
+3
4d2
'dc -a,
det`"' =0
35
(a2.13)
(41d
Et 3+1
3 dctwus_
9C
usdc + 6t
35
4d
3
'" =0
-Er2P,
Et 3+1 9C
(2
sdc+ G, r_a, Is -11 dctw
4dc 9 4d
35
13
(a2.14)
and regrouping,
we obtain
osin(nO)
Dl uosin(nO)+D2
=0
(a2.15)
osin(n9)
E1 uosin(nO)+E2
=0
(a2.16)
240
Nonvanishing solutions for uo and 13ocan only exist if the determinant of the
is
D1E2
these
D2E1=0
(a2.17)
equations
zero:
of
coefficients
Eq. (a2.17), using C given by (a2.3), will lead to a quadratic equation in a, and
in
form:
the
solution
a
consequently
b-
b2 - 4ac
Eq. (46) of the main text, repeated
,
2a
where:
(c5c3_c)+c2c6
4Pm
m
2C3
b''
c2c6
G' J+
+ c, c7 +
n2
Rm
Rm
4cle
Er2
\2r
Rte,
Pm,
+ Er
R.,
[icJ
)4]+Erl
+9
Pm
9pm
n
n+
2Z
G' J+ EI2
lc2d2
Rte,
9
C6-g+g
C2 =
4d2
A'd`2-I 3
dctw
C3=A, -35t,
Rn
9C0
Et3
C1 =
Rn
cl + c2 + EIZ
dc
32
Ca=35dctw
R9
cl +
11 3
c5=I, -35dctW
c7 = Is +bftfd2
followed,
is
but with us and s representing the
The same procedure
flat
bar
the
extremity and the strain energy given by:
'displacements of
..
241
I d.,
1DW Jf [(v
V=
200
+vu)Z-2(1-v)(v
v
v2
yy Z:
y:
)]dzd
+11C
y2f7Y
2d
(a2.18)
stress has
(tw2bJb2_4ac
at _E
12
_ V2)
dW
(a2.19)
2a
3
function
is
of
parameters:
a
and
2
a, =
ERdW
a2 =
I---
Co,,d,
Eta
mW
a3
Coll
4Pm
wtw
since:
a= ai +
75
asap
+[1029-21(2+5v)2]a,
+90(1-v)a3l
ai
c=
84+
+225(1-v2)a2
a3[84+
(3
a, - 5v) + a,
+3150(1-v)al
al(3-5v)+ai
function
deformation
of Eq. (a2.1) is used, a solution in the form:
If the
(k2k4 k6) + at (klk4 + k2k3 2ksk6) + (klk3 k5) 0, Eq. (45)
a2t
=
repeated
by:
kl-k6
are
given
The coefficients
242
k1=EI
+3
k- _ -A
d3
(1+3C')
18 19C'
+d `t'"
+
35 140
z
k3 =G'j+Er
3Ci2
140
2
1+C
+3D`"
te,
dc
n3
'2
11
k- -I + d3t
+C-C
4-`
`" 35 84 420
k5 =3
d2
n2
(1+C')
3_ 17C C'2
k6 = dctW
+
35 420 140
2
dW
R,
[35
kDd
3
140
Rm
[3+C'+
`" `" n dW
40
2
dW
n
Rm,
4C'+C'2
4
n dW 17 19C'
R,
35 140
)2]
tW
d
42
dw
C' Ci2
6-3C'+Ci2
+
+n
105 84 420
15
Rm
k --d3 t2
-C+C'2+6-3C'+C'Z
4
`" `" 105 84 420
360
t_
dW
3Ci2
140
243
2
[3(1+3C')+
R"'
k5=-DW
n dW
a317C'+C'ZI
+dW
35 420
te,
22+v-2C
dW
n
555
Rm
140
C'2 2-2C'+Ci2
3
k= d2tW
+
+
-17C'
6
120
35 420 140
tt
dW
+C
244
APPENDIX 3
245
The, App. 3
R,
Reference
L,
L,
mm
mm
t
mm
dW
(143]-1
56.60
95.0
24.00
0.370
rrun
1.670
(143]-2
56.60
83.1
21.02
'(143]-3
[1431-4
56.60
83.0
1.820
2.010
56.60
83.0
21.11
21.11
0.420
0.440
0.540
2.210
[143]-5
56.60
83.1
21.00
0.540
2.420
[143]-6
5650
84.2
21.31
0.630
2.010
(143]-7
56.60
94.8
24.01
0.620
2.480
(143]-8
56.60
84.2
21.40
0.720
2.290
(143]-9
56.60
84.2
21.40
0.820
2.700
[143]-10
[143]-11
(143]-12
(143]-13
56.60
56.60
56.60
56.60
114.0
104.0
104.2
104.1
23.00
0.380
1.590
21.01
21.01
0.440
0.440
21.00
0.520
1.820
2.010
2.200
[143]-14
56.60
104.0
21.02
0.520
2.400
(143]-15
56.60
105.6
21.39
0.610
2.270
[143]-16
105.6
95.1
95.0
21.39
0.670
2.690
[143]-17
[143]-18
56.60
56.60
56.60
[1261-7
159.61
120.0
15.98
15.99
24.00
0.320
0.620
0.600
1.380
1.980
5.000
(126]-8
159.64
120.0
24.00
0.600
5.000
[1491-1
110.00
480.0
40.00
2.700
8.000
[1491-2
[149]-3
(124]-Rl
[124]-R2
110.00
110.00
160.00
160.00
480.0
480.0
200.0
200.0
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
2.700
2.700
0.600
0.600
8.000
8.000
4.800
4.800
(1471
(142]
[148]-1
[148]-2
495.00
495.00
482.50
48250
1920.0
1920.0
1470.0
1960.0
100.00
100.00
163.00
163.00
5.000
5.000
7.500
7.500
24.000
40.000
38.000
44.000
[139]-15
(139]-16
[1391-17
[139]-18
(1391-19
[139]-20(int)
189.74
194.54
196.47
196.19
299.06
29957
4876.8
4876.8
4876.8
4876.8
4876.8
4876.8
1209.93
811.91
805.05
1236.27
121559
1224.41
12.573
7.899
6.604
6.629
4.978
4.978
42.672
35560
33.020
36.830
33.528
33.020
246
The, App.3
lbf
tw
tf
mm
1.000
mm
0
1.020
0I
mm
0
0
1.010
1.010
E
IN/
(N / mm')
282.20
mm2)
196000
(N
mm)
0.949
196000
279.30
1.291
205800
257.70
1.330
205800
257.70
1.779
0.990
1.310
1.210
1.400
1.400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0I
205800
205800
196000
205800
196000
2.57.70
257.70
282.20
257.70
282.20
1.981
2.084
2.248
2.565
3.320
1.000
1.010
1.010
0
0
196000
205800
282.20
0.654
0.944
0.937
1.000
205800
257.70
257.70
257.70
1.020
1.390
0
00
205800
196000
257.70
282.20
1.843
1.991
196000
196000
196000
282.20
282.20
282.20
2.820
0.838
2.171
205800
00
10
1.750
0.990
0
0
0
0.600
0.600
6
0
0.6
0
205000
205000
376.00
376.00
1.860
1.560
5500
71000
250.00
7.140
5.500
5.500
0.600
0.600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71000
71000
208000
208000
250.00
250.00
387.00
387.00
6.240
6.490
0500
0550
5.000
5.000
8.200
8.200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
215600'
205800
199000
199000
561.54
561.54
1420.00
1420.00
4.498
6.223
18.320
18.099
12.830
6.990
9.780
6.910
5.030
5.210
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
204092
198576
194439
199955
189612.5
1896125
301.30
315.10
312.30
307.50
310.96
310.96
11.377
5.378
3.758
2.772
0.683
0.621
1.390
0.780
247
The, App.3
-L
nj
experim.
(N / nim2)
(N / mm=)
(N / rnm=)
(N / mm=)
P /Pc
IN
Eq. (28)
1.793
3.434
2.290
0.473
0.264
2.034
3.752
3.730
0.660
0.324
5
6
6
6
7
6
1.969
2.453
2.455
2.907
3.054
3.363
3.661
4.211
4.312
4.773
5.443
5.435
4.730
6560
7.640
7.200
7.820
10.420
0.689
0.876
0.976
0.958
1.152
1.265
0.350
0.357
0.398
0.330
0.377
0.376
4.254
6.747
15.010
1.750
0.411
1.844
3.420
1.860
0.443
0.240
6
6
1.972
1.970
3537
3.660
3.280
0.288
0.345
2.357
4.107
3.960
5.380
0.568
0.681
0.807
0.342
2.357
4.250
6.340
0.932
0.396
3.075
7.070
1.223
0398
5
7
3.416
1.600
5.404
6.010
2.752
1.585
0.376
3.310
0.464
0.235
0.310
1.677
4.790
2.678
9.830
1.760
6.450
10
1552
3
3
8.650
1.026
2.119
2.087
3.380
1.186
1.264
0.764
7.315
11.500
10.970
4.360
0.596
7.315
11.500
10.970
3.631
0.496
7.315
11500
10.970
3.922
1.435
1.435
2.164
2.164
2.090
1.410
0.085
0.093
0.059
0.065
3
4
3
3
6.463
6.894
23.843
24.064
8.852
10.302
37.580
39.409
4.770
13.230
16.700
19.400
2.570
5.171
13500
15.125. ".
0.398
0.750
0566
"0.629
2
2
2
2
2
2
19.325
12.540
10.324
10.217
5.133
5.125
38.962
24.275
23.114
21.536
9.858
8.512
20.460
8.850
7.750
5.420
0.980
1.030
1.809
0.939
1.051
0.472
0.170
0.260
0.536
0.094
0.075
0.102
0.046
0.033
0.051
248
The, App. 3
py / Eq. (28)
0.207
/P
pexv
e/R
/P
Pex
0.177
2.006
1.956
1.00
1.00
.
0.146
0.134
1.929
2.031
1.00
1.00
mean=2.48
st.dev.=1.545
0.128
2.030
1.00
cov=0.62
0.133
2.174
1.00
0.147
0.121
1.951
2.027
1.00
1.00
0.117
1.897
1.00
0.238
0.173
1.478
1.663
0.172
1.377
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.150
2.169
1.00
0.147
1.977
1.00
0.173
1.628
1.00
0.161
0.214
1.779
2.229
1.00
0.159
2.116
0.245
0.878
1.00
1.00
0.13
0.351
1.316
0.11
0.397
1.638
0.75
0.331
1.719
1.04
0.358
0.041
0.066
1.655
5.882
5.914
0.88
3.00
3.00
0.539
0.391
0.808
0.780
1.750
1.203
1.357
1.197
0.60
0.60
0.30
0.30
0.088
6.285
2.54
0.106
0.136
5.727
2.72
3.577
2.46
0.087
0.173
0.252
5.867
4.020
2.392
3.42
2.70
1.67
all models:
models with
0.35 e/R5 1.0
mean=1.797
st.dev. =0.301
cov=0.167
249
APPENDIX 4
250
Load
0.1%R,
Increment 5
o-o-c =
r1 G. Fp=CTOR
=+3. E+02
rL MESH
251
Load
Increment
0.1%R,
5
o-o-c =
,'
Maximum Stress.
f
___
QS6
VPLUE
"4. e1E"0
"5.58E"80
"b. 54E"90
+7.51E+00
"8.. 7E"00
. 9.44E-80
'1.04E'0
1.13E-01
-'J.
+1.23E+01
Y-
- "1.33E"e1
"J
."J_
""J
_1v.
ti
fi,
+1.42E+01
r:""
"w
4-
Maximum Stress
+1.52E+01
tl 17
Maximum Stress
00
MIN
.
Tr 'E CQ'PIETED I
aas
kEFSI
5E02
DATE, b/ 7/93
WROM
Ot 9i 41
252
MG.
FACTOR247.0E+ 01
L. MESH
253
'
Stress
Maximum
NQSES
VFLUE
rao
"2.83E"0L
"3.75E"0L
"4. b7E"01
'5.58E'01
"b. 50E+81
"7.41E"01.
*8.3E"01
+9.24E"01
+1.01E+02
-
i.
+L. 10E"02
Maximum Stress
+1.19E*02
+1.29E+02
-a
06
T hE C -PLErED
"7.58SE-01
STEP 1 EWr
10
254
H
NE_.
255
Maximum Stress
Wow
VPLUE
taSES
"4.08E"01
"b. 4OE"e1
"8.73E"0L
+1. i0E42
"1.33E"02
"1.57E"02
*1.82E*02
^tX
lj-
A
FS
+2.03E"02
i.
q^
"2.2bE*02
w.1.. "`
-.
"2.5E"02
yi.
12.73E+92
n..
"YLrV.
w.
w-y
v.
r
: w.,
-s -+2.9bE"02
ia
H..
":
'
",.. w'3
/.:
.:
rY.
. r. s"
'1.ess'"-...:
")
". .,
"1
.'1:.
, ray
e1
_r
00
TIM CQ"PLETEDINW
A8'GI5
'S84E+00
/
DAM
b/ 7/93
0t 9i 41
STEP 1D
+2.584E+00
EM 15
256
1
(*1**-1)
LII E
L
'41'&E
SGI. E
r. CTER
"L OOE"09
i
1
a0
p
1
1
-1
12
LOAD
(4104 -1)
257
FrameRadial
Deflection
Mid-Compartment
0.1%aR,
at
o-o-c =
258
r^EH
'
259
1
Maximum Stress
PaSE'S
VPI.UE
+3.34E+00
+5. ? 4E"00
48.14E+00
41.05E+01
+1.29E+01
+1.53E"01
+1.77E*01
-j:
"2.01E"01
+2.25E+01
+2.49E+01
-`'
'2.73E*01
"2.97E"0.
TIM cad
'INE
18(T
. 9.125E-02
5
260
Increment
Load
10
0.5%R,
o-o-c =
MESH
261
10
Increment
Load
0.5%R,
o-o-c =
1
Maximum Stress
tas
VPLUE
"2. b2E+a1
"4. b5E"01
"b. b7E"01
"8.70E+01
+1.07E"02
"1.27E"02
+I. 47E+02
"1. b7E"02
+1.8E402
s- "2.08E+a2
-, +-+2.28E+02
-:
+2.4E"02
rB'Eca
TD'VE "1.588E-01.
1 XIZI-ENT 10
262
l_,
__2
MAG. FPCTOR=+3.0E4
EH
263
15
0.5%R,
Load
Increment
o-o-c =
i
....
POSE
VPLUE
"5.53E"01
"0. b5E"01
"I.. 7E"02
"1.46E"82
- #I. 79E+02
"2.11E"02
"2.42E+02
+2.73E"02
+I. 4E02
"
"3.35E"a2
;,
+3. bbE+82
"3.98E#02
TIM ca
aWMS
'IME
1
"2.681E+00
I'INT
15
264
5
Increment
Load
o-o-c =2%R,
G. FACTOR=47.47E+01
MESH
265
. --
A--,
Maximum Stress
VFLUE
hIISE5
"L. LE"aL
"1.93E"01
"2.7. ^E"0L
"3.51'01
"4.30E-0L
"5.09'01
$5. BBE'01
-
'-
"b. b7E"a1
"0.24'01
*9.03E"01
"9.82E"ai.
ra-Eca
+9.125E-92
ZNCFE'EM 5
....
.;
.
-,
266
10
Load
Increment
2%R,
o-o-c =
1
Maximw
ruSE5
va. tE
"a. 00E"01
"b. 63E"01
+9. bbE+0i
*1.24E+02
-
"1.53E+02
"1.61E"92
+2.0E"02
?
'" 2
--'2.38
+2. bbE+02
"2.94E"32
*3.23E+92
"3.51E"02
TDIE Car
ADQS
INE
1D
"5.595E-01.
ENf 10
.1S
267 '
1
F!
VPLUE
"3.87E"01
"b. 90E"01
"9.93E+0i
+1.29E+02
Ma'
"t. 59E"02
"1.90E"02
*2.20E+02
"2.50E"02
+2.81E+02
j-- "3.11E"02
,
+3. i1E+02
4-3.72E#2
k-1,
TII-E CQIPLETED
P&t B
VERSI13
PFT9E-00
DAM
b/ 7/93
1 DTPLAMP11ATED TINE
TD-E,
3* 231 2
STEP 1
+1.129E+00
347e-VAT 15
268
APPENDIX 5
In
`i",
The, app. 5
Pa
R,
(N / mmz)
m
HYSO
HY100
HY130
31
236
94
61
673
163
676
226
600
600
52
633
238
42
670
226
1500
1500
149
119
668
669
152
187
32
703
272
300
300
25
23
589
201
205
2.5
600
53
625
2S
600
39
652
204
259
600
600
35
32
627
6L
263
250
1500
1500
1500
1500
169
91
70
58
682
639
685
780
133
166
195
218
16
14
13
532
509
490
84
77
87
--
27
516
171
21
519
123
19
18
502
508
92
100
66
41
34
30
638
557
520
515
135
155
160
131
HY80
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
HTS
HY80
HY100
2.5
2S
HTS
HY80
HY100
HY130
HTS
HY80
HY100
HY130
HTS
HY80
HY100
HTS
HY80
HY100
HY130
HTS
HY80
HY100
HY130
mm
237
268
670
4.0
HY100
HY130
mm
32
HTS
HY100
HY130
rrun
dw
704
672
669
300
300
300
300
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
'S
L,
2.5
2S
25
2.5
2S
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
,
1.0
1.0
600
600
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
600
1500
1500
1500
1500
42
34
559
283
270
The, app. 5
tW
tf
mm
mm
min
ton
27
200
67
161.650
14
15
14
184
167
156
34
22
21
111.870
100.600
94.100
56
212
140
346.670
31
216
78
219.710
25
27
185
155
63
66
61
48
212
205
151
118
13
30
28
12
11
141
96
100
19
32
175
77
183
150
148
23
14
15
H/
py
IN / mm')
0.572
{
5.42
5.42
5.45
5.42
0.261
0.181
0.163
0.152
10.85
0.362
10.87
181.850
150.970
0.300
0.249
10.86
487.970
388.970
0.805
0.642
10.93
27.14
27.19
77.424
60.790
54.890
0.262
0.205
0.185
151.990
0.514
10.87
33
30
103.290
85.940
0.349
0.290
10.97
10.88
22
78.240
0.264
10.90
5.49
5.48
SS1
69
56
44
210
181
193
172
139
110
428.870
259.830
200.830
1.449
0.878
0.679
27.14
27.14
27.92
35
204
86
161.400
0.545
27.22
8
8
8
60
51
39
18
13
9
4.670
3.980
3.730
0.296
0.252_,
0.236
12
59
8.150
0.516
9
10
10
61
48
51
16
20
12
6.030
5.470
5.110
27
141
63
17
96
21
12
68
70
29
5.42
5.59
5.69
(
11.41
0.382
0.346
0.323
10.93
10.90
11.42
20.410
1.292
2751
43
12.540,
0.794
27.14
31
28
10.600
8.850
0.671
0.560
29.76
27.31
tg
271
The, app. 5
lpyp
[N
I6, /
IN/
41
(N / mm2)I
(N / mm')
5.42
4.68
6.21
6.87
7.26
4.48
4.49
4.52
10.97
5.81
3.37
3.44
11.18
12.16
32.26
11.64
10.97
17.75
12.32
12.43
10.82
9.12
10.22
6.22
30.15
31.68
33.95
34.29
45.04
30.18
5.81
6.53
6.85
4.45
7.15
4.58
4.54
3.43
3.03
Fat f
Eq. (33)
mm2)
(!
10.85
29.52
11.82
10.08
9.17
12.51
9.09
8.93
13.21
9.05
7.61
1556
!
28.65
28.01
32.06
28.65
125.30
54.60
27.84
25.81
45.65
28.39
22.61
3953
5.75
4.45
14.17
7.07
7.79
4.75
4.45
8.73
3.24
11.56
9.12
8.90
12.54
9.22
10.20
1351
15.21
9.36
9.47
8.26
6.85
31.94
22.93
19.98
27.19
22.71
50.40
36.35
3057
22.61
22.77
16.16
18.72
272
APPENDIX 6
273
a=R
2
and b=mm
z
12R2
Using the values of b, one or two of Tables A6.1 to A6.4 are selected for use:
b >_10':
10-4> b
Table A6.1
101 >b
Then for each table selected a value for Le/ Ls is calculated. If 0>a; 0.1 then
->
linearly
for
interpolate
in
the
table
number
n,
a to obtain the
given mode
Then
Table
A6.5
Le/Ls.
the
using
row
of
which corresponds to the
of
value
for
factor
the
Z.
Then
table,
a
retrieve
value
correction
set:
current
Le
L,
C
2
100a
+(a-0.
6.28a'
274
Table A6.1
>_10-
b=
for
Le/Ls
Values of
82
122
L'
a=
mode n
2nR,,
1.0980
1.0823
1.0663
1.0504
0.9907
0.8976
0.7921
0.6866
0.6111
0.5355
0.4600
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
1.0980
1.0823
1.0504
1.0027
0.9231
0.8276
0.7298
0.6321
0.5630
0.4940
0.4249
1.0980
1.0663
1.0265
0.9549
0.8515
0.7512
0.6609
0.5707
0.5088
0.4470
0.3852
1.0980
1.0663
0.9948
0.9019
0.7838
0.6716
0.5871
0.5025
0.4480
0.3935
0.3390
1.0980
1.0504
0.9629
0.8435
0.7082
0.5952
0.5143
0.4343
0.3877
0.3410
0.2944
Table A6.2
2
L
a=
2nRm
=10-
mode n23456
1.0980
0.01
1.0323
0.02
1.0345
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.9019
0.7242
0.5602
0.4483
0.3752
0.3263
0.2920
0.2531
1.0980
1.0980
1.0980
1.0663
1.0663
1.0504
1.0186
0.9947
0.9629
0.9311
0.8807
0.7003
0.5411
0.4350
0.3661
0.3163
0.2847
0.2531
0.8541
0.6724.
0.5200
0.4218
0.3547
0.3084
0.2775
0.2467
0.8117
0.6326
0.4934
0.4005
0.3388
0.2964
0.2660
0.2355
0.7639
0.5929
0.4647
0.3793
0.3206
0.2805
0.2525
0.2244
1.0980
-1.0823
275
Table A6.3
Z
mode n23456
L
a=
=10
2nRm
1.0980
1.0663
0.8276
0.5252
0.3740
0.2960
0.2661
0.2362
0.2063
0.1763
0.1464
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
1.0980
1.0504
0.8196
0.5199
0.3700
0.2928
0.2632
0.2336
0.2040
0.1744
0.1448
1.0980
1.0504
0.8037
0.5146
0.3661
0.2897
0.2604
0.2311
0.2018
0.1725
0.1432
1.0980
1.0504
0.7878
0.5040
0.3621
0.2865
0.2575
0.2285
0.1996
0.1706
0.1416
1.0980
1.0345
0.7719
0.4934
0.3541
0.2801
0.2521
0.2241
0.1961
-0.1681
0.1401
Table A6.4
T2
=10'''
L,
a=2nRm
mode n
1.0980
1.0980
1.0980
1.0980
1.0980
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.9072
0.4297
0.2759
0.2207
0.1655
0.1487
0.1324
0.1159
0.0993
0.0828
0.9072
0.4297
0.2759
0.2207
0.1655
0.1487
0.1318
0.1149
0.0980
0.0812
0.8913
0.4218
0.2759
0.2207
0.1655
0.1487
0.1318
0.1149
0.0980
0.0182
0.8913
0.4218
0.2759
0.2191
0.1623
0.1461
0.1299
0.1136
0.0974
0.0812
0.8913
0.4218
0.2759
0.2191
0.1623
0.1461
0.1299
0.1136
0.0974
0.0812
4--
276
Table A6.5
Z
factor
Values of correction
3
10'1'
0.273
0.257
0.235
0.207
0.180
10"5
0.159
0.159
0.154
0.147
0.140
10'0
10-7
0.091
0.051
0.090
0.051
0.090
0.051
0.089
0.051
0.087
t2
mode n2
2Rm
GLASGOTT
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
0.051