Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
MARSTRUCT.indb i
2/18/2011 5:39:02 PM
Editors
C. Guedes Soares
Instituto Superior Tcnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
W. Fricke
Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Germany
MARSTRUCT.indb iii
2/18/2011 5:39:04 PM
CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
2011 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Typeset by Vikatan Publishing Solutions (P) Ltd., Chennai, India
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe (a CPI Group Company), Chippenham, Wiltshire
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the publisher.
Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the information
herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the property or
persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein.
Published by: CRC Press/Balkema
P.O. Box 447, 2300 AK Leiden, The Netherlands
e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com
www.crcpress.com www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk www.balkema.nl
ISBN: 978-0-415-67771-4 (Hbk + CD-ROM)
ISBN: 978-0-203-80811-5 (eBook)
MARSTRUCT.indb iv
2/18/2011 5:39:05 PM
Table of contents
Preface
xi
Organisation
xiii
Sensors location and data processing algorithms of an optical fibers hull strength
monitoring system
A. Grasso, A. Vergine, D. Dimou, M. Samuelides, N. Tsouvalis & A. Ferrari
19
33
Numerical prediction of slamming loads on a rigid wedge subjected to water entry using
an explicit finite element method
H. Luo, S. Wang & C. Guedes Soares
41
49
Utilization of a whole ship finite element analysis from wave loads to structural strength
at real sea state
Y. Ogawa & M. Oka
59
67
75
85
93
Robust ultimate strength formulation for stiffened plates subjected to combined loads
S.-R. Cho, H.-S. Kim, J.-B. Koo, H.-M. Doh & Y.-K. Chon
99
MARSTRUCT.indb v
2/18/2011 5:39:05 PM
109
A revisit on design and analysis of stiffened shell structures for offshore applications
P.K. Das, K.K. Subin & P.C. Pretheesh
119
133
Shakedown of welding-induced residual stress and effect on stiffened plate strength and behaviour
L.G. Gannon, N.G. Pegg, M.J. Smith & Y. Liu
141
151
161
169
187
203
213
Comparison of numerical results with experiments on ultimate strength of short stiffened panels
M. Xu & C. Guedes Soares
Numerical study of the effect of geometry and boundary conditions on the collapse
behaviour of short stiffened panels
M. Xu & C. Guedes Soares
Hydro-elastoplasticity approach to ships hull girder collapse behavior in waves
W. Xu, K. Iijima & M. Fujikubo
A study on the dynamic buckling strength of containerships bow structures subjected
to bow flare impact force
S.H. Yang, H.L. Chien, C.M. Chou, K.C. Tseng & Y.J. Lee
Ultimate strength of aluminum Y-stiffened panels
M.R. Zareei
221
229
239
249
257
Fatigue strength
Fatigue of high-speed aluminium ships: A master curve formulation
J.H. den Besten & R.H.M. Huijsmans
267
Stress and strain-based approaches for fatigue life evaluation of complex structural details
M. Biot & L. Moro
277
Different finite element refinement strategies for the computation of the strain energy density
in a welded joint
C. Fischer, A. Dster & W. Fricke
289
295
303
vi
MARSTRUCT.indb vi
2/18/2011 5:39:05 PM
311
A study of design loads for fatigue strength utilizing direct calculation under real
operational conditions
M. Oka, T. Takami, Y. Ogawa & K. Takagi
317
The estimation of stress range distribution due to wide banded random loading obtained
by rain-flow counting method
J.B. Park, K.S. Kim & J. Choung
325
335
343
351
Research on anti-collision capability for double-hull design for the column of semi-submersible
by numerical simulation
Z. Hu, G. Chen & J. Yang
357
365
373
381
391
399
411
419
429
437
447
Dynamic analysis
Methods for hull structure strength analysis and ships service life evaluation, under
extreme hydroelastic wave loads, for a large oil-tanker
L. Domnisoru & A. Chirica
Dynamic analysis in the marine environment considering FSIShip-like structure case
A. Martnez Cimadevilla
459
473
vii
MARSTRUCT.indb vii
2/18/2011 5:39:05 PM
487
495
503
511
521
527
539
549
559
569
581
Normative framework for noise emissions from ships: Present situation and future trends
A. Badino, D. Borelli, T. Gaggero, E. Rizzuto & C. Schenone
593
603
611
619
625
633
643
viii
MARSTRUCT.indb viii
2/18/2011 5:39:06 PM
651
659
Safety analyses for bulk carriers using metamodels of still water loads
P. Georgiev
669
679
Structural optimization of the hold frame of a bulk carrier considering lifecycle risk
Y. Kawamura & M. Miyazaki
691
699
707
715
Reliability analysis of marine structural components using statistical data of steel strength
B. Yu & D.G. Karr
723
Author index
731
ix
MARSTRUCT.indb ix
2/18/2011 5:39:06 PM
Preface
This book collects the papers presented at the 3rd International Conference on Marine Structures,
MARSTRUCT 2011, which was held in Hamburg, Germany 28 to 30 March. This Conference follows
up from the initial ones that were held in Glasgow, Scotland and in Lisbon, Portugal, respectively in 2007
and 2009. These conferences aim at bringing together researchers and industrial participants specially
concerned with structural analysis and design of marine structures. Despite the availability of several conferences about ships and offshore structures, it was felt that there was still no conference series specially
dedicated to marine structures, which would be the niche for these conferences.
The initial impetus and support has been given by the Network of Excellence on Marine Structures
(MARSTRUCT), which was funded by the European Union from 2005 to 2010, bringing together
33 European research groups from Universities, research institutions, classification societies and industrial companies that are dedicated to research in the area of marine structures. With the end of this
EU project, a new organisation was created to maintain the cooperation ties among the groups that work
in this general area. The MARSTRUCT Virtual Institute was created in 2010, with the aim of being an
association of research groups interested in cooperating in the field of marine structures. It started with
the same members as the participants in the Network of Excellence but in the near future it is open to
accept the membership of other European groups that have the same aims.
The Virtual Institute is organised in the following Technical Committees:
which in turn are divided in subcommittees. The aim is to promote the exchange of information and the
cooperation in these subject areas. This can take the form of promoting comparative or benchmark studies in various subjects, promoting joint research activities and joint research projects, organising short
specialised courses, workshops and conferences.
In particular the Virtual Institute will take the responsibility of organising the MARSTRUCT Conference biannually in different countries, starting from the present one that is already organised in a cooperation between the MARSTRUCT Virtual Institute and the Hamburg University of Technology in a
scheme that is planned to be continued in the future: the Virtual Institute will be responsible for the preparation of the technical programme and processing of the papers and the host country organization will be
responsible for the conference organization and management.
Despite being organised in Europe, this Conference is not meant to be restricted to European attendees
and a serious effort has been made to involve in the planning of the Conference participants from other
continents that could ensure a wider participation, which is slowly happening.
The conference reflects the advances that have been made in the last years within its domain including
the full range of methods and modelling procedures for the structural assessment of marine structures.
Various assessment methods are incorporated in the methods used to analyze and design efficient ship
structures, as well as in the methods of structural reliability to be used to ensure the safety and environmental behaviour of the ships. This book deals also with some aspects of fabrication of ship structures.
This book includes almost 80 papers, which are organised into the themes that correspond to the Virtual
Institute Technical Committees, as listed above. The papers were accepted after a review process, based on
the full text of the papers. Thanks are due to the Technical Programme Committee and to the Advisory
xi
MARSTRUCT.indb xi
2/18/2011 5:39:06 PM
Committee who had most of the responsibility for reviewing the papers and to the additional anonymous
reviewers who helped the authors deliver better papers by providing them with constructive comments.
We hope that this process contributed to a consistently good level of the papers included in the book.
Carlos Guedes Soares,
Wolfgang Fricke
xii
MARSTRUCT.indb xii
2/18/2011 5:39:06 PM
Organisation
Conference Chairmen
Prof. Wolfgang Fricke, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Germany
Prof. Carlos Guedes Soares, IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
Technical Programme Committee
Prof. N. Barltrop, University of Strathclyde, UK
Prof. I. Chirica, University Dunarea de Jos of Galati, Romania
Dr. M. Codda, CETENA, Italy
Prof. P. Das, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Prof. R. Dow, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, EnglandUK
Prof. Y. Garbatov, IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
Prof. J. M. Gordo, IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
Dr. B. Hayman, Det Norske Veritas, Norway
Prof. A. Incecik, University of Strathclyde, UK
Prof. T. Jastrzebski, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Poland
Prof. B.J. Leira, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Dr. S. Malenica, Bureau Veritas, France
Prof. T. Moan, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Prof. U. Nielsen, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Prof. J. Ringsberg, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Prof. P. Rigo, University of Lige, Belgium
Prof. E. Rizzuto, University of Genova, Italy
Prof. J. Romanoff, Aalto University, Finland
Prof. M. Samuelidis, National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Prof. R.A. Shenoi, University of Southampton, EnglandUK
Prof. M. Taczala, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Poland
Prof. P. Temarel, University of Southampton, UK
Prof. P. Varsta, Aalto University, Finland
Dr. A. Vredeveldt, TNO, The Netherlands
Advisory Committee
Prof. F. Brennan, Cranfield University, UK
Prof. A. Campanile, University of Naples, Italy
Prof. G. Chen, Shanghai Jiaotong University, P.R. China
Dr. F. Cheng, Lloyds Register, UK
Prof. S.-R. Cho, University of Ulsan, Korea
Prof. Y.S. Choo, Nat. Univ. Singapore, Singapore
Prof. W.C. Cui, CSSRC, P.R. China
Prof. C. Daley, Memorial University, Canada
Dr. M. Dogliani, Registro Italiano Navale, Italy
Prof. A. Ergin, ITU, Turkey
Prof. S. Estefen, COPPE/UFRJ, Brazil
Prof. M. Fujikubo, Osaka University, Japan
Prof. T. Fukasawa, Osaka Prefecture University, Japan
Prof. C.-F. Hung, National Taiwan University, Taiwan ROC
xiii
MARSTRUCT.indb xiii
2/18/2011 5:39:06 PM
xiv
MARSTRUCT.indb xiv
2/18/2011 5:39:06 PM
MARSTRUCT.indb 1
2/18/2011 5:39:06 PM
Thomas Gazzola, Nikita Tryaskin, Nicolas Moirod, Jrme De Lauzon & Louis Diebold
Bureau Veritas, Marine Division, Research Department, Neuilly-Sur-Seine CdxFrance
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a numerical investigation of the influence of raised invar edges on
wet drop tests pressures. The aim of this study is to evaluate the capabilities of the CFD software OpenFOAM ([6]) to deal with fluid structure impact problems in the context of sloshing inside membrane
tanks. More precisely, the objective is to evaluate OpenFOAM capabilities for water drop tests simulations
for a smooth wedge on one hand and a wedge equipped with invar edges (like these which equip the Cargo
Containment System NO96 produced by GTT) on the other hand, both falling into calm water without
inclination. The obtained numerical results are then compared to Wagners solution for the smooth wedge
and to experimental measurements for the wedge with edges presented in ([2]). Numerical simulations are
in very good agreement with Wagners solution and experimental results ([2]) showing the OpenFOAM
capability to deal with fluid structure impact problems in the context of sloshing inside membrane tanks.
The agreement between numerical and experimental results confirms also that raised invar edges tend to
enhance the magnitude of sloshing pressures. This confirmation emphasizes the importance of considering the physics of invar edge effects in defining the design pressure to be used in assessing the integrity of
membrane LNG tanks.
1
INTRODUCTION
In order to manage the risk of failure due to sloshing, adequate assessment of sloshing loads and
structural capacities are required. Even if the state
of the art of sloshing model tests has improved a
lot these last few yearsby including more physics
such as reproduction of realistic irregular 6 degrees
of freedom motion for the tank, introduction of a
special ullage gas mixture in order to respect the
LNG gas/fluid ratio density in the model tank
some physical phenomena are still not reproduced
in actual sloshing model tests.
Indeed, sloshing model tests are carried out using
tanks with smooth walls. However at prototype
scale, the two widely-used Cargo Containment
Systems (CCS) both have raised elements, corrugations in the case of MarkIII and raised invar
edges in the case of NO96. The MarkIII primary
membrane includes a square pattern of corrugation cells formed by the crossing rows of larger
and smaller corrugations, both with spacings of
roughly 340 mm. In the case of NO96 system,
parallel rows of raised invar edges are present with
spacings of roughly 500 mm and contain the weld
used to join the sheets of invar that make up the
primary membrane.
MARSTRUCT.indb 3
2/18/2011 5:39:06 PM
2.1
Figure 1.
2.2
(2)
(3)
(1)
= p + U + f
= UG dV
+ U U dV
= ( +
+
) dV + (
+ = 0
t
= 1 + ( ) 2
= +
) 2
1 (
) dV
Figure 2.
MARSTRUCT.indb 4
2/18/2011 5:39:07 PM
3
3.1
700000
p10
p11
600000
p12
p13
500000
p14
Table 1.
NSensor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
pressure (Pa)
NSensor
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
p15
400000
p16
p17
300000
p18
200000
100000
0
100000
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
time (s)
Figure 4. Pressure time histories calculated by OpenFOAM for the smooth wedge, pressure sensors 1018 for
scale 1:6 and h = 0.8 m.
MARSTRUCT.indb 5
2/18/2011 5:39:11 PM
3.2
Wagner s18
OpenFOAM s18
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
OpenFOAM
Wagner
(OF/Wagner)
Sensor 10
Sensor 11
Sensor 12
Sensor 13
Sensor 14
Sensor 15
Sensor 16
Sensor 17
Sensor 18
310608
311117
314067
315277
319110
319133
317646
318834
319689
311000
311000
311000
311000
311000
311000
311000
311000
311000
0.999
1.000
1.010
1.014
1.026
1.026
1.021
1.025
1.028
1:6, h = 0.6 m
OpenFOAM
Wagner
(OF/Wagner)
Sensor 10
Sensor 11
Sensor 12
Sensor 13
Sensor 14
Sensor 15
Sensor 16
Sensor 17
Sensor 18
466241
465773
470233
472968
480360
481153
478298
479665
480882
467000
467000
467000
467000
467000
467000
467000
467000
467000
0.998
0.997
1.007
1.013
1.029
1.030
1.024
1.027
1.030
1:6, h = 0.8 m
OpenFOAM
Wagner
(OF/Wagner)
Sensor 10
Sensor 11
Sensor 12
Sensor 13
Sensor 14
Sensor 15
Sensor 16
Sensor 17
Sensor 18
623481
623824
628800
632826
642751
643088
638552
640465
642697
622000
622000
622000
622000
622000
622000
622000
622000
622000
1.002
1.003
1.011
1.017
1.033
1.034
1.027
1.030
1.033
MARSTRUCT.indb 6
2/18/2011 5:39:13 PM
Figure 9. Comparison between raw and filtered (lowpass filter 2.5 kHz) time pressure histories calculated
by OpenFOAM for pressure sensor #3 for the smooth
wedge.
1.2e+006
pressure (Pa)
1e+006
800000
600000
p1
p10
p2
p11
p3
p12
p4
p13
p5
p14
p6
p15
p7
p16
p8
p17
p9
p18
400000
200000
0.005
1.4e+006
pressure (Pa)
1.2e+006
1e+006
800000
p1
p10
p2
p11
p3
p12
p4
p13
p5
p14
p6
p15
p7
p16
p8
p17
p9
p18
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
time (s)
1.8e+006
1.6e+006
0.006
600000
400000
200000
0
200000
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
time (s)
1.6e+006
1.4e+006
pressure (Pa)
1.2e+006
1e+006
800000
p1
p10
p2
p11
p3
p12
p4
p13
p5
p14
p6
p15
p7
p16
p8
p17
p9
p18
Figure 11.
600000
400000
200000
0
-200000
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.011
time (s)
MARSTRUCT.indb 7
2/18/2011 5:39:15 PM
Ratio (invar/smooth)
2.5
1:6, 0.4m
1:6, 0.6m
1:6, 0.8m
1:20, 0.12m
1.5
1:20, 0.18m
1:20, 0.24m
1
1:35, 0.069m
1:35, 0.086m
1:35, 0.103m
0.5
Experimental
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3.3
All these qualitative observations can be quantified by comparing the ratio between the filtered
maximum pressures for the wedge with invar edges
and the Wagners solution as it is done in (0).
The agreement between OpenFOAM and Exxon
experiments (0) curves is satisfactory. Furthermore,
precise information on the experimental procedure
and its post-processing lack to perform clearer
quantitative conclusions. Hence, we can conclude
that OpenFOAM well predicts qualitatively and
quantitatively the peak impact pressures for the
drop test simulation of a wedge equipped with
invar edges.
4
REFERENCES
Gazzola, T. Contribution au problme dimpact non
linaire: le problme de Wagner coupl, Ecole Centrale Paris 2007 (written in English).
He, H., Kuo, J.F., Rinehart, A. & Yung, T.W. Influence of Raised Invar Edges on Sloshing Impact
Pressures, 1st Sloshing Dynamics Symposium,
ISOPE 2009, Vol. 3, www.isope.org
Molin, B. Hydrodynamique des Structures Offshore,
Editions Technip.
OpenFOAM, v.1.7.1, www.openfoam.com
Viviani, M., Brizzolara, S. & Savio, L. Evaluation
of slamming loads using smoothed particle hydrodynamics and Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes
methods. Journal of engineering for the maritime
environment, 2009, 223:1731, ISSN: 1475-0902, doi:
10.1243/14750902 JEME131.
Wagner, H. ber Stoss und Gleitvorgnge an der Oberflche von Flssigkeite , ZAMM, Vol. 12, 193215.
CONCLUSIONS
MARSTRUCT.indb 8
2/18/2011 5:39:22 PM
ABSTRACT: We present a modal approach to the coupled computation of the fluid flow and the
motion and elastic deformation of a floating body. For the fluid part, i.e. the transient viscous free surface flow around the structure, the open souce code OpenFOAM is adopted. For the structure part, i.e.
the fully non-linear six degree of freedom rigid body motion and the linear elastic deformations due to
the forces exerted by the fluid on the structure, an in-house code has been developed and linked to the
OpenFOAM solver. An algorithm maps fluid forces to the finite element model nodes of the structure
and maps the structure motion/deformations to the vertices of the fluid grid. In our modal approach,
the structure deformation is represented by a linear combination of a small number of precomputed
modes (in the current study, the eigenmodes of the structure), resulting in an ODE for the modal coefficients. This approach proves to be computationally efficient: on the one hand, the size of the equation
system is much smaller than the full finite element equations, on the other hand, the restriction to lowfrequency eigenmodes suppresses high-frequency oscillations encountered in direct FE computations,
allowing for larger time step sizes and in general a more stable coupling. Also, suitable selection of the
modes allows for focussing on critical structure deformations e.g. for fatigue assessment. To this end,
deformations corresponding to the most relevant load cases according to classification rules can be used
as modes, too.
1
INTRODUCTION
MARSTRUCT.indb 9
2/18/2011 5:39:22 PM
STRUCTURAL PART
Assuming linear elasticity the 3D FEM discretization of the vessel leads to the well known equation
of motion
M + Cu + Ku = F(t)
(1)
R ( H + Z )r + Gr + M
Mr
(6)
u( x t )
( x )i ri (t ) = ( x )r(t ).
(2)
i =1
x ) + ( x ) dV ,
U + (
r = [ri, , rn]T
(3)
(
)dV ,
(8)
(9)
(4)
A good choice for representing the global deformation of the ship typically are the lowest eigenmodes which result from the modal decomposition
of the homogeneous, undamped and unsupported
system
M + Ku = 0.
Zr = T [ ( )]dV r,
(7)
(10)
(5)
dV .
(11)
All terms of the equation of motion in the moving coordinate system have been given above for
completeness. In ship applications, however, the
forces resulting from the terms containing G, H,
and Z are typically negligibly small whereas R
results in a significant contribution.
Now adding the stiffness
dV
(12)
10
MARSTRUCT.indb 10
2/18/2011 5:39:22 PM
) Z ( )]r
Mr + [C G ()]
)]r [ K + H (
= T FdA
d
R( , , U ).
by requiring
(K 2M)
(13)
det (K 2M) = 0,
If the modes used for the projection are normalized and orthogonal with respect to the mass
matrix, M becomes the unit matrix. In case moreover global vibration eigenmodes are chosen, K is
the diagonal matrix of the squared circular eigenfrequencies i2. Damping is then typically chosen
as applied for a global ship vibration analysis, i.e.
as a percentage of critical damping applied to the
respective mode (see e.g. (Asmussen, Menzel, and
Mumm 2001)).
Introducing the abbreviations
C* () = C + G(),
*
( , )
( )
Z ( ) ,
, U )
F (t )dA
d
R(,
22
, U ).
Mr + C ( )r + K ( , ))r = R (t, ,
*
2k
= (1, 2 ) =
(1/ 2 )( 1, 1)T .
1 1 1
2 m 1 1
(15)
(16)
iT M j = iijj ,
where ij denotes the Kronecker delta. Substituting u = r and multiplying by T, the equation of
motion (1) becomes the modal equation of motion
(17)
Note that the projected matrices can be computed efficiently before the time integration, i.e. no
matrix vector products with the full system matrices are required during time integration.
Solution of equation (17) requires a nonlinear
solver, because of the constraints ri = 0, i = 1, , 6
are unknown for
and the fact that , , and
the specific timestep. The solution procedure is
described in more detail in section 2.4.
T Mr + T Kr
= T F ,
with the modal mass matrix
M = TM = diag (1,1)
and the modal stiffness matrix
K = T K = diag (
2
1,
2
2 ).
F F M( , )T U.
m 0
=
0 m
The modes
(14)
K +H
, , U )
R* (t,
12
2m r1
k
.
k
r2 +
2k
r2 =
m
2mU
2 mU,
1
( F2
2m
F1 ).
(18)
(19)
11
MARSTRUCT.indb 11
2/18/2011 5:39:25 PM
elas
R
rb
bm
elas rbm 7..n
t
=
+
r t
Relas
Mela
l s
F F2
U = 1
,
2m
7..n
Aelas rbm
= Rrbm Celas rbm r 7t ..nt
m rt
)
t
0M
a1C (
t) K (
),
t
= a1rt
+ a4 rt
t + a5 rt t ,
(21)
rt
= a0rt
+ a2 rt
t + a3 rt t
(22)
)r = R (
t
t t
+ M
rt
U )
t
t
t + C ( t )r t
t ,
(23)
r
AT
Aelas t
elas rbm
R
M
Meelas rbm
rb
bm
rrbm
=
+ T
R
M
Meelas r t t
elas
elas rbm
C
Ceelas rbm
rbm
+ T
.
Celas r t t
Celas rbm
(26)
7..n
rt 7..nt + Celas
e asrt t .
(27)
In order to solve these equations the kinetic vari and U have to be known. Furthermore
ables ,
the time-variant rotation matrix S transforming
local to global coordinates is required due to the
fact that the hydrodynamic forces are determined
in the global reference frame; hence there is the
need to transform into the body fixed coordinate
system. Determining the kinetic variables is a nonlinear problem which can be solved by exploiting equation (26). Here we take into account that
the rigid body motion is affected by the elastic
deformation represented by the coupling terms
denoted by subscript elasrbm in equation (26).
According to this, the solution procedure will be
nested.
(25)
and
(20)
rt
eelas
l rbm
b 7..n
.
Ceelas r t t
(24)
S() = Sz(1)Sy'(2)Sx"(3).
(28)
12
MARSTRUCT.indb 12
2/18/2011 5:39:31 PM
(29)
= J ( ) + K ( , ) ,
R
R
(30)
t = t t +
t
(
t
2
t ).
t +
The open source Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) solver OpenFOAM, which is based
on the Finite Volume Method, is adopted for the
fluid part. OpenFOAM (www.openfoam.com) features the computation of the free surface between
two media (here, air and water) according to the
Volume Of Fluid (VOF) method. This method is
based on the solution of a transport equation for
the volume fraction of one medium, where the convective term is discretized in a manner that on the
one hand maintains a sharp interface between volume fraction one and zero and on the other hand
guarantees that the volume fraction is bounded
between one and zero. The remaining transport
equations (mass conservation, momentum conservation, etc.) are solved for an effective fluid whose
properties (density, viscosity) result from an volume fraction weighted average of the properties of
the individual media.
These transport equations are solved in a
sequentiell manner, i.e. each transport equation
is solved for the variable which is governed by the
particular equation while the other variables are
kept unchanged. These sequence is repeated in
each time step as outer iterations (in contrast to
the inner iterations denoting the iterative solution
of sparse linear equation systems that result from
spatial discretization of the transport equation)
until convergence is achieved.
Coupling between fluid flow and structure
motion/deformation can be explicit (once per
time step) or implicit (once per outer iteration).
Implicit coupling is achieved by simply solving for
the modal co-efficients and adjusting the boundary vertices of the CFD grid in each outer iteration
until convergence is achieved even considering the
boundary movement.
In order to generate waves, velocities at the corresponding inlet boundaries and the elevation of the
free surface is given according to Stokes wave theory of 2nd order. Whereas a hydrostatic pressure is
assumed at the outlet boundaries. Wave reflections
at the boundaries are avoided by introducing damping zones near to the corresponding boundaries. The
hydrodynamic forces acting at the interface between
fluid and structure are obtained by integrating pressure and shear stress over the common surface.
(31)
t = t t +
2.4
t
( t
2
t + t ).
(32)
Solution procedure
t) =
Rrbm (U t t ) + Celas
7..n
Aela
l s rbm ( t )rt
= 0.
rbm (
FLUID PART
7..n
t )r t t
(33)
13
MARSTRUCT.indb 13
2/18/2011 5:39:35 PM
COUPLING OF FLUID
AND STRUCTURE SOLVER
fi = piai + fi,shear.
(t, )))
u( )
0 ,t [ 0
(34)
and Neumann
f (t )n S (t y )n y t [ 0 T ]
(36)
(35)
boundary conditions have to be fulfilled. Generally the Dirichlet boundary condition (34) will be
gained by determining the structural displacements
which will be derived and adopted in the CFD simulation. Whereas integrating the left hand side of
the Neumann boundary conditions (35) over the
fluid interface results in the hydrodynamic forces
acting on the structure. The organization of the
information exchange at the boundary influences
the accuracy of the results and affects the stability of the coupled simulation as well. Keeping in
mind the non-matching grids at the interface and
the need to interpolate variables from one domain
into the other these conditions cant be fulfilled
exactly.
In the partioned fluid structure interaction
approach two major coupling strategies are
applied namely the weak and strong coupling.
They differ in the information exchange frequency
per time step which influences the fulfillment of
kinematic and dynamic consistency at the interface (34) and (35). Weak (explict) coupling has
only one boundary condition exchange per time
step whereas strong (implicit) coupling has several
exchanges a time step depending on the number of
iteration steps per time step performed for solving
fi ,n
(37)
fi ,n
xi ,n xi ) = 0.
(38)
(39)
14
MARSTRUCT.indb 14
2/18/2011 5:39:40 PM
wi ,nui ,n .
(40)
Figure 1.
Iterative loop.
(41)
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
15
MARSTRUCT.indb 15
2/18/2011 5:39:42 PM
CONCLUSIONS
that vertical bending is the only mode that is significantly excited. This is the expected behavior for
head waves. Also, this modal coefficient closely follows the pitch angle as the driving mechanism for
vertical bending. On the other hand, for oblique
waves, other modes become significant. In Fig. 6,
the modal coefficients for the elastic modes are
16
MARSTRUCT.indb 16
2/18/2011 5:39:44 PM
REFERENCES
Argyris, J. & Mlejnek, H.-P. (1988). Die Methode der
Finiten Elemente, Band III - Einfhrung in die Dynamik.
Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn.
Asmussen, I., Menzel, W. & Mumm, H. (2001). GL
Technology, Ship Vibration. Technical report, Germanischer Lloyd.
Eisen, H. & Cabos, C. (2007). Efficient generation of cfdbased loads for the fem-analysis of ship structures. In
International Conference on Computer Applications in
Shipbuilding, Portsmouth.
Matthies, H.G., Niekamp, R. & Steindorf, J. (2006).
Algorithms for strong coupling procedures. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
195(1718), 20282049.
Oberhagemann, J., el Moctar, O. & Schellin, T. (2008).
Fluid-structure coupling to assess whipping effects on
global loads of a large containership. In 27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul.
17
MARSTRUCT.indb 17
2/18/2011 5:39:50 PM
A. Ferrari
DAppolonia S.p.A., Genova, Italy
ABSTRACT: The paper presents the design of two prototypes of a hull monitoring system which
employs temperature compensated laser based optical sensors. The prototypes have been developed for
a double side bulk carrier and an ice class tug boat. A set of finite element calculations has been carried
out for defining the optimum sensors installation areas in each ship. Preliminary tests on the algorithms
developed for the software onboard and a first analysis of a set of data measured on the tug boat are
reported.
1
INTRODUCTION
A set of finite element calculations has been carried out for defining the optimum sensors installation areas in each ship and results are presented.
Stress distributions in these regions have been analyzed in order to identify the best locations for the
installation of strain measuring devices, as well as
their proper gage length.
19
MARSTRUCT.indb 19
2/18/2011 5:39:50 PM
high mechanical, chemical and temperature resistance of optic sensors (ideal for ship structures
and long term permanent structural health
monitoring);
immunity of the system to electromagnetic and
radio frequency interference;
intrinsic safety in hazardous areas, as sensors do
not employ electrical components;
accuracy and quality of the signal;
capability of being employed on long distances.
2.1
2.2
A preliminary analysis has been carried out considering a set of load cases derived from four mutually exclusive load combinations referred to three
loading conditions, which are:
Full load (departure), with the holds fully filled;
Full load (departure), with Cargo = 3 t/m3;
Ballast (departure).
The combinations of loads are provided in
RINA Rules for structural analysis (RINA 2010)
and are generally employed for structural element
analyses which do not require complete ship models. These load cases take into account also wave
induced hull girder loads, inertial loads due to ship
accelerations and static pressures induced by an
20
MARSTRUCT.indb 20
2/18/2011 5:39:50 PM
Figure 2.
x 106
2.3
Vertical bending moment [kN m]
Model mesh.
Location of sensors
Target
4
Steel weight
Local loads
Adjustment loads
VBM predicted
VBM calculated
8
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Figure 1. Example of load distributions and comparison of the predicted total bending moment with the result
of FE analysis.
21
MARSTRUCT.indb 21
2/18/2011 5:39:50 PM
Figure 8.
stresses.
2.4
22
MARSTRUCT.indb 22
2/18/2011 5:39:52 PM
Figure 10.
stresses.
The final decision on the dimensions of the sensors was taken however considering also technical
issues related to the sensors characteristics and
their capability to be properly protected from the
environment. Actually, small strain gauges resulted
to be less suitable for an employment in harsh environments and hence have been avoided.
The combinations of loads are the same employed for the preliminary analysis (Section 2.2).
Results showed that gradients of stress may be
great in the locations analyzed, with the exception
of the hatch corners. Small strain gauges (of about
2 cm of length) appear hence to be the preferable
solution for most of these hot spots, even if sensors
up to 10 cm, if installed properly, can be generally
employed, providing equally useful information on
local stresses. For the hatch corners, stress distributions seem to allow the employment of strain
gauges with a length between 10 and 20 cm.
23
MARSTRUCT.indb 23
2/18/2011 5:39:56 PM
MV
KV i i
(1)
K H i i
(2)
i =1
4
MH
i =1
where i represents the compensated stress measured by the i-th sensor and KV and KH are coefficients depending on the characteristic of the
cross-section and on the position of the sensor
in the section. The two coefficients are derived in
order to average the results obtained from the sensors on the deck and on the bottom.
Results are also provided to the crew in terms of
a ratio between the measured bending moment and
the maximum allowed for the section considered.
Every time the monitoring task highlights a critical
situation (i.e. actual values exceed the allowed limit
values) the monitoring software raises an alarm,
both visual and sonorous, that could be of different
importance (e.g. one if a threshold is approached
but not reached, the other if a threshold is reached
or exceeded).
The Monitoring Software is governed through a
Graphical User Interface that allows an operator to
interact with the workstation and is also connected
to the Loading Instrument, allowing the comparison of the measured bending moments with the
expected values during loading and unloading
operations.
2.7
Figure 12.
A preliminary set of tests for ascertaining the reliability of the algorithm has been performed using
FE analyses. A transversal ring, including the relevant section in hold 5 (Figure 4), has been refined
and analyzed as already reported in Section 2.4.
The structures have been described employing
plate and beam elements. The reference dimension
of the elements was about 18 cm. Figure 12 shows
the mesh employed for this calculation.
For each combination of loads analyzed, stresses
predicted by FEM have been used as input of
the algorithm, for estimating the related bending
moments. These results have been then compared
with the bending moments obtained by FE analyses.
Figures 13 and 14 show the comparison of vertical
and horizontal bending moments respectively. In
the plots FL indicates full load condition, while
BL the ballast condition; the other letter represents
the load case, as reported in RINA rules.
3
3.1
24
MARSTRUCT.indb 24
2/18/2011 5:39:57 PM
6.0E+06
FEM
Estimated
5.0E+06
4.0E+06
3.0E+06
VBM [kN*m]
2.0E+06
1.0E+06
0.0E+00
1.0E+06
2.0E+06
3.0E+06
4.0E+06
5.0E+06
FL-A
Crest
Figure 13.
FL-A
Trough
FL-B
FL-C
FL-D
BL-A
Crest
Load Case
BL-A
Trough
BL-B
BL-C
BL-D
2.0E+06
FEM
Estimated
1.5E+06
HBM [kN*m]
1.0E+06
5.0E+05
0.0E+00
5.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.5E+06
2.0E+06
FL-A
FL-A
FL-B
Crest Trough
FL-C
FL-D
BL-A BL-A BL-B
Crest Trough
Load Case
BL-C
BL-D
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
25
MARSTRUCT.indb 25
2/18/2011 5:39:59 PM
Figure 20.
26
MARSTRUCT.indb 26
2/18/2011 5:40:01 PM
system includes sensors placed only longitudinally according to the reference system shown in
Figure 23. To overcome the lack of strains data
in the transverse direction which are required for
accurate stress calculations, a FE analysis has been
performed, the aim of which was to derive relations
and mathematical expressions, linking the existing
Figure 21.
3.3
Location of sensors
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
In the loading case under study, which is lateral pressure acting on the hull panels from the
ice, the developed stress state in the panels is
2-dimensional. Because of the limited number
of available channels/sensors for installation, the
27
MARSTRUCT.indb 27
2/18/2011 5:40:03 PM
position.
Aspect ratio a/b (b is the longitudinal side, parallel to the sensor axis) ranging from 1 to 4. Actual
values examined were 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.5,
3 and 4.
Plate thickness: Three values have been taken
into account: 12 mm, 15 mm and 18 mm.
Panel length b: Three values have been taken
into account: 500 mm, 600 mm and 700 mm.
yy / xx
xx / VM
The analysis showed that both ratios are unaffected by the thickness value and the value of the
28
MARSTRUCT.indb 28
2/18/2011 5:40:05 PM
3.5
Figure 28.
Figure 29.
Figure 30.
29
MARSTRUCT.indb 29
2/18/2011 5:40:07 PM
Figure 32.
starboard.
Figure 31.
The paper describes a hull stress monitoring system which employs temperature compensated
laser based optical sensors, developed within the
MOSES project. The design of two prototypes are
described, one installed on a double side bulk carrier and the other on an ice class tug boat. The evaluation of hull girder bending moments along the
ship length and local stresses in selected hot spots
has been selected as main features for the system
on the bulk carrier. The measurement of stresses in
the bow area due to ice pressure loads and stresses
on the forward winch deck support structure have
been considered instead more important for the
tug boat.
The optimum sensors installation areas have
been selected by means of FE analyses, taking into
account also constraints related to junction box
specifications and looking for a good balance of
technical and economical requirements.
The paper describes also the algorithms for
the software provided onboard. Particularly, on
the bulk carrier the software correlates measured
strains with hull girder bending moments, while
on the tug it estimates maximum stress levels on
selected areas of the hull structure when the tug
operates as an icebreaker.
Preliminary tests on the software, performed
employing FE analyses, show that the two prototypes should be capable of providing results with
accuracy fully acceptable for the purposes of each
system.
At the present time, no measured data are available for the bulk carrier, while initial readings from
the tug boat operating in the gulf of Tallinn have
been obtained and currently investigated. The initial readings indicate that the structure of the tug
does not suffer high stresses under normal ice
breaking operating conditions. In any case, further
analyses for both the vessels are expected in the
future on a wider set of data.
neighboring panels is about 2.5, and two of section 3.4 analysis load cases were used to evaluate
the results.
The numerical strains calculated from the FE
model at the middle and quarter positions of
the panel shown in Figure 26 were used as input
in the corresponding mathematical expressions of
section 3.4, thus resulting in the analytical calculation of the maximum panel von Mises stress. This
value was then compared to the maximum von
Mises stress calculated by the FE analysis and the
difference was found to be between 2.5 and 6%.
This difference is very small and fully acceptable
for the purposes of the present study and may be
justified because of the curvature of the actual
bow panels and the hydrostatic sea pressure on the
hull sides, which were both not considered in the
flat rectangular panel analysis.
4
CONCLUSIONS
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
30
MARSTRUCT.indb 30
2/18/2011 5:40:08 PM
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
31
MARSTRUCT.indb 31
2/18/2011 5:40:09 PM
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a hydroelastic investigation into the dynamic response characteristics
of a group of bulkers with different load carrying capacities, e.g., two handysize vessels with carrying capacities of 20 000 and 32 000 dwt, respectively; one handymax vessel with a carrying capacity of
53 000 dwt; one panamax vessel with a carrying capacity of 76 000 dwt; two capesize type vessels with
carrying capacities of 140 000 and 180 000 dwt, respectively. For all the bulk carriers adopted in this study,
detailed three dimensional finite element structural models are prepared, separately, by using commercial
finite element software. The calculations are carried out for two different loading conditions, namely, fully
loaded and ballast conditions. The dry and wet frequencies are computed by using the finite element, and
they are compared with those calculated by using a higher-order 3-D hydroelasticity theory.
1
INTRODUCTION
33
MARSTRUCT.indb 33
2/18/2011 5:40:09 PM
2
2.1
(4)
cp((t )
(5)
Q( )
Here a, b, c denote the generalized mass, damping and stiffness matrices, respectively, and are
defined as
a = DTMD, b = DTCVD, c = DTKD, Q = DTP (6)
It should be noted that the generalized mass,
a, and stiffness, c, matrices are diagonal. The
generalized force matrix Q(t) represents the fluid
structure interaction and all other external forces
(e.g., wave forces, etc.), and may be expressed as
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Q(t))
(Ap(t)
) + Cp( ))
Bp(
(7)
(t ),
(3)
A)p(t)
2.2
(b
t)
B)p(
(c
C)p( )
( )
(8)
The fluid is assumed ideal, i.e., inviscid and incompressible, and its motion is irrotational, so that the
fluid velocity vector associated with the unsteady
flow, v, can be defined as the gradient of a velocity potential function as v(x, t) = , where
x = (x, y, z)T and t denote the position vector and
time, respectively. In general, satisfies the Laplace
equation, 2 = 0, throughout the fluid domain,
an appropriate free surface boundary condition,
the kinematic boundary condition on the wetted
(2)
34
MARSTRUCT.indb 34
2/18/2011 5:40:10 PM
4 G
(9)
r(
) p0 r
i t
, r 1, 2,.., nm .
(10)
ne
N ej ej
j =1
u r n,
n =
t
P = f ( / t),
{G(
, )q
) q( )
)
(16)
SW
(15)
j =1
c( ) ( )
ne
qe = N ej q ej .
(14)
(11)
ur(x, t) = ur(x)preit.
H.
1/ r + 1/ r
Zkr
(i )r dS.
(17)
SW
G n ( , ) ( )} dS
d .
(13)
35
MARSTRUCT.indb 35
2/18/2011 5:40:11 PM
( f
Akr
[ (i
dS ],
(18a)
SW
( f
Bkr
[ (i
)I
dS ].
(18b)
SW
2.5
(i
r i ) u r n dS ,
(19)
SW
where 0r represents the force component associated with the rth modal vibration, and i is the
amplitude of the incident wave potential.
The equation of motion for a harmonically
excited elastic structure may be written as
Dp0 = 0,
(20)
where
D = 2(a + A) +(c + C) + i(b + B).
(21)
adj
dD
aadj
dj D (det
(d D)*
0 =
0 .
2
det D
det D
(22)
NUMERICAL STUDY
36
MARSTRUCT.indb 36
2/18/2011 5:40:14 PM
Mode
FEM
(dry)
FEM
(wet)
BEM
(wet)
2 Node VB
2 Node HB
1 Node T
3 Node VB
3 Node HB
4 Node VB
4 Node HB
5 Node VB
2 Node T
0.923
1.312
2.339
1.789
2.590
2.540
3.634
3.183
5.598
0.656
1.142
1.797
1.295
2.245
1.886
3.249
2.420
3.837
0.674
1.148
1.793
1.330
2.266
1.935
3.093
2.486
3.681
Table 2. Comparison of the dry natural and wet resonance frequencies for the 140 000 dwt bulk carrier in
water for ballast condition (Hz).
Mode
FEM
(dry)
FEM
(wet)
BEM
(wet)
2 Node VB
2 Node HB
1 Node T
3 Node VB
3 Node HB
4 Node VB
4 Node HB
5 Node VB
2 Node T
1.260
1.857
2.413
2.543
3.710
3.750
5.322
4.716
5.893
0.848
1.699
1.875
1.629
3.391
2.348
5.064
2.985
3.881
0.827
1.600
1.873
1.639
3.389
2.398
5.180
3.042
3.704
Table 3. Comparison of the dry natural and wet resonance frequencies for the 32 000 dwt bulk carrier in water
for fully loaded condition (Hz).
Mode
FEM
(dry)
FEM
(wet)
BEM
(wet)
2 Node VB
2 Node HB
1 Node T
3 Node VB
3 Node HB
4 Node VB
4 Node HB
5 Node VB
2 Node T
1.285
1.553
1.833
2.919
3.263
4.539
5.539
6.576
6.214
0.875
1.337
1.510
1.960
2.832
3.055
4.687
4.135
5.117
0.903
1.343
1.547
2.018
2.833
3.211
4.777
4.391
5.115
Figure 1. 32 000 dwt capacity bulk carrier finite element model in ballast condition.
37
MARSTRUCT.indb 37
2/18/2011 5:40:16 PM
38
MARSTRUCT.indb 38
2/18/2011 5:40:17 PM
Figure 5. Wet resonance frequency curves of bulk carriers for fully loaded condition.
Key: 1-node torsion; 2-node torsion.
REFERENCES
ABAQUS 2008. Theory Manual. SIMULIA, U.S.A.
Bishop, R.E.D., Price, W.G. & Temarel, P. 1985. A hypothesis concerning the disastrous failure of the OnomichiMaru, Transactions of RINA 127: 169186.
Bishop, R.E.D., Price, W.G. & Temarel, P. 1991. A theory
on the loss of MV Derbyshire. Transactions of RINA
133: 389453.
Ergin, A. 1997. The response behavior of a submerged
cylindrical shell using the doubly asymptotic approximation method (DAA). Computers and Structures
62: 10251034.
Ergin, A., Kaydihan, L. & Uurlu, B. 2007. Hydroelastic analysis of a 1900 TEU container ship using finite
element and boundary element methods. Proceedings
of the International Conference of Asian-Pacific
Technical Exchange and Advisory Meeting on Marine
Structures, Yokohama, Japan.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a hydroelastic investigation was carried out into the dynamic response characteristics
of a group of bulkers with different load carrying
capacities, e.g., two handysize vessels with carrying
capacities of 20 000 and 32 000 dwt, respectively;
one handymax vessel with a carrying capacity of
53 000 dwt; one panamax vessel of 76 000 dwt carrying capacity; two capesize type vessels with capacities of 140 000 and 180 000 dwt, respectively. For
all the bulk carriers adopted in this study, detailed
39
MARSTRUCT.indb 39
2/18/2011 5:40:21 PM
40
MARSTRUCT.indb 40
2/18/2011 5:40:23 PM
ABSTRACT: An explicit finite element code is applied to study the impact loads on one two-dimensional
rigid wedge subjected to water entry. This wedge with deadrise angle 30 degree impacting the calm water
is modeled. The numerical results are compared and validated against published experimental slamming
force, pressure distributions at different time instances, and pressure histories at different points on the
wetted surface, obtaining very good comparisons. A convergence study for parameters, such as mesh
density and penalty factor, is carried out. The computational efficiency and accuracy of the results is
discussed.
1
INTRODUCTION
41
MARSTRUCT.indb 41
2/18/2011 5:40:23 PM
Breadth of section
Length of measuring section
Length of each dummy section
Total length
Dead rise angle
Total weight
Weight of measuring section
0.50 m
0.20 m
0.40 m
1.00 m
30
241 kg
14.5 kg
42
MARSTRUCT.indb 42
2/18/2011 5:40:23 PM
Table 2.
Figure 2.
4.1
Parameters
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Mesh size
5 mm
2.5 mm
1.25 mm
Number
of elements
(Fluids +
Structures)
5725 +
118
29500 +
215
127000 +
430
Number of
elements on
impacting
wedge surface
58
115
230
CPU time *
56 m
9 h 49 m
96 h 54 m
*
Note: It was run on one PC with 2.4 GHz processor and
2 Gigabytes of memory.
Slamming force
The predicted slamming forces agree satisfactorily with the experimental one in the time
domain, from the beginning of slamming, to the
flow separation on the knuckle at about time
0.0158s, and to the later stage of water entry in
the figure. The predicted results are about 5%
larger than the experimental ones in the middle
of water entry before flow separation. Maybe it
is mainly due to the three-dimensional effect on
43
MARSTRUCT.indb 43
2/18/2011 5:40:24 PM
(a) t1 = 0.00435s
(b) t2 = 0.0158s
(c) t3 = 0.0202s
Figure 5. Comparison of pressure distributions at
different time instances.
4.3
44
MARSTRUCT.indb 44
2/18/2011 5:40:28 PM
In order to capture the pressure peak phenomena correctly and also to eliminate the numerical
noise in the curves, much finer mesh is needed in
this case, for example 1.25 mm. For the case of
slamming force, mesh size 2.5 mm maybe is enough
as shown in Figure 4 before.
4.4
Figure 7 presents both water jet and pressure contour phenomena from time 0.00435s, 0.0158s, to
0.0202s, corresponding to pressure distributions
described in Figure 5. Half of rigid wedge and part
of the water domain near the wedge is shown. The
vertex of the rigid wedge of model 3 will touch
the calm water at time 0.0036 s in the LS-DYNA
simulation, which corresponds to the time 0.0s in
the drop test. Three coupling points option is chosen for each coupled Lagrangian element, and no
fluid leakage is observed on the coupling wedge
surface.
45
MARSTRUCT.indb 45
2/18/2011 5:40:29 PM
(a) t1 = 0.00435s
Penalty factor
(b) t2 = 0.0158s
(c) t3 = 0.0202s
Figure 7. Predicted water jet flow and pressure contour
in water by LS-DYNA.
46
MARSTRUCT.indb 46
2/18/2011 5:40:30 PM
4.6
Time step
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work has been performed in the scope of the
project EXTREME SEASDesign for Ship Safety
in Extreme Seas, (www.mar.ist.utl.pt/extremeseas),
which has been partially financed by the EU under
contract SCP8-GA-2009-234175.
REFERENCES
Alexandru, I., Brizzolara, S., Viviani, M., Couty, N.,
Donner, R., Hermundstad, O., Kukkanen, T.,
Malenica, S. & Termarel, P. (2007). Comparison of
experimental and numerical impact loads on ship-like
sections. Advancements in Marine Structures, Guedes
Soares, C, and Das, P.K., (Eds), Taylor & Francis,
UK, 339349.
Aquelet, N., Souli, M. & Olovsson, L. 2006.
EulerLagrange coupling with damping effects:
Application to slamming problems. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 195, 110132.
Bereznitski, A. 2001. Slamming: the Role of Hydroelasticity. International Shipbuilding Progress. 48, 333351.
Engle, A. & Lewis, R. 2003. A comparison of hydrodynamic impacts prediction methods with twodimensional drop test data. Marine Structures. 16, 2,
175182.
Faltinsen, O.M. & Chen, Z.M. 2005. A generalized
Wagner method for three-dimensional slamming,
Journal of Ship Research, 49, 4, 279287.
Faltinsen, O.M., Landrini, M. & Greco, M. 2004.
Slamming in marine application. Journal of Engineering Mathematics. 48, 187217.
47
MARSTRUCT.indb 47
2/18/2011 5:40:34 PM
48
MARSTRUCT.indb 48
2/18/2011 5:40:34 PM
ABSTRACT: In this paper a simple method is proposed to estimate extreme ship response, defined as
the return values of the responses. Real ship responses are often non-Gaussian, hence a transformation,
defined by the cubic Hermite polynomials, of a Gaussian process is employed to model the responses.
The transformation is a function of the standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis and zero up-crossing frequency of a response. The parameters vary with changing sea conditions and operation conditions and
are easily available from measured responses. In the case when measurements are not available the parameters are estimated by an empirical model from the significant wave height and operation conditions.
The model is derived from the measurements, but can be also estimated by means of a theoretical analysis.
The proposed method is compared with the typical engineering approach to estimate the return values of
a response. The full-scale measurements of a 2800TEU container ship during the first six months of 2008
are used in the comparisons.
1
INTRODUCTION
xT ) =
1
T
(1)
P (X m
xT ) =
1
,
n T
(2)
49
MARSTRUCT.indb 49
2/18/2011 5:40:34 PM
x)
E ( N1+ ( x )) + P(
P (X (0)
x ),
(3)
(4)
n(t )
,
t
(5)
EXTREME ESTIMATION
BY METHOD 1 & 2
50
MARSTRUCT.indb 50
2/18/2011 5:40:35 PM
+ (x |W )
,
+ (0 | W )
FX m ( x ) = FX m ( x | W f (W )dW
d ,
(6)
(7)
n(t)/t +(0|W)f(W)dW .
(8)
Examples
Nt+ ( x )
.
Nt+ ( )
(9)
51
MARSTRUCT.indb 51
2/18/2011 5:40:37 PM
2.4
Comparison of methods 1, 2
1
,
T
(10)
+
where E ( N1 ( x )) is the expected number of
upcrossings of the level x by the responses in
one year. Obviously the expected value has to be
estimated.
Let assume that one can choose a minimal
length of the stationary periods (sea states) t,
e.g. 20 or 30 minutes. Furthermore, one estimate
that in average the ship will encounter K sea states
during a year, i.e. the sailing time is Kt. Then
the expected number of upcrossings at level x,
E ( N1+ ( x )), is given by
E ( N1+ ( x ))
K t + ( x | W f (W )dW
d ,
(11)
(12)
52
MARSTRUCT.indb 52
2/18/2011 5:40:40 PM
fz
In order to use Method 2 as Eqs. (1112), upcrossing intensity +(x|W) has to be estimated for at
least severe sea state. Then the long term pdf of
sea states for the particular shipping needs also be
determined first. In this section we shortly review
computations of +(x|W) .
If the joint pdf of ship responses X(t) (zero
mean stresses) and its derivative X (t ) under a sea
state W is known, then the upcrossing frequencies
can be computed by Rices formula viz.
X ( ),
(t )
( x,, |W ) .
X(t) = G(u(t)) = m + X
[c1H1(u(t))] + c2H2(u(t)) + c3H3(u(t))],
x2
2
exp
,
0
0
(15)
(14)
+ ( |W ) =
2
.
0
1
2
W)=
+ ( |W ) =
fz W ) =
(13)
1 G
2 G
(X )
(X )
(16)
53
MARSTRUCT.indb 53
2/18/2011 5:40:44 PM
3.3
54
MARSTRUCT.indb 54
2/18/2011 5:40:48 PM
xk
E(N
E(
E (N
( N1+ (0 ))exp
,
(17)
Figure 6. Upcrossing spectrum in time t = 0.5 year
estimated by Eqs. (1516) (referred to Method 2), by
fitted Weibull distribution as Eq. (17) (referred to as
Method 1), and computed by Eq. (9) assuming Gaussian
response, together with the observed upcrossing for both
after section (a) and mid section (b).
55
MARSTRUCT.indb 55
2/18/2011 5:40:52 PM
3 _
0 11
0 35 3 _ mid
id
0.063H s 0.39.
(18)
Encountered waves
56
MARSTRUCT.indb 56
2/18/2011 5:40:55 PM
CONCLUSIONS
57
MARSTRUCT.indb 57
2/18/2011 5:40:58 PM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support from the EU
project SEAMOCS (Applied Stochastic Models for
Ocean Engineering, Climate and Safe Transportation) and Gothenburg Stochastic Center and the
Swedish foundation for Strategic Research through
GMMC, Gothenburg Mathematical Modeling
Center. Also many thanks to DNV, crews, management company and owner for providing data.
REFERENCES
[1] Coles, S. An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of
Extreme Values. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
[2] Naess, A., Gaidai, O. & Haver, S. Efficient estimation of extreme response of drag dominated offshore structures by Monte Carlo simulation, Ocean
Eng. Vol. 34 (16), 2007, pp. 21882197.
[3] Winterstein, S.R., Ude, T.C., Cornell, C.A.,
Bjerager, P. & Haver, S. Environmental Parameters for Extreme Response: Inverse FORM with
Omission Factors, Proceedings, ICOSSAR-1993,
Innsbruck, Austria.
[4] DNV. Postprocessor for Statistical Response Calculations. December 15th, 2007.
[5] Cramer, H. & Leadbetter, M.R. Stationary and
Related Stochastic Process: Sample Function Properties and Their Applications. Wiley, 1967 (Republication by Dover 2004).
[6] Rice, S.O. The mathematical analysis of Random
Noise. Bell syst Tech J, 1944 & 1945; 23 & 24,
pp. 282332 and pp. 46156.
[7] Mao, W., Ringsberg, J., Rychlik, I. & Storhaug, G.
Development of a Fatigue Model Useful in Ship
Routing Design. To be appear in the Journal of Ship
Research.
58
MARSTRUCT.indb 58
2/18/2011 5:40:59 PM
ABSTRACT: The authors developed a whole ship finite element analysis system from wave loads to
structural strength at real sea state. In the present study, methodology for the rational analysis of structural strength by means of such a whole ship analysis particularly from the viewpoint of loads is discussed. Consequently, for the rational evaluation of strength in waves, the effect of operation particularly
on wave loads should be considered. It is verified that the evaluation without the effect of operation may
overestimate the stress induced by waves.
1
INTRODUCTION
2
2.1
59
MARSTRUCT.indb 59
2/18/2011 5:40:59 PM
(M
A ij X
j
ij
FW
j
FVj
Biijj X
j
= K P e + K I edt + K D
e =
(2)
Cij X j
i j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
de
dt
(1)
and X
denote motion acceleration and
where X
j
j
velocity, respectively. Mij and Aij denote mass and
added mass respectively. Bij denotes damping.
Cij denotes the restoring coefficient. The index,
i, denotes the direction of the fluid force. FWj denotes
the wave exciting force. FVj denotes the excitation
force due to viscous effects.
In terms of global flexible modes, the modal
superposition approach is applied in accordance
with formulation by Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto,
1980). Equations of motion including flexible
modes are solved in the time domain by means
of a 4th-order Runge-Kutta scheme. The FroudeKrylov force, which has considerable effect on the
nonlinearity of ship motions, is estimated by the
integration of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
wave pressure along the instantaneous wetted surface of the hull at each time step.
With respect to the sectional wave radiation force
and potential value at each time step, the integral
equation method is utilized. Source and doublet are
distributed at the origin of each section to avoid the
irregular frequency, in accordance with Ohmatsus
method (Ohmatsu, 1975). The sectional diffraction
force, in the present method, is computed by solving the Helmholtz equation at each time step.
Wave impact load due to slamming is computed by means of the displacement potential
approach (Takagi, 2007; Ogawa, 2009) in terms of
the instantaneous wetted surface at each time step.
The viscous effect of roll damping due to ship hull
and bilge keels is estimated using various empirical formulae. The propeller thrust is described by
means of the propeller characteristics. The hull
resistance is a function of the instantaneous speed
and draft. Lateral force and yaw moment due to
rudder is considered to keep a target course o for
the ship in the simulation. The rudder is controlled
by the PID control as follows:
S()
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
60
MARSTRUCT.indb 60
2/18/2011 5:41:00 PM
S.S. 5
S.S. 7.5
300000
0.001
200000
0.0008
100000
Tx/gL B
400000
0
300
-100000
320
340
360
380
400
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
-200000
0
0
-300000
Time (sec.)
0.5
1.5
/L
Figure 2. Time history of the wave vertical bending moment of the post-panamax container ship at
S.S.7.5 and S.S.5 ( = 180 deg., Fn = 0.219, Hw = 9 m,
/L = 1.0).
Figure 4. The wave torsional moment response amplitude operator of the mega container ship at S.S.5.5
( = 150 deg., wave height: Hw = 6 m).
0.03
0.025
MV/gL2B
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.5
1.5
/L
61
MARSTRUCT.indb 61
2/18/2011 5:41:02 PM
EXAMINATION OF RESULTS
OF FNITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Examination of time step of time-domain
analysis
Firstly, an adequate time step in one wave encounter period is examined through the computation in
regular wave. In the present study, the computed
stress of the large container ship is examined to
clarify the adequate step with the variation of time
step N from 12 to 120. Figures 7 and 8 are examples of the stress distribution under the hogging
condition in the case of N = 12 and 40. It is confirmed that stress distribution in the case of N = 40
are same as that in the case of greater number of
step. It is clarified that stress distribution converges
at N = 40 in various wave period. It is found that
stress amplitude in waves is 10% different between
in the case of N = 12 and in the case of N = 40.
It is confirmed that the present analysis system
with sufficient number of time step can evaluate
the stress amplitude in waves adequately.
3.2
62
MARSTRUCT.indb 62
2/18/2011 5:41:05 PM
0.06
0.0016
0.04
Midship
S.S. 7 1/2
? = 180deg
? = 90deg
? = 0deg
All Headings
0.02
Mv/gBL2
Mv/?gBL3
0.0012
0.0008
0
600
1100
1600
2100
2600
-0.02
0.0004
-0.04
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
-0.06
log10Q
t(sec.)
Vertical Bending Moment (Fn =0.182, T02 = 15sec. H1/3 = 10m)
0.06
Midship
S.S. 7 1/2
0.04
Mv/gBL2
0.02
0
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
t(sec.)
Figure 10. The example of time history of wave vertical bending moment ( = 180 deg., significant wave
height:10 m, mean wave period:15.0 sec.) (Below: magnification of above time history of 2000 second within one
hour duration).
0
1
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.1
0.01
0.001
Mv/gBL2
Figure 11. The relation of ship speed with the probability of occurrence of wave vertical bending moment
at midship ( = 180 deg., significant wave height:10 m,
mean wave period:15.0 sec.).
63
MARSTRUCT.indb 63
2/18/2011 5:41:07 PM
4.2
1
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.005
0.03
0.035
Sagging(Fn = 0.182)
Hogging(Fn = 0.182)
Sagging(Fn = 0.12)
Hogging(Fn = 0.12)
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
Mv/gBL^2
Mv/gBL2
64
MARSTRUCT.indb 64
2/18/2011 5:41:09 PM
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A part of the present study was supported by a
Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research of the Japan
Society for Promotion of Science (No. 20360400).
REFERENCES
Bishop, R.E.D., Price, W.G. & Tam, P.K.Y. 1977.
A unified dynamic analysis of ship response to waves,
Transaction of Royal Institute of Naval Architects,
Vol. 119, pp. 36390.
Fujino, M. & Chiu, F. 1983. Vertical Motions of Highspeed Boats in Head Sea and Wave Load, J Soc
Naval Arch Japan, Vol. 154, pp. 151163.
65
MARSTRUCT.indb 65
2/18/2011 5:41:10 PM
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the paper is to investigate long-term distribution of slamming loads of
containerships accounting for different types of environmental and operational uncertainties. Following
uncertainties are studied: the choice of the wave scatter diagram, the effect of the avoidance of heavy
weather, the effect of the maneuvering in heavy weather and the uncertainty of the method for prediction of the long-term extreme slamming pressure. Long term distributions of bottom slamming pressures are computed using different combinations of the aforementioned uncertainties. The purpose of
the study is the uncertainty assessment for the application in the reliability based design of ultra-large
containerships.
1
INTRODUCTION
In the design and operation of ultra-large containerships important hydroelastic effects appear
in addition to the rigid body response. The most
relevant hydroelastic phenomenon concerning the
longitudinal strength of large containership is whipping, the transient vibration of ship hull occurring
as a consequence of slamming. Such vibration may
considerably increase the extreme vertical wave
bending moments amidships and thus needs to be
considered in the ship structural design.
Estimation of design slamming parameters, as
the frequency of the slamming occurrence and
design slamming pressures is demanding task
depending on numerous uncertainties. The reason
for this is that slamming phenomenon is very sensitive to the environmental conditions, ship speed
and heading angle. These parameters depend on
assumed shipping route, the ship masters actions
to avoid heavy weather and on the maneuvering in
heavy weather. These assumptions can not be set
with large confidence that makes design slamming
loads quite uncertain.
This paper aims to quantify influence of mentioned uncertain parameters on the long-term
extreme slamming pressures. The effect of the following uncertainties is studied:
Two types of slamming loads appear in containerships: the bow flare slamming and the bottom
slamming. Although both types of the slamming
are important and can excite hull-girder vibration,
only the bottom slamming is considered in the
present study.
It is assumed that the bottom slamming pressure psl is proportional to the square of the relative
velocity v of the bottom and the wave surface:
psl
1
k
kv 2
2
(1)
0 093 gL
(2)
It is worth mentioning that the threshold velocity given by Equation (2) is used by Jensen et al.
(2008) in recently published study of the wave
induced hull girder loads on containerships. The
associated threshold pressure takes the form:
p0
1
kv02
k
2
(3)
Furthermore, two methods for calculating longterm extreme slamming pressures are compared:
67
MARSTRUCT.indb 67
2/18/2011 5:41:11 PM
Table 1.
where
Ship particular
Flokstra
S175
Lpp
B
T
Tballast
CB
full
ballast
Vn
270
32.2
10.85
0.598
57499
24.5
175
25.4
9.5
7.0
0.572
24742
17157
22.15
m
m
m
m
tonnes
tonnes
knots
Flokstra containership,
S175 containership.
Results of model tests of two ships are well documented and available in the references Flokstra
(1974) and Wu et al. (2002). Main particulars of
the ships are specified in Table 1.
The hydrodynamic assessment is performed by
the linear strip theory. Although more sophisticated
3D hydrodynamic tools are available nowadays,
for the purpose of comparative study performed
herein, the linear strip theory is considered to be
a convenient tool. The hydrodynamic strip models
of the containerships and their validations are presented by Parunov & orak (2010).
The present paper is organized in such a way that
methods for long-term slamming pressure calculation are described firstly. After that, the effect of
different environmental and operational uncertainties on the long-term extreme slamming pressures
is studied. The number of slams in 20 years is also
estimated. Finally, paper ends with conclusions
summarizing obtained results.
Fp ( psl ) =
nH
psp
sl
p0
i j ,k
sl =
sl
Sj
Zk
) r (T ) p (H
Zk
Sj
ssl
ssl
(8)
1 V
Psslam
2 M
(9)
2
i =1
nH nT
sl i j ,k HS j TZk , i p HS j TZk
jk
sl =
*
) (
(10)
Model tests and full-scale trials show that necessary and sufficient conditions for occurrence of
slam impact are the bottom emergence, i.e. relative bow motion being larger than local draught d,
and impact velocity being higher than the critical
velocity v0.
(4)
) f ( p) dp = 1 e ( p
F psl HS TZ , =
where sl is the slamming frequency in each individual short-term sea state, given as:
nT
r ( TZ , ) =
The lifetime weighted sea method for longterm distribution of slamming pressure
f ( psl ) = e
i =1
,TZk
jk
(7)
where p(HS,TZ) is the probability of occurrence
of sea state, while the relative number of slamming appearances in each short-term sea state is
given as:
2.1
(6)
1
k r2
p )
(5)
68
MARSTRUCT.indb 68
2/18/2011 5:41:12 PM
d2
v2
+ 02
2
2 M 2V
2.2
x ) d
(12)
p (
V2 = SV (
x ) d
(13)
After establishing long-term distribution in discrete form by applying Equation (7), the theoretical threeparameter Weibull distribution may be
fitted:
FWeibulll ( psl ) = 1 e
=e
b
a
1
1
=
N sl T *
C
sl
ext
( pext p )
) sll e
(14)
(18)
( ( p
p
eext
xt
HS TZ , tsea
(19)
2
i =1
j ,k
( pext HS TZ , ;ttsea )
p HS j ,TZk
(20)
(15)
(17)
p
sl
ln(- ln( q )
a
(11)
2 and
where M
V2 are variances of the relative
motion and the relative velocity, respectively, in a
short term sea state. These are different for each
mean zero crossing period TZ, heading , ship
speed and loading condition. Short term sea states
are modeled by PiersonMoskowitz wave spec2 and 2 are given as:
trum, while M
V
2
M
= SM (
+e
pext
Fext ( pext ;T
TC )
(16)
Feext
xt ( pext tsea )
nsea
(21)
69
MARSTRUCT.indb 69
2/18/2011 5:41:14 PM
FGumbel ( pext ) = e
p p*
ext
(22)
p*
(23)
Floxtra S175
Wave scatter
diagram
Ship speed
FL
FL
BL
IACS
vn
0.8 vn
zero
237
201
60
242
207
40
278
236
61
N-P
vn
0.8 vn
zero
179
152
49
223
191
37
275
236
64
Suez
vn
0.8 vn
zero
170
142
48
203
172
39
257
221
69
N-P modified
vn
0.8 vn
zero
170
145
56
214
185
47
267
230
79
Suez modified
vn
0.8 vn
zero
147
128
59
199
175
53
254
223
89
70
MARSTRUCT.indb 70
2/18/2011 5:41:19 PM
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
Floxtra S175
1.00
Ship speed
FL
FL
BL
0.90
IACS
vn
0.8 vn
zero
277
227
58
327
265
38
423
337
60
0.80
N-P
vn
0.8 vn
zero
181
167
48
248
208
36
333
273
64
Suez
vn
0.8 vn
zero
169
149
47
217
183
38
293
241
69
vn
0.8 vn
zero
173
155
54
241
204
45
330
275
79
vn
0.8 vn
zero
147
133
55
225
194
50
308
262
90
N-P modified
Suez modified
0.70
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.80
1.60
1.10
1.40
1.05
1.00
1.20
0.95
0.90
1.00
0.85
0.80
0.80
0.75
LongTerm/Poisson extreme - vn
0.70
0.65
0.60
71
MARSTRUCT.indb 71
2/18/2011 5:41:20 PM
The influence of the ship speed on the longterm extreme slamming pressures is presented
in Figure 3. The figure represents ratios of extreme
slamming pressures calculated for nominal ship
speed and extreme slamming pressures calculated
for zero speed case.
It may be seen from Figure 3 that the ship speed
has crucial effect on the bottom pressures. By
reducing speed from design speed to zero, extreme
bottom pressure is decreased several times. As
speed reduction in heavy weather is decision of
ship master, it is evident that such maneuvering
may be critical for extreme slamming loading of
containerships.
7
Avoidance of heavy weather is assessed by comparing long-term extreme pressures calculated for
truncated and original Suez and N-P wave scatter
diagrams. Scatter diagrams are truncated at significant wave heights of 10.5 m. Truncation procedure
72
MARSTRUCT.indb 72
2/18/2011 5:41:23 PM
S175
Ship speed FL
FL
BL
IACS
vn
0.8 vn
Zero
25991
17492
360
58262
37471
136
371453
244470
2883
N-P
vn
0.8 vn
zero
7697
5678
178
28002
20052
144
203907
146297
3758
Suez
vn
0.8 vn
zero
3963
2964
111
15906
11793
117
128593
95839
3395
N-P modified
vn
0.8 vn
zero
7010
5104
172
27206
19387
177
211755
151425
4082
Suez modified
vn
0.8 vn
zero
2364
1828
125
12066
9207
190
108599
82106
3991
NUMBER OF SLAMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The investigation is funded by EU FP7 Project
Tools for Ultra Large Container Ships (TULCS),
what is gratefully acknowledged.
CONCLUSIONS
NOMENCLATURE
psl
Slamming pressure
Sea density
v0
Gravity constant
Ship lenght
p0
Threshold pressure
73
MARSTRUCT.indb 73
2/18/2011 5:41:23 PM
f psl )
F psl HS TZ ,
FP ( psl )
p( HS TZ )
r (TZ , )
sl
sl
Short-term probability
distribution of the slamming
pressure
Long-term probability
distribution of the slamming
pressure
Probabiility
l of occurrence of
sea
e state
2
M
nsea
FGumbel
Gumbel distributio
u n
p ,
Unconditional extreme
distribution of the
slamming pressure for tsea
REFERENCES
Flokstra, C. 1974. Comparison of Ship Motion Theories
with Experiments for a Container Ship, International
Shipbuilding Progress, 21, 168189.
Guedes Soares, C. 1990. Effect of Heavy Weather
Manoeuvring on the Wave-Induced Vertical Bending
Moments in Ship Structures, Journal of Ship Research,
Vol. 34, No. 1, 6068.
Guedes Soares, C. 1996. On the Definition of Rule
Requirements for Wave Induced Vertical Bending
Moments. Marine Structures 9. 409425.
Hogben, N., Dacunha, N.M.C. & Olliver, G.F. 1986.
Global Wave Statistics. British Maritime Technology
Ltd. Felltham.
Juncher Jensen, J. et al. 2008. Wave induced extreme hull
girder loads on containerships. Transactions SNAME
116, 128152.
Ochi, M.K. & Motter, L.E. 1973. Prediction of slamming
characteristics and hull responses for ship design.
Transactions SNAME. Vol. 81.
Parunov, J. & orak, M. 2010. Influence of environmental and operational uncertainties on vertical wave
bending moments of containerships. Proceedings of:
The William Froude ConferenceAdvances in Theoretical and Applied Hydrodynamics, Past and Future,
Portsmouth, 2425 November 2010. UK., 201207.
Senjanovi, I., Tomaevi, S. & Parunov, J. 2003. Ship
Slamming and Whipping in Rough Sea. Brodogradnja
51, 4556.
Wu, M.K. & Hermundstad, O.E. 2002. Time-domain
Simulation of Wave-induced Nonlinear Motions and
Loads and its Applications in Ship Design, Marine
Structures 15, 56159.
V2
Pslam
Probability of slamming
SM ( , x )
SV ( , x )
Response
p
spectrum
p
of the
relative bow velocity
FWeibulll
Three-parameter Weibull
distribution
, ,
P obability of exceeding
Pr
the most
N sl
Number of slams
TC
pext
Fext
74
MARSTRUCT.indb 74
2/18/2011 5:41:24 PM
A. Menk
Robert Bosch GmbH, CR/APJ3, Stuttgart-Schwieberdingen, Germany
H. Voss
Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany
C. Cabos
Germanischer Lloyd SE, Hamburg, Germany
ABSTRACT: Simulating global ship vibration can be split into three steps: firstly, the computation
of the dry elastic vibration of the ship structure, secondly determination of the hydrodynamic pressures
caused by a given time harmonic velocity distribution on the outer shell and thirdly, the solution of the
coupled vibration problem by considering the interaction of fluid and structure. In this paper various
approaches for the solution of the third problem for large models are compared and discussed. They are
based on reduction methods for the hydrodynamic mass matrix and make use of fast solution methods
for the exterior fluid problem for given velocity distributions of the shell. A numerical example is used to
assess the accuracy and the speed of the solution procedures.
1
INTRODUCTION
1.2
(1)
75
MARSTRUCT.indb 75
2/18/2011 5:41:25 PM
outer shell
kk
Figure 2.
Problem description.
p
= 2u T n on k
n
2
K S u wet
wet (M S
2.1
(3)
(2)
MH ) u = 0
CONSIDERATION OF
HYDRODYNAMIC MASS EFFECTS IN
GLOBAL SHIP VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Standard procedures
76
MARSTRUCT.indb 76
2/18/2011 5:41:26 PM
x
Figure 3. Lewis assumption of deformation of the ship
structure over the ship length.
(4)
T
2
U dr
ry K S wet
wet (M S
M H ) U drryw = 0
(5)
(K
semi
(6)
T
2
U se
mi K S wet
wet (M S
M H ) U semi w = 0
(7)
2
wet
I
MH
T
Ussemi
M H semi U semi w = 0
(8)
77
MARSTRUCT.indb 77
2/18/2011 5:41:28 PM
Having determined the approximation M
H
to MH, we have to solve the reduced eigenvalue
problem
2 M
KS u =
wet
wet
S
KS x
(9)
hH
i xi xiT
(10)
MH x
(13)
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
3.1 Model
(M S
(12)
2.2.3
MH u
n
i xi xiT
(11)
Figure 4.
breadth.
78
MARSTRUCT.indb 78
2/18/2011 5:41:30 PM
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Computations
3.3.1 Precision
For comparing the eigenvectors of the different
approaches the modal assurance criterion (MAC),
see e.g. Allemang (1980), will be used
MAC
Cij =
(v
2
T
i ref M H v j appr
viTref M H vi ref
e
)(
(14)
i ,appr
j ref
{j
M C )}
(MAC
i j
(15)
Comparison
79
MARSTRUCT.indb 79
2/18/2011 5:41:35 PM
Figure 10. Relative error of MODAL_HYM eigenvalues and reference eigenvalues ordered by MAC value.
80
MARSTRUCT.indb 80
2/18/2011 5:41:38 PM
4
3.3.2 Run time
All computations were performed on a 64-bit linux
computer Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2356 with 32 GB RAM and a clock rate of
2.3 GHz.
The FULL_HYM method as the most accurate procedure is also the most time consuming
method with a total computation time of 1.8 h
and the most inaccurate approach (LEWIS) is the
fasted with 2 min CPU time. The PROJECTION
and the MODAL_HYM approach having total
CONCLUSIONS
The presented PROJECTION approach combines the fast and robust LEWIS method with
an advanced fast boundary element technique
yielding very accurate eigenfrequencies and accurate forced vibration results within small computation times. The MODAL_HYM approach
exhibits only slightly worse characteristics in precision and run time. Both approaches require user
experience: the PROJECTION approach in case
of selecting the number of eigenvectors used for
projection and the MODAL_HYM approach in
case of number of modes needed for approximation the hydrodynamic mass matrix.
A particular advantage of the proposed methods is that they scale very well. The effort to compute the hydrodynamic mass effect is dominated
by evaluations of the hydrodynamic mass operator. Through application of the fast multipole
method, the cost for this application grows approximately like N log2(N) for large numbers N of wet
panels.
REFERENCES
Allemang, R.J. 1980. Investigation of Some Multiple
Input/Output Frequency Response Function Experimental Modal Analysis Techniques. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, pp. 141214.
Armand, J.-L. & Orsero, P. 1979. A method for evaluating the hydrodynamic added mass in ship hull vibrations. SNAME Transactions, 87:99120.
Bai, Z., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Ruhe, A. & van der
Vorst, H.A. 2000. Templates for the Solution of Algebraic Eigenvalue Problems: A Practical Guide. SIAM,
Philadelphia.
Cabos, C. & Ihlenburg, F. 2003. Vibrational Analysis of
Ships with Coupled Finite and Boundary Elements.
Journal of Computational Acoustics, 11(1):91114.
Golub, G.H. & Van Loan, C.F. 1996. Matrix Computations. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
and London, 3rd edition.
Grim, O. 1953. Berechnung der durch Schwingungen
eines Schiffskrpers erzeugten hydrodynamischen
Krfte. STG Jahrbuch.
Pre Computation
Approach
Item
FULL_HYM
6060
553
6613
LEWIS_HYM
126
128
MODAL_HYM
409
1196
PROJECTION
Lewis modes
744
870
Figure 14.
126
81
MARSTRUCT.indb 81
2/18/2011 5:41:45 PM
82
MARSTRUCT.indb 82
2/18/2011 5:41:47 PM
MARSTRUCT.indb 83
2/18/2011 5:41:47 PM
ABSTRACT: In this paper postbuckling behaviour and estimation of global buckling ultimate strength
of the delaminated rectangular plates are presented. The influence of the position and geometry of
elliptical delamination on the changes in the buckling behaviour of ship deck plates made of composite
materials is considering. The composite plates models were analyzed using COSMOS/M and database
is prepared for different diameter ratios and position of delamination. A delamination model, describing delaminating mode, by using COSMOS/M soft package, is applied, so that the damaged part of the
structures and the undamaged part have been represented by layered shell elements. The influence of the
position and the ellipses diameters ratio of delaminated zone on the critical buckling force is investigated.
The applied methods have been improved in the Marstruct Project.
1
INTRODUCTION
Laminated composite panels, which are anisotropic, are gaining popularity in structural applications such as ship hulls, decks, ship and offshore
superstructures. These panels are becoming increasingly used in structural marine applications due
to their high specific stiffness and specific strength
(Altenbach, Altenbach & Kissing 2001). The use
of laminated composites provides flexibility to
tailor different properties of the structural elements to achieve the stiffness and strength characteristics. These panels, unfortunately, have one
important characteristic connected to big sensitivity on geometrical and mechanical imperfections
(different dimensions comparative with the design
ones). Another kind of imperfections is about
material (Adams, Carlsson & Pipes 2003; Jones
1999). Taking into account that fabrication technologies of composite materials are hand made
based, the probabilistic occurrence of defects is
quite too high.
These defects are of following types: directions
of fibers are different of the designed ones, variations in thickness, inclusions and initial transversal
deformations (Thurley & Marshall 1995).
Ship structure plates are subjected to any combination of in plane, out of plane and shear loads
during application. Due to the geometry and general load of the ship hull, buckling is one of the
most important failure criteria. Buckling failure
mode of a stiffened plate can further be subdivided
into global buckling, local skin buckling and stiffener crippling. Global buckling is collapse of the
85
MARSTRUCT.indb 85
2/18/2011 5:41:47 PM
and
k = k1 + tk/2.
2
xy w /
4
/
23
y +
13
y3 = 0
Dij
Qijk ( zk
k =1
zk
)3
k
Q13
k
Q23
(
(C
= (C
12
11 2C33 C12
s = sin ; c = cos .
2C333
c 2 s 2 + C33
c4 + s4 ;
)c s + (
)cs + (
3
C12
C22
+ 2C33
C12
C222
+ 2C33
)cs ;
)c s.
3
; C22
=
;
1 lt tl
1 lt tl
lt Et
tl El
C12
=
=
= C21
;
1 lt tl 1 lt tl
C33
Gllt ; C13
C31
= C23
C32
= 0.
C11
=
y4
w / x 3y
(1)
(5)
(2)
4C33
c 2 s 2 + C12
c4 + s4 ;
Q3k3 = C11
11 C222 2
where D11, D22, D33, D13, D23 are the orthotropic plate
stiffnesses, calculated according to the equation
N
4
2C33
c 2 s 2 C22
s ;
k
4
4
Q22
= C11
s + 2 C12
+ 2C33
c 2 s 2 + C22
c ;
2 C12
C11
+ C22
k
Q12
(4)
(3)
AmnX mYn
m
(6)
86
MARSTRUCT.indb 86
2/18/2011 5:41:47 PM
where
Xm
Yn
x 3 2x
x 2 + x + (
y 3 2yy 2 + y + (
)m (x
)n ( y
x
y
) m1 sin mx
) n1 sin nyy
The finite element delamination analysis was carried out using COSMOS/M finite element software. There are several ways in which the panel
can be modeled for the delamination analysis.
For the present study, a 3-D model with 3-node
SHELL3L composite element of COSMOS/M is
used. The panel is divided into two sub-laminates
by a hypothetical plane containing the delamination. For this reason, the present finite element
model would be referred to as two sub-laminate
model. The two sub-laminates are modeled separately using 3-node SHELL3L composite element,
and then joined face to face with appropriate
interfacial constraint conditions for the corresponding nodes on the sub-laminates, depending
on whether the nodes lie in the delaminated or
undelaminated region.
The delamination model has been developed
by using the surface-to-surface contact option
(Fig. 1). In case of surface-to-surface contact, the
FE meshes of adjacent plies do no need to be iden-
Figure 1.
linear behaviour;
nonlinear behaviour (Tsai-Wu failure criterion).
Delamination model.
87
MARSTRUCT.indb 87
2/18/2011 5:41:51 PM
Table 1.
Plate lay-up.
(7)
where
K is the linear stiffness matrix,
KI is an incremental stiffness matrix based upon
displacements at load step i-1,
di is the increment of displacement due to the
i-th load increment,
Q is the increment of load applied.
Figure 2.
Table 2.
method.
Min pcr
Max pcr
Macro-layer 1 Macro-layer 2
Macro-layer 2 Macro-layer 3
Macro-layer 3 Macro-layer 4
Macro-layer 4 Macro-layer 5
115.42
119.61
121.23
123.71
279.92
284.35
286.39
289.97
88
MARSTRUCT.indb 88
2/18/2011 5:41:54 PM
89
MARSTRUCT.indb 89
2/18/2011 5:41:55 PM
commonly used for orthotropic materials with unequal tensile and compressive strengths. The failure
index according to this theory is computed using
the following equation (Thurley & Marshall 1995)
F.I. = F1 1 F2 2 + F1111 12
+ F22 22 F66 62 + 2F
F1122 1 2
F1 =
(8)
1
1
1
; F11 = T C ;
R1T R1C
R1 R1
90
MARSTRUCT.indb 90
2/18/2011 5:42:00 PM
Table 3.
F2 =
Position
of delamination
Type of
degradation
Dx/Dy = 0.5
Dx/Dy = 1
Dx/Dy = 2
Macro-layer 1
Macro-layer 2
Macro-layer 2
Macro-layer 3
Macro-layer 3
Macro-layer 4
Macro-layer 4
Macro-layer 5
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
25
90
25
90
25
90
25
90
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1
1
1
C ; F22 = T C ;
T
R2 R2
R2 R2
1
F66 = 2 .
R12
(9)
CONCLUSIONS
(10)
91
MARSTRUCT.indb 91
2/18/2011 5:42:03 PM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work has been performed in the scope of
the Romanian Project PN2IDEI, Code 512
(20092011).
REFERENCES
Adams, D.F., Carlsson, L.A. & Pipes, R.B. Experimental
Characterization of Advanced Composite materials,
Ed. Taylor & Francis Group, 2003.
Altenbach, H., Altenbach, J. & Kissing, W. Mechanics of
Composite Structural Elements, Ed. Springer, Berlin,
2001.
Beznea, E.F. Studies and researches on the buckling
behaviour of the composite panels, Doctoral Thesis,
University Dunarea de Jos of Galati, 2008.
Beznea, E.F., Chirica, I., Boazu, D., Chirica, R. &
Chirica, A. Buckling Analysis of Delaminated Ship
Deck Plates, Made of Composite Materials, Proceedings of the 24-th DAS-2007: Danubia-Adria Sympo-
92
MARSTRUCT.indb 92
2/18/2011 5:42:04 PM
ABSTRACT: Shear buckling and postbuckling behaviour of the square plates, made of composite
materials, with central cut-outs is treated in this paper. In the analysis, finite element method (FEM) was
applied to perform parametric studies on various plates based on the shape and position of the elliptical hole. This study addressed the effects of an elliptical/circular cutout on the buckling load of square
composite plates. The laminated composite plates were arranged as symmetric cross-ply. The cutouts
are either circular holes or elliptical holes. The shear-buckling strengths of the plates could be increased
considerably only under aspect ratios. The plate-buckling mode can be symmetrical or anti-symmetrical,
depending on the plate boundary conditions, aspect ratio, and the hole size. In this paper, the analysis
has been performed only for the plate clamped on sides. The results and illustrations provide important
information for the efficient design of ship structural panels made of composite materials, having cutouts. The aim of the work presented in this paper is to analyze the influence of cut-out on the changes
in the buckling behaviour of ship deck plates made of composite materials. For each diameters ratio
there are plotted variation of the transversal displacement of the point placed in the middle of the plate,
according to the pressure that has been applied. Buckling load determination for the general buckling of
the plate has been made by graphical method. The post-buckling calculus has been performed to explain
the complete behaviour of the plate.
1
INTRODUCTION
93
MARSTRUCT.indb 93
2/18/2011 5:42:04 PM
PLATES CHARACTERISTICS
Strengths:
T
x
RTy
[GPa
Pa ], RCx
[GPa ], RCy
[GPa ] ,
[GPa ] ,
3.1
The thickness of the plate is 4.96 mm. The thickness of a layer is 0.31 mm.
Topological code of the plate is [02/45/902/45/02]s.
For the material behaviour model two cases have
been considered:
linear behaviour;
nonlinear behaviour (Tsai-Wu failure criterion).
The in-plane loading was applied as a uniform
shear pressure on the sides (Figure 1).
The ellipses diameters of the cut-out area
placed in the middle of the plate are considered
from the condition of the same area for all cases.
In the parametric calculus, the following diameters
ratios are considered:
Table 1.
Dx/Dy
pcr [MPa]
Dx
1
158.87
2
160.159
x
Dy
y
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
94
MARSTRUCT.indb 94
2/18/2011 5:42:04 PM
161
160
Pcr [MPa]
159
158
157
156
155
154
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Dx/Dy
3.2
(K + KI)i1di = Q
(1)
where
K is the linear stiffness matrix,
KI is an incremental stiffness matrix based upon
displacements at load step i1,
di is the increment of displacement due to the
ith load increment,
Q is the increment of load applied.
95
MARSTRUCT.indb 95
2/18/2011 5:42:06 PM
(4)
(2)
where
1
1
1
; F11 = T C ;
R1T R1C
R1 R1
1
1
1
1
F2 = T C ; F22 = T C ; F66 = 2 .
R2 R2
R2 R2
R12
1
F1 =
(3)
96
MARSTRUCT.indb 96
2/18/2011 5:42:09 PM
Figure 8.
Variation of maximum transversal displacement versus in-pane load for each diameters ratio.
CONCLUSIONS
In the paper, the results of the FEM based methodology that was successfully developed for the
investigation of buckling problems of composite
plates with central elliptical cut-out is presented.
Two hypotheses regarding the type of material
modeling is used (linear and nonlinear).
The buckling behavior of plates with central holes as presented in figure 8 is quite peculiar because, under certain boundary conditions
(clamped edges) and cut-out aspect ratios, the
mechanical-buckling strengths of the perforated
plates, contrary to expectation, increase rather
than decrease as the hole sizes grow larger. The
conventional wisdom is that, as the hole sizes
increase, the plates lose more materials and
become weaker. Therefore, the buckling strengths
were expected to decrease as the hole sizes
increase. This was not the case. Such peculiar
buckling phenomenon of the perforated plates
may be explained as follows.
Certain conclusions after the shear buckling analysis of the perforated plates may be
performed:
the buckling load is increasing since the ratio
Dx/Dy is decreasing;
the buckling load corresponding to an element
failing which is damaged by tension, has the
same value that is not depending on the ratio
Dx/Dy;
97
MARSTRUCT.indb 97
2/18/2011 5:42:11 PM
98
MARSTRUCT.indb 98
2/18/2011 5:42:12 PM
Hyun-Soo Kim
Hyundai Heavy Industries, Ulsan, Korea
Jeong-Bon Koo
Samsung Heavy Industries, Geoje, Korea
ABSTRACT: A robust ultimate strength formulation is proposed for stiffened plates subjected to combined axial compression, transverse compression, shear force and lateral pressure loadings. Before the
formulation was derived, a simplified numerical method was developed to trace the structural behavior
of stiffened plates under combined loadings. A rigorous parametric study was, then, performed using the
developed numerical method to predict the ultimate strength of various stiffened plates under various
combinations of loadings. The formulation was derived through a regression study using the parametric
study results. The accuracy and reliability of the proposed formulation were compared with those of a
commercial package, ABAQUA and DNV PULS and with the experimental results.
1
INTRODUCTION
99
MARSTRUCT.indb 99
2/18/2011 5:42:12 PM
2
2.1
Figure 1.
] D
(1)
100
MARSTRUCT.indb 100
2/18/2011 5:42:12 PM
[M ]{D}n + [C ]{D}n + {R
} {R }
ext
(2)
{D }n = 21 t ({D}
{D}
{D}n = 1t ({D}
{D}n + {D}
(3a)
(3b)
t
t
1
= R
R
+ 2 [M ] 2 {D}n {D}
n
n
t
1
+
[ ]{ }n1
2t
{ } { }
) (4)
{ } [ ]({ } {
})
(5)
T
v )
[B ] { o } d (vol
(6)
vol
101
MARSTRUCT.indb 101
2/18/2011 5:42:13 PM
ns
tp
Stiff.
type
S3F3
S5F3
S3A3
S5A3
S3A100
C-12
C-34
600
600
600
600
600
1434
1152
250
450
250
450
260
1197
960
100
100
100
100
100
239
192
3
5
3
5
3
4
4
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
1.86
5.80
6.00
FB
FB
AB
AB
AB
FB
FB
R
FL1
FL2
1700
577
577
1168
635
635
457
136
136
3
5
5
9.95
4.93
4.93
TB
FB
FB
Model
hw
tw
wf
tf
S3F3
S5F3
S3A3
S5A3
S3A100
C-12
C-34
R
FL1
FL2
50
50
40
40
40
105.8
102
136.1
63.5
63.5
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
1.99
5.70
8.00
7.36
3.02
3.02
15
15
15
28.6
2.13
2.13
2.13
15.9
248000
248000
235000
235000
220000
205000
205000
205000
190000
190000
332
332
330
330
316
271
269
377
321
247
102
MARSTRUCT.indb 102
2/18/2011 5:42:16 PM
Ref.
Cho &
Song
(2003)
S5F3
Cho &
Song
(2003)
S3A3
Cho &
Song
(2003)
S5A3
Cho &
Song
(2003)
S3A100 Cho &
Song
(2003)
C-12 Fukumoto
et al.
(1974)
C-34 Fukumoto
et al.
(1974)
R
Murray
(1975)
FL1
Faulkner
(1977)
FL2
Faulkner
(1977)
S3F3
230
260
270
0.88
0.85
213
259
255
0.82
0.84
261
281
291
0.93
0.90
215
280
270
0.77
0.80
260
259
253
1.00
1.03
202
218
241
0.93
238
0.99
1.00
271
296
276
0.92
0.98
250.1 266
250
0.94
1.00
172.4 186
186
0.93
0.93
Stiffener
span
8800 mm
Plate
thickness
12.0 mm /
14.5 mm
Stiffener
spacing
890 mm
Stiffener
type
Tee-bar
No. of
stiffeners
Stiffener
height
700 mm
Youngs
modulus
208 GPa
Web
thickness
13 mm
Poisson ratio
0.3
Flange width
150 mm
Yield stress
355 MPa
Flange
thickness
18 mm
0.84
239.1 242
Load
type
Model I Pure
shear 204
Pure
trans.
comp. 62.0
Model II Pure
shear 204
Pure
trans.
comp. 71.5
200
184.3
1.02 1.10
55.0
61.5
1.13 1.01
200
186.7
1.02 1.09
69.0
76.0
1.04 0.94
3
3.1
PARAMETRIC STUDY
Stiffened plates for parametric study
Prior to deriving the ultimate strength formulation proposed in this study, a rigorous parametric
study was performed. The stiffened plates considered in the parametric study were similar to those
provided in ISSC 2000 committee VI.2 (Yao et al.,
2000). The size of the local panel between stiffeners was taken as:
a b = 2,400 800; 4,000 800 (mm)
tp = 10; 13; 15; 20; 25 (mm)
Three types of stiffeners were considered;
a flat-bar, an angle-bar and a tee-bar, and three
103
MARSTRUCT.indb 103
2/18/2011 5:42:16 PM
Table 5.
Dimensions of stiffeners.
Type
Size 1
Size 2
Size 3
Flat-bar
Angle-bar
Tee-bar
150 17
150 90 9/12
138 9 + 90 12
250 19
250 90 10/15
235 10 + 90 15
350 35
400 100 12/17
383 12 + 100 17
Table 6.
Figure 3.
loading.
Location
Constraints
x=0
x = a/2, 3a/2
x = 2a
y = 0, 4b
Tx = 0, Ry = 0
Tz = 0
Ty = 0, Ry = 0
Tz = 0
sin y
b
wso
Bo sin x vso
,
a
+ Be sin
Co sin
i x
a
x
a
(7)
(8)
104
MARSTRUCT.indb 104
2/18/2011 5:42:17 PM
3.2
As a part of the parametric study, computations were first conducted for single loadings
including axial compression and transverse compression using PULS, ABAQUS, and SPUSA. The
results of these computations were utilized not
only for the further substantiation of the developed
analysis method but also as part of the raw data
with which the strength formulation was derived.
The computation results are summarized
in Table 6. The stiffened plates are denoted as
Xijklm, indicating that:
X = F for flat-bar, L for angle-bar, T for
tee-bar;
i = aspect ratio (a/b); jk = plate thickness; lm = 15
for a stiffener of size 1, 25 for a stiffener of size 2,
35 for a stiffener of size 3.
For example, F31015 represents a stiffened plate
with an aspect ratio and plate thickness of 3 and
10 mm, respectively, for which the stiffener is a flatbar of size 1.
As can be seen in the table, 45 cases were analyzed for axial compression, and the ratios of predictions are summarized. The prediction ratios
(Xm) of PULS/ABAQUS, PULS/SPUSA, and
ABAQUS/ SPUSA provide means of 0.989 (5.30%
COV), 0.985 (6.38% COV) and 0.996 (4.02%
COV), respectively. The results for the transverse
compression load are also presented in the table.
Comparing with the accuracy of the predictions
for axial compression larger uncertainties can be
found for transverse compression.
3.3
Combined loadings
PULS/
ABAQUS
PULS/
SPUSA
ABAQUS/
SPUSA
F3 (1025)15
F3 (1025) 25
F3 (1025) 35
L3 (1025) 15
L3 (1025) 25
L3 (1025) 35
T3 (1025) 15
T3 (1025) 25
T3 (1025) 35
mean
COV
1.034
0.954
1.010
1.003
0.976
0.993
0.954
0.959
1.021
0.989
5.30%
0.959
0.945
1.024
1.037
0.970
0.989
0.988
0.955
0.998
0.985
6.38%
0.929
0.989
1.013
1.035
0.992
0.995
1.036
0.995
0.977
0.996
4.02%
<transverse compression>
(Xm)trans.
Model
PULS/
ABAQUS
PULS/
SPUSA
ABAQUS/
SPUSA
F3 (1025)15
F3 (1025) 25
F3 (1025) 35
L3 (1025) 15
L3 (1025) 25
L3 (1025) 35
T3 (1025) 15
T3 (1025) 25
T3 (1025) 35
mean
COV
0.912
1.014
1.292
0.967
1.012
1.069
0.948
1.008
1.026
1.028
12.01%
0.927
1.087
1.410
1.003
1.072
1.132
0.979
1.033
1.093
1.082
13.60%
1.017
1.076
1.090
1.042
1.061
1.059
1.037
1.032
1.068
1.054
6.85%
DERIVATION OF STRENGTH
FORMULATION
Basis of the derived formulation
105
MARSTRUCT.indb 105
2/18/2011 5:42:19 PM
Axial compression
c
t
47
0.47
c
(10a)
t 1.14
3 51
(10b)
oa = 1.0
(10c)
The proposed formulation for transverse compression alone can be written as follows:
xa
xa + xbs
xa xa + xb
+
+
+
= 1
oa eoax Y
c ec
t et
(9)
where xa = applied axial compressive stress;
xbs = bending stress at the stiffener flange
due to Meq; ec = Euler column buckling
stress of stiffener including associate plating;
Y = Yp Ap Ys As Apps , is the mean yield stress;
et 1 I o (G
GJJ 4 2 L2 ( ECw )), is the elastic
tripping stress of a stiffener; xb = Y M eq M p ,
is the equivalent bending stress due to the
end bending moment and lateral pressure;
M eq M e + pbl 2 16 ; J hsf tsf 3 hswtssww3 3 , is the
St. Venant torsion constant; I 0 I w + As es2 + I f , is
the moment of inertia of the stiffener; Iw = polar
moment of inertia of stiffener web; If is the polar
moment of inertia of the stiffener flange; es = distance between the stiffener centroid (plate excluded)
and its toe; Cw I f (h
( hw t f )2 , is the torsional
warping constant;
onst
eoax = n Dy ax B 2 [ Dx B 2 Dy L2 + 2 m 2 Dxxy n2
Dy m 4 L2 n 4 B 2 ], is the overall grillage buckling stress; L,B are overall length and breadth,
respectively; ax is the average cross-section area per
unit width of plating and longitudinal stiffeners; Dx,
Dy are effective flexural rigidity per unit width of
stiffeners with attached plating in the longitudinal
(x) and transverse (y) directions, respectively; Dxy is
the twisting rigidity per unit width
c is the knock-down factor for column buckling
of stiffener; t is the knock-down factor for tripping of stiffener; and oa is the knock-down factor
for overall buckling of stiffened plate under axial
compression.
2
2
y
y
=1
+
Y
yCbc ey
(11)
2
2
2
2
where ey E ( ) (b a ) t p b is
the, local plate buckling stress under transverse
compression; y
c1 34 } is the knockdown factor for local plate buckling under transverse compression;
03
Cbc
p{ .
1 65 (b a ) } is the strengthening coefficient of the boundary condition for local
plate buckling.
4.4
2
3 xy
xy
+ = 1
Y
e
(12)
Combined loads
106
MARSTRUCT.indb 106
2/18/2011 5:42:19 PM
+
+
e
yCbc ey
( xa + xb )2 ( xa + xb ) y + y2 + 3 xy2
4.6
=1
(13)
Figure 5(b). Ultimate strength of stiffened plates subjected to combined axial compression, transverse compression and shear force with lateral pressure loadings
(p = 0.10 MPa).
Figure 5(a). Ultimate strength of stiffened plates subjected to combined axial compression, transverse compression and shear force without lateral pressure loadings.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study an ultimate strength analysis program called SPUSA, is developed for analysis of
stiffened plates subjected to combined axial compression, transverse compression, shear force and
lateral pressure. The developed method employs the
Dynamic Relaxation technique temporally and the
Finite Element method spatially. Relevant test data
and PULS and ABAQUS predictions are utilized
to substantiate the developed method. Good agreements were obtained between the predictions.
107
MARSTRUCT.indb 107
2/18/2011 5:42:27 PM
Figure 6. Comparison of predictions by the proposed formulation with those of PULS, ABAQUS and
SPUSA.
108
MARSTRUCT.indb 108
2/18/2011 5:42:30 PM
ABSTRACT: A series of rapid semi-analytical methods for predicting the collapse of aluminum
structures is presented, including methods for tensile and compressive limit states. The methods presented
have been designed to be extensible to a wide range of structural topologies, including both conventional
stiffened-panel topologies and more advanced extrusion topologies. Unlike existing steel ultimate strength
methodologies, particular attention is paid to capturing aluminum-specific response features, such as
alloy-dependent material stress-strain curve shapes and the weakening effect of fusion welds. The methods
are validated against finite element analysis and previously published experimental results.
1
INTRODUCTION
109
MARSTRUCT.indb 109
2/18/2011 5:42:31 PM
COMPRESSIVE ANALYSIS
(1)
Elasti
l c =k
2E
12 1 2
t
b
ESEC
E
1 1 1 3 ETAN
2 + 2 4 + 4 E
SEC
avg
e
(2)
(4)
= Elasti
l c e e
(3)
(5)
110
MARSTRUCT.indb 110
2/18/2011 5:42:32 PM
M U ET 0.2
t
t 1 k
, with 2 < tefff
M
E
0.2
T U
Mu = utMAX
M 0.2 =
0.2t
6
t (6)
(7)
(8)
IOOP
PERFECT
U _ IOOP
U _ PERFECT
(9)
PLATE _ R ( a ) = PLATE ( a + R ) R
(10)
IOOP _ REDUCED
l c R
IOOP Elasti
Elasti
l c
(11)
111
MARSTRUCT.indb 111
2/18/2011 5:42:34 PM
+ 0.002
E
0.2
(12)
Perfect Prediction
Mofflin Plates with large IOOP
Mofflin Plates with small IOOP
DTMB Plate-All Alloys
NACA Plates - All Alloys
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Perfect Prediction
Stowell, No OOP
Stowell, With OOP
Stowell, With OOP and Weld
1
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
112
MARSTRUCT.indb 112
2/18/2011 5:42:37 PM
r=
I
A
(13)
(14)
CB
1 Y
= 1
, E 0 5Y
Y
4 E
CB E
=
, E < 0 5Y
Y
Y
2
I F
E EEFF
2
AS bet
a
(16)
(15)
AEfff ( )
ATotal
, AEfff =
Efff i ( ) Ai
i
M ( ) Ai
(17)
113
MARSTRUCT.indb 113
2/18/2011 5:42:39 PM
( )
be
( ) = Efff i
b
M ( )
Efff i ( )
M ( )
be
( ) =
b
( )
2.4
(18)
Table 1.
method.
Ultimate strain
Experiment
Mean
Cov
Mean
Cov
SSC-451
NTNU Hat
A.R.E.
1.12
1.05
0.97
0.13
0.04
0.20
1.04
0.90
0.81
0.28
0.14
0.20
TENSILE RESPONSE
114
MARSTRUCT.indb 114
2/18/2011 5:42:41 PM
Figure 5.
115
MARSTRUCT.indb 115
2/18/2011 5:42:43 PM
1
1 + 2
1.13
(19)
(20)
CONCLUSIONS
116
MARSTRUCT.indb 116
2/18/2011 5:42:46 PM
117
MARSTRUCT.indb 117
2/18/2011 5:42:48 PM
ABSTRACT: Advanced design methods and procedures are getting published every now and then from
all corners of the world. But the practicing codes could not always append all the refined or essential
recommendations timely. Stiffened cylinders are one among those structural components. Most of the
offshore floating platform components are made as stiffened cylinders and an improved model in the
design process can affect the total construction cost and schedule to a great extent. Reliability based
design approach is now seems to be advantageous over the deterministic type of structural designing
process as it addresses uncertainties in the design variables and leads to consistent level of safety. The Reliability based approach still needs a robust strength model to predict the capacity with respect to random
design variables. Numerical analysis methods are suitable for this purpose but the time and effort involved
are quite high and hence a robust analytical approach is preferred for reliability analysis. DNV and API
are the most widely used design codes which offer strength models for stiffened cylindrical shell under
different loading conditions. This paper establishes a strength model for ring, stringer and orthogonally
stiffened cylindrical shells which is actually a modified version of a strength model proposed earlier. The
proposed model shows better agreement with the experimental results compared to the practicing DNV
and API design codes. The model uncertainty factor and the strength model can be utilised for the reliability analysis of similar structures.
1
INTRODUCTION
a tool to predict the structural capacity very accurately. Hence the strength analysis of structures
with a higher degree of accuracy is quite important
and crucial in the overall design process. Numerical analysis tools calibrated with reasonable model
uncertainty factor are absolutely suitable for this
purpose.
The structural reliability analysis needs to do
the capacity assessment of the structure numerous
times with variations in the design parameters
to evaluate the structural reliability. Although
the numerical methods can be used for reliability
analysis, the time and expense involved is quite
high. It further demands great effort and expertise for acceptable results. Considering the above
facts, an analytical approach in terms of basic
structural design parameters to predict the structural capacity is more suitable for the reliability
analysis. Moreover, a component level reliability
assessment for a huge structure with number of
local structural parts at a preliminary design stage
cannot afford much time and expense. The necessity of a good analytical strength model for initial design process is hence very important at this
instance.
There are various rule based design codes
available for the assessment of structural capac-
119
MARSTRUCT.indb 119
2/18/2011 5:42:48 PM
ity of stiffened cylindrical structures under different loading conditions. DNV-RP-C202 and API
BUL 2U are two of the major industry recommended codes in practice. This paper proposes a
formulation for the strength assessment of ring
stiffened and ring-stringer stiffened cylinders. The
codes and the proposed formulation are compared
statistically with respect to mean and COV of a
large population of screened test data collected
over the years.
2
BUCKLING OF STIFFENED
CYLINDERS
ANALYTICAL STRENGTH
MODELLING
120
MARSTRUCT.indb 120
2/18/2011 5:42:48 PM
1; Zl 2.85
C = 1.425 + 0.175
75; Zl < 2.85
Zl
Z = XmRS
04
0 003Zl 1
;
0.75 0.142(Zl 1)
300t
n = 1 Zl < 20
R
0
; Zl 20
0.35 0.0003
t
The design strength of the ring stiffened cylinders under axial, radial and combined loading are
computed based on the limit state approach. This
formulation focuses on the shell collapse between
ring stiffeners. The recommended formulation is
similar the one suggested earlier, Das et al. (2003)
with some modification on the knockdown factors
so that the experimental results are getting closer
to the prediction.
Under axial compression
The limit state approach estimate the elastic buckling strength of a ring stiffened cylinder subjected
to axial compression as,
where
Zl =
n =
1
(1 + e4 )
e =
4.2
For hydrostatic pressure, the proposed formulation, Faulkner et al. (1983) is identical with the
approach in BS5500. The inelastic hydrostatic collapse pressure is estimated as,
0.5 phm ; py phm
py
phc =
py 1 0.5 p ; py < phm
hm
where
Et
Et
= 0.605 ,
2 R
R
3(1 )
1.3
1 + 0.3 n n 1
e = BnCcr
cr =
4.1
B=
buckling
stress,
phm
L2
1 2
Rt
Et
R
=
2
1 R
n2 1 +
2 L
2
2
2
1
t2
R
+
n 1 +
2
2
2
L
2 L 2 12R 1
n + 1
nC cr
121
MARSTRUCT.indb 121
2/18/2011 5:42:49 PM
( )( +
phhm =
phm
t
R
4.3
t
R
prm =
L
0.636
Rt
The above expression does not provide satisfactory results for too small or too large values
of L / Rt . The above expression assumes pinned
boundary condition at the supported cylinder end.
Even though more advanced analytical expressions
are available, the above expression is widely used
because of the simplicity and the parameter Phm
has low influence in the prediction of inelastic collapse pressure.
Wilson (1966), proposed relatively simple linear
equation for the circumferential yield stress of the
cylindrical shell.
t
y
R
py =
1 G
R
Ar
Rcr
4.4
G=
p
+ p = 1
c
rc
cosh ( L ) cos ( L )
N=
,
sinh ( L ) sii ( L )
p
prc
Most of the design codes handle the combined loading based on an interaction approach. The general
interaction expression is in the following form.
1.285
Rt
2 sinh
R
t
1 0.5 phm
e
py
prc =
py 1 0.5 p ; py < prm
rm
Xm =
J 1
2
=
2 Nt
J + trht +
phm
where,
L
0.636
Rt
0.919E
=
p
phc
Xm =
L
L
L L
cos
+ cosh
siin
2
2
2 2
sinh (
si ( )
) + sin
122
MARSTRUCT.indb 122
2/18/2011 5:42:53 PM
5.1
cr
2
1
s
Kr =
2 (
t
1; r < 0.53
) (
; r 0.53
3Z 2
t
0.904 E 4 + 4s ; Zs 11.4
s
=
0.605E t ; Z > 11.4
s
0.53
sem
K ; 0.53
= r r r
s
1; < 0.53
r
viii. MI of stringer and the reduced effective width
of the shell
s2
1 2
Rt
Zs =
3
As dcs + .5t )2 sem
t
+
As
12
1+
semt
I e
1 25
0 0024Zs 1
;
1 0.919Zs
300t
Z 11.4
n = s
1.5 27
R
0.27 +
+
+ 0.008 Zs 1
;
300t
Zs Zs2
11.4
70
s
t
0.605E R
2 EI e
e = 2
+ s
L ( As + semt )
1 + As
st
n =
1.6; n > 1
1 + 0.6 n n 1
n cr
=
e
y
es = Bncr
v. Shell reduced slenderness parameter,
r =
Is +
ps ( ps )
1
y ps
c =
<
p
y
s
y
es
ps =
pps
y
The structural proportional limit ps is 0.75
for stress relieved structures and 0.5 for all other
cases.
123
MARSTRUCT.indb 123
2/18/2011 5:42:57 PM
where
Effective pressure correction factor,
c
es
= r
es
y
re =
0.85
1.05 0.28
se
2 K r ; re
re 0.53
=
re
s re
1; re < 0.53
g=
A
c s
A
5.2
K L =
L
Ht
, Cp =
R
Rt
1; M x 3.42
1 ; M x < 3.42
Let
1 +
< 3.42
N
N
N
2 R
R
Ar
Rcr
1 56 Rtt
twr L
H = Mx 1.17 + 1.068k1 (k1 = 0 for radial pressure and 0.5 for hydrostatic pressure)
ii. Plastic collapse pressure of stiffener shell
combination
K L
N = p(R + 0.5t)
Le
t)
t
N =
where
16
pcs = 2 As dcs y
sL
L
k2 =
1.27 t 2
1.18
E ; M x 1.5; H < 2.5
+ 0.5 R
H
0.92 t 2
R
E ; 2.5 < H < 0.208
R
t
A
=
3
t
0.836C 11.061E ; 0.208 < C < 2.85
p
p
3
0.275E t ;C > 2.85
p
(R
1; x 1.26
Mx =
=p
where
The proposed strength formulation for radial pressure is according to API Bul 2U with some changes
in the effective pressure correction factor.
The steps to calculate the axial strength are as
follows.
i. Local buckling pressure of un-stiffened shell
peL
s
Rt
set
st
M x M LtAs
, M =
Is
Xm =
5.3
p
pcB
The proposed interaction equation for the combined axial and radial loads is similar to the
API Bul 2U with a different definition for the
factor Cc.
124
MARSTRUCT.indb 124
2/18/2011 5:43:02 PM
R/t (15529),
s/t (29132),
Zs (434),
Zl (1.51550),
L/R (0.075.82)
Rx
R
+ Cc Rx R + = 1
x
In which,
Cc =
)2 (
)2
where
Rx =
R =
p (R +
t y
x =
u
y
cB
y
t)
R
R
X m = x + Cc Rx R +
x
6
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The data collected are carefully arranged and tabulated with all the necessary inputs for the code
based design. The data is then pushed through the
analytical relations of DNV, API and the Recommended Models for stiffened cylinders. The strength
predicted by each of the models is then compared
with the experimental results to evaluate the model
uncertainty factor for each set of data. The mean
and COV of the model uncertainty factor is then
computed for each codes for ring stiffened and ringstringer stiffened cases based on three loading conditions, axial, radial and combined. The predicted
and experimental strength are then represented in
a graphical form which is normalised in terms of
yield strength. For combined loading cases, the
model uncertainty is plotted against L/R ratio as it
is not straight forward to represent the strength.
7.1
Mean
COV
Population 40
DNV
API
Recommended
model
1.28
17.94%
1.15
11.84%
1.05
10.01%
125
MARSTRUCT.indb 125
2/18/2011 5:43:08 PM
1.00
- Test
0.80
0.60
0.40
Mean - 1.28
COV - 17.94%
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Mean
COV
Population 65
1.00
- Predicted
DNV
API
Recommended
model
0.98
19.43%
1.35
19.09%
1.01
17.51%
1.25
1.00
1.00
- Test
- Test
0.80
0.60
0.75
0.50
0.40
Mean - 1.15
COV - 11.84%
0.25
0.20
Mean - 0.98
COV - 19.43%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.50
1.00
1.50
- Predicted
1.00
- Predicted
Figure 3. API prediction and test results of ring stiffened cylinders under axial compression.
1.50
1.00
1.25
1.00
- Test
- Test
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.50
Mean - 1.05
COV - 10.01%
0.25
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.75
Mean - 1.35
COV - 19.09%
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.00
1.00
- Predicted
0.50
1.00
1.50
- Predicted
126
MARSTRUCT.indb 126
2/18/2011 5:43:10 PM
1.50
1.25
- Test
1.00
Mean
COV
Population 25
0.75
DNV
API
Recommended
model
1.45
20.79%
1.10
21.86%
1.16
17.02%
0.50
2.50
0.25
Mean - 1.01
COV - 17.51%
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
- Predicted
Xm
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
Mean - 1.10
COV - 21.86%
0.20
7.2
4.00
L/R
Xm
7.1.3
Mean - 1.45
COV - 20.79%
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
L/R
127
MARSTRUCT.indb 127
2/18/2011 5:43:12 PM
1.80
1.40
1.60
1.20
1.40
1.00
1.00
- Test
Xm
1.20
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.40
Mean - 1.16
COV - 17.02%
0.20
Mean - 1.06
COV- 14.92%
0.20
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.00
L/R
0.00
Recommended
model
1.00
23.18%
1.06
14.92%
1.00
14.99%
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.40
1.20
1.00
- Test
Mean
COV
Population 32
API
0.40
- Predicted
0.20
1.40
0.80
0.60
0.40
1.20
Mean - 1.00
COV - 14.99%
0.20
1.00
- Test
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
- Predicted
0.60
0.40
Mean - 1.00
COV - 23.18%
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
- Predicted
Mean
COV
Population 9
DNV
API
Recommended
model
1.33
47.38%
1.12
21.54%
1.06
18.38%
128
MARSTRUCT.indb 128
2/18/2011 5:43:13 PM
1.00
- Test
0.75
0.50
Mean - 1.33
COV - 47.38%
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
DNV
API
Recommended
model
1.84
43.82%
1.33
22.19%
1.26
20.12%
1.00
Mean
COV
Population 25
- Predicted
4.00
1.00
Mean - 1.84
3.50
COV - 43.82%
3.00
0.75
Xm
- Test
2.50
0.50
1.50
Mean - 1.12
COV - 21.54%
0.25
2.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
0.00
1.00
0.00
- Predicted
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
L/R
1.00
1.60
1.40
1.20
Xm
- Test
0.75
0.50
1.00
0.80
Mean - 1.06
COV - 18.38%
0.25
0.60
Mean - 1.33
COV - 22.19%
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
- Predicted
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
L/R
129
MARSTRUCT.indb 129
2/18/2011 5:43:16 PM
1.80
1.60
1.40
Xm
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
Mean - 1.26
COV - 20.12%
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
L/R
CONCLUSIONS
130
MARSTRUCT.indb 130
2/18/2011 5:43:18 PM
131
MARSTRUCT.indb 131
2/18/2011 5:43:19 PM
ABSTRACT: The application of composite materials in many structures poses to engineers the problem
to create reliable and relatively simple methods, able to estimate the strength of multilayer composite structures. Multilayer composites, like other laminated materials, suffer from layer separation, i.e., delaminations, which may affect the stiffness and stability of structural components. Especially deep delaminations
in the mid surface of laminates are expected to reduce the effective flexural stiffness and lead to collapse,
often due to buckling behaviour. This paper deals with the numerical modelling of the buckling strength
of composite laminates containing delaminations. Namely, non-linear buckling and post-buckling analyses are carried out to predict the critical buckling load of elementary composite laminates affected by
rectangular delaminations of different sizes and locations, which are modelled by finite elements using
different techniques. Results obtained with different finite element models are compared and discussed.
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Delaminations in multilayer laminates
133
MARSTRUCT.indb 133
2/18/2011 5:43:19 PM
DIFFERENT MODELLING
APPROACHES
Material properties and specimen geometry
12 = 0.25
23 = 0.25
The plate taken into account for the numerical analysis is rectangular with an aspect ratio
A/B = 1.36 where A is the length of the edge along
the load direction, having the same orientation
of the fibers, i.e., direction 1. See Fig. 1 for size
definitions.
The selected aspect ratio is obtained considering
the critical buckling load evaluated according to
the analytical formulation proposed by Bisagni &
Vescovini (2008):
N0 ( m,11) = F A, B, Dij
m
= 2 D11 + 2 ( D12
A
2
1 A
+ D22 4
B m
2 D66 )
1
B2
(1)
D22 A2
=0
B 4 m3
1
A D 4
A D 4
m = 22 ; if
i m = 1 => = 11
B D11
B D22
(2)
t
Figure 1.
geometry.
134
MARSTRUCT.indb 134
2/18/2011 5:43:19 PM
1
t
T
2
2
h2
1
(T t )
4
(3)
where T is the intact laminate thickness; t sub laminates thicknesses in the delaminated area as shown
in Fig. 1.
The nodes along the edge of the delamination
are coupled to the nodes on the main surface by a
rigid link constraint, where the master node is the
node lying on the edge of the intact middle plane
and the nodes on both sub laminates edges are its
slave.
A 9-nodes shell elements mesh has been generated on the surfaces, for a total number of about
4800 elements; the element type is the MITC9 as
suggested by Buncalem & Bathe (1993), and Bathe
et al. (2000), to prevent element locking problems
for thin laminates.
Element locking is, as widely discussed in related
literature, the phenomenon of an element being
much too stiff compared with reality: in essence,
the phenomenon arises because the interpolation
functions used for an element are not able to represent zero (or very small) shearing or membrane
strains. If the element cannot represent zero shearing strains, but the physical situation corresponds
to zero (or very small) shearing strains, then the
element becomes very stiff as its thickness over
length ratio decreases. (see e.g., ADINA, 2008).
In the considered problem the MITC9 use is
justified when modeling delaminations very close
135
MARSTRUCT.indb 135
2/18/2011 5:43:21 PM
Figure 7. Delamination modes shown with the corresponding central out-of-plane displacement for the two
delaminated sub-laminates.
FE Global
FE Local
FE Global/Local I
FE Global/Local II
Global limit
Submode limit
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Non dimensional through thickness position, t/T
0.5
136
MARSTRUCT.indb 136
2/18/2011 5:43:23 PM
5
5.1
5.2
Figure 10. Load displacements curves for panels presenting deep delaminations, for different delamination
sizes.
Considering the panel having t/T = 0.4, an unexpected behavior was observed: when the delamination size is b/B = 0.5, a drop in the in-plane
load is observed when increasing the in-plane
displacement.
Such behavior is attributed to the instability of
the model, see Fig. 11. The physical reason seems
to lie in the buckling mode suddenly shifting from
local to global, with an abrupt out of plane displacement of the thickest laminate, after remaining plane in the first part of the loading history.
This behaviour could explain some instant collapses observed during experimental tests being
conducted in Ris DTU National Laboratories.
5.3
When the delamination is very close to the surface of the laminate, the thinnest sub-laminates
buckles in a very early stage of the loading history,
introducing a rather weak non linearity in the system. The obtained curves therefore differ from the
intact plate curve in practice since the beginning of
the calculation, and do not show a sudden steepness change when buckling begins.
This fact makes a buckling criterion definition
quite hard since the used offset-based robust criterion does not fit very well with a weak non linear
behavior of the curve without sudden changes in
the first derivative, as shown in Fig. 5. For this reason the same offset distance of the intact model
has been taken into account for all the geometrical
conditions considered.
In Fig. 12 the typical behavior of panels buckling in local mode is presented; it is also worth noting that local modes start from a delamination size
b/B > 0.4: the mode is still global with a rapid change
in steepness if delamination is at 40% of the thickness; the difference can be appreciated in the plot.
It is interesting to plot on the same chart
the curves obtained from the deep delaminated
137
MARSTRUCT.indb 137
2/18/2011 5:43:28 PM
Compressive strength
t/T
0.20
1.00
0.92
0.82
0.70
0.58
0.44
0.30
1.00
0.98
0.93
0.92
0.77
0.51
0.40
1.00
0.99
0.91
0.83
0.77
0.69
0.50
1.00
0.99
0.90*
0.79*
0.68*
0.55*
MODEL COMPARISON
138
MARSTRUCT.indb 138
2/18/2011 5:43:29 PM
CONCLUSIONS
139
MARSTRUCT.indb 139
2/18/2011 5:43:33 PM
Y. Liu
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada
ABSTRACT: Numerical simulation is used to study the influence of welding-induced residual stress
in welded, tee-stiffened plates focusing on the effect of shakedown. Residual stresses are simulated using
3D thermo-elasto-plastic finite element analysis. The influence of strain hardening and number of load
cycles on residual stress shakedown is then investigated. Load versus end-shortening curves are used to
characterize the strength and behaviour of stiffened plates under axial compression both before and after
shakedown. Results show that the reduction in residual stress due to shakedown occurs entirely during the
first load cycle provided that the magnitude of that load is not subsequently exceeded. Both the tensile
and compressive welding residual stresses are reduced by as much as 40% when the applied load causes an
average stress equal to 50% of the yield stress. This level of shakedown increased the ultimate strength of
tee-stiffened plates by as much as 6%.
1
INTRODUCTION
141
MARSTRUCT.indb 141
2/18/2011 5:43:34 PM
2 t y
b 2
(1)
The primary objective of this study is to investigate the influence of residual stress shakedown on
the strength and behaviour of longitudinally stiffened plates typical of ship hull girders. The finite
element modelling technique used for the analyses
allows the complex three-dimensional distribution
of welding-induced residual stress and distortion
to be accounted for in assessing shakedown and
ultimate strength of stiffened plates.
Welding-induced residual stress and distortion in the stiffened plates were determined using
sequential 3D, nonlinear thermal and mechanical
2.1
Welding simulation
Y
X
Figure 2.
142
MARSTRUCT.indb 142
2/18/2011 5:43:35 PM
Position (mm)
0
-1
100
200
300
400
500
-2
Plate centerline
(stiffener location)
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
-50
-100
-150
Position (mm)
143
MARSTRUCT.indb 143
2/18/2011 5:43:38 PM
Shakedown analysis
Table 1.
Model
tw
tf
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
350
550
750
950
550
550
550
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
180
180
180
180
100
140
220
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1.21
1.90
2.59
3.28
1.90
1.90
1.90
0.34
0.37
0.40
0.43
0.64
0.47
0.31
* All dimensions in mm
Figure 6.
Table 2.
PARAMETRIC STUDY
3.1
(2)
a y
=
E
r
(3)
Plate (mm)
Stiffener (mm)
Model
Vertical
Vertical
Horizontal
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
2.5
3.3
4.5
5.9
3.0
3.2
3.5
0.86
0.29
0.24
0.24
0.30
0.24
0.42
0.27
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.38
0.30
0.12
Geometry
Geometric imperfection
144
MARSTRUCT.indb 144
2/18/2011 5:43:40 PM
Shakedown
0.25 y
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
0.20
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.17
0.12
0.08
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.09
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.02
1.01
1.02
1.01
250
200
150
100
50
0
-300
-200
-100
-50
100
200
300
-100
After welding
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-100
100
200
300
400
Figure 8.
model T2.
0
-60
0.5 y
Model t
300
After welding
350
400
3.3
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
-1
-2
-3
-4
After welding
1 cycle at 25% of yield stress
1 cycle at 50% of yield stress
145
MARSTRUCT.indb 145
2/18/2011 5:43:41 PM
Ultimate strength
3.5
3
2.5
Table 4.
2
1.5
1
After welding
0.5
-200
-100
100
200
300
Figure 10.
Model
u,0
u,25
u,50
0RS
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
1.00
0.87
0.65
0.58
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.99
0.89
0.67
0.59
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.99
0.92
0.68
0.61
0.92
0.92
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.73
0.63
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.3
0.25
0.2
After welding
0.15
Figure 11.
stiffener.
500
1000
1500
2000
(3)
0.9
No shakedown (1)
(2)
(1)
0.8
0.7
No Residual Stress
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
146
MARSTRUCT.indb 146
2/18/2011 5:43:44 PM
Shakedown of residual stress increased the ultimate strength of the stiffened plates by a maximum
of 3.4% for an applied stress of 0.25 y and 6.5%
for an applied stress of 0.5 y (models T5 and T6).
Results of the ultimate strength analyses indicate
that the percentage change in ultimate strength due
to shakedown does not vary significantly with the
geometry of the stiffened plate. Figure 12 shows
that although shakedown increased the ultimate
load of model T5, it had little influence on the
shape of the load-shortening curve. The shape of
load-shortening curves calculated for the other
stiffened plates were also similar before and after
shakedown.
A comparison of ultimate strengths after shakedown at a stress of 0.5 y against values calculated
without considering residual stress reveals that the
remaining residual stresses may still decrease the
ultimate strength by as much as 10%. This shows
that a potentially unsafe design may result if it
is assumed that residual stresses are completely
relieved by shakedown in order to simplify an ultimate strength analysis.
4
Figure 14.
3,5, 7
300
2
Stress (MPa)
Node 1
4,6
Node 2
200
100
3, 5, 7
0
-500
-300
-100
100
-100
2
300
1 8
4, 6
-200
Strain ()
EFFECT OF HARDENING
AND NUMBER OF LOAD CYCLES
400
1
3,5,7
300
2
Stress (MPa)
Figure 13.
load.
8
Node 1
Node 2
200
4,6
100
3,5,7
0
-400
2
-300
-200
-100
1
-100
100
200
300
400
4,6
-200
Strain ()
147
MARSTRUCT.indb 147
2/18/2011 5:43:49 PM
Perfectly plastic
Step
Node 1
Node 2
Node 1 Node 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
350
269
365
204
365
204
365
285
50
132
38
126
38
126
38
44
350
269
363
202
363
202
363
283
50
132
38
126
38
126
38
44
Applied stress, /y
0.15
0.05
1
8
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Figure 17.
1
2
300
Stress (MPa)
8
6
200
Node 1
Node 2
100
-200
2 6
-100
0
-100
3 7
0
-300
CONCLUSIONS
0.1
0.2
-400
0.25
and kinematic hardening models, all plastic straining and thus, residual stress shakedown occurred
entirely during the first load cycle.
100
200
300
400
1 8
-200
Strain ()
148
MARSTRUCT.indb 148
2/18/2011 5:43:51 PM
149
MARSTRUCT.indb 149
2/18/2011 5:43:52 PM
Yoichi Sumi
Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan
ABSTRACT: Strength and deformability of steel plates for marine use are studied from the viewpoint
of geometry of corrosion pits and the size effect of corroded plates. The actual shape of corrosion pit
depends on the surrounding environment, which may result in a variety of pitting shapes such as conical and ellipsoidal shapes. In the present study, the effect of the two shapes has been investigated by
the non-linear, large deformation and three-dimensional finite element analyses for simulated corrosion
surfaces generated by a probabilistic model of a corrosion process. The strength of corroded plates with
semi-ellipsoidal pits is found to be estimated by the empirical formula obtained from that with conical
pits, where the estimation is based on the minimum cross sectional area of the plate. The deformability
and energy absorption of the corroded plates could be estimated by the surface roughness represented by
the difference of averaged plate thickness and that at the section of minimum cross sectional area. Having
investigated the size effect of corroded plates probabilistically, it has been quantitatively shown that the
strength and deformability reduce with increasing plate length, while they may increase with increasing
plate width. The size effect is more pronounced for deformability with the change of width.
1
INTRODUCTION
151
MARSTRUCT.indb 151
2/18/2011 5:43:52 PM
Table 1.
Material
Material properties.
Youngs Tensile
Yield
Mass
strength density modulus strength
3
(MPa)
Elongation
(MPa) (kg/m ) (GPa)
SM490A 365.0
7853.6
206.9
509.4
28.73
Failure
strain
0.97
Figure 1.
(1)
gTr (t ) =
( t )2
1
0
exp
.
2 0t
2 02
p ( t ).
(2)
(3)
where the coefficient b varies from 1 to 1/3 depending on materials, environmental conditions and etc.
The coefficient a follows lognormal distribution
with parameters a(mean of ln(a)) and a(standard
deviation of ln(a)):
ha ( x ) =
( x
1
exp
2 a x
2 a2
)2 .
(4)
W0 (
According to the description of a probabilistic corrosion model proposed Yamamoto and Ikegami
0 , r0 , 0 )
= 0 max 0 r0
(x x0 )2 + ( y y0 )2
(5)
152
MARSTRUCT.indb 152
2/18/2011 5:43:52 PM
ellipsoidal shape:
0 , r0 , 0 )
W02 (
= 02
( {
( x )2
1
exp
.
2
2 2
(7)
Figure 2.
Mesh size always has significant effects on finite element results. Strain to failure is generally increases
with finer finite element meshes. So, it was aimed
to find out an appropriate element size along with
strain to failure for which experimental total elongation of specimen can be achieved. In the case
of current model, it has been found that the effect
of element sizes except for the loading direction
are not so significant (Ahmmad and Sumi, 2010).
Therefore, the element size is kept constant (1 mm)
in width direction in the present analysis. Since the
element size in the thickness direction may vary
for specimens with corroded surfaces, the effects
of element sizes in the thickness along with length
(loading) directions are investigated.
As is shown in Figure 4, the total elongation
may change with the element size in the loading
direction. In the present analysis, the failure criterion in terms of the effective strain in an element
is determined in such a way that the total elongation in FE analysis reaches that of the experiment,
28.73% (Table 1) in a flat specimen. It is seen that
the total elongation reaches the experimental value
at effective strain 0.932 in the case of element
size, 1 mm, so that this value with 1 mm mesh is
used for the failure effective strain in the following
analyses. In Figure 5 effect of loading and thickness directional element size is shown, where the
strain to failure is normalized by the value 0.932.
Figure 3. Finite element modeling: (a) Boundary conditions. (b) The minimum value of hz is 1 mm under deepest pit cusp.
153
MARSTRUCT.indb 153
2/18/2011 5:43:55 PM
154
MARSTRUCT.indb 154
2/18/2011 5:43:59 PM
Tensile
strength
(MPa)
Elongation
(%)
20
50
78
93
99
(8)
A0
AP
A0
(9)
1 8 14RS + 26.4RS2 f
0 Rs 0.15,
(10)
and
Rd
1 0 2RP 5.3RP2 f
0 RP 0.35.
(11)
155
MARSTRUCT.indb 155
2/18/2011 5:44:03 PM
1
M
z (x ym ),
(14)
m =1
Dm
zavg
T
; RP =
Pmax
T
zavgg
(12), (13)
SIZE EFFECT
M=
2
= Representative Width,
2
M
(15)
gN max ( z ) = N FZ M ( z )
N 1
fZ M ( z ) ,
(16)
z MN mod = FZM1 1
N
=+
1 1 ,
N
M
(17)
156
MARSTRUCT.indb 156
2/18/2011 5:44:08 PM
5.1
1
M z MN
1
(18)
SC =
1
1
1 1 .
N
M
(19)
(20)
z MN mod
T
(21)
157
MARSTRUCT.indb 157
2/18/2011 5:44:14 PM
CONCLUSIONS
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
factor.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to
Mr. S. Michiyama and Mr. H. Arakaki for their
supports during the present work. This work has
been supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (No. A(2) 22246109) from the Ministry
of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology to Yokohama National University. The
authors are grateful for the support.
REFERENCES
Figure 21.
factor.
158
MARSTRUCT.indb 158
2/18/2011 5:44:19 PM
Paik, J.K., Lee, J.M. & Ko, M.J. (2004). Ultimate shear
strength of plate elements with pit corrosion wastage.
Thin-Wall Structures vol. 42, pp. 11611176.
Schider, I., Brocks, W. & Cornec, A. (2004). Procedure
for the determination of true stress-strain curves from
tensile tests with rectangular cross-sections. Journal
of Engineering Materials and Technology vol. 126,
pp. 7076.
Sumi, Y. (2008). Strength and deformability of corroded
steel plates estimated by replicated specimens. Journal
of Ship Production vol. 24(3), pp. 161167.
Yamamoto, N. (2008). Probabilistic model of pitting
corrosion and the simulation of pitted corroded
condition. Proceedings of the ASME 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering OMAE2008-57623.
Yamamoto, N. & Ikegami, K. (1998). A study on the
degradation of coating and corrosion of ships hull
based on the probabilistic approach. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering vol. 120,
pp. 121128.
159
MARSTRUCT.indb 159
2/18/2011 5:44:22 PM
ABSTRACT: In Mexico, offshore pipelines are installed inside trenches. This has the effect of restraining
their movements to some extent, due to the weight of the backfill and the friction of the soil around the
pipe. When high temperature hydrocarbons start flowing through the pipelines, the friction around them
prevents the elongation and an axial force builds up. This force reaches a point where the restraining forces
are not enough to hold the pipe and buckling occurs. For buried pipelines the buckling is upwards, thus
the name Up Heaval Buckling (UHB). The mitigation measure for this problem is to add weight in the
form of rock or concrete mattresses at the places where UHB might occur. In Mexico a group of factors
have resulted in very expensive solutions, thus, PEMEXs engineering department is working on finding
the most adequate methods to cope with UHB.
1
INTRODUCTION
161
MARSTRUCT.indb 161
2/18/2011 5:44:22 PM
eff
f
(Rmax + wp +
wo
EI
4 wo
(1)
(2)
where H is the residual tension from the installation of the pipe in N, which is normally taken
as null to be conservative; pi is the difference in
internal pressure compared to as laid in Pa; Ai is
the internal transverse area in m2; v is the steels
162
MARSTRUCT.indb 162
2/18/2011 5:44:22 PM
Imagine that while laying a pipeline on a flat seafloor, a segment of it rests on an imperfection on
the trench bottom that is in contact with the pipeline just at one point, as depicted in Figure 1.
As seen in Figure 1, the soil is modelled as
Winckler springs, and the imperfection is modelled
as a simple support at a certain node, that has an
upwards ground displacement of m. Note that
the theoretical configuration is symmetrical with
respect to the simple support. For constructing
the model shown in Figure 1, springs in tension
are taken out, to have a better representation of
the pipe/soil interaction. There is a direct relationship between the magnitude of the curvature and
the propensity to UHB, the higher the curvature,
the lesser is the restraining force preventing UHB.
Besides the height of the theoretical imperfection
, other important parameters affecting the prop
shape and the curvature are the submerged weight
wo, the stiffness E I of the pipeline, and the stiffness of the soil. It should be clear now that in reality, when laying a pipeline inside a trench on the
bottom of the sea, the occurrence of a theoretical
imperfection configuration is very rare.
2.2
| Sefffff |
4 wo
w p 11 w o
E I
(3)
163
MARSTRUCT.indb 163
2/18/2011 5:44:23 PM
164
MARSTRUCT.indb 164
2/18/2011 5:44:25 PM
(4)
d 2 y (x)
dx 2
(5)
also from beam theory, it is known that the derivative of the flexural moment along the axis of the
pipeline is the shear force, and that the derivative
of the shear force along the axis is the distributed
load, as presented in Equations 6 and 7 below:
dM ( x )
dx
dV ( x )
q (x) =
dx
V (x) =
(6)
(7)
165
MARSTRUCT.indb 165
2/18/2011 5:44:25 PM
Figure 5.
Figure 7.
166
MARSTRUCT.indb 166
2/18/2011 5:44:26 PM
RESULTS
Rmax (kN/m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
4.17
11.21
15.64
19.07
21.71
Imperfection
height (m)
Rock weight
(kN/m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.55
0.75
0.9
1
45
50
66
78
93
CONCLUSIONS
167
MARSTRUCT.indb 167
2/18/2011 5:44:31 PM
O.F. Hughes
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA
ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to check the accuracy of the ALPS/ULSAP (Analysis of
Large Plated Structures/Ultimate Limit State Assessment Program) methods use to determine the ultimate strength of plates and stiffened panels. The details of the ALPS/ULSAP method and theory are
presented in both Ultimate Limit State Design of Steel-plated Structures, co-authored by J.K. Paik and
A.K. Thayamballi, and Ship Structural Analysis and Design, co-authored by O.F. Hughes and J.K. Paik.
In this benchmark study, the accuracy of the plate and stiffened panel ultimate strength obtained with
the ALPS/ULSAP method is ascertained through comparison with that obtained using nonlinear finite
element methods and the DNV/PULS method.
1
INTRODUCTION
The stiffened plate structure shown in Fig. 1 is considered. This structure is subject to the combined
in-plane and lateral pressure load shown in Fig. 2.
2.1 Ultimate strength of plates
The membrane stress-based method (plastic edgeoriented plate hinge approach) is applied (Paik &
Thayamballi 2003, 2007; Hughes & Paik 2010).
The membrane stress inside a deflected or buckled plate is non-uniform. Figure 3 depicts a typical
example of the axial membrane stress distribution
inside a plate that is subject to uniaxial compressive loading before and after buckling occurs. For
simplicity, the case of a single bulge in the middle
of the plate is shown.
The membrane stress distribution in the loading (x) direction becomes non-uniform as the plate
starts to deflect (e.g., due to buckling). That in
the y direction also becomes non-uniform if the
unloaded plate edges remain straight, although no
membrane stresses will develop in this direction
169
MARSTRUCT.indb 169
2/18/2011 5:44:31 PM
tp
N.
tp
A.
hw
tw
N.
tp
A.
hw
N.
A.
hw
tw
tw
tf
bf
tf
bf
170
MARSTRUCT.indb 170
2/18/2011 5:44:31 PM
eq1
eq 2
eq3
As the applied loads increase, the plate will collapse if any one of the three foregoing equivalent
stresses, namely, eq1, eq2, or eq3, reaches material
yield stress Y. The minimum value among all of
the applied load components that satisfy the three
equations must then be the real ultimate strength
of the plate.
The maximum and minimum membrane stresses
in equations (1) to (3) can be formulated as functions of the various parameters of influence (Paik &
Thayamballi 2003; Hughes & Paik 2010).
Because of the nature of the combined membrane axial stresses in the x and y directions, there
are three possible locations for the initial yield at
the edges, namely, the plate corners, the longitudinal mid-edges, and the transverse mid-edges, as
shown in Fig. 4. The stress at the two mid-edge
locations, i.e., that at each longitudinal or transverse mid-edge, is expected to be the same as long
as the longitudinal or transverse axial stresses are
uniformly applied, i.e., without in-plane bending.
Depending on the predominant half-wave mode
in the length direction, the location of possible
plasticity may vary at the long edges because the
location of the minimum membrane stresses may
differ, whereas it is always at the mid-edges in
the short direction. In this regard, the membrane
stress-based method can also be called the plate
edge-oriented plastic hinge approach.
The occurrence of plasticity can be assessed
using the von Mises yield criterion. The three
following ultimate strength criteria for the most
171
MARSTRUCT.indb 171
2/18/2011 5:44:35 PM
Figure 5(c). Collapse mode III: Stiffener-induced collapse mode by beam-column-type failure (shaded areas
represent yielded regions).
mode typically occurs when the stiffeners are relatively weak relative to the plating.
Collapse mode II occurs when the panel is subjected predominantly to biaxial compressive loads,
thereby causing it to collapse due to yielding along
the plate-stiffener intersection at the panel edges,
with no distinct stiffener failure. In contrast to collapse modes III, IV, and V, this mode assumes that
the stiffeners do not fail first.
When the stiffener dimensions are neither weak
nor strong, the stiffened panel is likely to behave
as a plate-stiffener combination that is representative of the entire panel, thus reaching its ultimate
strength via collapse mode III, beam-column-type
collapse.
When the height to thickness ratio of the stiffener web is large, local buckling is likely to take
place in the web. Collapse mode IV occurs when
the stiffener web buckles in conjunction with the
inception of failure in the plating between the
stiffeners.
When the stiffener flange is of a type that is
unable to remain straight, the stiffeners twist sideways, a phenomenon known as flexural-torsional
buckling or tripping. Collapse mode V constitutes
the pattern of failure in which the panel collapses
due to the lateral-torsional buckling or tripping of
the stiffeners.
The stiffened panel reaches its ultimate strength
in collapse mode VI when the panel is stocky or
subjected predominantly to axial tensile loading,
such that neither local nor overall buckling occurs
until the panel cross-section yields either entirely
or to a large extent.
Although these collapse modes are illustrated
separately here, some of them may interact and
occur simultaneously. For the sake of simplicity,
however, a stiffened panel is considered to reach
its ultimate strength via the first, and predominant, of the six collapse modes to occur. Hence,
172
MARSTRUCT.indb 172
2/18/2011 5:44:37 PM
3.1
b/2
b/2
Long. stiffeners
Trans. frames
b
b/2
b/2
a/2
Study methods
a/2
a/2
a/2
method
method
abb==2550
a
2550 850(mm)
850 (mm)
tp= 11
11mm
mm
0.8
yu/ Y
FEM
ALPS/ULSAP
DNV/PULS
0.4
0.0
Yp E .
where
p
The magnitude of the ANSYS and ALPS/
ULSAP method analyses differs from that of the
DNV/PULS because the latter implicitly considers the initial imperfections, whereas both of the
former deal with them as parameters of influence,
and the present benchmark study considers an
average level of plate initial deflection.
Figure 6 presents the nonlinear finite element
method modeling for the plate in terms of the
analysis extent and mesh size.
Figures 7 to 10 present the ultimate strength
interaction relationships between biaxial compressive loads for plates with tp of 11 mm, 16 mm,
22 mm, and 33 mm, respectively.
The comparisons show that the ALPS/ULSAP
method computations are in very good agreement
0.6
0.2
element
1.0
finite
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
xu/ Y
The geometric and material properties of the stiffened panel (denoted by panel type C) considered in
this study are as follows.
Panel length, a = 4750 mm
Panel breadth, B = 8550 mm
173
MARSTRUCT.indb 173
2/18/2011 5:44:39 PM
Number of stiffeners = 8
Plate breadth, b = 950 mm
Plate thickness, tp = 11, 12.5, 15, 18.5, 25
37 mm
Yield stress of plate, Yp = 313.6 MPa
Yield stress of stiffeners, Ys = 313.6 MPa
Elastic modulus, E = 205800 MPa
Poissons ratio, v = 0.3
1.0
a bb==2550
a
2550 850(mm)
850 (mm)
tp= 16
16mm
mm
0.8
yu/ Y
0.6
FEM
ALPS/ULSAP
DNV/PULS
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
xu/ Y
a bb==2550
a
2550 850(mm)
850 (mm)
22mm
mm
tp= 22
yu/ Y
0.6
0.4
FEM
ALPS/ULSAP
DNV/PULS
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
xu/ Y
1.0
0.8
yu/ Y
0.8
0.2
where wopl = the plate initial deflection amplitude corresponding to the buckling mode,
Yp E .
p
Three types of stiffeners, namely, flat-bar, anglebar, and T-bar stiffeners, are considered. The four
stiffener sizes shown in Table 1 are considered for
each of the stiffener types. The size of transverse
frames and longitudinal girders is not addressed
herein, but it is considered to be large enough so that
neither lateral deformation nor failure occurs before
the stiffened panel reaches the ultimate strength.
Figure 11 represents the ANSYS nonlinear finite
element method modeling in terms of the analysis
extent and mesh size. A + 1 + span model in
the longitudinal (x) direction and + 1 + bay
model in the transverse (y) direction are applied.
A finer mesh is applied as the stiffener web height
increases, based on the results of a convergence
study. Table 2 indicates the boundary conditions
applied for the ANSYS nonlinear finite element
method analysis of the stiffened panel.
The present benchmark study was undertaken
in association with the activities of ISSC (International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress)
0.6
0.4
FEM
ALPS/ULSAP
DNV/PULS
0.2
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Y
0.8
1.0
Size
Flat-bar Angle-bar
(mm)
(mm)
hw bf tw/tf
hw tw
T-bar (mm)
hw bf tw/tf
Size 1
Size 2
Size 3
Size 4
150 17
250 25
350 35
550 35
138 90 9/12
235 90 10/15
383 100 12/17
580 150 15/20
1.2
138 90 9/12
235 90 10/15
383 100 12/17
580 150 15/20
174
MARSTRUCT.indb 174
2/18/2011 5:44:42 PM
y
D'
Tran
s. fra
mes
D''
D'''
s
er
rd
gi
i.
g
n
Lo
C'
B
z
A
B'
A'
A''
A'''
Size 1
Size 2
Size 3
Size 4
Flat type
(hw tw)
150 17(mm)
13800 elements
250 25(mm)
13800 elements
350 35(mm)
25000 elements
550 35(mm)
41000 elements
Angle type
(hw bf tw /tf)
138 90 9/12(mm)
15400 elements
26600 elements
Tee type
(hw bf tw /tf)
138 90 9/12(mm)
15400 elements
26600 elements
Description
A-D, A-D,
B-B and C-C
1.0
0.8
xu/ Yeq
0.6
0.4
Mode III
0.2
III
III
III
III
III
0.0
0
(b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 12(a). Ultimate strength of the panels under
longitudinal compression for flat-bar stiffeners (size 1).
175
MARSTRUCT.indb 175
2/18/2011 5:44:45 PM
1.2
1.2
1.0
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (ABAQUS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
1.0
0.8
III
IV
xu/ Yeq
0.8
xu/ Yeq
IV
III
0.6
III
Mode III
0.6
III
III
Mode III
0.2
0.2
III
III
0.4
0.4
III
0.0
0.0
0
Figure 13(a). Ultimate strength of the panels under longitudinal compression for angle-bar stiffeners (size 1).
1.2
1.2
(b / t p ) Yp / E
(b / t p ) Yp / E
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
1.0
1.0
xu/ Yeq
III
Mode III
xu/ Yeq
0.8
0.8
IV
IV
II
II
0.6
III
0.6
III
Mode III
0.4
0.4
0.2
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
0.2
0.0
0.0
0
0
(b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 12(c). Ultimate strength of the panels under
longitudinal compression for flat-bar stiffeners (size 3).
1.2
Figure 13(b). Ultimate strength of the panels under longitudinal compression for angle-bar stiffeners (size 2).
1.2
1.0
1.0
Mode III
IV
0.8
xu/ Yeq
0.8
xu/ Yeq
(b / t p ) Yp / E
IV
IV
0.6
IV
II
0.4
III
Mode III
V
V
0.6
0.4
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (ABAQUS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
0.2
0.0
0
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
0.2
0.0
(b / t p ) Yp / E
(b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 13(c). Ultimate strength of the panels under longitudinal compression for angle-bar stiffeners (size 3).
176
MARSTRUCT.indb 176
2/18/2011 5:44:47 PM
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
Mode III
0.8
0.8
xu/ Yeq
xu/ Yeq
II
II
II
0.6
Mode III
V
V
0.6
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (ABAQUS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
0.2
0.0
0
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
0.2
0.0
( b / t p ) Yp / E
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (ABAQUS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
1.0
Mode V
0.6
III
0.4
III
Mode III
0.2
III
V
II
II
0.4
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (ABAQUS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
0.2
0.0
1
1.2
1.0
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
Design Formula (DNV/PULS)
xu/ Yeq
III
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.0
( b / tp ) Yp / E
(b / t p ) Yp / E
1.2
II
0.6
III
III
0.0
0
0.8
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
1.2
( b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 13(d). Ultimate strength of the panels under longitudinal compression for angle-bar stiffeners (size 4).
xu/ Yeq
0.4
0.4
xu/ Yeq
III
0.6
0.4
Mode III
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
(a / r ) Yeq / E
( b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 14(b). Ultimate strength of the panels under
longitudinal compression for T-bar stiffeners (size 2).
177
MARSTRUCT.indb 177
2/18/2011 5:44:54 PM
1.2
1.0
1.2
FEA (ANSYS)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
1.0
0.8
0.8
yu/ Yeq
xu/ Yeq
0.6
Mode I
0.6
III
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
III
III
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
0.8
yu/ Yeq
0.8
xu/ Yeq
( b / t p ) Yp / E
1.0
III
0.0
2.5
(a / r ) Yeq / E
1.2
III
0.6
Mode III
0.6
III
0.4
0.4
III
III
IV
IV
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
( b / t p ) Yp / E
(a / r ) Yeq / E
1.0
yu/ Yeq
0.8
Mode III
0.6
III
0.4
IV
IV
3.3.2
IV
IV
0.2
0.0
0
(b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 16(c). Ultimate strength of the panels under
transverse compression for flat-bar stiffeners (size 3).
178
MARSTRUCT.indb 178
2/18/2011 5:45:02 PM
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
yu/ Yeq
0.8
yu/ Yeq
Mode III
0.6
IV
0.4
Mode III
0.6
V
0.4
IV
IV
IV
V
IV
IV
1.0
1.2
( b / t p ) Yp / E
(b / t p ) Yp / E
1.0
0.8
yu/ Yeq
0.8
yu/ Yeq
IV
0.0
0.0
Mode III
0.6
III
Mode V
0.6
IV
0.4
0.4
IV
III
III
IV
III
III
IV
IV
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0
1.2
1.0
( b / t p ) Yp / E
(b / t p ) Yp / E
1.0
0.8
yu/ Yeq
0.8
yu/ Yeq
IV
0.2
0.2
Mode III
0.6
III
0.4
Mode III
0.6
III
0.4
III
V
III
III
III
III
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0
( b / t p ) Yp / E
( b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 17(b). Ultimate strength of the panels under
transverse compression for angle-bar stiffeners (size 2).
179
MARSTRUCT.indb 179
2/18/2011 5:45:07 PM
1.2
1.0
yu/ Yeq
0.8
Mode III
0.6
III
0.4
III
V
0.2
0.0
0
( b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 18(b). Ultimate strength of the panels under
transverse compression for T-bar stiffeners (size 2).
1.2
1.0
1.2
Size 4 Size 3
0.8
yu/ Yeq
Size 2
0.8
xu/ Yeq
1.0
Mode III
Size 1
0.6
0.4
0.6
V
0.4
0.2
V
IV
IV
IV
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
( a / r ) Yeq / E
0.0
0
(b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 18(c). Ultimate strength of the panels under
transverse compression for T-bar stiffeners (size 3).
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
Size 2
Size 1
xu/ Yeq
0.8
yu/ Yeq
0.8
Mode V
0.6
0.4
IV
0.4
0.6
IV
IV
IV
0.2
IV
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
(a / r ) Yeq / E
( b / t p ) Yp / E
Figure 18(d). Ultimate strength of the panels under
transverse compression for T-bar stiffeners (size 4).
180
MARSTRUCT.indb 180
2/18/2011 5:45:13 PM
1.2
1.0
1.0
Panel C: tp=18.5 mm
hw tw = 150 17 (mm) (F)
FEA (ANSYS)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
0.8
Size 4 Size 3
Size 2
Size 1
yu/ Yeq
xu/ Yeq
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
Mode III
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
( a / r ) Yeq / E
0.2
0.6
0.8
1.0
yu/ Yeq
0.8
0.6
0.4
Mode III
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
Figure 20(b). Ultimate strength interaction relationship between biaxial compressive loads for tp = 18.5 mm
and flat-bar stiffeners (size 2).
1.0
0.8
yu/ Yeq
0.4
xu/ Yeq
0.6
0.4
Mode III
Mode II
0.2
Mode IV
3.3.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
181
MARSTRUCT.indb 181
2/18/2011 5:45:18 PM
1.0
1.0
FEA (ANSYS)
0.8
yu/ Yeq
yu/ Yeq
0.8
0.6
0.4
Mode IV
0.6
0.4
Mode III
Mode II
Mode II
Mode III
0.2
0.2
Mode V
Mode IV
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.8
1.0
FEA (ANSYS)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
0.8
FEA (ANSYS)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
yu/ Yeq
yu/ Yeq
0.6
0.8
0.4
xu/ Yeq
1.0
0.2
0.6
Mode III
0.4
0.2
0.6
Mode III
0.4
Mode IV
Mode II
0.2
Mode IV
Mode V
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
yu/ Yeq
yu/ Yeq
0.8
FEA (ANSYS)
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
xu/ Yeq
Mode III
0.6
0.4
Mode III
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
182
MARSTRUCT.indb 182
2/18/2011 5:45:22 PM
1.0
1.0
Panel C: tp = 11mm
hw bf tw/tf = 580 150 15/20 (mm) (T)
0.6
0.4
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
0.8
yu/ Yeq
yu/ Yeq
0.8
Mode III
0.6
0.4
Mode IV
0.2
0.2
Mode II
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
xu/ Yeq
0.0
1.0
1.0
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
0.6
0.4
Mode IV
Mode II
0.2
0.2
Mode V
Mode II
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
xu/ Yeq
0.0
1.0
1.0
yu/ Yeq
Mode IV
0.6
0.8
1.0
Panel C: tp= 15 mm
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
xu/ Yeq
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
0.8
0.2
yu/ Yeq
0.8
0.6
Mode III
0.6
0.8
yu/ Yeq
yu/ Yeq
1.0
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
0.4
0.4
xu/ Yeq
Panel C: tp = 18.5 mm
hw bf tw/tf = 383 100 12/17 (mm) (T)
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.4
Mode IV
Mode II
Mode II
0.2
0.2
Mode V
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
183
MARSTRUCT.indb 183
2/18/2011 5:45:27 PM
1.0
yu/ Yeq
0.8
0.6
0.4
Mode IV
Mode II
0.2
Mode V
Figure 24. A stiffened panel under combined longitudinal compression and lateral pressure loads.
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
xu/ Yeq
1.0
Figure 23(d). Ultimate strength interaction relationship between biaxial compressive loads for tp = 18.5 mm
and T-bar stiffeners (size 4).
1.0
Panel C: tp= 25 mm
hw bf tw/tf = 580 150 15/20 (mm) (T)
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
yu/ Yeq
0.8
0.6
Mode III
0.4
Mode II
0.2
Mode V
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu/ Yeq
0.8
1.0
Panel C: tp= 37 mm
hw bf tw/tf = 580 150 15/20 (mm) (T)
1.0
FEA (ANSYS)
FEA (MSC/MARC)
Design Formula (ALPS/ULSAP)
yu/ Yeq
0.8
Mode V
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu/ Yeq
Figure 23(f). Ultimate strength interaction relationship
between biaxial compressive loads for tp = 37 mm and
T-bar stiffeners (size 4).
184
MARSTRUCT.indb 184
2/18/2011 5:45:31 PM
1.0
0.8
xu/ Yeq
0.6
Plate-sided Pressure
0.4
0.2
Stiffener-sided Pressure
tp=18.5 mm
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
p (MPa)
Figure 28. Ultimate strength interaction relationship
between longitudinal compression and lateral pressure
loads for the panel with T-bar stiffeners (size 3) and
tp = 18.5 mm.
Figure 26. Deformed shape of the panel under combined longitudinal compression and lateral pressure
loads for T-bar stiffeners (size 3) and P = 0.25 MPa at the
ultimate limit states (with an amplification factor of 10).
1.0
xu/ Yeq
0.8
0.6
0.4
Plate-sided Pressure
Mode III
0.2
Stiffener-sided Pressure
tp=15 mm
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
p (MPa)
Figure 27. Ultimate strength interaction relationship
between longitudinal compression and lateral pressure
loads for the panel with T-bar stiffeners (size 3) and
tp = 15 mm.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
185
MARSTRUCT.indb 185
2/18/2011 5:45:39 PM
REFERENCES
Abaqus. 2010. SIMULIA, Providence, RI, USA
(www.simulia.com).
ALPS/ULSAP. 2010. A computer program for ultimate
limit state assessment of plate panels. Advanced Technology Center, DRS C3 Systems, Inc., MD, USA
(www.proteusengineering.com, www.maestromarine.
com).
186
MARSTRUCT.indb 186
2/18/2011 5:45:40 PM
A.E. Mansour
University of California, Berkeley, USA
J.B. Caldwell
Emeritus Professor, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to develop a modified Paik-Mansour formula for the
ultimate strength calculations of ship hulls subject to vertical bending moments. The method is based on
a credible bending stress distribution over the hull cross-section presumed at the ultimate limit state. The
accuracy of this method is demonstrated through comparison with computations obtained using more
refined methods, such as nonlinear finite element method, intelligent super-size finite element method,
and idealized structural unit method. Statistical analysis of the hull girder ultimate strength based on
comparisons among the various computations is carried out in terms of their mean values and coefficients
of variation. The original Paik-Mansour method is found to be inapplicable to the case of a pure vertical
bending moment depending on the ships hull type and/or vertical bending direction, but the modified
Paik-Mansour method is more general and is able to resolve this issue.
1
INTRODUCTION
2
2.1
187
MARSTRUCT.indb 187
2/18/2011 5:45:40 PM
Experimental studies of large-scale ship hull models (e.g., Dow 1991) and numerical studies of fullscale ships (e.g., Rutherford and Caldwell 1990;
Paik et al., 1996) have demonstrated that the overall collapse of a ships hull under a vertical bending
moment is governed by the collapse of the compressed flange, although some degree of reserve
strength remains after the compressed flange has
collapsed.
This is the case because, after the buckling of
the compressed flange, the neutral axis (N.A.) of
the hull cross-section moves toward the tensioned
flange, and a further increase in the applied bending moment is sustained until this flange yields. At
later stages of this process, the vertical structures
around the compressed and tensioned flanges (e.g.,
the longitudinal bulkheads or side shell structures)
may also fail.
In the vicinity of the final N.A., however, the
vertical structures usually remain in a linear elastic
state until the overall collapse of the hull girder.
Depending on the geometrical and material properties of the hulls cross-section, these parts may
of course fail, which corresponds with Caldwells
(1965) presumption.
Figure 2 shows an example of typical bending stresses across the hull cross-section of a
188
MARSTRUCT.indb 188
2/18/2011 5:45:41 PM
xY
Ux
Mu
i =1
Tens.
Comp.
D-gus
E
x
xE
gus
xE
Tens.
Comp.
( zi
gu ),
(3)
where n = the total number of structural components, and gu is as defined in Equation (2). Mu is
denoted by Mus (negative value) for the sagging
condition and by Muh (positive value) for the hogging condition.
D-guh
xE
xi ai
guh
xY
(a) Sagging
(b) Hogging
Figure 3. Paik and Mansours (1995) original presumption of the bending stress distribution across the
cross-section of a ships hull at the ultimate limit state
under sagging or hogging conditions (+: tension; : compression) (the superscripts U, Y, E denote the ultimate
strength, yielding, and elastic region, respectively).
(1)
gu =
xxi ai zi
i =1
n
(2)
xxi ai
i =1
Figure 4. Modification of the Paik-Mansour presumption of the bending stress distribution across the
cross-section of a ships hull at the ultimate limit state
under sagging or hogging conditions (+: tension; : compression) (the superscripts U, Y, E denote the ultimate
strength, yielding, and elastic region, respectively).
189
MARSTRUCT.indb 189
2/18/2011 5:45:43 PM
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
3.1
Figure 5(a). Plate-stiffener combination models (beamcolumn elements with attached plating) in a stiffened
plate structure.
190
MARSTRUCT.indb 190
2/18/2011 5:45:44 PM
191
MARSTRUCT.indb 191
2/18/2011 5:45:45 PM
Yeq
in xu1, 2 ,
xu
Yeq
=
0.995 + 0.936
a Yeq
;
r E
b Yp
;
t E
r=
2 2
b Yp
;
t E
(4)
where
xu1
1.5
3.0 (5)
> 3.0
+ 0.188 0.067 4
xu a *xu 0.475 a
=
+
1 ,
Yp b Yp
2 b
(6)
where
4
2
0
.
283
f
I
;
As
1.5
1.5 < 3.0 ;
> 3.0
a Yp
.
t E
APPLIED EXAMPLES
192
MARSTRUCT.indb 192
2/18/2011 5:45:47 PM
4.1
12
10
8
6
Test result
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Curvature (1/km)
Method
hC
hY
hC
hY
Original P-M
Modified P-M
210.0
210.0
0.0
0.0
760.2
760.2
0.0
0.0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
2
1
0
4.2
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 8(a). Ultimate strength behavior of the container ship hull under a hogging moment.
10
12
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Curvature (1/km)
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 8(b). Ultimate strength behavior of the container ship hull under a sagging moment.
193
MARSTRUCT.indb 193
2/18/2011 5:45:51 PM
20
hC
hY
hC
hY
10330.8 0.0
10330.8 0.0
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 9(a). Ultimate strength behavior of the bulk carrier hull under a hogging moment.
16
12
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Curvature (1/km)
Method
hY
hC
hY
17935.0
17935.0
0.0
0.0
16
hC
Original P-M
4.5
0.00
12
4.3
16
14
12
10
8
6
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
4
2
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Curvature (1/km)
194
MARSTRUCT.indb 194
2/18/2011 5:45:53 PM
12
10
14
Method
hC
hY
hC
hY
Original P-M
Modified P-M
7035.2
7035.2
0.0
0.0
15225.5
15225.5
0.0
0.0
6
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
4
2
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Curvature (1/km)
30
hC
hY
Original P-M
hC
hY
16078.5
16078.5
0.0
0.0
25
20
15
10
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 12(a). Ultimate strength behavior of the doublehull tanker hull under a hogging moment.
18
30
15
21
12
9
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
6
3
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 11(a). Ultimate strength behavior of the singlehull tanker hull under a hogging moment.
25
20
15
10
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
0
0.00
20
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
Curvature (1/km)
16
Figure 12(b). Ultimate strength behavior of the doublehull tanker hull under a sagging moment.
12
4.6
ANSYS
ALPS/HULL
CSR
Modified Paik-Mansour formula method
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 11(b). Ultimate strength behavior of the singlehull tanker hull under a sagging moment.
195
MARSTRUCT.indb 195
2/18/2011 5:45:54 PM
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
5.2
(Mu)Formula (GNm)
25
20
15
10
Hog / Sag
:
:
:
:
:
:
0.0125
0
0
hC
Method
hY
Original P-M
Table 7.
hC
hY
20240.7
20240.7
0.0
0.0
0.0125
10
15
20
25
30
(Mu)ANSYS (GNm)
Comparison between developed formula method and ANSYS nonlinear finite element method.
Hogging
Sagging
Formula
Ship
Dows test
hull
Container
ship
Bulk carrier
D/H
Suezmax
S/H VLCC
D/H VLCC
Mean
S-D
COV
ANSYS
Formula
ANSYS
Mp
Muh
Muh
Formula/ Mus
Mus
Formula/
(GNm) (GNm) Muh/Mp (GNm) Muh/Mp ANSYS (GNm) Mus/Mp (GNm) Mus/Mp ANSYS
0.013
0.010
0.772
0.011
0.840
0.920
0.009
0.697
0.011
0.793
0.879
9.220
6.400
0.694
6.969
0.756
0.918
7.077
0.768
6.951
0.754
1.018
20.394
17.677
16.576
13.965
0.813
0.790
17.500
14.066
0.858
0.796
0.947
0.993
14.798
12.213
0.726
0.691
15.800
11.151
0.775
0.631
0.937
1.095
22.578
32.667
18.701
25.667
0.828
0.786
17.355
27.335
0.769
0.837
1.078
0.939
17.825
22.390
0.789
0.685
16.179
22.495
0.717
0.689
1.102
0.995
0.966
0.061
0.063
1.004
0.088
0.087
Note: MP = fully plastic bending capacity, Muh = ultimate hogging moment, Mus = ultimate sagging moment,
S-D = standard deviation, COV = coefficient of variation.
196
MARSTRUCT.indb 196
2/18/2011 5:45:56 PM
Table 8. Comparison between developed formula method and ALPS/HULL intelligent super-size finite element
method.
Hogging
Sagging
Formula
ALPS
Formula
Muh
Muh
Formula/ Mus
Mp
(GNm) (GNm) Muh/Mp (GNm) Muh/Mp ALPS
(GNm)
Ship
Dows test
hull
Container
ship
Bulk carrier
D/H
Suezmax
S/H VLCC
D/H VLCC
ALPS
Mus
Formula/
Mus/Mp (GNm) Mus/Mp ALPS
0.013
0.010
0.772
0.011
0.799
0.966
0.009
0.697
0.010
0.743
0.939
9.220
6.400
0.694
6.916
0.750
0.925
7.077
0.768
6.635
0.720
1.067
20.394
17.677
16.576
13.965
0.813
0.790
16.602
13.308
0.814
0.753
0.998
1.049
14.798
12.213
0.726
0.691
15.380
11.097
0.754
0.628
0.962
1.101
22.578
32.667
18.701
25.667
0.828
0.786
17.335
25.600
0.768
0.784
1.079
1.003
17.825
22.390
0.789
0.685
17.263
22.000
0.765
0.673
1.033
1.018
Mean
S-D
COV
1.003
0.055
0.055
1.020
0.061
0.060
Note: Mp = fully plastic bending capacity, Muh = ultimate hogging moment, Mus = ultimate sagging moment,
S-D = standard deviation, COV = coefficient of variation.
5.5
30
Table 11 presents the mean values and coefficients of variation for the CSR idealized structural
unit method versus the ANSYS nonlinear finite
element method for all six types of ship hull.
Figure 17 shows the trend of the deviation in ultimate
hull strength between these two methods.
(Mu)Formula (GNm)
25
20
15
10
5.6
Hog / Sag
: Dows frigate test hull
: Container ship
: Bulk carrier
: D/H Suezmax
: S/H VLCC
: D/H VLCC
0.0125
0
0
0.0125
10
15
20
25
30
(Mu)ALPS/HULL (GNm)
Table 12 presents the mean values and coefficients of variation for the CSR idealized structural
unit method versus the ALPS/HULL intelligent
super-size finite element method for all six types of
ship hull. Figure 18 shows the trend of the deviation in ultimate hull strength between these two
methods.
5.7
5.4
Table 13 summarizes the results of the comparison between the mean values and coefficients of
variation obtained with the various methods. It is
evident that the formula method developed herein
is in very good agreement with more refined methods such as the ANSYS nonlinear finite element
method and ALPS/HULL intelligent super-size
finite element method. It tends that the CSR idealized structural method overestimates the ultimate
hull strength.
197
MARSTRUCT.indb 197
2/18/2011 5:45:57 PM
Table 9.
Comparison between developed formula method and CSR idealized structural unit method.
Hogging
Sagging
Formula
CSR
Formula
MP
Mus
Mus
(GNm) (GNm) Muh/Mp (GNm) Muh/Mp
Ship
Dows test
hull
Container
ship
Bulk carrier
D/H
Suezmax
S/H VLCC
D/H VLCC
CSR
Formula/ Mus
Mus
Formula/
CSR
(GNm) Muh/Mp (GNm) Muh/Mp CSR
0.013
0.010
0.772
0.012
0.888
0.870
0.009
0.697
0.010
0.764
0.912
9.220
6.400
0.694
8.040
0.872
0.796
7.077
0.768
7.843
0.851
0.902
20.394
17.677
16.576
13.965
0.813
0.790
17.941
15.714
0.880
0.889
0.924
0.889
14.798
12.213
0.726
0.691
14.475
12.420
0.710
0.703
1.022
0.983
22.578
32.667
18.701
25.667
0.828
0.786
19.889
28.352
0.881
0.868
0.940
0.905
17.825
22.390
0.789
0.685
17.868
24.798
0.791
0.759
0.998
0.903
Mean
S-D
COV
0.887
0.051
0.058
0.953
0.054
0.056
Note: Mp = fully plastic bending capacity, Muh = ultimate hogging moment, Mus = ultimate sagging moment,
S-D = standard deviation, COV = coefficient of variation.
30
(Mu)Formula (GNm)
25
20
15
10
Hog / Sag
: Dows frigate test hull
: Container ship
: Bulk carrier
: D/H Suezmax
: S/H VLCC
: D/H VLCC
0.0125
0
0
0.0125
10
15
20
25
30
(Mu)CSR (GNm)
CONCLUDING REMARKS
flange, i.e., the deck panel in the hogging condition and the outer bottom panel in the sagging
condition. Depending on the geometrical properties
of the ships hull cross-section and/or the direction
of the vertical bending moment, the original PaikMansour method is unable to accommodate the
pure vertical bending moment condition in which
the total axial forces over the hull cross-section
must be zero.
The modified Paik-Mansour method, in contrast, does permit the expansion of the yielded
part, thereby allowing the pure vertical bending
moment condition to be achieved regardless of the
geometrical properties of the hull cross-sections or
the vertical bending loading direction.
This benchmark study of the modified PaikMansour method was undertaken with more
refined methods, such as the ANSYS nonlinear
finite element method, ALPS/HULL intelligent
super-size finite element method, and CSR idealized structural unit method, by identifying the
mean values and coefficients of variation for the
modified method.
The comparisons showed that the modified
Paik-Mansour formula method is in very good
agreement with both the ANSYS nonlinear
finite element method and ALPS/HULL intelligent super-size finite element method, and will
prove very useful as a simple formula for ultimate
strength predictions of ship hulls.
The modified Paik-Mansour method presented
in this paper is a logical step in the development of
a formula-based method for predicting the longitudinal bending moment which will break the back
198
MARSTRUCT.indb 198
2/18/2011 5:45:58 PM
Table 10. Comparison between ALPS/HULL intelligent super-size finite element method and ANSYS nonlinear
finite element method.
Hogging
Sagging
ANSYS
ALPS
ANSYS
Mp
Muh
Muh
(GNm) (GNm) Muh/Mp (GNm) Muh/Mp
Ship
Dows test
hull
Container
ship
Bulk carrier
D/H
Suezmax
S/H VLCC
D/H VLCC
ALPS
ALPS/ Mus
Mus
ALPS/
ANSYS (GNm) Mus/Mp (GNm) Mus/Mp ANSYS
0.013
0.011
0.840
0.011
0.799
0.952
0.011
0.793
0.010
0.743
0.936
9.220
6.969
0.756
6.916
0.750
0.992
6.951
0.754
6.635
0.720
0.955
20.394
17.677
17.500
14.066
0.858
0.796
16.602
13.308
0.814
0.753
0.949
0.946
15.800
11.151
0.775
0.631
15.380
11.097
0.754
0.628
0.973
0.995
22.578
32.667
17.355
27.335
0.769
0.837
17.335
25.600
0.768
0.784
0.999
0.937
16.179
22.495
0.717
0.689
17.263
22.000
0.765
0.673
1.067
0.978
Mean
S-D
COV
0.962
0.026
0.027
0.984
0.045
0.046
Note: Mp = fully plastic bending capacity, Muh = ultimate hogging moment, Mus = ultimate sagging moment,
S-D = standard deviation, COV = coefficient of variation.
30
(Mu)ALPS/HULL (GNm)
25
20
15
10
Hog / Sag
: Dows frigate test hull
: Container ship
: Bulk carrier
: D/H Suezmax
: S/H VLCC
: D/H VLCC
0.0125
0
0
0.0125
10
15
20
25
30
(Mu)ANSYS (GNm)
199
MARSTRUCT.indb 199
2/18/2011 5:45:58 PM
Table 11.
Comparison between CSR idealized structural unit method and ANSYS nonlinear finite element method.
Hogging
Sagging
ANSYS
Muh
Mp
(GNm) (GNm)
Ship
Dows test
hull
Container
ship
Bulk carrier
D/H
Suezmax
S/H VLCC
D/H VLCC
CSR
ANSYS
CSR
Muh
Muh/Mp (GNm) Muh/Mp
CSR/
Mus
Mus
CSR/
ANSYS (GNm) Mus/Mp (GNm) Mus/Mp ANSYS
0.013
0.011
0.840
0.012
0.888
1.058
0.011
0.793
0.010
0.764
0.963
9.220
6.969
0.756
8.040
0.872
1.154
6.951
0.754
7.843
0.851
1.128
20.394
17.677
17.500
14.066
0.858
0.796
17.941
15.714
0.880
0.889
1.025
1.117
15.800
11.151
0.775
0.631
14.475
12.420
0.710
0.703
0.916
1.114
22.578
32.667
17.355
27.335
0.769
0.837
19.889
28.352
0.881
0.868
1.146
1.037
16.179
22.495
0.717
0.689
17.868
24.798
0.791
0.759
1.104
1.102
Mean
S-D
COV
1.090
0.056
0.052
1.055
0.091
0.086
Note: Mp = fully plastic bending capacity, Muh = ultimate hogging moment, Mus = ultimate sagging moment,
S-D = standard deviation, COV = coefficient of variation.
30
30
25
(Mu)CSR (GNm)
(Mu)CSR (GNm)
25
20
15
20
15
10
10
Hog / Sag
: Dows frigate test hull
: Container ship
: Bulk carrier
: D/H Suezmax
: S/H VLCC
: D/H VLCC
Hog / Sag
:
:
:
:
:
:
0.0125
0.0125
0.0125
10
15
20
25
30
0.0125
10
15
20
25
30
(Mu)ALPS/HULL (GNm)
(Mu)ANSYS (GNm)
In the Applied Examples summarised in Section 4, it is evident that in certain cases this yielding
of the material in the webs of ship hull girders
might indeed extend for significant distances vertically from the yielding flange. The amount
of this contribution to the ultimate longitudinal
strength of a ship from the tensioned material in
the cross-section will, of course, depend on the
proportion and disposition of vertical material
in the hull cross-section.
200
MARSTRUCT.indb 200
2/18/2011 5:45:59 PM
Table 12. Comparison between CSR idealized structural unit method and ALPS/HULL intelligent super-size finite
element method.
Hogging
Sagging
ALPS
Ship
Dows test
hull
Container
ship
Bulk carrier
D/H
Suezmax
S/H VLCC
D/H VLCC
Mp
(GNm)
Muh
(GNm)
0.013
CSR
ALPS
CSR
Muh/Mp
Muh
(GNm) Muh/Mp
CSR/ Mus
Mus
CSR/
ALPS (GNm) Mus/Mp (GNm) Mus/Mp ALPS
0.011
0.799
0.012
0.888
1.111
0.010
0.743
0.010
0.764
1.029
9.220
6.916
0.750
8.040
0.872
1.163
6.635
0.720
7.843
0.851
1.182
20.394
17.677
16.602
13.308
0.814
0.753
17.941
15.714
0.880
0.889
1.081
1.181
15.380
11.097
0.754
0.628
14.475
12.420
0.710
0.703
0.941
1.119
22.578
32.667
17.335
25.600
0.768
0.784
19.889
28.352
0.881
0.868
1.147
1.108
17.263
22.000
0.765
0.673
17.868
24.798
0.791
0.759
1.035
1.127
Mean
S-D
COV
1.132
0.038
0.034
1.072
0.087
0.081
Note: Mp = fully plastic bending capacity, Muh = ultimate hogging moment, Mus = ultimate sagging moment, S-D = standard deviation, COV = coefficient of variation.
Table 13.
CSR/ ALPS
Ship
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Dows test
hull
Container
ship
Bulk carrier
D/H
Suezmax
S/H VLCC
D/H VLCC
0.920
0.879
0.966
0.939
0.870
0.912
0.952
0.936
1.058
0.963
1.111
1.029
0.918
1.018
0.925
1.067
0.796
0.902
0.992
0.955
1.154
1.128
1.163
1.182
0.947
0.993
0.937
1.095
0.998
1.049
0.962
1.101
0.924
0.889
1.022
0.983
0.949
0.946
0.973
0.995
1.025
1.117
0.916
1.114
1.081
1.181
0.941
1.119
1.078
0.939
1.102
0.995
1.079
1.003
1.033
1.018
0.940
0.905
0.998
0.903
0.999
0.937
1.067
0.978
1.146
1.037
1.104
1.102
1.147
1.108
1.035
1.127
Mean
S-D
COV
0.966
0.061
0.063
1.004
0.088
0.087
1.003
0.055
0.055
1.020
0.061
0.060
0.887
0.051
0.058
0.953
0.054
0.056
0.962
0.026
0.027
0.984
0.045
0.046
1.090
0.056
0.052
1.055
0.091
0.086
1.132
0.038
0.034
1.072
0.087
0.081
201
MARSTRUCT.indb 201
2/18/2011 5:46:00 PM
202
MARSTRUCT.indb 202
2/18/2011 5:46:00 PM
ABSTRACT: During the past decades a number of studies have been conducted in terms of evaluation
of the nonlinear buckling characteristics of curved plates. However any explicit expression or formula
for calculating buckling/ultimate strength of curved plates is not available yet. Therefore it is imperative to develop practical formulas for estimating buckling/ultimate strength of curved plates. The aim
of this study is to analyze nonlinear buckling characteristics of curved plates. A series of FEM analyses
are performed on curved plates varying several parameters such as flank angle (curvature), plate thickness, loading conditions, etc. According to the various conditions applied to the curved plates, buckling
strength and ultimate strength are calculated. And also the stress-strain curve is drawn for each set of
applied conditions from the numerical calculations. It is shown that buckling/ultimate strength formula
developed for a curved plate can give a reasonable estimate of strength for curved plate, when the newly
defined curvature correction parameter considering the increase of the buckling strength due to curvature
is applied. It is our hope that the obtained buckling/ultimate strength characteristics would be used as
practical design guide for estimating the nonlinear buckling strength of curved plates in the field of ships
and offshore structures.
1
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
203
MARSTRUCT.indb 203
2/18/2011 5:46:00 PM
Initial imperfections
0.5a
0.5a
R
b
TRANS.frame
Figure 1.
204
MARSTRUCT.indb 204
2/18/2011 5:46:00 PM
Table 1.
plate.
Material
206 GPa
0.3
315 MPa
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
AND RESULTS
(a) Longi.compression
(b) Trans.compression
Figure 3.
the outward deflection develops from the beginning of compressive loading because of Poissons
effect. It is noticed that the curved plates can have
a primary buckling mode that is different from the
buckling mode of flat plate and that the buckling
strength is generally larger than that of the flat
plate.
Figure 3 shows the corresponding elastic buckling modes varying flank angles. The solid red line
represents compressive load, and solid blue line is
tension. When the flank angle is less than or equal
to 2 degrees, the buckling takes place with three
longitudinal half-waves as in the case of a rectangular flat plate having the same aspect ratio. With
further increase in the flank angles, the buckling
mode changes in one longitudinal half wave with
additional swelled component of deflection near
the transverse edges. In the case of curved plates,
3.3
Benchmark study
205
MARSTRUCT.indb 205
2/18/2011 5:46:01 PM
1
ABS
BV
DNV
GL
NK
RINA
KR
0.6
0.8
xu/y
0.8
Flat plate
Curved plate
5 degrees
Curved plate
45 degrees
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
A : Secondary Buckling
B : After 2nd Buckling
C : Ultimate Strength
FEA(ABAQUS, cr /y)
xu / y
Non-symm.onehalf-wave mode
Non-symm.threehalf-waves mode
Non-symm.fivehalf-waves mode
Figure 6. Change of buckling mode of the curved plate
with a flank angle of 5 degrees.
206
MARSTRUCT.indb 206
2/18/2011 5:46:04 PM
1
Flat plate
Curved plate
5 degrees
Curved plate
45degrees
0.8
0.6
0.6
XU/Y
yu/y
0.8
0.4
0.4
Longitudinal
Compression
0.2
5 Deg.
10 Deg.
20 Deg.
30 Deg.
0.2
0
0
yu /y
A series of FEM analysis are performed by changing the slenderness ratio of the curved plate from
1.18 to 4.14. This slenderness ratio is obtained by
changing the thickness of the plate between 10 mm
and 35 mm whereas keeping the breadth and the
length of the plate as 1,000 mm and 3,700 mm,
respectively. The flank angle is taken as 5, 10, 20 and
30 degrees. The calculated ultimate strength is plotted against slenderness ratio as shown in Figure 8.
It is seen that ultimate strength of curved plate
with flank angle of 5 degrees gives too conservative estimation. This is because of the occurrence
of the secondary buckling. Figure 9 shows relationship between average stress and slenderness
ratio varying curvature under trans.compression.
The differences of ultimate strength according to
change in the thickness is small, over 20 degrees of
flank angle.
Figure 10 shows the Ultimate strength interaction relationship of a curved plate under combined biaxial compressive loads as a function of
5 Deg.
10 Deg.
20 Deg.
30 Deg.
YU/Y
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.8
b = 1000 mm, a/b = 3.7, 0 = 0.052t
Frank Angle = 10 deg.
YU/Y
Transverse
Compression
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
XU/Y
Figure 10. Ultimate strength interaction relationship of
a curved plate under combined biaxial compressive loads
as a function of the plate thickness.
207
MARSTRUCT.indb 207
2/18/2011 5:46:06 PM
4.1
y
0.8
DEVELOPMENT OF FORMULATION
Buckling strength formulation
Correlation : 0.979
Standard Deviation : 0.05
0.6
0.4
0.2
x
0.8
Correlation : 0.991
Standard Deviation : 0.163
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
LC
2E t
CB
12(1 v 2 ) b
1 v2
CR
Y / E
=k
CB
R
CR = 0 0323
t
0
1.0
CJ =
1
.1
1
1.00
CJ =
88
0.88
(1)
(2)
0.751
CJ
(3)
< 2.0
= 10 ~ 30
2.0
(4)
< 2.0
= 0 10
2.0
(5)
0.6
0.4
CB
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2E t
CB
12(1 v 2 ) b
1 v2
CR
Y / E
=k
R
CR = 0.003
t
0
0
TC
(6)
(7)
1.514
(8)
208
MARSTRUCT.indb 208
2/18/2011 5:46:08 PM
U LC
Y
CF =
0.8
Correlation : 0.999
Standard Deviation : 0.08
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
R
R
Cb = 4.138 + 1.934 1.023
t
t
(12)
R
R
Cc = 1.001 0.181 + 1.382
t
t
(13)
2.25 1.25
=
2 CF
(9)
Ca Cb
+
+ Cc
2
R
R
Ca = 2.596 1.712 + 0.415
t
t
2
(10)
R
R
Cb = 2.095 + 0.929 0.136
t
t
(11)
R
R
Cc = 1.009 0.724 + 0.322
t
t
R
R
Ca = 3.434 1.989 + 0.646
t
t
(14)
(15)
(16)
Ultimate strength of curved plate under combined longitudinal compressive load and lateral
pressure
x
Empirical Formula (xcr / y )
0.8
U LCLP
Correlation : 0.998
Standard Deviation : 0.133
0.6
CF =
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.25 1.25
=
2 CF
CP
Ca Cb
+
+ Cc
2
Range ( ) = 10 ~ 30
2
b
b
Ca = 3.434 1.989 + 0.646
R
R
2
b
b
C = 4.138
1 + 1.934
934 1.023
b
R
R
b
b
001 0.181 + 1.382
Cc = 1.001
R
R
(17)
(18)
(19)
209
MARSTRUCT.indb 209
2/18/2011 5:46:12 PM
Range ( ) 10
Ca = 0.068
C = 0.181
b
Cc = 0.883
(20)
CP = 0.210 + 1.263
(21)
Formula (XU/Y)
0.8
U TCLP
Y
CF =
2.25 1.25
=
2 CF
(25)
Formula (XU/Y)
Model1
LC+LP
FEM-Formula
Linear
0.4
0.2
Correlation : 0.995
Standard Deviation : 0.271
0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
FEA( XU/Y)
0.4
0.2
The coefficient CP assumed as function of slenderness ratio, and the other factors (Ca, Cb and Cc)
represents effect of curvature with the change in
the thickness of plate. The accuracy of the present
0.2
0.4
Correlation : 0.993
Standard Deviation : 0.105
(23)
(24)
0.6
0.2
b
b
Ca = 2.596 1.712 + 0.415
R
R
2
b
b
C = 2.096
+ 0.929
9 0.136
b
R
R
b
b
009 0.724 + 0.322
Cc = 1.009
R
R
0.8
(22)
CP
Ca Cb
+
+ Cc
2
Model1
TC+LP
FEM-Formula
Linear
FEA( XU/Y)
Figure 15. Correlation of the empirical formula with
ultimate strength obtained by FEM of curved plate
under longitudinal compression and lateral pressure.
210
MARSTRUCT.indb 210
2/18/2011 5:46:18 PM
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
REFERENCES
[1] Joo-Shin, Park., Masahiko, Fujikubo., Iijima,
Kazuhiro & Tetsuya Yao, Prediction of the secondary buckling strength and ultimate strength of cylindrically curved plate under axial compression, The
International Journal Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers (IJSOPE-ASME), 2009. 07.
[2] Timoshenko, S.P. & Gere, J.M. Theory of elastic stability, McGraw-Hill Book, New York. (1961).
[3] Timoshenko, S.P. & Woinosky-Krieger, S. Theory
of plates and shells McGraw-Hill Book, New York,
1959.
[4] Paik, J.-K. & Thayamballi, A.K. Ultimate limit state
design of steel-plated structures, John Wiley & Sons,
U.K., 2003.
[5] MSC. Nastran implicit nonlinear (SOL 600) Users
Guide, Solution methods and strategies in nonlinear
analysis, (2005).
[6] Joo-Shin, Park., Iijima, Kazuhiro & Tetsuya Yao,
Characteristics of Buckling and Ultimate Strength
and Collapse Behaviour of Cylindrically Curved Plates
subjected to Axial Compression, Journal of Advanced
Material Research, 2008. 01. 30. pp. 11951200.
[7] Frankland, J.M. The strength of ship plating under
edge compression, US EMB Report 469, May, 1940.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research study reported in this paper was
undertaken with Samsung Heavy Industry and
seven kinds of classification of societies (Lloyds
Register, ABS, Class NK, Korean Register, Bureau
Veritas, Germanischer Lloyds and RINA). The
authors are glad to acknowledge their continuous
technical and other supports.
211
MARSTRUCT.indb 211
2/18/2011 5:46:21 PM
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of non-linear randomly distributed
nonuniform corrosion on the ultimate strength of unstiffened rectangular plate subjected to axial
compressive loading. A series of 570 plate surface geometries are generated by Monte Carlo simulation
for different degree of corrosion, location and ages and nonlinear finite element analyses are carried out,
using a commercial finite element code. Based on a regression analysis, empirical formulae to predict
strength reduction because of corrosion have been derived demonstrating a good accuracy.
1
INTRODUCTION
CORROSION MODEL
213
MARSTRUCT.indb 213
2/18/2011 5:46:21 PM
t c
t
, t c
t < c
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
t, years
Figure 1.
tanks.
1
0.9
(1)
Standard Deviation, mm
d
d (t ) =
0,
2.0
Corrosion depth, mm
0.8
0.7
a = 0.384
b= 0.710
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
12
16 20
24
28 32
36
t, years
Figure 2. Standard deviation of corrosion wastage of
deck plates of ballast tanks.
214
MARSTRUCT.indb 214
2/18/2011 5:46:21 PM
depth
(2)
Figure 4. Modelled plate surface with an average thickness of 9.6 mm at the 20th year.
Figure 3. Modelled plate surface with an average thickness of 9.8 mm at the 15th year.
Figure 5. Modelled plate surface with an average thickness of 9.2 mm at the 25th year.
215
MARSTRUCT.indb 215
2/18/2011 5:46:23 PM
Table 1.
y=0
y=L
x=0
x=b
x = b/2 and y = 0
Figure 6. Modelled plate surface with an average thickness of 8.9 mm at the 30th year.
Ux
Uy
Uz
rotx
F
F
F
F
C
C
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
C
Initial imperfections
x y
w0 sin sin
i
b L
h020
b
y
0 =
h E
0
Figure 7. Modelled plate surface with an average thickness of 8.4 mm at the 40th year.
Plate geometry
(3)
(4)
(5)
216
MARSTRUCT.indb 216
2/18/2011 5:46:26 PM
Figure 9.
0.7
FEM mesh with initial imperfection.
Average Stress Ratio, ASR
Figure 8.
Ry i
i =1
A
0
(6)
yield
l
0.4
0.3
0.2
(7)
Figure 10.
samples.
0.5
1
Strain/ Yield Strain
Deteriorated
plate
1.5
stress-strain
ratio
y p
0.5
0.1
ASR =
0.6
217
MARSTRUCT.indb 217
2/18/2011 5:46:28 PM
values of the 570 nonlinear finite element computations are collected. The results clearly reveal
that a nonlinear curve is the best fitted one to the
collected data. Following this tendency an exponential equation is used to define to the ultimate
strength ratio as:
u ,0
, t C
u (t ) y
n
=
t
y
u,0 exp t C ,
y
t ,U
(8)
t C
t C
(9)
C ,
E
exp
=
, C ,
y
y
,U
(10)
218
MARSTRUCT.indb 218
2/18/2011 5:46:30 PM
()
(11)
StDev u
a Ln () b C ,
y
For the studied plate, the parameters that
best fit Eqn. (10) are ,U = 1.11, C, = 2.9 and
n = 1.09 respectively. For the standard deviation,
the parameters a and b are 0.0976 and 0.1030
respectively. The R2 coefficient for the mean value
and standard deviation of ultimate strength ratio
as a function of plate slenderness are 0.9885 and
0.8542 respectively.
It is considered that the ultimate strength ratio
can be described as a log-normal distribution function, truncated at u y , f U y with
TR
a mean value and standard deviation varying as
a function of time or plate slenderness, as:
u ,0
f U 0< U
=
y
y
y
TR
where
U f
g =
y 0
u ,0
,
y
, 0 < U 1
y
y
U
,
>1
y
g U
y
f U d U
y y
(12)
(13)
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been made under the plurianual
funding of the Portuguese Foundation of Science
and Technology (Fundao para Cincia e Tecnologia) to the Centre for Marine Technology and
Engineering (CENTEC).
The work reported here is a contribution to
the activities of the MARSTRUCT VIRTUAL
INSTITUTE, (www.marstruct-vi.com) in particular its Technical Subcommittee 2.3 on Ultimate
Strength.
REFERENCES
219
MARSTRUCT.indb 219
2/18/2011 5:46:33 PM
220
MARSTRUCT.indb 220
2/18/2011 5:46:35 PM
ABSTRACT: Short stiffened panels are simulated and compared with test results under axial compression
until collapse to investigate the influences of the stiffeners geometry. The stiffened panels with different
combinations of mechanical material properties and geometric configurations are considered. Four type
stiffeners are made of mild or high tensile steel for bar stiffeners and mild steel for L and U stiffeners.
To produce adequate boundary conditions at the loaded edges in the experiments, three bays stiffened
panel are used in the test and in the FEM analysis. The influence of the stiffeners geometry on the ultimate strength of the stiffened panels under compression is analyzed.
1
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1 and Table 1 show the geometry of the different panels adopted in the experiment and in the
present study. The AB means different number
stiffener.
Four series of experiments and FEM analysis
were carried out using two different types of steel
as follows:
221
MARSTRUCT.indb 221
2/18/2011 5:46:35 PM
Figure 1.
panels.
Table 1.
FS3-A3
FS3-B3
BS3-A3
BS3-B3
LS3-A3
LS3-B3
US3-A3
US3-B3
Dim (mm)
300 900 4
600 900 4
300 900 4
600 900 4
300 900 4
600 900 4
300 900 4
600 900 4
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Stiffener
Dim (mm)
FS3-A3
FS3-B3
BS3-A3
BS3-B3
LS3-A3
LS3-B3
US3-A3
US3-B3
I 20 4
I 20 4
I 30 8
I 30 8
L38 19 4
L38 19 4
U (40 150 40) 2
U (40 150 40) 2
Y
690
690
343
343
296
296
200
200
222
MARSTRUCT.indb 222
2/18/2011 5:46:36 PM
4.2
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
223
MARSTRUCT.indb 223
2/18/2011 5:46:37 PM
4.3
b
x y
sin siin
200 a b
(1)
a
x
sin
1000 a
(2)
a
x
sin
1000 a
(3)
The strength of the panel was obtained by summing the reaction force on each node (Ri), on
the opposite boundary were the load is applied
and divided by the sectional area of the stiffened
panel (At):
N
Ri
R i =1
=
At
At
(4)
FS series results
224
MARSTRUCT.indb 224
2/18/2011 5:46:37 PM
350
500
TEST
FEM
FS3-B3
BS3-A3
TEST
FEM
300
400
Stress (Mpa)
Stress (Mpa)
250
200
150
100
300
200
100
50
0
0
10
3
dL/L(10 )
dL/L(10 )
350
500
FS3-A3
300
TEST
FEM
400
200
Stress (Mpa)
Stress (Mpa)
250
BS3-B3
150
100
50
300
200
100
0
0
10
12
dL/L(10 )
Figure 6.
FS3-A3.
10
3
dL/L(10 )
5.2
5.3
BS series results
LS series results
225
MARSTRUCT.indb 225
2/18/2011 5:46:39 PM
LS3-B3
TEST
FEM
500
Stress (Mpa)
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
3
dL/L(10 )
Figure 13. Average stress-shortening curve of experiment and FEM for LS3-B3.
LS3-A3
TEST
FEM
500
Stress (Mpa)
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
3
dL/L(10 )
Figure 12. Average stress-shortening curve of experiment and FEM for LS3-A3.
5.4
US series results
226
MARSTRUCT.indb 226
2/18/2011 5:46:40 PM
US3-B3
TEST
FEM
Stress (Mpa)
400
300
200
100
0
0
dL/L(10 )
Figure 16. Average stress-shortening curve of experiment and FEM for US3-B3.
400
US3-A3
Stress (Mpa)
300
200
100
0
0
10
CONCLUSIONS
dL/L(10 )
Figure 17.
US3-A3.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work contributes to the activities of
MARSTRUCT VIRTUAL INSTITUTE, (www.
marstruct-vi.com) in particular its Technical Subcommitteee 2.3 on Ultimate Strength and 3.3
Experiments on Ultimate Strength.
227
MARSTRUCT.indb 227
2/18/2011 5:46:43 PM
228
MARSTRUCT.indb 228
2/18/2011 5:46:45 PM
ABSTRACT: A numerical study is conducted to analyze the influences of the stiffeners geometry and
panel boundary conditions on the ultimate strength of stiffened panels under compression. The four types
of short stiffened panels analyzed are made of mild or high tensile steel and have bar, L and U stiffeners.
To understand the effect of finite element modeling on the ultimate strength of the stiffened panels, four
types of models with different geometry are investigated in the FE analysis. Moreover, different boundary
conditions for the same FE model are also investigated. From the results of the FE analysis, two of the
four models studied can produce adequate boundary conditions at the loaded edges. The stiffened panels
with different combinations of mechanical material properties and geometric configurations are considered. The initial geometric imperfection affects the collapse behaviour of stiffened panel and is analyzed
in FE simulation.
1
INTRODUCTION
229
MARSTRUCT.indb 229
2/18/2011 5:46:45 PM
Figure 3.
Table 1.
Geometry of 1 bay.
Geometry and material of stiffened panels.
Plate
Sample
Dim (mm)
FS3-I3
FS3-I21
FS3-I22
FS3-I1
BS3-I3
BS3-I21
BS3-I22
BS3-I1
LS3-I3
LS3-I21
LS3-I22
LS3-I1
US3-I3
US3-I21
US3-I22
US3-I1
(300 i) (400 3) 4
(300 i) (200 + 400 + 200) 4
(300 i) (400 + 400) 4
(300 i) 400 4
(300 i) (400 3) 4
(300 i) (200 + 400 + 200) 4
(300 i) (400 + 400) 4
(300 i) 400 4
(300 i) (400 3) 4
(300 i) (200 + 400 + 200) 4
(300 i) (400 + 400) 4
(300 i) 400 4
(300 i) (400 3) 4
(300 i) (200 + 400 + 200) 4
(300 i) (400 + 400) 4
(300 i) 400 4
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
Stiffener
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Geometry of 1 + 1 bays.
Dim (mm)
FS3-I3
FS3-I21
FS3-I22
FS3-I1
BS3-I3
BS3-I21
BS3-I22
BS3-I1
LS3-I3
LS3-I21
LS3-I22
LS3-I1
US3-I3
US3-I21
US3-I22
US3-I1
I 20 4
I 20 4
I 20 4
I 20 4
I 30 8
I 30 8
I 30 8
I 30 8
L38 19 4
L38 19 4
L38 19 4
L38 19 4
U (40 150 40) 2
U (40 150 40) 2
U (40 150 40) 2
U (40 150 40) 2
690
690
690
690
343
343
343
343
296
296
296
296
200
200
200
200
230
MARSTRUCT.indb 230
2/18/2011 5:46:45 PM
ELEMENTS
ELEMENTS
FEB 4 2010
21:39:54
3.1
Y
Z
BS2-A
FEB 4 2010
21:41:12
BS2-B
ELEMENTS
ELEMENTS
FEB 4 2010
21:42:56
FEB 4 2010
21:44:18
Y
Z
LS2-B
LS2-A
ELEMENTS
FEB 4 2010
21:44:40
Y
Z
ELEMENTS
US2-A
FEB 4 2010
21:45:06
US2-A
Figure 4.
3 bays
2 bays
2 bays
(1 + 1)
1bay
Boundary condition
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
Note: Different model and boundary condition correspond to different location of stiffener.
231
MARSTRUCT.indb 231
2/18/2011 5:46:46 PM
3.3
It has generally been found that initial imperfections tend to decrease the rigidity and ultimate
strength of plates. These initial imperfections affect
significantly the ultimate strength of stiffened
panel and should be accounted for. The imperfections are caused during a complex fabrication
process and are subject to significant uncertainty
related to the magnitude and spatial variation. The
most accurate method is to use real measured data.
But its not always available.
Kmiecik (1971) considered the initial deflection
as the superimposition of the Fourier components
for the first time. The behavior of plates subjected
to buckling loads depends to a considerable degree
on the shape of their initial deflection (Kmiecik
1995). So the equivalent initial imperfection is
used. In most of the initial theoretical studies initial deflection assumed to have the same shape as
the buckling mode.
The following three types of initial deflection
are accounted for (Paik 2009):
Hungry horse mode initial deflection of local
plate panels
The adopted range of values for the plate outof-plane and stiffener lateral/flexural imperfection
magnitudes correspond to recommended values.
A statistical analysis of the initial distortions of the
ship plates shows that the majority of the plates,
(around 90%), particularity square plates, have
wopl =
w0c =
b
x y
sin siin
200 a b
a
x
sin
1000 a
(1)
(2)
a
x
sin
1000 a
(3)
Ri
(4)
i =1
=
Figure 5.
The FE model.
R
At
(5)
232
MARSTRUCT.indb 232
2/18/2011 5:46:47 PM
FS3
BS3
LS3
US3
500
450
Stress (MPa)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Width (mm)
Figure 6.
Figure 8.
for C1.
233
MARSTRUCT.indb 233
2/18/2011 5:46:49 PM
FS3
BS3
LS3
US3
500
500
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
450
400
350
450
400
350
300
250
100
FS3
BS3
LS3
US3
550
200
300
400
500
600
700
300
100
800
200
300
Width (mm)
Figure 9.
Figure 11.
2.5
500
600
700
800
500
FS3
BS3
LS3
US3
450
Stress (MPa)
C2/C1
2.0
400
Width (mm)
1.5
400
350
1.0
0.5
100
300
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
300
400
500
600
700
800
Width (mm)
Width (mm)
Figure 10.
200
800
Figure 12.
C1
C2
C3
C4
FS3-A
FS3-B
FS3-C
FS3-D
FS3-E
BS3-A
BS3-B
BS3-C
BS3-D
BS3-E
LS3-A
LS3-B
LS3-C
LS3-D
LS3-E
US3-A
US3-B
US3-C
US3-D
US3-E
308
303
277
264
220
399
391
348
366
358
460
486
479
439
422
356
366
325
303
197
302
322
319
334
340
404
414
412
413
447
441
481
486
487
489
364
415
412
412
410
326
355
356
356
356
450
448
448
448
451
495
492
492
492
486
416
415
414
416
411
325
327
332
332
332
441
443
442
442
442
487
488
490
490
490
415
414
416
414
413
234
MARSTRUCT.indb 234
2/18/2011 5:46:50 PM
1
NODAL SOLUTION
Y
APR 8 2010
23:59:36
MX
STEP=1
SUB =11
TIME=.411938
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.005734
SMN =.290E+07
SMX =.690E+09
MN
.290E+07
.156E+09
.792E+08
.308E+09
.232E+09
.461E+09
.385E+09
.614E+09
.537E+09
.690E+09
BS3-C3
Figure 15. Von Mises stress distributions of the stiffened panel at the ultimate limit state for 3bay-C2.
1
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =10
TIME=.447899
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.005094
SMN =.652E+07
SMX =.690E+09
APR 23 2010
22:04:13
Y
MX
MN
3Bay-C1
3Bay-C2
3Bay-C3
3Bay-C4
2Bay1-C5
2Bay1-C6
2Bay2-C7
2Bay2-C8
1Bay-C9
600
550
Stress (MPa)
500
450
.652E+07
.158E+09
.825E+08
.310E+09
.234E+09
.462E+09
.386E+09
.614E+09
.538E+09
.690E+09
BS3-B3
400
Figure 16. Von Mises stress distributions of the stiffened panel at the ultimate limit state for 3bay-C3.
350
300
FS3-A
BS3-A
LS3-A
US3-A
1
NODAL SOLUTION
Stiffener type
STEP=1
SUB =10
TIME=.442745
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.004615
SMN =.566E+07
SMX =.690E+09
APR 30 2010
18:18:23
Y
Z
1
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =8
TIME=.390886
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.008786
SMN =.943E+07
SMX =.690E+09
APR
MX
5 2010
17:43:55
MN
MX
.566E+07
MN
.158E+09
.817E+08
.310E+09
.234E+09
.462E+09
.386E+09
.614E+09
.538E+09
.690E+09
BS3-B3
.161E+09
.851E+08
.312E+09
.236E+09
.463E+09
.388E+09
.614E+09
.539E+09
.690E+09
BS3-B3
235
MARSTRUCT.indb 235
2/18/2011 5:46:52 PM
NODAL SOLUTION
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =11
TIME=.512624
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.004137
SMN =.285E+07
SMX =.690E+09
APR 28 2010
16:57:16
APR 29 2010
16:41:52
STEP=1
SUB =9
TIME=.46757
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.003913
SMN =.150E+07
SMX =.690E+09
Y
X
MX
Y
Z
MN
MN
MX
.285E+07
.156E+09
.792E+08
.308E+09
.232E+09
.461E+09
.385E+09
.614E+09
.537E+09
.690E+09
BS3-B2
.150E+07
.154E+09
.780E+08
.307E+09
.231E+09
.460E+09
.384E+09
.613E+09
.537E+09
.690E+09
BS3-B2
1
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =10
TIME=.510623
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.004217
SMN =675114
SMX =.690E+09
APR 27 2010
22:02:45
1
Z
NODAL SOLUTION
MX
STEP=1
SUB =10
TIME=.519808
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.004657
SMN =.107E+09
SMX =.690E+09
APR 30 2010
22:15:25
Y
Z
MN
MN
MX
675114
.154E+09
.773E+08
.307E+09
.230E+09
.460E+09
.384E+09
.613E+09
.537E+09
.690E+09
BS3-B2
.107E+09
.237E+09
.172E+09
.366E+09
.302E+09
.496E+09
.431E+09
.625E+09
.560E+09
.690E+09
BS3-B1
1
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =11
TIME=.469795
SEQV
(AVG)
DMX =.004732
SMN =.601E+07
SMX =.690E+09
APR 29 2010
00:55:34
Y
Z
MN
MX
5
.601E+07
.158E+09
.820E+08
.310E+09
.234E+09
.462E+09
.386E+09
CONCLUSIONS
.614E+09
.538E+09
.690E+09
BS3-B2
236
MARSTRUCT.indb 236
2/18/2011 5:46:54 PM
REFERENCES
ABS, 2006. Rules for building and classing, steel vessels.
Fujikubo, M. 2005. Estimation of ultimate strength of
continuous stiffened panel under combined transverse
thrust and lateral pressure Part 2: Continuous stiffened panel, Marine Structures 18, 411427.
Gordo, J.M. & Guedes Soares, C. 2007. Experimental
evaluation of the behavior of a mild steel box girder
under bending moment. In: Guedes Soares, C. &
Das, P.K. (Eds). Advancements in Marine Structures.
Taylor and Francis; pp. 37783.
237
MARSTRUCT.indb 237
2/18/2011 5:46:56 PM
ABSTRACT: A new approach to predicting the dynamic collapse behavior of a ships hull girder in
waves is proposed. The work is to evaluate the consequence of the collapse, which is important in evaluating the associated risk of the hull girder collapse. The progressive collapse analysis of the ships hull could
be followed by a hydro-elastoplastic response analysis. In this research, the whole ship hull is modeled as a
two-rigid-bodies system connected by a rotational spring, which represents the nonlinear relation between
the displacement and the moment. Nonlinear strip theory is used to solve the force equilibrium of the two
bodies. The approach is validated against tank tests, which show that the collapse increases rapidly after
the ultimate strength is reached, and the plastic deformation grows until unloading starts and the bending
rigidity recovers. It is concluded that the fundamental dynamic collapse behavior can be followed by the
numerical method.
1
INTRODUCTION
239
MARSTRUCT.indb 239
2/18/2011 5:46:57 PM
HYDRO-ELASTOPLASTICITY THEORY
2.1
Theoretical model
M
Mu
Unloading path
Aft part
M 2w
Fore part
2
L/2
Figure 2.
F2w
M 1w
F1w
L/2
240
MARSTRUCT.indb 240
2/18/2011 5:46:57 PM
1
2
1
2
m11
+ m11
m12
m12
u
2
1
1
m22
0 1
m21
2
2
0 m22
m21
2
1
2
1
2
C11
+ C111
C12
C112
u
2
1
1
+ C21
C222
0 1
2
2
0 C222
C21
2
1
2
1
2
K11 + K11
u
K12
K12
2
1
1
+ K 21
K 22 + kR
kR 1
2
kR
K 2 kR 2
K 21
(1)
1 ]{ 1} + [C1 ]{ 1} + [
{ 2} + [
2 ]{ 2 } + [C2 ]{
u1
1 ]{ 1} = { 1}
2 ]{ 2 } = { 2 }
(2)
(3)
1
2
1
2
F1w + F2w m11 + m11 m12 m12 u2
1
1
= M1w m21
m22
0 1
M
2
0 m222 2
2w
m21
1
2
1
2
C11
+ C111
C12
C112
u
2
1
1
C221
C222 0 1
2
2
0 C222
C21
2
1
2
1
2
K11 K111 K12
K112 u2
1
1
1
K 21
K 222
0 1
2
2
0 K 222
K 21
2
(5)
(4)
u2
where,
{U1}
{}
u1
m1
[M1 ] = 111
m21
C111
[C1 ] = 1
C21
K1
[K1 ] = 111
K 21
F
{F1 } = 1w
M1w
{U 2 } =
{}
u2
m12
1
m22
1
C12
1
C 22
1
K112
1
K 22
f
1
m2 m2
[M 2 ] = 112 122
m21 m22
C112 C122
[C2 ] = 2 2
C21 C22
K112 K1122
[K 2 ] = 2
2
K 21 K 22
f
F
{F2 } = 2 w
M 2 w M
EXPERIMENT
241
MARSTRUCT.indb 241
2/18/2011 5:46:58 PM
Figure 3.
Strength model.
3.2
Figure 4.
(6)
Tank test
( , t )
i =1
*
i
i ccos(
os(
i )
+ ui* Si i i (k
(k
it )
= Si i U i
( kxi
it
i )
i =1
(7)
where
U i 2 ui*2 + ui*2 ; i arctan((ui* ui* ); S() = wave
spectrum; ui and are ui* uncorrelated, standard
normal distributed variables. Following Der
Kiureghian (2000), when we define a limit state
function g as,
g (u1 u1,uu2 u2 ,, un , un )
0 x0 ,tt0 u1, u1 u2 ,uu2 ,, un , un
(8)
242
MARSTRUCT.indb 242
2/18/2011 5:47:00 PM
Table 1.
Properties
Symbol
Values
Hs
Ts
12 m
13.9 s
180
(0.12 m)
(1.39 s)
180
Figure 7.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Measurement system.
243
MARSTRUCT.indb 243
2/18/2011 5:47:03 PM
COMPARISON
C
D
4.1
4.2
244
MARSTRUCT.indb 244
2/18/2011 5:47:06 PM
DISCUSSIONS
245
MARSTRUCT.indb 245
2/18/2011 5:47:08 PM
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was partially supported by the
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture,
Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientist (B), (19760578),
2009.
REFERENCES
Caldwell, J.B. 1965. Ultimate longitudinal strength.
Trans. Royal Inst. Nav. Arch (107):411430.
Der Kiureghian, A. 2000. The Geometry of Random
Vibrations by FORM and SORM, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 15(1):8190.
Fujino, M., Yoon, B.S., Kawada, J. & Yoshino, I.
1984. A study on wave loads acting on a ship in
large amplitude waves. J. Soc. Nav. Arch. Japan Vol.
156:144152.
Jensen, J.J. & Capuul, J. 2006. Extreme response
predictions for jack-up units in second order stochastic
wave by FORM, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics
21:330337.
Jensen, J.J. & Pedersen, P.T. 1978. Wave-induced Bending
Moments in Shipsa quadratic theory, Trans. Royal
Inst. Nav. Arch. 120:151161.
Jensen, J.J. & Pedersem, P.T. 1981. Bending Moments
and Shear Forces in Ships Sailing in Irregular Waves,
Journal of Ship Resarch 25(4), 243251.
Lehmann, E. 2006. Discussion on Report of
Committee III.1: Ultimate Strength, Proc. 16th ISSC
Vol. 3, Southampton, UK, 2006:121131.
Masaoka, K. & Okada, H. 2003. A numerical approach
for ship hull girder collapse behavior in waves.
Proceedings of the thirteenth International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii,
USA, May 2530, 2003:369375.
Smith, C.S. 1966. Measurement of service stresses in
warships. Conference on Stresses in Service. London:
Inst. of Civil Engrs:18.
Smith, C.S. 1977. Influence of local compressive failure
on ultimate longitudinal strength of a ships hull. Proc.
PRADS, A-10, Tokyo, Japan:7379.
Wada, R., Iijima, K., Kimura, K., Xu, W., & Fujikubo, M.
2010. Development of a design methodology for a
246
MARSTRUCT.indb 246
2/18/2011 5:47:13 PM
247
MARSTRUCT.indb 247
2/18/2011 5:47:14 PM
Y.J. Lee
Department of Engineering Science and Ocean Engineering, National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to analyze the structural dynamic buckling strength of
containership bow structures subjected to impact force using finite element method. In this study, a containership bow structure designed and constructed by CSBC Corporation, Taiwan is modeled and solved
by geometric nonlinear and transient dynamic programs; and the wave impact pressures are obtained
through applying the semi-empirical formula established by Lloyds Register. Furthermore, one-time
thickness deformation method and buckling failure method are employed here to determine the initial
buckling load of bow structure. The results show that the impact force integration is the dominant factor
for structure buckling strength assessment. This conclusion offers the designer an effective and efficient
way to predict the structure dynamic buckling strength; moreover, it is can help the designer realize the
moment when the structure happens buckling under any different impact force case.
1
INTRODUCTION
The prediction of wave impact loads for a running ship is also an important topic in this study.
Since it is too complex to predict wave impact force
directly, this kind of problem is usually simplified as
a two-dimensional solid dropped vertically onto a
free and initially calm water surface. Notwithstanding these simplifications, the solution to this type of
problem remains complex, especially with regard to
transient fluid-structure interactions. Von Krmn
(1929) introduced significant work on this subject
as a pioneering study. He developed an analytical formula, which allowed the estimation of the
maximum pressure on seaplane floats during water
landing. Wagner (1932) modified the von Krmn
solution by taking into account the effect of water
splash on the body. Ochi and Motter (1969 & 1973)
used K-factor method, which is based on the use
of slamming coefficients. These coefficients related
the slamming pressure to the square of the impact
velocity, and they could be calculated, or obtained
experimentally prior to the analysis of ship motion.
More recently, Zhao and Faltinsen (1993) introduced a complement to Wagners study. They used
linear approximation of the free-surface boundary
condition for the two-dimensional impact problem. The numerical method suggested in this paper
was valid for general section shapes. Mei et al.
(1999) proposed a purely analytical method of
resolution for the global two-dimensional impact
249
MARSTRUCT.indb 249
2/18/2011 5:47:14 PM
THEORY
(1)
Geometric nonlinearity
V d
dv = duT qdv
d + duT pda
d
V
(2)
NUMERICAL STUDY
Finite Element (FE) method has become a standard tool of contemporary naval architects structural analysis. The commercial FE software MSC
Patran and MSC Marc were adopted here to carry
out the FE analysis.
3.1
Reference ship
The ship used in this study is a 1,700 TEU container carrier. The principal particulars and the
general arrangement of this ship are displayed
in Table 1 and Figure 1. According to the survey
offered by CSBC Corporation, Taiwan, this ship
experienced extreme impacts on bow flare. Several
brackets happened external buckling and distortion as shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 provides details
on failure area of brackets.
3.2
250
MARSTRUCT.indb 250
2/18/2011 5:47:14 PM
Table 1.
carrier.
Particular
Value
Length (L.O.A.)
Length (Design Draft L.B.P.)
Length (Scant. Draft L.B.P.)
Length (Scant.)
Breadth (Mould)
Depth (Mould)
Draft (Design mould)
Draft (Scant. Mould)
CB (Scant. length & Draft mould)
VS (Scant. draft, MCR)
175.100 m
164.900 m
164.900 m
163.057 m
27.9 m
13.8 m
8.5 m
9.5 m
0.68
abt. 20.5 kts
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Table 2.
model.
Figure 1.
Material constant
Value
Density ()
Elastic modulus (E)
Poissons ratio ()
Yield stress
7850 kg/m3
206 GPa
0.3
290 MPa
Figure 3.
251
MARSTRUCT.indb 251
2/18/2011 5:47:14 PM
Figure 7.
model.
3.4
SUMMARY
Buckling load criterion
Figure 9.
0.5( K bfVbf2
K rv H rvVrv2 ) kN / m 2
(3)
Figure 10.
252
MARSTRUCT.indb 252
2/18/2011 5:47:16 PM
Figure 11. Description of one-time thickness deformation method (Plate thickness = 2 mm).
An example of the output from the FE analysis is shown in Figure 13. It can be seen from the
figure that six brackets are not buckled at the same
time but one by one. Moreover, Figure 14 plots
Von Misses distribution on the bow structure;
and Figure 15 gives the information about lateral
deflection distribution on six brackets. It is worth
to state outcomes observed from Figures 1315 as
follows:
Figure 15. Lateral deflection distribution on six brackets (wave impact time = 1 sec, wave impact pressures = 1
time of LR forces).
253
MARSTRUCT.indb 253
2/18/2011 5:47:17 PM
Impact
time
Initial
buckling load
Impact
force integration
(LR force/
sec)
(Sec)
(LR force)
(LR force-sec)
1.00
1.11
1.25
1.67
2.00
2.50
3.33
4.00
0.322
0.308
0.296
0.273
0.264
0.260
0.259
0.247
0.6440
0.6846
0.7392
0.9114
0.9454
0.6976
0.2734
0.0214
0.1037
0.1055
0.1093
0.1246
0.1383
0.1513
0.1444
0.1250
Load rate
Impact
time
Initial
buckling
load
Impact force
integration
(LR force/
sec)
(Sec)
(LR force)
(LR force-sec)
1.00
1.11
1.25
1.67
2.00
2.50
3.33
4.00
0.150
0.142
0.134
0.116
0.106
0.097
0.086
0.079
0.3000
0.3150
0.3360
0.3864
0.4242
0.4830
0.5712
0.6342
0.0225
0.0223
0.0226
0.0224
0.0225
0.0233
0.0245
0.0251
254
MARSTRUCT.indb 254
2/18/2011 5:47:19 PM
CONCLUDING REMARKS
255
MARSTRUCT.indb 255
2/18/2011 5:47:19 PM
ABSTRACT: In this paper, the results of an investigation into the post-buckling behavior of
high-strength aluminum alloy stiffened plates with Y-stiffener subjected to axial compression load using
non-linear finite element approach is presented. Both material and geometric non-linearities have been
taken into account. The principal variables studied are the geometries of stiffened plates. The influence
of Dimensions on the post-buckling behavior and ultimate strength of such stiffened plates has been
investigated in details.
1
INTRODUCTION
Stiffened plates are used as main supporting members in many civil as well as marine structural
applications. They typically consist of a plate with
equally spaced stiffeners welded on one side, often
with intermediate transverse stiffeners or bulkheads. The most common stiffener cross-sections
are bulb, flat bar or T- and L-sections. Such structural arrangements are common for both steel and
aluminium structures. Aluminium panels have been
used in a variety of marine structures, with applications such as hull and decks in high-speed boats
and catamarans and superstructures for ships.
Recently, some new steel double hull structures
were invented to achieve better energy absorption
capacity. Y-, rectangular box section, trapezoidal
box section, X- and corrugated frames are some of
new innovation stiffened structures. The intention
of these new designs was to prevent early crack
occurrence during a collision or grounding. Some
examples of this type illustrates in Figure 1.
The ultimate strength of stiffened steel plate
panels has been the subject of many investigations,
both experimentally and numerically, with the
most significant contributions in the field of ship
structures and bridges. The literature on stiffened
aluminium panels is more limited. The ultimate
strength of stiffened aluminium AA6082-T6 plates
under the axial compression was investigated using
numerical and experimental methods (Aalber et al.
1999, 2001). Kristensen & Moan (1999) demonstrated numerically the effect of HAZ and residual
stresses on the ultimate strength of rectangular aluminium plates (AA5083 and AA6082) under the
bi-axial loading of plates. Most recently, Paik et al.
(2009) studied buckling collapse testing of friction
257
MARSTRUCT.indb 257
2/18/2011 5:47:20 PM
Geometrically non-linear elastoplastic finite element analysis is the only method capable of simulating the succession of all buckling phenomena
that occur during the quasi-static compression of
a stiffened panel. To predict the ultimate strength
of thin-walled structures, plate-shell elements that
account for both membrane and bending stiffness
are employed. The mesh size must be fine enough
to capture long-wave-length buckling modes, such
as torsional buckling, also accounting for continuity through the transverse frames. Furthermore,
the mesh needs to be seeded with initial imperfections to make sure that buckling occurs and to
avoid unduly stiff behavior. Many methods exist to
enhance the stability of non-linear buckling simulations. Details need not be discussed in detail here,
since FEA methods are extensively covered in existing literature. The buckling/plastic collapse behavior and ultimate strength of aluminium-stiffened
panels are hereby assessed using ANSYS, in which
the material and geometry nonlinearities are taken
into account.
2.1
258
MARSTRUCT.indb 258
2/18/2011 5:47:20 PM
Table 1.
in [mm].
Geometrical and ultimate strength of the aluminum stiffened plates with Y-stiffener all dimensions
Y-stiffener
Plate
Hat section
Model ID
BT
t1
B1
1
2
1500
500
110
125
4
5
5
6
6
150
175
200
6
7
8
9
10
2400
7
8
6
7
8
225
250
200
225
250
150
170
135
150
170
2.3
Material properties
800
B2
70
Tee section
H1
t2
80
80
90
100
115
135
100
110
120
135
150
120
135
150
H2
B3
t3
Ult Y
80
70
10.123 0.505
0.523
90
70
7.592 0.467
0.552
4
5
5
100
110
120
80
90
110
4
5
5
6.074 0.411
5.062 0.369
5.062 0.332
0.608
0.671
0.694
6
7
5
6
7
135
150
120
135
150
120
130
110
120
130
6
7
5
6
7
4.339
3.796
5.062
4.339
3.796
0.741
0.858
0.581
0.633
0.674
0.294
0.265
0.558
0.488
0.435
2.4
Initial imperfections
In order to simulate the complex pattern of initial deflection stated in Khedmati et al. (2009), a
special procedure was employed. Simply speaking,
lateral pressure was applied first on the stiffened
plate model and a linear elastic finite element analysis was made. Such an analysis was repeated in
a trial and error sequence of calculations so that
maximum deflection of plate reaches to the value
given by Equation 1. After satisfying this condition, the information about the coordinates of
nodal points, element coordinates and boundary
conditions were exported in another finite element
mesh. The new model was used for the nonlinear
response analysis under the action of longitudinal
in plane compression. The procedure is shown in
Figure 5.
W0 max = 0.05 2t
b Yp
t E
(1)
(2)
259
MARSTRUCT.indb 259
2/18/2011 5:47:21 PM
Aalberg tests
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
260
MARSTRUCT.indb 260
2/18/2011 5:47:22 PM
Figure 8.
a (mm)
b (mm)
plate
stiffener
2000
998
840
1400
265
261
275
275
(b)
Figure 10.
materials.
t2
t3
s2
3.04
3.10
3.02
3.06
3.06
3.04
42
42
40.8
41.1
(c)
Imperfection (mm)
w0,1
w0,2
w0,3
w0,4
w0,5
0.1
1.2
0.2
1.8
0.1
1.8
0.2
0.1
Figure 9.
Definition of imperfections.
261
MARSTRUCT.indb 261
2/18/2011 5:47:25 PM
Figure 13.
Results
The results of average stress-average strain relationships for some models of stiffened plates
with Y-stiffeners are shown in Figure 14. Also the
numerical values are summarized in last column of
Table 1. In Figure 15 the plots of collapse modes
and deflection modes at the final stage of calculations, for models 2, 4 and 6 respectively, are shown.
Only some of results are shown in this paper.
In what follows, the results are discussed.
3.2
Figure 12.
Discussion
Figure 14.
262
MARSTRUCT.indb 262
2/18/2011 5:47:26 PM
Figure 15. Plots of collapse modes at ultimate strength level (left column) and at the final stage of calculations (right
column) for models 2, 4 and 6.
CONCLUSIONS
263
MARSTRUCT.indb 263
2/18/2011 5:47:27 PM
264
MARSTRUCT.indb 264
2/18/2011 5:47:28 PM
Fatigue strength
MARSTRUCT.indb 265
2/18/2011 5:47:28 PM
ABSTRACT: Aim is to develop a design method concerning high-cycle fatigue of arc-welded joints
in high-speed aluminium ships. Accordingly, a Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) based
non-similitude two-stage (micro- and macro) crack propagation model is proposed and elaborated into
a fatigue master curve formulation. First, an analytical, parametric expression of the micro-crack propagation dominating Stress Concentration Factor (SCF) related weld notch stress distribution along the
(virtual) crack has been developed for welded basic joints. This expression is used to correct the macro-crack
propagation governing LEFM parameter, the Stress Intensity Factor (SIF). Subsequently, a crack propagation model is developed and successfully verified using aluminium Centre Cracked Tension (CCT)
specimen experimental data. Finally, a fatigue master curve formulation is obtained and satisfactorily
validated using fatigue test data of aluminium welded basic joints.
1
INTRODUCTION
moving
dislocations
Fatigue is a governing damage mechanism in aluminium high-speed ship structures. In this respect,
welded joints are often the most critical parts.
The maritime innovation project VOMAS
has been initiated to develop a (high cycle) fatigue
design method for these type of structures. Part of
the scope is to develop a fatigue master curve for arcwelded aluminium joints, inspired by the impressive
work of (Atzori et al. 1997, 2005), (Lazzarin et al.
1996) and (Dong et al. 2001, 2003a, 2003b). A substantial part of the work presented here is already
published in (den Besten & Huijsmans 2010). However, this part is considered to be essential for a
thorough understanding and hence included here
as well. The illustrative examples are different.
Fatigue, cyclic loading induced progressive
structural damage, is concerned with crack initiation and propagation, as shown in (Figure 1).
Governing parameter in the crack initiation
period, a surface phenomenon, is the Stress Concentration Factor (SCF). Micro-crack propagation
is included in this period because of the low crack
propagation rate. When the crack penetrates into
the material, the material bulk property induced
macro-crack propagation resistance is taking
over control. Governing parameter in this crack
propagation period is the Stress Intensity Factor
(SIF) K. Both parameters, the SCF and SIF, are
geometry and loading determined.
For high-speed ship structures operating in the
high-cycle fatigue region, it is assumed that crack
Figure 1.
crack
nucleation
micro-crack
propagation
macro-crack
propagation
crack initiation
crack propagation
SCF
SIF
final
fracture
267
MARSTRUCT.indb 267
2/18/2011 5:47:28 PM
r
f = s 1 + 2 R
tb
(1)
For shell plated (ship) structures, the loading is predominantly membrane and bending
induced. Hence, in a Finite Element (FE) environment, s is determined using the shell element
tb
Fm =
Mb
sg (M b )
b
s
(3)
r
s s ( + )
tb
cos {(
) } s cos {( ) }
a 1
r
+ )
tb
+ ) a sin ( a )
+ a a (
si
{(
(4)
Figure 2.
(2)
r
t
s C ggb 4 1 for 0 < r b
t
2
(5)
268
MARSTRUCT.indb 268
2/18/2011 5:47:29 PM
r/t b [ - ]
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
w /s, f /s [ - ]
s
a Ym
sgn ( Fm ) Ygm
+R
0.1
{ (Fm ) YYggm
0.2
0.3
r/t b [ - ]
0.4
weld notch stress w / s
0.5
0.6
FE result
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
w /s, f /s [ - ]
(Mb ) Ygb }
(6)
The geometry factor Yg includes a linear superposition of the membrane and bending contribution, Ygm and Ygb, obtained from (Tada et al.,
2000), Murakami 1987) or (Newman et al., 1981)
for edge crack or semi-elliptical crack configurations and accounts for the finite thickness as well
as free surface effects. The latter only in case of
weld toe failure. It covers the macro-crack part.
The magnification factor Ym takes the microcrack part into account. The self-equilibrating
unit stress (r), an uncracked geometry parameter
along the (virtual) crack path, is applied as crack
face pressure:
a
(r )
2
Ym =
dr
2
r2
0 a
(7)
269
MARSTRUCT.indb 269
2/18/2011 5:47:31 PM
10-4
III
4.5
Yg
4.0
Ym
YmYg
10-5
FEM
da/dn
3.5
3.0
2.5
II
10-6
2.0
1.5
1.0
10-7
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
a/tb [ - ]
-8
10
Figure 5.
100
K th
101
102
K c 10
K
tc/t b = 1.0; hw/lw = 1.0; lw/t b = 1.0; /t b = 0.0
Figure 7.
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Yg
2.5
Ym
YmYg
2.0
FEM
1.5
1.0
Kth
da
m
= C 1
( K)
dn
K
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
a/tb [ - ]
Figure 6.
NON-SIMILITUDE CRACK
PROPAGATION
A cyclic loading introduces a cyclic stress intensity K and may initiate crack propagation. The
well-known characteristic crack propagation rate
curve, (da/dn K) with n the number of cycles,
shown in (Figure 7), is divided into 3 regions: region
I (near-threshold, slow micro crack propagation
region; below the threshold value Kth crack propagation does not occur), region II (linear, steady state
(8)
m
2
( K)
(9)
270
MARSTRUCT.indb 270
2/18/2011 5:47:33 PM
2m
3
Kg
(10)
1
5
r i
c
= i i ( i + ) ( i )
s i =1
tb
4.1
CCT specimenanalysis
(11)
Yn
Yl
(12)
ag
ag
r/t b' [ - ]
sc,
mc , bc
0.5
0.6
crack notch stress c / sc
0.7
a
b
0.4
0.8
t b'
FE result
0.9
1.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
c /sc, f /sc [ - ]
Figure 8.
271
MARSTRUCT.indb 271
2/18/2011 5:47:35 PM
ag / b = 0.500
5.0
4.5
Yg
4.0
Yn/Yl
( Yn/Yl )
3.5
-2/3
FEM
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
10-3
1.0
40
-5-
10
rolling direction
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
a/t b' [ - ]
Figure 10.
10
(da/dn) [mm/cycle]
0.0
0.0
-4
10-5
10-6
base material; Rs = -1.0
10-7
ag
(ag + a)
dr
2
103
104
(13)
10
-2
2
10
ag
2
Yl = 1 arcsin
ag + a
10
10
10
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
10
10
10
10
10
-2
-3
40
10
10
10
10
10
(da/dn) [mm/cycle]
In agreement with the uncracked geometry formulation for arc-welded joints, assumed to fail at
the weld toe, Yl = 1.0 for ag = 0 and consequently
Ym = Yn. An example for the correction factors is
shown in (Figure 10).
Note that in comparison with (Figures 56),
the SIF is fully determined by the geometry factor Yg, since the gap (crack) effect is incorporated
in the SIF by definition. The magnification factor
Ym is only used to describe non-similitude crack
propagation behaviour. For increasing crack size
(a/tb), the factors (Yn/Yl) and (Yn/Yl) equilibrate
around 1.0 as a result of using the self-equilibrating
unit stress part.
4.2
102
K [MPa mm]
2
Yl =
10-8
101
10
10
10
-5rolling
direction
-4
-5
-6
-7
10
10
10
10
K [MPa mm]
272
MARSTRUCT.indb 272
2/18/2011 5:47:37 PM
10
10
10
10
-2
10
-3
-4
10
10
-5
-6
10
10
nom
10
T-joint
Butt joint
Cruciform joint
Longitudinal stiffener joint
-7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Figure 15.
lation.
Using (Equation 10), separating variables and integration of both sides yields an explicit formulation
for the number of cycles to failure N:
1-
N=
tb
m
2
C ( s )
I (R )
m
(14)
I (R) =
tb
ai
tb
1
Ym
m
2
m
2
m a
Yg
t
b
a
d
tb
(15)
T = 1:
a ( Ps =
a ( Ps =
)
)
(16)
273
MARSTRUCT.indb 273
2/18/2011 5:47:40 PM
10
10
10
10
T-joint
Butt joint
Cruciform joint
Longitudinal stiffener joint
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
data:
structural
stress
.
2-m
tb 2m I(R)
1
m
10
test
REFERENCES
10
10
10
T-joint
Butt joint
Cruciform joint
Longitudinal stiffener joint
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
Figure 17.
CONCLUSIONS
274
MARSTRUCT.indb 274
2/18/2011 5:47:42 PM
275
MARSTRUCT.indb 275
2/18/2011 5:47:43 PM
ABSTRACT: The present work starts from the idea to improve fatigue strength of an actual structural detail where welded joints are subject to proportional biaxial variable-amplitude loadings leading
to elastic-plastic strains. After a brief discussion on how to manage low-cycle fatigue in ship structural
design, the case study is presented. Basing on outcomes drawn from the analyses performed on the considered structural detail, a critical examination is carried out on the procedures applied to check fatigue
strength. A comparison of fatigue damages obtained from application of linear elastic approach and
elastic-plastic approach is outlined in order to analyze advantages and drawbacks of the two approaches
and their potential to be implemented in a design-oriented practical assessment procedure. Investigations
point out that nonlinear approach may be a valid alternative to linear one only if designer can control
safety factors relating to fatigue capability and has available deeper information on material behaviour
and load history experienced by the structure.
1
INTRODUCTION
stress-flow along a structural discontinuity, multiaxiality fatigue concepts need to be put to use,
along with a proper scheme to handle the large
elastic-plastic strain field which may arise around
the crack tip. Adjustments have been made to adapt
standard linear methods to cases where very-high
stress concentrations exist and the material local
response is a repeated plastic deformation. Nevertheless, to deal with that kind of fatigue critical
sites in ship structures, conventional methods are
hardly valid unless high safety factors have been
applied. Therefore, the strain-based approach,
which considers the elastic-plastic strain range as
the governing load parameter, becomes the reference design method when fatigue failure is expected
to occur after relative low number of load cycles
(Wang et al., 2006).
Even if a well sound methodology is available
to perform nonlinear fatigue analyses, the guideline framework in which designers are moving is
actually very poor. In effect, standards and rules
appear not so structured to effectively support
fatigue design process in the cases when a nonlinear approach needs to be implemented, such as in
complex structural details. In general, the lack of
both a standard procedure and common fatigue
endurance limits is being decisive to lead designer
to pass over and use traditional linear methods.
In the work here presented, an attempt for
application of a practical method to a case study is
outlined, with reference to a structural detail subject
277
MARSTRUCT.indb 277
2/18/2011 5:47:44 PM
278
MARSTRUCT.indb 278
2/18/2011 5:47:44 PM
a a
+
E K
1/ n
(1)
f
E
)b + f (
)c
(2)
m
E
)b + f (
)c
(3)
2
a,k
= K t2
2
a,n
2
K t2 a,hs
2
E
K hhs
(4)
a,kk = K t a,n
Kt
a,hs
K hhs
(5)
a)
a,max p( a )NL
da
N( a )
(6)
279
MARSTRUCT.indb 279
2/18/2011 5:47:44 PM
m ) a E
(7)
Pmax
p( P ) N L
dP
N ( P ) m = 0
(8)
1
pW ( g 1( ))
g ( g 1( ))
(9)
The same applies to calculation of the p(P) density function, where the g() relationship is now
the expression of the damage parameter P = g(a,
a,k(a)) for any given m:
p( P ) =
1
pW ( g 1( P ))
g ( g 1( P ))
(10)
F0
(10)
FFFEA
280
MARSTRUCT.indb 280
2/18/2011 5:47:47 PM
Figure 1. Stress distribution on the longitudinal bulkhead in way of the openings (from an elastic-plastic FE
analysis).
281
MARSTRUCT.indb 281
2/18/2011 5:47:49 PM
HS1
HS2
outer ring
inner ring
sealing plate
Figure 2. Enhanced structural detail and hot-spot locations HS1 (outer ring weld line) and HS2 (inner ring weld
line).
282
S2-SS2-C29.indd 282
2/18/2011 6:33:29 PM
K ( apl )n
(12)
B&S 0.087
0.58
735
0.59
0.15
808
Fatigue damage D
DL()
DNL(P)B&S
DNL(P)B(PM)
DNL(P)B(HAZ)
DNL(P)M&L
0.1
200
300
400
500
700
900
0, MPa
Figure 4. Fatigue damage DL() and DNL(P) (original
-N curves) as function of the reference load (i.e., stress
range 0).
Table 2. Material parameters for the elastic plastic analysis: values from Bohlmann (B) and Mattos & Laurence
(M&L) (Mattos & Lawrence 1977, as cited in Radaj
et al., 2006).
c
Author*
B(PM)
B(HAZ)
M&L
K
776
1089
1097
283
MARSTRUCT.indb 283
2/18/2011 5:47:50 PM
pdf( )
20
1
f = (2 )1 / m
2
(13)
12
0.4
0.2
and b =
1
m
a %
cdf( )
1.0
16
0.8
(/max) functions
(a /a,max) functions
0.6
0.0
0
0.95
Figure 6. Statistical functions of the same load history expressed in terms of linear elastic stresses and
elastic-plastic strains (0 = 627 MPa; DNV and B&S
capability curves; max refers to extreme values).
dD ( )
16
DD ( )
5
12
3
8
2
DL()
DNL(a)
DNL(P)
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.1
104
105
N(a)
106
107
Figure 5. Basic capability curves used in the linear elastic approach and in the elastic-plastic approach.
284
MARSTRUCT.indb 284
2/18/2011 5:47:51 PM
a %
Capability
0.1
Load history
0.01
103
104
105
106
107
2.5
DL()
DNL(P)B&S
50 % 0
30 %
25
16, %
7%
2.5
m /
Fatigue damage D
2
1.5
1
0%
0.5
DNL(P)B&S
DNL(P)B(PM)
DNL(P)B(HAZ)
e
nc
ere
f
e
r
DL
1.5
m/0 % = 16.7
m/0 % = 0
1
0.5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
0
0, MPa
Figure 9. Comparison between fatigue damage DNL(P)
calculated for given values of the mean stress, and linear
elastic based fatigue damage DL().
0.5
1.5
2.5
Linear damage DL
Figure 10. Damage comparison based on different data
for the material parameters.
285
MARSTRUCT.indb 285
2/18/2011 5:47:53 PM
400
a, MPa
a,k
10
Fatigue damage D
DL()
DNL(P)B&S
plane strain rule (Eq. 5)
m effect (Eq. 3)
m/0 % = 16.7
m/0 % = 0
0.1
100
200
300
0, MPa
Figure 12. Fatigue damage DNL(P) calculated under different hypotheses within the elastic-plastic procedure.
K
S
a S
a N
CONCLUSIONS
cyclic aa curve
a S a S = (Kta,hs/Khs)2 /E
a /a= E
0
0
a N a S
0.3
a %
Figure 11. Methods to convert FE calculated stressstrain field to elastic-plastic stress-strain field (E = 206.85
GPa and 0 = 627 MPa).
286
MARSTRUCT.indb 286
2/18/2011 5:47:55 PM
REFERENCES
Bckstrm M., 2003. Multiaxial Fatigue Life Assessment
of Welds Based on Nominal and Hot-spot Stresses.
VTT Publications 502, ISBN 951 38 6234 8.
Bumel A. & Seeger T. 1990. Materials Data for Cyclic
Loading. Suppl. 1, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science,
1990.
287
MARSTRUCT.indb 287
2/18/2011 5:47:56 PM
ABSTRACT: Structural failure due to a lack of fatigue strength and crack initiation is often caused
by local stress concentrations at welded joints. By decreasing the weld notch radius to small values, the
magnitude of stress concentration no longer affects the fatigue strength but a mean value of stress determined around the notch tip. Moreover, in linear elasticity the local stress distribution becomes singular
with vanishing radius. Besides the common methods for fatigue assessment, the utilisation of an averaged
value of strain energy, computed for a small volume of material, is an alternative approach. The method
shows promise with respect to finite element analysis of complex problems. In most of the previous work
the quality of the numerical approximation was controlled by mesh refinement. In this paper, alternative
refinement techniques are investigated, accounting for the singular behaviour of the exact solution in the
vicinity of the re-entrant corner. After the introduction of the concept based on the averaged strain energy
density, different refinement strategies improving the quality of the finite element approximation are
described and applied to a selected example. The results of the different approaches related to both h and
p-refinement are presented and discussed also in view of application to more complex three-dimensional
problems.
1
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.
289
MARSTRUCT.indb 289
2/18/2011 5:47:57 PM
2 E W
1 v2
(1)
EXAMPLE
290
MARSTRUCT.indb 290
2/18/2011 5:47:57 PM
Figure 3.
2009).
291
MARSTRUCT.indb 291
2/18/2011 5:47:58 PM
e=
| Wex W |
Wex
(3)
where Wex is obtained by the most accurate numerical approximation using finite elements with a polynomial degree of p = 8. It was decided to estimate
the relative error on the basis of the averaged SED
instead of the equivalent stress eq mentioned in
equation (1).
5.2
dk
p + 1
k
R0
M
,k
, ,
,M
(2)
p-version refinement
h-version refinement
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
OF THE DOUBLER PLATE
Problem description
292
MARSTRUCT.indb 292
2/18/2011 5:48:00 PM
Polynomial DOF
DOF
W [Nmm/mm3]
degree p
(model) (sector) at weld toe
e [%]
DOF
(model)
5
6
7
8
3,163
4,441
5,961
7,723
670
880
1,120
1,390
3.52732 10
3.52667 101
3.52656 101
3.52654 101
1
28,629
28,749
28,985
29,229
1.5
0.6
0.2
0.0
DOF
(sector)
W [Nmm/mm3]
at weld toe
e [%]
36
70
138
206
3.50250 10
3.51275 101
3.51424 101
3.51424 101
8.3
6.3
5.9
5.9
DOF
(model)
DOF
(sector)
W [Nmm/mm3]
at weld toe
e [%]
DOF
(model)
DOF
(sector)
W [Nmm/mm3]
at weld toe
e [%]
28,629
32,619
122,451
477,611
36
120
418
1554
3.50250 101
3.50920 101
3.51468 101
3.51738 101
8.3
7.0
5.8
5.1
28,629
28,749
28,985
29,221
36
70
138
172
3.50250 101
3.51473 101
3.51460 101
3.51463 101
8.3
5.8
5.8
5.8
Figure 10.
model.
5.4
Comparison of results
293
MARSTRUCT.indb 293
2/18/2011 5:48:01 PM
294
MARSTRUCT.indb 294
2/18/2011 5:48:02 PM
Matteo Codda
CETENACentro Tecnico Navale, Genova, Italy
Olav Feltz
Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Hamburg, Germany
Yordan Garbatov
Instituto Superior Tcnico (IST), Lisbon, Portugal
Heikki Remes
Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland
Giovanni Risso
CETENACentro Tecnico Navale, Genova, Italy
Cesare Rizzo
Universit di Genova (DINAEL), Genova, Italy
Jani Romanoff
Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland
ABSTRACT: The fatigue assessment of welded ship structures includes high uncertainties. One major
source of uncertainty is the determination of relevant local stresses based on the structural hot-spot
or notch stress approach. To quantify the uncertainties and to improve the analysis guidelines, roundrobin studies were performed within the MARSTRUCT project. One recent study concerned loadcarrying fillet welds which are treated in different ways in structural stress approaches. In total, five
partners participated in the work. Two structural configurations at 12 mm thick plates were analysed,
i.e., double-sided lap-joints and doubler plates, each with two different weld throat thicknesses (2.5 mm
and 7 mm). After shortly describing the fatigue assessment approaches, the models of the partners and
their results are described in more detail. Differences in the results are identified and conclusions drawn
with respect to modelling guidelines and typical scatter of computed fatigue lives.
1
INTRODUCTION
Fatigue strength is still an important design criterion during ship structural design. Although
corresponding rules have been introduced and harmonised in the common rules for tanker and bulker
structures (IACS, 2010), there are still many uncertainties about the quality of predicting the fatigue
life of ship structural details. Round robin studies
performed by the Committee Fatigue and Fracture of the International Ship Structures Congress
(ISSC) have quantified the uncertainties. These are
295
MARSTRUCT.indb 295
2/18/2011 5:48:02 PM
The loading is uni-axial at the end of the parent plate (actually, the test specimens are longer
to allow space for the grips). The welds carry the
full load in specimen L and part of the load in
specimen D.
All plate thicknesses are 12 mm. The nominal
throat thicknesses are a = 2.5 and 7 mm. The corresponding leg lengths are 3.5 and 9.9 mm.
A 2D model using plane strain conditions was
considered to be sufficient. Symmetry conditions
could have been used in two planes so that the
model is relatively simple. One general question
concerned the problem of contact between the
doubler and parent plates. It was decided to consider both alternatives: without and with contact,
neglecting any friction effect, although contact
was regarded as the more probable alternative.
SPECIFICATION OF THE
ROUND-ROBIN
Figure 1.
tests.
296
MARSTRUCT.indb 296
2/18/2011 5:48:02 PM
FE mesh
No contact:
1
None (theory)
2
Very fine
(t/10xt/10)
3
Fine (0.4txt/4)
4
Fine (0.4txt/2)
Contact:
1
None (theory)
2
Very fine
(t/10xt/10)
3
Fine (0.4txt/4)
4
Fine (0.4txt/2)
D-7
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.03
1.00 1.00
0.95 0.98
0.87
1.20
0.95
1.12
0.81 0.90
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
0.95 0.98
0.99
1.18
1.02
1.12
0.99 1.02
297
MARSTRUCT.indb 297
2/18/2011 5:48:03 PM
APPLICATION OF THE 1 MM
APPROACH BY XIAO/YAMADA
Element size
L-2.5
D-2.5
L-7
D-7
0.5 mm
1.0 mm
1.0 mm
1.0 mm
1.43
1.25
1.19
1.21
1.12
1.08
1.03
1.06
1.30
1.13
1.18
1.17
1.07
1.09
0.5 mm
1.0 mm
1.0 mm
1.0 mm
1.43
1.29
1.41
1.19
1.20
1.04
1.20
1.05
1.20
1.10
1.12
1.13
1.06
1.11
298
MARSTRUCT.indb 298
2/18/2011 5:48:03 PM
Participant
No contact:
2
3
Contact:
2
3
Element
size
Participant
L-2.5 D-2.5 L-7
Element size
L-2.5
D-2.5
L-7
D-7
1.0 mm
1.0 mm
2.21
2.21
1.64
1.58
1.18
1.18
1.11
1.09
0.5 mm
1.0 mm
1.0 mm
2.20
2.21
2.21
1.62
1.68
1.65
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.11
1.12
1.11
D-7
1.0 mm
1.0 mm
2 mm 2.09
1 mm 2.40
1.56
1.55
1.59 1.43
1.80 1.53
1.0 mm
1.0 mm
2 mm 2.06
1 mm 2.05
1.59
1.59
1.42 1.40
1.44 1.41
No contact:
2
3
Contact:
1
2
3
299
MARSTRUCT.indb 299
2/18/2011 5:48:04 PM
The effective notch stress approach, using the elastic stress in the notches rounded by a reference
radius rref = 1 mm, is able to assess both, weld toes
and weld roots (Radaj et al., 2006; Hobbacher,
2009). Weld roots at the end of non-fused plate
surfaces as occurring in the test specimens are usually rounded with a so-called keyhole shape.
Relatively fine-meshed finite element models
have been created for the numerical analyses (Fig. 7)
considering the recommendations by Fricke (2008).
Participant 4 used again a 3D model.
As the throat thicknesses is partly only 2.5 mm
and the rounded keyhole notch reduces the throat
thickness by approx. 0.3 mm when placed at the
end of the slit, two participants (1 and 5) modified the model by shifting the circle in horizontal
and/or vertical direction so that the nominal throat
thickness is maintained. Figure 8 illustrates the
modification made by the participants.
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the results at the weld
toe and weld root, respectively. The SCFs were
computed using the max. principal stress at the
rounded surface, according to Fricke (2008).
Some scatter in the results is observed. For
instance, the models without shifted keyhole notch
Figure 8. Horizontal shift (a, participant 1) and diagonal shift (b, participant 5) of the keyhole notch to maintain the weld throat thickness a.
Participant
No contact:
1
2
3
4
Contact:
1
2
3
5
Element size
L-2.5
D-2.5
L-7
D-7
0.2 mm
0.2 mm
0.05 mm
0.2 mm
8.38
8.23
9.32
6.62
3.54
4.01
3.71
3.69
3.97
3.66
4.17
3.03
2.93
3.09
0.2 mm
0.2 mm
0.05 mm
0.2 mm
6.62
7.42
6.89
7.14
3.77
4.01
3.86
3.97
3.35
3.41
3.24
3.42
2.82
2.84
2.73
2.84
Element size
L-2.5
D-2.5
L-7
D-7
0.2 mm
0.2 mm
0.05 mm
0.2 mm
7.61
10.38
9.01
10.37
2.59
4.43
2.94
4.55
2.73
4.17
2.87
1.38
2.23
1.40
0.2 mm
0.2 mm
0.05 mm
0.2 mm
8.38
9.28
8.66
7.89
4.04
4.38
4.20
3.90
4.12
4.30
4.05
3.89
2.24
2.36
2.24
2.13
300
MARSTRUCT.indb 300
2/18/2011 5:48:05 PM
D-7
Weld toe
Weld toe
Weld root
Weld root
3.09
3.20
1.40
0.71
Keyhole
U-notch
Keyhole
U-notch
9.32
10.07
9.01
6.62
3.71
3.79
2.94
2.07
4.17
4.39
2.87
1.39
REFERENCES
Dong, P. 2001. A structural stress definition and numerical implementation for fatigue analyses. Int. J. Fatigue,
23:10, 865876.
Feltz, O. & Fricke, W. 2009. Experimental and numerical
fatigue analysis of partial-load and full-load carrying
fillet welds at doubler plates and lap joints. In: Analysis and Design of Marine Structures (Ed. Guedes
Soares & Das), Taylor & Francis, London.
Feltz, O., Fischer, C. & Fricke, W. 2010. Fatigue Assessment of Weld Toe and Root Cracks with the Notch
Stress Intensity Factor and Crack Propagation
Approach. Proc. of 11th Int. Symp. on Practical
Design of Ships & Other Floating Struct., COPPE,
Rio de Janeiro.
Fricke, W. 2008. Guideline for the Fatigue Assessment by
Notch Stress Analysis for Welded Structures. IIW-Doc.
XIII-2240r1-08/XV-1289r1-08, Int. Inst. of Welding.
301
MARSTRUCT.indb 301
2/18/2011 5:48:06 PM
Fricke, W., Cui, W., Kierkegaard, H., Kihl, D., Koval, M.,
Mikkola, T., Parmentier, G., Toyosada, M. & Yoon, J.-H.
2002. Comparative Fatigue Strength Assessment of
a Structural Detail in a Containership using Various
Approaches of Classification Societies. Marine Structures 15:113.
Fricke, W. & Kahl, A. 2005. Comparison of different structural stress approaches for fatigue assessment of welded
ship structures. Marine Structures 18:473488.
Fricke, W., Bollero, A., Chirica, I., Garbatov, Y.,
Jancart, F., Kahl, A., Remes, H., Rizzo, C.M., von
Selle, H., Urban, A. & Wei, L. 2007. Round Robin
study on structural hot-spot and effective notch stress
analysis. In: Advancements in Marine Structures
(Ed. C. Guedes Soares & P.K. Das), 169176, Taylor &
Francis, London.
Fricke, W., Paetzold, H. & Zipfel, B. 2009. Fatigue tests
and numerical analyses of a connection of steel sandwich plates. Welding in the World 53, No. 7/8, S.
R151R157.
Fricke, W., Feltz, O., Gritl, D., Romanoff, J., Remes, H.,
Rizzo, C., Risso, G., Codda, M., Casuscelli, F., Garbatov,
Y., Bckstrm, M. & Kukkanen, T. 2010. Round Robin
of Fatigue Analyses (Deliverable D2.4). Report MARD2-4-TUHH-08(1), Network of Excellence on Marine
Structures (MARSTRUCT).
302
MARSTRUCT.indb 302
2/18/2011 5:48:07 PM
ABSTRACT: A FEM analysis used for fatigue assessment, based on the rules, was done in the paper.
The approach for fatigue assessment in the early design stage has been developed. To overcome the
challenges due to limited information in the early design stage, generic structural elements and predefined
fatigue-critical details were chosen. This allows the development of a common approach for different ship
types, which is also applicable for optimization purpose. The aim of the sensitivity analysis is to study the
effect of the structural scantlings on the structural hotspot stress factor. The analysis is focused on a pillar
and girder connection of the ship hull structure of a Ropax vessel.
1
INTRODUCTION
303
MARSTRUCT.indb 303
2/18/2011 5:48:07 PM
304
MARSTRUCT.indb 304
2/18/2011 5:48:07 PM
STRUCTURAL MODEL
305
MARSTRUCT.indb 305
2/18/2011 5:48:07 PM
Figure 3.
Table 1.
Plane
Condition
ux
uy
uz
A
B
C
Clamped
Symmetry
Symmetry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Figure 2.
FEM model.
NUMERICAL RESULTS
306
MARSTRUCT.indb 306
2/18/2011 5:48:08 PM
Figure 6.
307
MARSTRUCT.indb 307
2/18/2011 5:48:09 PM
ABSTRACT: We have developed a multi-scale design sensitivity analysis method for transient dynamics
using a bridging scale method by a projection operator for scale decomposition. Employing a mass-weighted
projection operator, we can fully decouple the equations of motion into fine and coarse scales using the
orthogonal property of complimentary projector to the mass matrix. Therefore, independent solvers in
response analysis can be utilized for the fine scale analysis of molecular dynamics and the coarse scale
analysis of finite element analysis. To reduce the size of problems and to improve the computational
efficiency, a Generalized Langevin Equation (GLE) is used for a localized Molecular Dynamics (MD)
analysis. Through demonstrative numerical examples, it turns out that the derived sensitivity analysis
method is accurate and efficient compared with finite difference sensitivity.
1
INTRODUCTION
2
2.1
(1)
(2)
311
MARSTRUCT.indb 311
2/18/2011 5:48:13 PM
a ( ) = fa ( q a ,v b )
M Aaq
{qa (
(3)
(t )
v a ( )} d
(9)
ext
a (t ),
= NT f MD ( Nd + Q q ) + NT f CB (d ),
Md
a a
M = NT MAN.
(4)
L( , )
U (z)
T ext
(5)
(6)
},
(7)
U ( q )
q
(8)
Most of the multi-scale problems are interested in the fine scale effects only on locally confined regions, not the whole domain so that we
introduce the bridging scale approach by reducing
the MD domain to analyze a locally confined fine
scale region in which we are interested as described
in Figure 1.
To prevent fine scale wave reflection on the
MD/FE boundary, a GLE force f imp is introduced.
The multi-scale equations of motion is written as,
{s
bb
M Ab1 Kba .
(11)
Qq .
Nd
(12)
(13)
Aa
Ta (t )
tT
t )d
f MD (
+
+ (t )T NT
(
+ a
G d G
+
,
q a dt q a
b
Fine scale (GLE)
fa ( q a , v b , b )
q a
+ Ta ( )(
Figure 1.
Ab
Ta
Eliminated atoms b
ab
Interested atoms a
1
L1
M A
q = f(
f ( q ) + f ext ,
= NT f z
Md
( )
(10)
a a)
a)
Qa
(14)
312
MARSTRUCT.indb 312
2/18/2011 5:48:13 PM
( )T
fa (
+ a a , b)
N
(
+ a a)
C
NT f CB
(d,, )
mA
( )T NT
( )
+ ( )T
+ Ta (
d
a f ( q a ,v
, vb , )
)
N((
v b
tT
Ta ( )(
t
, b))
b)
(Xa )
G d G
+
.
d ddt d
(15)
=
t tT
Ta
Aa
t tT
( )T M
t tT
g
q a
g
G
=
+
q a q a t
g
=
d t
(16)
t tT
b1mA0 ,
(20)
(17)
tT
b2 0 , = b3 0
(18)
FE region
tT
b/2
XP
h/7
Initial crack
h/2
4 / 7b
(19)
h/4
Vmax
MD+FE region
FE region
Figure 2.
t1
tT
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Figure 3.
6500t).
Figure 4.
6500t).
313
MARSTRUCT.indb 313
2/18/2011 5:48:21 PM
Table 1.
4,000
6,500
Table 2.
DV
(a)
DDM(b)
AVM (c)
(c)/(a) * 100
b1
b2
b3
b1
b2
b3
1.676E-06
1.677E-06
7.711E-05
3.978E-06
3.978E-06
4.756E-04
1.676E-06
1.676E-06
7.705E-05
3.978E-06
3.978E-06
4.757E-04
1.698E-06
1.699E-06
7.967E-05
4.102E-06
4.102E-06
5.257E-04
101.32
101.33
103.32
103.13
103.13
110.53
1,200
DV
(a)
AVM
coarse
( b)
(b)/(a) * 100
t2
t3
t4
t5
t6
t7
t8
2.000E-10
2.011E-10
5.769E-10
1.345E-08
2.089E-08
2.086E-08
2.069E-08
2.009E-10
2.011E-10
5.769E-10
1.345E-08
2.089E-08
2.086E-08
2.076E-08
100.43
99.98
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.35
V
Non-designable
thickness
9
h
20
t8
FE
1
b
2
t7
t6
t5
Xd
t4
t3
Initial crack
t2
Xq
MD+FE
b/8
FE
t1
b/8
Non-designable
thickness
V
Figure 5.
314
MARSTRUCT.indb 314
2/18/2011 5:48:26 PM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONCLUSIONS
315
MARSTRUCT.indb 315
2/18/2011 5:48:28 PM
Ken Takagi
The University of Tokyo, Japan
ABSTRACT: In this paper, in order to examine the wave loads for fatigue design, a tank test using
newly designed elastic model was performed, and a further detailed analysis of full scale measurement
on Post-panamax container ship was carried out. It was verified that the actual stress by the full scale
measurement is quite smaller than that by the direct computation, and the difference is mainly caused
by of environmental condition applied to the computation. Moreover, the probability of occurrence of
whipping during long term was estimated. It was found that whipping induced stress cumulates a mount
of fatigue damage, but the probability of occurrence of whipping is small in terms of the subjected ship.
Finally, the further advanced view for the fatigue design is proposed.
INTRODUCTION
TANK TEST
Summery of the tank test
317
MARSTRUCT.indb 317
2/18/2011 5:48:28 PM
2.2
Em
ES I S
: Scale ratio
Em: Young's modulus of elastic model
IBB: Momentum of inertia of elastic model
ES: Young's modulus of hull girder of real ship
IS: Momentum of inertia of real ship
=0.067
Response
a0* exp(- t/ T)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
t (s)
10
kgf-m
Hs=5.7m, T=11.0s
5.0E-05
4.5E-05
4.0E-05
3.5E-05
3.0E-05
2.5E-05
2.0E-05
1.5E-05
1.0E-05
5.0E-06
0.0E+00
RAW
LPF
HPF
Fn=
0.164
Fn=
0.164
Fn=
0.164
Fn=
0.164
Fn=
0.219
Fn=
0.219
Fn=
0.219
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
180deg 150deg 135deg 45deg 180deg 150deg 135deg
2.5
Figure 1.
sec
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
318
MARSTRUCT.indb 318
2/18/2011 5:48:28 PM
1.2
1.0
LPF(without vibration)
RAW(with vibration)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Fn=0.164
Fn=0.219
100
80
10
8
60
40
20
0
-20 280
290
300
310
320
0
330-2
-40
-4
-60
-6
-80
-8
-100
Stress (N/mm2)
In order to verify the effect of the environmental condition on the fatigue strength, the measured wave height was analyzed and compared
with that of ordinary scatter diagrams (Global
wave statistics; Hogben, 1986). Figure 7 shows
the probability of exceedance of encountered
wave height. These distributions are quite different between measured wave and scatter diagrams.
Especially, a significant difference is confirmed
in the low probability of exceedance nearby 102,
and the stress occurring in such frequency level is
-10
Time (sec.}
25
20
Hw (m)
15
10
5
3.1
In order to evaluate the characteristic of the longterm fatigue damage, the data of full scale measurement (Okada, 2006) were analyzed.
-LOG(Q)
319
MARSTRUCT.indb 319
2/18/2011 5:48:29 PM
Table 1.
Meas.**
JPN-EU***
N.A.***
Weibull parameter
Shape
Scale
Q* = 102
Q = 104
Q = 108
0.64
0.93
1.14
0.47
1.52
2.51
4.0
7.4
9.4
10.9
13.7
16.4
30.9
26.0
29.2
*Probability of exceedance.
**Full scale measurement.
***Global wave statistics (Hogben, 1986).
Table 2. Long-term fatigue damage based on encountered wave height.
7.00E-04
Normalized long-term
fatigue damage
Full scale measurement
Japan-Europe (GWS)
North Atlantic (GWS)
1
4.6
17.9
6.00E-04
5.00E-04
RAW
LPF
4.00E-04
HPF
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-04
dominant to long-term fatigue damage. The differences can be quantitatively confirmed from the
Weibull shape parameter shown in Table 1. Assuming that vertical bending stress and wave height
have linear correlation, the long-term fatigue damage was able to be simply estimated. Table 2 shows
the normalized long-term fatigue damages calculated based on the each wave distributions. It is
found that the long-term fatigue damage based on
the actual wave is much lower than that based on
the scatter diagram, and the effect of the long term
distribution of encountered wave height on fatigue
strength is significant.
3.3
0.00E+00
0
4000
6000
8000
0.065
0.030
0.005
4
4.1
2000
320
MARSTRUCT.indb 320
2/18/2011 5:48:31 PM
Stress (MPa)
180
160
140
Calc.(GWS/JPN-EU)
0.36
0.072
0.030
120
100
80
60
40
5.1
20
0
0
-logQ
CE
EL =
DRAW
DLPF
(2)
321
MARSTRUCT.indb 321
2/18/2011 5:48:32 PM
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
1.E+00
Probability of exceedance
200
400
600
sec.
800
1000
1200
Sea states
1.E-01
LPF
HPF
1.E-03
1.E-04
1.E-05
Frequency
4000 3659
1.E-02
HPF
Probability of occurrence
of whipping during ships life
3000
2000
1000
1253
770
465
267 125
57 51 41 19 20 10 3
10.5
11
8.5
9
9.5
10
7
7.5
8
5
5.5
6
6.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0
Hs(m)
Whipping occurance
40
30
Stress_trh=20MPa
20
Stress_trh=30MPa
10
10
10.5
11
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0
0.5
1
1.5
Whipping
50
40
30
20
10
Frequency
5.2
Whipping
Vertical bending stress [N/mm2]
Hs(m)
1.E-06
1.E-07
0
10
20
30
40
Stress Amplitude (MPa)
50
60
CONCLUSIONS
322
MARSTRUCT.indb 322
2/18/2011 5:48:32 PM
REFERENCES
American Bureau Shipping 2007. Guidance notes on
spectral-based fatigue analysis for vessels.
Det Norske Veritas 2008. Classification notes No. 30.7
Fatigue Assessment of ship structures.
323
MARSTRUCT.indb 323
2/18/2011 5:48:33 PM
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.
325
MARSTRUCT.indb 325
2/18/2011 5:48:34 PM
In order to get rain-flow range distribution reliable time-domain stress data extracted from an
arbi-trary spectrum are needed. Those data can
be obtained by using inverse discrete Fourier
transformation:
N
x(t ) = 2S (
k =1
kt
),
2
2 t
k k k 1
k =
(2)
(3)
k + k +1
2
(4)
Pr =
IFr
F =
(1)
Zr =
(9)
(10)
(11)
+ =
1
2
4
2
(5)
0 =
1
2
2
0
(6)
IF =
0
2
,
=
+
0 4
(7)
S ( )d
m = 1, 2,...
(8)
Figure 2. Random responses of time domain corresponding with sampling time step.
326
MARSTRUCT.indb 326
2/18/2011 5:48:34 PM
Figure 3. Rain-flow counting and stress-strain hysteresis loops in the case when the load represents a repeating
time history.
m =
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
m
0 2 m
(12)
327
MARSTRUCT.indb 327
2/18/2011 5:48:39 PM
M RR ( m ) =
pRR ( z )ddz
ze
z2
2
(13)
( z )dz
As seen Figure 5, there is a peak in way of zerostress range. In order to approximate this peak distribution a probability density functions having a
finite value at zero-stress range is required. In this
study three probability density functions were
adopted, that is, two Rayleigh PDF (Probability
Density Function) and half Gaussian PDF which
has zero mean and doubled area in the positive
to get unit area like Figure 6, so that it can give
non-zero probability density function around
zero-stress range.
(14)
M RR ( ) 0.95
951.95
(15)
M RR ( ) 0.5 0.951.95
(16)
M RR ( ) 0.26
26 0.58 0.89
891.96
(17)
328
MARSTRUCT.indb 328
2/18/2011 5:48:41 PM
JB
M RR ( m ) =
m +1
C1
m + 1
2
2 ( x1 ) 2
x1
m
+ C2 ( x 2 ) 2 1 + 2 + C3 (
( )
C1
m
2
m + 1
2
m
( x1 )
m
1+
2
1 +
m
2
1 +
m
2
m
2
+ C2 (
x2
)m + C 3
(19)
(20)
C3 = 2 for m = 1
x2
V2C1 x12 + C
x2
V3C1 x13 + C
x2
(21)
C3 = A fo m = 2
(22)
C3 = B fo m = 3 ,
(23)
where,
DEVELOPMENT OF RAIN-FLOW
RANGE DISTRIBUTION MODEL
The model is composed of one half-Gaussian probability distribution with x1 variance, two Rayleigh
probability distributions with x2 variance and unit
variance as below equation.
JB
pRFC
C1
z2
2
2 2
e x1
2 x1
+ C2
x 22
z2
2
2
C3 ze
z2
2
V1 =
1
(1)
(1.5)
V2 =
1 (1.5)
(2)
V3 =
1
(2)
(2.5)
A = 0.95
951.97
B = 0.54
54 0.931.95
It was assumed V2C1 x12 0 and V3C1 x13 0
because half-Gaussian distribution is dominant in
way of small stress range region, which means it
has a little fatigue damage for higher negative S-N
curve slope.
From parametric study among several spectra it
was founded that x1 can be assumed as 2 to gain
the most reasonable rain-flow range distribution
and also means that second Rayleigh distribution
is determined by the irregularity factor.
Therefore all unknown variable can be calculate. In case that A > B, 2 < B/A and 2 > A +
A2
(18)
C1 1 C2 C3
(24)
C2 =
A B
2 (1 2 )
(25)
C3 =
A
A 2 B
(1 2 )
(26)
329
MARSTRUCT.indb 329
2/18/2011 5:48:44 PM
x1
1
( 2 C2 2 C3 )
V1C1
(27)
Otherwise,
C1 1 C3
(28)
C2 = 0
(29)
C3
(30)
x1
1
( 2 B )
V1C1
(31)
JB
DRFC ( m ) =
Td p
c
C1
m + 1
m
x1 2
m
m
+C2 x 2 m 1 +
2
m
+C3 1 +
(32)
9
2 2 m
0
S0
m m +1
x1
c
2
2
0 x1
C1
m
2
S0
m + 1
+ 2 2 0
x1m
;
c
2
2 2 0 1
2
2 2 m
0
S
m
m
0
x 2 1 + ;
c
2 2 2 0 x 2
JB
DRFC ( m ) = Td p + C2
2
(
2
2
)
S
m
0
0
+
x 2 m 1 + ;
c
2 2 2 0 2
2 2 m
0
m S0
1
+
;
2 2 2 0
+
C
3
m
m S0
+ 2 2 0
1 + ;
c
2 2 2 0
(33)
330
MARSTRUCT.indb 330
2/18/2011 5:48:50 PM
Figure 11.
analyses.
331
MARSTRUCT.indb 331
2/18/2011 5:48:53 PM
332
MARSTRUCT.indb 332
2/18/2011 5:48:56 PM
Figure 16. Fatigue damage ratio for JB model according to Vanmarcke parameter.
10
CONCLUSIONS
333
MARSTRUCT.indb 333
2/18/2011 5:49:00 PM
H. Okada
Faculty of Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Science, Japan
S. Okazawa
Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University, Japan
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study is to solve surface crack in welded joint of ship structure.
To know the mechanical properties and the crack growth predictions of the surface crack are very
important from the point of view of fatigue strength evaluation. In this study, shell-solid mixed analysis
using Rigid Body Element 3 (RBE3) in MSC.Nastran and Virtual Crack Closure Method (VCCM) for
quadratic tetrahedral finite elements adopted to evaluate Stress Intensity Factors (SIFs) in the welded
joint of a ship. As a numerical example, the calculation of SIFs to the surface crack in welded joint of
three cargo hold carrier are demonstrated. The accuracy and effectiveness of the proposed method are
discussed.
1
INTRODUCTION
335
MARSTRUCT.indb 335
2/18/2011 5:49:00 PM
0 0
G Total = li
3i (r ) v i (
r )dr
(1)
336
MARSTRUCT.indb 336
2/18/2011 5:49:01 PM
K II =
K III =
G IIVCCM
G IIVCCM
G IIIVCCM
G IIIVCCM
E G IIVCCM
(4)
VCCM
2 G III
.
(5)
G Total
vI PI
0
li
I =1
v1I P1I
0
li
(2)
I =1
(3)
APPLICATION TO A SHIPS
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
337
MARSTRUCT.indb 337
2/18/2011 5:49:02 PM
Table 1.
Model A
Model B
Elements
1,770,837
2,038,356
1,213,832
1,385,521
and Poissons ratio is 0.3. The two loading conditions are assumed.
Case 1 (HC): Head sea, Heavy Ballast Condition
and Hogging Condition (Wave Crest)
Case 2 (HT): Head sea, Heavy Ballast Condition
and Sagging Condition (Wave Trough)
338
MARSTRUCT.indb 338
2/18/2011 5:49:03 PM
Figure 8.
339
MARSTRUCT.indb 339
2/18/2011 5:49:04 PM
REFERENCES
CONCLUSIONS
340
MARSTRUCT.indb 340
2/18/2011 5:49:08 PM
MARSTRUCT.indb 341
2/18/2011 5:49:09 PM
ABSTRACT: In this paper the results of the study on the protective capacity of ship hull structures
made of composite materials subjected to an explosion of a spherical charge are presented. The main
application of these structures may be followed by design of ship structures of great importance, which
should also be protected against exceptional loads of this kind. In this study, a nonlinear analysis with the
finite-elements was done. The methodology to apply the blast pressure and the mechanism of the blast
wave in free air is given. The space pressure variation is determined by using Friedlander exponential
decay equation. Various parametric calculus to evaluating the behaviour of the ship structure laminated
plate to blast loading: explosive magnitude, distance from source of explosion, plate thickness.
1
INTRODUCTION
343
MARSTRUCT.indb 343
2/18/2011 5:49:09 PM
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
BLAST WAVE
Figure 1.
344
MARSTRUCT.indb 344
2/18/2011 5:49:10 PM
345
MARSTRUCT.indb 345
2/18/2011 5:49:10 PM
R1 R2
=
W1 W2
(1)
can be described in terms of the modified Friedlander exponential decay equation as (Baker 1973)
a t
t t
py ( s,zz t ) = pm 1 e p
tp
(3)
(4)
t > rtt p
t Ta A
p (t ) = pso 1
e
T
Taking into account the time variation of the pressure load in space, a graphical methodology, presented in Figure 2, to describe this action on the
plate is used. As it is shown in the figure 2, some of
the assumptions and parameters involved in blast
loading are presented. Also, a finite element model
of the plate structure is presented.
Once the blast distance h is determined, elements within 45 degrees of the blast normal vector
are divided into groups based upon their average
(2)
where p(t) is blast pressure at time t, pso is peak incident pressure, T0 is positive phase duration, Ta is
arrival time, and A is a decay coefficient.
Peak reflected pressure is given as a function
of variables such as peak incident pressure, angle
of wave incidence to the surface of an object and
shock front velocity etc. Then, reflected impulse
proportional to the calibrated peak reflected pressure and the corresponding duration of reflected
pressure will be determined (FEMA 2003).
In accordance with above mentioned references
the overpressure associated with the blast pulses
346
MARSTRUCT.indb 346
2/18/2011 5:49:10 PM
Figure 3.
mesh.
Figure 4.
(5)
347
MARSTRUCT.indb 347
2/18/2011 5:49:12 PM
348
MARSTRUCT.indb 348
2/18/2011 5:49:12 PM
large displacements occur. Tension and compression fails occur in a lot of elements.
In figure 12, variation of the transversal displacement of the plates central point with damping according to the equation (5), in the case:
h = 0.2 m; W = 1 kg.
4
CONCLUSIONS
349
MARSTRUCT.indb 349
2/18/2011 5:49:15 PM
REFERENCES
Baker, W., Explosions in air, University of Texas Press,
Austin, 1973.
Brode, H.L., Numerical solution of spherical blast waves,
Journal of Applied Physics, American Institute of
Physics, New York, 1955.
Coggin, J.M., Response of Isotropic and Laminated
Plates to Close Proximity Blast Load, MSc thesis, Virginia Tech, 2000.
Cooper, P., Explosive engineering, Wiley-VCH, New
York, 1996.
Cordon, J.A., Gniazdowski, N. & Gregory, F.H., The
Design, Testing and Analysis od a Proposed Comnposite Hull Technology Mine-Blast-Resistant Vehicle
Floor Panel, ARL-TR-796, 1995.
Crocker, M.J. & Hudson, R.R., Structural Response to
Sonic Booms, J. of Sound and Vibration, 9(3), pp.
454468, 1969.
FEMA, Risk Management Series, Reference Manual to
Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings. Providing Protection to People and Buildings,
FEMA, 426, 2003.
Gupta, A.D., Dynamic Analysis of a Flat plate subjected
to an explosive blast,Proc. ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference, vol. 1, pp. 491496,
1985.
Gupta, A.D., Gregory, F.H. & Bitting, R.L., Dynamic
Response of a Simply Supported Rectangular Plate to
an Explosive Blast, Proc. XIII Southestern Conf. on
Theoretical and Appl. Mech. 1, pp. 385390, 1985.
350
MARSTRUCT.indb 350
2/18/2011 5:49:16 PM
ABSTRACT: A grounding accident of a Suezmax tanker, built in compliance with IACS Common
Structural Rules (CSR), is presented and analysed from the structural point of view. The analysis focuses
on the simulation of structural deformations caused by the accidental event. The analysis is performed
using the non-linear finite element method. The validation of the simulation results is performed through
the comparison of calculated deformations with those measured on the actual damaged structure
of the vessel. The measurements were performed in the dry dock prior to the steel replacement. Thereby,
the validity of the finite element simulations is secured and the conclusions on the state of deformation
can be made with confidence. Furthermore, critical structural arrangements can be outlined, in order to
contribute to an improvement of the similar new buildings. The validity of the simulation procedure raises
the belief in the analysis of future grounding events.
INTRODUCTION
351
MARSTRUCT.indb 351
2/18/2011 5:49:16 PM
Figure 1.
1.2
Figure 4.
damage.
352
MARSTRUCT.indb 352
2/18/2011 5:49:16 PM
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
1.3
Figure 8.
353
MARSTRUCT.indb 353
2/18/2011 5:49:18 PM
Figure 11.
2010b).
354
MARSTRUCT.indb 354
2/18/2011 5:49:19 PM
1200
Energy [MJ]
967 MJ
800
Force [kN]/100
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
Damage length [m]
25
30
Figure 13.
Figure 16.
frame 90F.
355
MARSTRUCT.indb 355
2/18/2011 5:49:20 PM
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
REFERENCES
356
MARSTRUCT.indb 356
2/18/2011 5:49:23 PM
ABSTRACT: Most of the present semi-submersibles adopt single hull design for their columns.
The anti-collision capability of the single hull column could fail to prevent the water pouring into the
column in case of the collision accident. A double-hull design concept is proposed in the paper. The ring
frame, the inner shell and the outer shell create an integrated system to undertake the collision. Three sets
of finite element models are built. The nonlinear numerical simulation code, MSC.Dytran, is employed
to do the simulation. Three collision scenarios are defined. The structural damages, the curves of
relationship between collision force vs. penetration, and the curves of energy dissipation are obtained, to
evaluate the anti-collision characteristics for the different column design and different collision scenarios.
Consequently, comparisons are made, to evaluate the improvement of the anti-collision characteristic for
the double-hull design, and some suggestions are also provided.
1
INTRODUCTION
357
MARSTRUCT.indb 357
2/18/2011 5:49:24 PM
deck
Outer
shell
Ring
frame
Original design
Figure 1.
column.
Inner
shell
358
MARSTRUCT.indb 358
2/18/2011 5:49:24 PM
Table 1.
Scantling data
Unit
Prototype data
Length
Width
Column height
Column width
Draft
Displacement
m
m
m
m
m
ton
114.07
78.68
17.385
15.86
19.0
51751.3
Table 2.
Scantling data
Unit
Prototype data
Length
Displacement
Draft
m
ton
m
201
36198.9
12
Figure 2. Finite element models set1, whole semisubmersible and whole striking vessel.
359
MARSTRUCT.indb 359
2/18/2011 5:49:25 PM
semi
Longitudinal
SIMULATION RESULTS
AND ASSESSMENT
Results comparison for the simulations
of whole vessels and original design
Oblique
Lateral
Figure 5.
Table 3.
Simulation
case number
Striking
direction
101
Longitudinal
102
103
201
Lateral
Oblique
Longitudinal
202
203
301
Lateral
Oblique
Longitudinal
302
303
Lateral
Oblique
striking bow
shell
vertical bulkhead
ring frame
Description
Collision between
whole vessels
360
MARSTRUCT.indb 360
2/18/2011 5:49:26 PM
3.00E+07
2.50E+07
2.00E+07
101
201
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
5.00E+06
0.00E+00
3
4
penetration (m)
3.00E+07
2.50E+07
2.00E+07
102
202
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
5.00E+06
0.00E+00
penetration (m)
2.00E+07
1.50E+07
103
203
1.00E+07
5.00E+06
0.00E+00
6.2
penetration (m)
7.00E+07
6.00E+07
5.00E+07
101
201
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
2.00E+07
1.00E+07
0.00E+00
Penetration (m)
7.00E+07
6.00E+07
5.00E+07
102
202
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
2.00E+07
1.00E+07
0.00E+00
Penetration (m)
5.00E+07
4.00E+07
103
203
3.00E+07
2.00E+07
1.00E+07
0.00E+00
0
Penetration (m)
361
MARSTRUCT.indb 361
2/18/2011 5:49:27 PM
Table 4.
Simulation case
Shell
Penetration (m)
201
202
203
Outer shell
0.229
0.305
0.372
0.229
0.305
0.372
1.355
1.800
2.198
301
Outer shell
Inner shell
Outer shell
Inner shell
0.191
0.318
0.254
0.350
0.318
1.842
0.350
1.845
Outer shell
Inner shell
0.320
0.570
0.570
3.304
302
303
5.00E+07
1.60E+08
4.50E+07
1.40E+08
1.20E+08
3.50E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
201
301
2.50E+07
2.00E+07
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
5.00E+06
0.00E+00
1.00E+08
201
301
8.00E+07
6.00E+07
4.00E+07
2.00E+07
0.00E+00
Penetration (m)
Penetration (m)
1.20E+08
3.50E+07
1.00E+08
2.50E+07
2.00E+07
3.00E+07
202
302
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
202
302
6.00E+07
4.00E+07
2.00E+07
5.00E+06
0.00E+00
8.00E+07
0.00E+00
Penetration (m)
Penetration (m)
9.00E+07
3.00E+07
8.00E+07
2.50E+07
7.00E+07
2.00E+07
203
303
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
6.00E+07
5.00E+07
203
303
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
2.00E+07
5.00E+06
1.00E+07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0
Penetration (m)
Penetration (m)
(1)
It is indicated from the Figure 9 that the collision force of double hull design is bigger than that
of original design from the beginning of the collision course. Form Figure 10, it can also be pointed
out that the double hull design absorbs more distortion energy than that of the original design. The
amount of energy dissipation increase presented in
Table 6 demonstrates that the double hull design
benefits the energy dissipation capability of the
362
MARSTRUCT.indb 362
2/18/2011 5:49:27 PM
Table 5.
Simulation
case
Fatal
moment
(s)
Total
energy
dissipated
(MJ)
Energy
dissipated
by outer
shell (MJ)
Energy
dissipated
by inner
shell (MJ)
Energy
dissipated
by frame
(MJ)
Energy
dissipated
by vertical
bulkhead (MJ)
Energy
dissipated
by deck
(MJ)
Energy
dissipated
by stiffener
(MJ)
201
202
203
301
302
303
0.229
0.305
0.372
0.318
0.350
0.570
14.485
18.511
15.210
24.612
30.082
33.653
7.082
8.456
8.274
8.256
12.684
12.438
/
/
/
3.392
3.741
5.406
2.519
2.104
4.127
5.146
5.577
10.412
3.591
4.921
0.066
6.358
5.193
0.048
0.444
2.185
0.768
0.460
1.772
3.123
0.849
0.844
1.975
1.000
1.114
2.225
Table 6.
Longitudinal collision
201 vs. 301
Lateral collision
202 vs. 302
Oblique collision
203 vs. 303
E0 (MJ)
E1 (MJ)
Percentage
14.485
24.612
69.9
18.511
30.082
62.5
15.210
33.653
121.3
Figure 11. Structural deformations of the column structural components in case 301 (from left to right: whole
column, inner shell, ring frame, and vertical bulkhead).
363
MARSTRUCT.indb 363
2/18/2011 5:49:29 PM
CONCLUSIONS
With the numerical simulation analyses for semisubmersible collision scenarios of whole vessels, of
original design column and of the double hull design
column, and also the corresponding comparison
and the assessment, following conclusions can be
drawn.
A new concept of double hull design for the semisubmersibles column is proposed in this paper,
and its effect of increasing the anti-collision
capability is assessed. The double hull design has
an obvious benefit to increase the fatal moment
for the semi-submersibles column. The double
hull design has an advantage for the anti-collision
capability than that of the original design.
From viewpoint of assessing anti-collision capability of semi-submersibles column, numerical
simulation of the whole vessels can be replaced
by that of single column struck by a rigid bow.
Computational cost can be saved greatly.
Although the double hull design of the
semi-submersibles column may have some
disadvantage on the operation, layout and
building cost, it is able to increase the anticollision capability obviously. The adoption
of the double hull design concept should be
determined by a compromise of different aspects.
This will be considered in the future work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work embedded in this paper is supported by
China National Scientific and Technology Major
Project (Grant No. 2008ZX05026006). The financial support is acknowledged gratefully.
REFERENCES
Endo, H. & Yamada, Y. 2008. Performance of buffer bow
structure against collision-on the effect in preventing
oil outflow. Marine Technology, 45(1): 5462.
Hu Zhiqiang, Yang Jianmin, & Xiao Longfei. 2009.
Global Strength Assessment for Semi-Submersible
Column after Supply Vessel Collision Accident,
OMAE2009-79082. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering. May 31June 5, 2009, Honolulu, USA.
Hu Zhiqiang, Liu Zhenhui, & Jrgen Amdahl. 2010,
Collision Character Research for Semi-Submersible
through Model Test, Simplified Analytical and
Numerical Simulation Method, OMAE2010-20253,
Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, June 611,
2010, Shanghai, China.
Kitamura, O. 2002. FEM approach to the simulation of
collision and grounding damage. Marine Structures,
15: 403428.
Paik, J.K. 2007, Practical techniques for finite element
modeling to simulate structural crashworthiness in
ship collisions and grounding (Part I: Theory). Ships
and Offshore Structures, 2007, Vol.2, No.1, pp6980.
Pettersen, E. & Soegaard, L.M. 2005. A study of
a Collision Incident Evaluated against Ruling,
OTC2005, Huston, U.S.A, paper 17156.
Simonsen, B.C. 1997. Mechanics of Ship Grounding.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Naval Architecture
and Offshore Engineering, Technical University of
Denmark.
Yamada, Y. & Endo, H. 2008. Experimental and numerical study on the collapse strength of the bulbous bow
structures in oblique collision. Marine Technology,
45(1): 4253.
Zhang, S.M. 1999. The mechanics of ship collisions. Ph.D
Thesis, Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering, Technical University of Denmark.
Zhang, A. & Suzuki, K. 2006. Dynamic FE simulations
of the effect of selected parameters on grounding
test results of bottom structures, Ships and Offshore
Structures, 2006, Vol.1, No.2. 117125.
364
MARSTRUCT.indb 364
2/18/2011 5:49:30 PM
ABSTRACT: Many researches on damage of bow structure and hull structures in ship collision have
been carried out. Considering the failure conditions of striking and struck vessels depends on the overall
longitudinal stiffness of bow structures and the crash resistance of struck hull structures. This study investigated the effects of damage conditions of different bow structures. The vessels designed and constructed
by CSBC Corporation, Taiwan were selected as simulation scenario, i.e. a 203,000 tons bulk carrier was
struck by an 8,240 TEU container ship. The critical speed is defined as the minimum initial velocity of
striking vessel to cause the rupture of inner hull of struck double hulls. Different bulbous bow structure
with same shape but different longitudinal and transverse stiffness were considered. The nonlinear transient dynamics analysis of both ships in collision was analyzed. The energy dissipation and reaction force
of different type of bow structures were compared.
1
INTRODUCTION
365
MARSTRUCT.indb 365
2/18/2011 5:49:30 PM
V2
M2
M 2 M1
(2)
1
1
M 2V22
(M + M )V 2
2
2
1
M1
= V22M 2
2
M1 M 2
(3)
(4)
CRASHWORTHINESS OF DIFFERENT
BOW STRUCTURES IN SHIP COLLISION
During last 20 years, in order to prevent the calamity induced by ship collision and grounding the
double hull design concepts were requested to
avoid the oil escaping from tank while the ship
hull was struck. The x-type double hull structure
(Klanac et al. 2005) in this study is assumed as the
ship side of struck vessel.
The model of a striking ship with bulbous bow
and the struck double hull ship in 90-deg collision are
shown in Figure 1. Only part of side shell was taken
as analysis model, and the dimensions are shown in
Figure 2. The span of x-web plate is 800 mm, and
the span of longitudinal web plate is 2,000 mm.
The depth of double hull is 1,200 mm. The analysis
domain of double hull is shown on Figure 3. Four
sides of double hull model are set fixed, i.e. in the
collision process, the relative velocity between striking bow and struck hull is considered. The material
is assumed bilinear model show on Figure 4, and the
material constants are listed in Table 1.
Figure 1.
366
MARSTRUCT.indb 366
2/18/2011 5:49:30 PM
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Table 1.
2.1
210 GPa
7860 kg/m3
0.3
300 N/mm2
250 MPa
0.15
0.25
D = 40.4 sec1, n = 5
FE analysis model
367
MARSTRUCT.indb 367
2/18/2011 5:49:32 PM
2.3
Analysis items
Figure 6 shows damage conditions of bow structures for original design, bow type B and bow type
C. Sub- Figure 6 (a) to (c) show the deformed shape
of outer shells. Bow type B and type C have relative
smaller longitudinal stiffness, the buckling occurred
in low part of outer shell. The front shell of original
design has smaller crushing range. Sub-Figure 6 (d)
to (f) show the damage conditions of inner structural
parts. The damage modes of girders are stretching,
twisting, buckling, and tearing. The longitudinal
bulkheads are buckled and folded.
Table 2 shows the comparison of the indentation depth, reaction force of hull boundary and the
total energy dissipation of double hull structures
struck by four bow structures when the outer plate
and the inner plate were ruptured. When striking
bow impacted on the ship side of struck vessel,
faceplate of struck ship and striking bow structures will also be ruptured, the energy dissipation
Energy
dissipation
(kJ)
7.006 104
7.188 104
6.603 104
5.616 104
1.288 105
1.406 105
1.302 105
5.137 105
Structure
type
Indentation
depth (m)
368
MARSTRUCT.indb 368
2/18/2011 5:49:34 PM
The midship section of a 203,000 DWT bulk carrier and the fore part of centerline section of an
8,240 TEU container ship are shown in Figure 9
and Figure 10, respectively.
3.1
Figure 10.
ship.
Figure 11.
FE model
Analysis conditions
369
MARSTRUCT.indb 369
2/18/2011 5:49:36 PM
Figure 12.
No constrained boundary conditions are specified for the analysis model. The initial velocity of
striking vessel is 5 m/s moving perpendicularly
toward side of a struck vessel and the initial kinetic
energy of striking ship is about 1,250 MJ. The
Impact response analysis of collided structures was
performed with LS/DYNA code and the analysis
of collision duration was set for 2.0 seconds.
3.3
370
MARSTRUCT.indb 370
2/18/2011 5:49:37 PM
Indentation
depth (m)
Reaction
force (kN)
Bow type C
Energy
dissipation
(kJ)
1.182 105
1.155 105
1.216 105
2.386 105
3.119 105
3.211 105
2.896 105
3.394 105
t = 1.99 seconds, the original bow has higher stiffness and has only some permanent deformation, the
inner hull of struck ship is ruptured. In case of the
bow type B the forward part of structure has buckled; the bow structure becomes a larger flat contact
surface to impact the struck outside shell; and the
struck outside shell has large deformation with small
ruptured parts, the struck inner hull is not ruptured.
Table 3 shows the comparison of the indentation
depth, total reaction forces of hull boundary and
the total energy dissipation of struck double hull
and striking bow structures when the outside plate
and the inner plate of double hull were ruptured.
For comparison purpose the results in case of both
transverse bulkhead of bulk carrier setting fixed
struck by original design is shown in the same table.
371
MARSTRUCT.indb 371
2/18/2011 5:49:40 PM
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Ehlers, S. & Broekhuijsen, J. & Alsos, H.S. & Biehl, F. &
Tabri, K. 2008. Simulating the collision response of
ship side structures: A failure criteria benchmark study.
International Shipbuilding Progress. 55: 127144.
Endo, H. & Yamada, Y. 2008. Performance of Buffer Bow
Structure against CollisionOn the Effect in Preventing Oil Outflow. Marine Technology. 45(1): 5462.
Gooding, P.W. 2001. Collision with a Crushable Bow.
Marine Technology. 38(3): 186192.
Hung, C.F. & Chen, C.P. 2007. The approximate methods
to predicate the crashworthiness of ship double hull
structures. Journal Taiwan SNAME. 26(3): 139150.
Jones, N. & Jouri, W.S. 1987. A Study of Plate Tearing
for ship Collision and Grounding Damage. Journal of
Ship Research. 31(4): 253268.
Karlsson, U.B. 2009. Improved collision safety of ships
by an intrusiontolerant inner side shell. Marine
Technology. 46(3): 165173.
Kitamura, O. 2002. FEM approach to the simulation of
collision and grounding damage. Marine Structures
15: 403428.
Klanac, A. & Ehlers, S. & Tabri, K. & Rudan, S. &
Broekhuijsen, J. 2005. Qualitative design assessment of
crashworthy structures. Int. Congress of International
Maritime Association of the Mediterranean (IMAM),
Lisboa, Portugal, 2630, September 2005.
Lehmann, E. & Peschmann, J. 2002. Energy absorption
by the steel structure of ship in the event of collisions.
Marine Structures. 15: 429441.
Paik, J.K. & Seo, J.K. 2007. A method for progressive
structural crashworthiness analysis under collisions
and grounding. Thin-Walled Structures. 45(1): 1523.
Pedersen, P.T. & Valsgaad, S. & Olsen, D. & Spangenberg, S.
1993. Ship impact: bow collision. International Journal Impact Engineering. 13(2): 163187.
Pedersen, P.T. & Zhang, S. 2000. Absorbed Energy in Ship
Collisions and Grounding-Revising Minorskys Empirical Method. Journal of Ship Research. 44(2): 140154.
Rodd, J.L. 1996. Observation on Conventional and
Advanced Double Hull Grounding Experiments.
In Int. Conf. On Design and Methodologies for Collision and Grounding Protection of Ship: 13.113.13.
San Francisco, USA.
Wang, G. 2000. Behavior of a double hull in a variety
of stranding or collision scenarios. Marine Structures.
13: 147187.
Wevers, L.J. & Vredevelt. 1999. Full Scale Ship Collision
Experiment. Delft: TNO Report.
Yagi, S. & Kumamoto, H. & Muragishi, O. &
Takaoka, Y. & Shimoda, T. 2009. A study on collision
buffer characteristic of sharp entrance angle bow
structure. Marine Structures. 22(1): 1223.
Yamada, Y. & Endo, H. 2008. Experimental and
Numerical Study on the Collapse Strength of the
Bulbous Bow Structure in Oblique Collision. Marine
Technology. 45(1): 4253.
Yamada, Y. & Pedersen, P.T. 2008. A benchmark study
of procedures for analysis of axial crushing of bulbous bows. Marine Structures. 21: 257293.
Yamada, Y. & Endo, H. & Pedersen, P.T. 2008. Effects of
buffer bow structure in ship-ship collision. International
Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering. 18(2):
133141.
372
MARSTRUCT.indb 372
2/18/2011 5:49:44 PM
ABSTRACT: This study introduces a generalized model for the shape of the sea floor which is relevant
for ships during grounding. The sea floor is characterized as a paraboloid that allows a parametric modeling
of the sea floor topology. Nonlinear explicit Finite Element (FE) code LS-DYNA was used to simulate the
ship grounding scenarios. The simplified formulae to estimate the average grounding forces are proposed.
The analytical formulae show reasonable agreement with the results from FE simulations. A simple
computer program was used to simulate the ship response, which is assumed to be two-dimensional rigid
motion, i.e. surge, heave and pitch. The results show that the sea floor topology is indeed a key parameter
in the response analysis of a ship bottom during grounding. The penetration induced by the ship motion
is also a function of ship motion. The envelopes of shear force and bending moment which are induced
during grounding are checked against the DNVs still water requirements. The ultimate goal of the analysis
is to allow prediction of the risk of penetration into cargo tanks with oil spill as a result, the risk of hull
girder failure and estimation of the required tug force for pulling the vessel off the ground.
1
INTRODUCTION
Although the safety requirements for sea transportation become more and more strict to protect
the human, goods, properties and the environment
against accidents, incidents to ships still occur due
to many reasons, such as harsh weather conditions,
human factors and so on. One of the oil spill
catastrophic in 2009 was caused by the 26,800
dwt bulk carrier Full City, which ran aground at
Langesund off the southern coast of Norway in
heavy weather at the end of July (EMSA 2009).
Together with the application of nonlinear finite
element analysis to the study of ship grounding (to
name a few (Simonsen 1997), (Samuelides et al.
2007), (Alsos and Amdahl 2007)), a comprehensive
set of analytical formulae were also established to
estimate the contact forces and bottom damage
during grounding, see for instance (Pedersen 1997),
(Simonsen 1997), (Paik and Wierzbicki 1997),
(Hong and Amdahl 2008). Grounding problem
is highly dependent on the characteristics of scenario, i.e. the seabed topolology, ship speed, environmental condition and so on. Unfortunately,
in the literature few studies have addressed the
influence of the seabed topology. In this respect,
(Nguyen et al. 2010) generated a comprehensive
set of stranding situations by a FE code varying
the size of the seabed topology (modeled by means
of paraboloid surface) and concluded that seabed
topology is a key factor in influencing the response
of bottom structures.
373
MARSTRUCT.indb 373
2/18/2011 5:49:45 PM
Seabed topology
z=
x2
y2
+ 2
2
a
b
Figure 1a.
(1)
300
(0.5,0.5)
(1,1)
(2,2)
(3,3)
(4,4)
(5,5)
(6,6)
(7,7)
(8,8)
(9,9)
(10,10)
(2,6)
(6,2)
(5,3)
outer fracture
inner fracture
<
250
Load [MN]
>
200
150
100
50
0
Penetration [m]
Figure 1b.
Resistancepenetration curves.
374
MARSTRUCT.indb 374
2/18/2011 5:49:45 PM
60
= 0.0
= 0.3
= 0.6
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
2.3
= 0.0
= 0.3
= 0.6
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
0
10
15
20
25
375
MARSTRUCT.indb 375
2/18/2011 5:49:47 PM
40
= 0.0
= 0.3
= 0.6
100
120
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
= 0.0
= 0.3
= 0.6
120
100
90
80
10
15
20
25
20
15
10
10
15
Displacement [m]
20
70
110
70
30
130
35
(7,7)
(1,7)
(7,1)
(7,7)
(1,7)
(7,1)
60
50
40
30
20
25
10
15
20
Displacement [m]
a 2 p or p =
Fv
a2
(2)
376
MARSTRUCT.indb 376
2/18/2011 5:49:48 PM
(3)
sliding FX
100
4 3
aap
3
Fx
120
sliding FZ
simplified FX
80
simplified FZ
60
40
20
10
15
20
120
Vertical punching force FV
120
Vertical punching force FV
100
sliding FZ
simplified FX
80
sliding FX
100
sliding FX
simplified FZ
60
40
sliding FZ
simplified FX
80
simplified FZ
60
40
20
20
0
0
0
0
10
15
140
simplified FX
sliding FX
160
10
15
20
200
180
20
simplified FZ
120
Fxtot = Fx + Fz
100
(4)
80
60
40
20
0
10
15
20
DYNAMIC GROUNDING
377
MARSTRUCT.indb 377
2/18/2011 5:49:51 PM
g(
,)
(5)
Fg ( x, ) = BI ( ) g
F ( x, )
g
4
4.1
BD ( x,
x,
) < BI ( )
50
Fx - dynamic
Fz - dynamic
40
Fx - static
35
FZ - static
30
25
20
15
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
(6)
90
otherwise
45
10
) + B + C =
Fx
dynamic
80
Fz
dynamic
70
Fx
static
Fz
static
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
100
150
200
250
378
MARSTRUCT.indb 378
2/18/2011 5:49:54 PM
100
1.4
1.2
Penetration [m]
dynamic
dynamic
dynamic
static
static
static
60
0.8
0.6
0.4
50
100
150
200
250
50
100
150
200
250
5000
12 knots
15 knots
20 knots
4000
3000
1.2
Penetration [m]
60
0
1.4
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
2000
1000
0
1000
2000
0.2
3000
50
100
150
Grounding distance[m]
200
4000
0
250
50
100
150
Distance from AP [m]
200
250
150
100
4.2
20
40
40
20
0.2
0
80
(7,7)
(10,10)
(20,20)
(7,7)
(10,10)
(20,20)
50
50
50
100
150
200
250
379
MARSTRUCT.indb 379
2/18/2011 5:49:57 PM
5000
Still water requirement
(7,7)
(10,10)
(20,20)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1000
2000
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
3000
4000
5000
50
100
150
200
250
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
380
MARSTRUCT.indb 380
2/18/2011 5:50:00 PM
ABSTRACT: The authors are currently engaged in a collaborative research project whichamongst
othersdeals with the comparison of different bulbous bows and side structures. Their corresponding
effects on collision will be investigated. This paper will give a short overview of the background and starting phase of the project. It will focus on developing one determined test model geometry of a bulbous
bow for the next two prospective collision experiments. This geometry remains unchanged for a rigid
bulbous bow as well as for a deformable bulbous bow structure. The requirement of the designed bulbous
bow is to be able to create a significant damage of the ship side structure and itself. This pre-experimental
study shows that minors parametrical changes of bulbous bow geometry will significantly change the
collision behaviour. For this study the finite element method has been used.
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Pre-tests
Collision tests are carried out on the existing testplant of the Institute of Ship Structural Design and
381
MARSTRUCT.indb 381
2/18/2011 5:50:00 PM
Analysis of TUHH which is adequately supplemented and modified for this purpose (Fig. 1).
Collision forces are applied by four hydraulic
cylinders. They are connected with the longitudinal girders of the test-plant and with a cross-beam.
Thereby a closed loop of forces is provided. The
test model of the bulbous bow is located underneath the cross-beam. It is driven against a counter plate which can be assumed as rigid. Collision
forces are measured at the hydraulic cylinders as
well as at pressure load cells underneath the rigid
counter plate. The maximum loading capacity is
4,000 kN.
Hydraulic cylinders are limited at 400 mm
regarding the maximum range of displacement.
Thus larger displacements will be realised by
using appropriate interim pieces between the bulbous bow and the cross-beam. This approach is
permissible because the whole test procedure is
quasi-static with maximum speed of 0.5 mm/sec.
Therefore the interruption of the test is assumed
to be permissible at any time.
The two pre-tests confirmed this assumption.
It can be observed that the original load path was
reached after re-loading (Tautz et al., 2010).
2.2
Coming collision-tests
Cross-Beam
Hydraulic
Cylinder
Bulbous
Bow
Rigid
Plate
Hydraulic
Cylinder
Longitudinal Girder
Figure 2.
structure.
3.1 General
The authors use the latest LS-DYNA version
971/Rev5 (Beta) for their simulations. The inner
and outer shell of the side structure is modelled
with four-noded quadrilateral Belytschko-Lin-Tsay
element type with five integration points through
their thickness. Its size is 33 35 mm at the area of
impact. The plate thickness amounts to 5 mm. An
assumed static friction coefficient of 0.10 for steel
on steel without grease, a Poisson ratio of 0.3 and
the material *mat 123 implemented in LS-DYNA
for a modified piecewise linear plasticity is used
for the whole numerical investigation. The contact
treatment is realized by using the contact definition *CONTACT AUTOMATIC SURFACE TO
SURFACE for the fundamental structure like
outer and inner shell, web of the longitudinal bulb
profiles and the web frame of the side structure.
Even nowadays engineers have difficulties to simulate collapse of the material in a realistic manner.
The used material has to be investigated and failure criteria must be defined. In shipbuilding the
following could be described as state of the art and
is also used in this investigation as failure criteria.
Failure is simulated by erasing every finite element
which exceeds a previous defined failure strain in
every integration point through the thickness.
3.2 Proposal for the material model
Longitudinal Girder
Longitudinal Girder
Cross-Beam
Bulbous
Support
Bow
Side Structure
Hydraulic
Cylinder
Cross-Beam
382
MARSTRUCT.indb 382
2/18/2011 5:50:01 PM
900
Stress [N/mm2]
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
Existing Curve
100
Figure 3.
0
0.00
Test-plant, tensile-test.
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Strain[-]
350
Stress [N/mm2]
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-0.05
Figure 4.
0.05
0.1
0.15
Strain[-]
0.2
0.25
(1)
(2)
383
MARSTRUCT.indb 383
2/18/2011 5:50:03 PM
H
1
d eqp
0 f eq
RTCL
(3)
where
f H
eq RTCL
H
H
12 27
1+
eq
e
eq
= 2
2
H
H
3 + 12 27
eq
eq
1 exp 3 H
2
1.65
eq
H
1
eq
3
for
for
o
H 1
eq 3
RTCL
Peschmann
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
250
500
750 1000 1250
Displacement [mm]
1
< H <
eq 3
3
for
1500
Strain rate
1
q
= 1+
C
(4)
384
MARSTRUCT.indb 384
2/18/2011 5:50:05 PM
3.5
Formulas
: Cowper & Symonds (1957)
: Paik et al. (1999)
3.0
2.5
=1 +
2.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
=1 +
0.5
0.0
Experiments
Mild steel:
= 189.6 Mpa
Manjoine (1944)
= 217.5 MPa
Campbell & Cooper (1966)
= 283.0 MPa
Paik et al. (1999)
Figure 7.
20
Investigated Case
10
Asymptote
L+L [m]
15
4.1
0
0.0
4.010-4 .
= 522.9 MPa
Fujii et al. (1985)
= 373.2 Mpa
Toyosada et al. (1987)
= 313.8 Mpa
Toyosada & Goto (1991)
8.010-4
[sec-1]
1.210-3
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
General
385
MARSTRUCT.indb 385
2/18/2011 5:50:11 PM
X-Y Plane
X-Y Plane
(End Section)
(End Section)
Connection Plates
Longitudinal Girder
Area of
Impact
Side Structure
Y-Z Plane
X-Z Plane
End
End
Section
Section
1800 [mm]
X
aR
aR/2
aR
Z
Bulbous
Bow
Side Structure
Connecting
Rod
Support
aR
aR
aR/2
1/aR = 0.80
Figure 11. Side view of a quarter of the side structure
and support; x-z plane.
4.3
2/aR = 1.02
3/aR = 1.25
4/aR = 1.50
1/i = 1.00
2/i = 1.50
3/i = 2.00
1 = 640
1 = 640
1 = 816
2 = 816
1 = 1,000
3 = 1,000
1 = 1,200
4 = 1,200
2 = 960
1 = 640
2 = 1,224
2 = 816
2 = 1,500
3 = 1,000
2 = 1,800
4 = 1,200
3 = 1,280
1 = 640
3 = 1,632
2 = 816
3 = 2,000
3 = 1,000
3 = 2,400
4 = 1,200
1/aR = 0.80
2/aR = 1.02
3/aR = 1.25
4/aR = 1.50
1/i = 1.00
2/i = 1.50
3/i = 2.00
11
21
31
41
12
22
32
42
13
23
33
43
386
MARSTRUCT.indb 386
2/18/2011 5:50:13 PM
4.4
Numerical model
RESULTS
5.1 General
According to the technical limitation of the testplant it is necessary to find out the feasibility of
the twelve variations with a rigid bulbous bow. All
geometries which exceed the force of 4,000 kN
have to be excluded. The others have to be investigated again by considering their stiffening system. The aim is to find a bulbous bow structure
which deforms both the side structure and itself.
Therefore the case in which either the side structure or the bulbous bow collapses solely will be
excluded.
5.2 Consideration of rigid bulbous bows
Representatively for all geometries the upper row
and the left column of Table 2 will be taken for
the consideration below. The reaction forces of
the geometries with a constant and a growing
are shown in Figure 14. The two load peaks of
the curves represented the penetration of the outer
and inner hull of the side structure.
The growing parameter has no significant
influence on the point of structural failure. Both
load peaks occur at comparable displacements of
the bow for each of the geometric variations due
to the marginal changing geometry of the forepart
design of the bulbous bow. The reaction force of
the geometries with the same and a growing is
pictured in Figure 15.
2500
Reaction Force [kN]
Longitudinal
Bulkhead
Stringer
Load Cell
Web
Frame
11
12
13
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Tension Rods
Figure 13.
model).
250
500
750 1000 1250
Displacement [mm]
1500
387
MARSTRUCT.indb 387
2/18/2011 5:50:14 PM
5000
11
21
31
x 41
4000
3500
3000
PermissibleCollisionForce
4500
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
250
500
750
1000
Displacement [mm]
1250
1500
4500
Permissible Collision Force
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.4
1.4
2.4
Parameter j [m]
4500
3/i = 2.00
11
21
31
41
12
22
32
42
13
23
33
43
4000
Reaction Force [kN]
1/aR = 0.80
2/aR = 1.02
3/aR = 1.25
4/aR = 1.50
2/i = 1.50
3500
(5)
4 = 1.200 [m]
1= 0.640 [m] EQ
2 = 0.816 [m] EQ
3000
2 = 0.816 [m] DY
2500
3 = 1.000 [m] EQ
2000
3 = 1.000 [m] DY
1500
500
0.5
3 = 1.000 [m]
1= 0.640 [m] DY
4 = 1.200 [m] EQ
1000
2 = 0.816 [m]
1= 0.640 [m]
4 = 1.200 [m] DY
1.5
Parameter j [m]
2.5
Figure 17. Comparison of the numerical and approximated reaction force at the first load peak.
(6)
388
MARSTRUCT.indb 388
2/18/2011 5:50:15 PM
7000
0.640 [m] EQ
6000
0.640 [m] DY
5000
0.816 [m] EQ
4000
0.816 [m] DY
3000
1.000 [m] EQ
2000
1.000 [m] DY
1.200 [m] EQ
1000
0
0.4
1.200 [m] EQ
2.4
Parameter j [m]
Figure 18. Comparison of the numerical and approximated reaction force of the geometries at the second
load peak.
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Geometry 23
250
1500
2/i = 1.50
3/i = 2.00
1/aR = 0.80
2/aR = 1.02
SiSt
SiSt
SiSt
SiSt
3/aR = 1.25
BuBo
BuBo
SiSt
BuBo
SiSt
CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes a way to increase the scientific knowledge about the interaction of the bulbous bow and side structure design in the case of
collision. The selected bulbous bow configuration
allows a direct comparison between the rigid and
the deformable bulbous bow.
The focus of the investigation is on finding a
case where both bulbous bow and side structure
are deformed simultaneously. The result shows that
there is only a small range of geometry which leads
to the occurrence of this phenomenon. Minor parametrical changes of bulbous bow geometry will
totally change the failure mode and therefore the
collision behaviour.
The goal is to validate the numerical calculations
by future collision tests. This will enable a method
to predict quantitative design parameters.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work was performed within the research
Project ELKOS, funded by German Federal
Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi)
under project no. 03SX284B.
389
MARSTRUCT.indb 389
2/18/2011 5:50:16 PM
390
MARSTRUCT.indb 390
2/18/2011 5:50:19 PM
J. Broekhuijsen
Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: The paper studies the influence of coupling between the ship motions and the structural
resistance in the prediction of ship collision damage. Several collision scenarios are simulated numerically
using coupled and decoupled approaches. A coupled approach implies a time-domain simulation, where a
precise description of the whole collision process together with the full time histories of the motions and
forces involved, is achieved. There, the ships motions are evaluated in parallel to the structural deformations i.e. the coupling between external dynamic and inner mechanics is preserved. A decoupled approach
is based on the conservation of momentum and allows faster estimation of the deformation energy without providing exact ship motions. The energy to be absorbed in collision is evaluated based on the ship
masses and velocities, and in predicting this energy there is no coupling from the structural behavior. The
ensuing deformations are evaluated in so-called displacement controlled mannerthe struck ship is kept
motionless and the striking ship penetrates it along the direction of its initial velocity. The comparison of
the outcomes of two methods reveals that these two methods result in significantly different predictions
of both the penetration path and the deformation energy required to breach the inner hull.
1
INTRODUCTION
391
MARSTRUCT.indb 391
2/18/2011 5:50:19 PM
First step in the decoupled analysis of ship collisions is the displacement-controlled evaluation of
structural response. In such an analysis the struck
ship is kept fixed through constrained boundary
nodes and the striking ship collides with it at a constant velocity along a prescribed path. FE model
consists of partially modelled striking and struck
ship as depicted in Figure 1.
The striking ship is often modelled as a rigid
body as the stiffness of the bow area is often superior to that of the side structure. The striking ship
moves at constant velocity along the prescribed
path and the contact between the ships does neither
influence the speed nor the direction of the striking ship. Therefore, the rigid body motions of the
Figure 1.
392
MARSTRUCT.indb 392
2/18/2011 5:50:19 PM
Coupled analysis
structural parts and are thereby acting as boundary conditions. The mass nodes of the striking ship
are given the initial velocity v0.
The hydrodynamic added mass components
associated with translational motions are included
in certain directions only. The surge added masses
of the striking and struck ships, denoted as 11A and
11B in Figure 2, are positioned in the centres of gravity of the ships. The added mass associated with the
sway motion is considered only for the struck ship as
the motions of the striking ship are predominantly
in the surge direction. For the struck ship the sway
added mass is modelled as a single block of additional mass located on the opposite side of the striking location, see Figure 2. This added mass block
is constrained to the mass points through a planar
joint, which restricts relative movement in sway
direction and allows the joined entities to move in
the surge direction. Thus, this mass becomes active
only if the struck ship undergoes sway motion.
The advantage of the dynamic simulations is
that they simulate an actual collision event and
no prescriptions other than initial conditions are
required. The drawback is that the mass-scaling
would lead to larger errors compared to displacement controlled simulations and is therefore not
suggested. As both ships are moving, the whole
contact process lasts longer as it takes longer time
for the striking ship to penetrate deep enough into
the struck ship to cause breaching of the inner
hull. Therefore, the dynamic simulations require
significantly longer computation time.
3
NUMERICAL STUDY
Numerical study is conducted to evaluate the difference between two approaches. Several collision
scenarios between two river tankers are simulated
numerically to study the influence of coupling.
The energy required to breach the inner hull of the
struck ship is evaluated with both approaches and
compared.
In the decoupled displacement controlled analysis the inner mechanics is evaluated without any
influence from the ship motions and thus this
energy depends on the structural properties of
the ships and on the collision angle and location.
Thus, in the decoupled analysis we only look at the
inner mechanics and leave the external dynamics
completely out of the investigation.
In the coupled analysis the inner mechanics and
the external dynamics are coupled and thus, full
description of the collision process is achieved.
Obviously, now the collision process also depends
on the initial velocity of the striking ship and
therefore the collision scenarios are simulated at
different velocities.
393
MARSTRUCT.indb 393
2/18/2011 5:50:20 PM
3.1
Colliding ships
Figure 3.
Table 1.
394
MARSTRUCT.indb 394
2/18/2011 5:50:21 PM
INFLUENCE OF COUPLING
Collision scenarios defined in Section 3.2 are simulated with the coupled and decoupled approaches.
The deformation energy at the time instant when
the inner hull is breached is defined for both
approaches and compared. This deformation
energy consists of energy absorbed by deformation
mechanisms such as bending, stretching and tearing of structural elements and also of the energy
absorbed by the friction between the ships.
The relative difference between the two
approaches is defined as
diff . =
EC
EDC
EC
(1)
Simulation results.
395
MARSTRUCT.indb 395
2/18/2011 5:50:22 PM
Above analysis showed that the collision velocity has a strong influence on the precision of the
396
MARSTRUCT.indb 396
2/18/2011 5:50:23 PM
CONCLUSIONS
397
MARSTRUCT.indb 397
2/18/2011 5:50:24 PM
ABSTRACT: The paper presents finite element simulations examining the dynamic response of small
rectangular panels struck transversely by a mass. Three panel widths with different stiffener distribution
are considered in the analysis. The influence of the impact velocity and impact location on the final results
is discussed. The material true stress-strain curve, used in the numerical model, is obtained from tensile
tests on the actual material used to fabricate the panels. The mesh size, the true material curve definition
and the critical failure strain estimation are evaluated from the numerical simulation of the tensile test.
A brief study of the definition of the boundary conditions is conducted, in order to determine the
simplest, but accurate assumption that will be used in the finite element model. The force-displacement
curves and the shape of the deformation from the impact simulations are used to compare the plastic
response of the impacted panels.
1
INTRODUCTION
399
MARSTRUCT.indb 399
2/18/2011 5:50:25 PM
SCOPE OF STUDY
400
MARSTRUCT.indb 400
2/18/2011 5:50:25 PM
Experimental set-up.
Figure 2.
to a strong structural base to prevent their movement. A rubber pad between the impact machine
floor and the structural base allows avoiding vibrations during the impact.
Three widths of panel are considered: 125,
250 and 375 mm (Fig. 2). The panels are denoted
by the letters A, B or C depending on their span
Figure 3.
401
MARSTRUCT.indb 401
2/18/2011 5:50:25 PM
0
600
Connection
GL
500
UN+GL
Stress [MPa]
400
Engineering
Curve
300
200
100
0.00
Figure 4.
0.05
0.10
0.15
Strain [-]
0.20
0.25
0.30
C t n
(1)
where
n = 1n(1 + Ag)
(2)
and
C = Rm (e/n)n
(3)
(4)
402
MARSTRUCT.indb 402
2/18/2011 5:50:26 PM
350
UN+GL
Shell5
GL
300
Shell2
Engineering
250
Tensile Test
Shell5_GL
Shell2_GL
Shell5_UN+GL
Shell2_UN+GL
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
Figure 5.
Strain [ - ]
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
(5)
t = 1n(eng + 1)
(6)
(7)
B2
Shell5_B1
Shell2_B1
Shell5_B2
Shell2_B2
80
Force [kN]
400
Stress [MPa]
450
B1
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
Displacement [mm]
40
403
MARSTRUCT.indb 403
2/18/2011 5:50:27 PM
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Shell2_Support Plates
Shell2_Bolt Constrained
Shell2_Boundary Conditions
Force [kN]
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement [mm]
30
35
404
MARSTRUCT.indb 404
2/18/2011 5:50:27 PM
NUMERICAL RESULTS
Panel types A1-A2-A3 and B1-B2-B3 were numerically simulated to analyze the influence of the
impact velocity, width of panel and stiffener
type when were impacted at the mid-span. For
example, Figure 9 represents the sensitivity of the
width of panel and the impact velocity for Panels
140
V6
120
Panel A2
Force [kN]
100
V4
80
Panel B2
60
V6
V2
40
V4
20
V2
0
0
10
20
Displacement [mm]
30
40
405
MARSTRUCT.indb 405
2/18/2011 5:50:29 PM
Impact Point 1
B1_1
B2_1
B3_1
B1_2
B2_2
B3_2
Force [kN]
100
80
60
B3_1
B2_1
B1_1
40
20
Impact Point 2
B1-B2-B3
0
0
10
20
30
Displacement [mm]
40
B3 B2 B1
B1_1
B2_1
B3_1
B1_2
B2_2
B3_2
1.4
1.2
Energy [kJ]
6.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
6
8
time [ms]
10
12
14
406
MARSTRUCT.indb 406
2/18/2011 5:50:30 PM
6.3
B4_1
B5_1
C4_1
C5_1
Force [kN]
80
B5
B4
C5
60
C4
40
20
0
0
a)
100
20
30
Displacement [mm]
B4_2
B5_2
C4_2
C5_2
80
Force [kN]
10
40
B5
B4
60
40
C5
20
C4
0
0
b)
100
20
30
Displacement [mm]
B5
B4_3
B5_3
C4_3
C5_3
80
Force [kN]
10
40
B4
C4
C5
60
40
20
0
c)
10
20
30
Displacement [mm]
40
407
MARSTRUCT.indb 407
2/18/2011 5:50:33 PM
1.6
Impact Point 3
1.4
Energy [kJ]
1.2
Impact Point 1
B4_1
B5_1
B4_2
B5_2
B4_3
B5_3
1.0
0.8
Impact Point 2
0.6
0.4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
0.2
0.0
0
6
8
time [ms]
10
12
14
CONCLUSIONS
408
MARSTRUCT.indb 408
2/18/2011 5:50:35 PM
409
MARSTRUCT.indb 409
2/18/2011 5:50:35 PM
ABSTRACT: The paper presents a method to estimate the displacement of the neutral axis of a damaged
ship subjected to bending moment. The method uses the load-end shortening relationship obtained from
previous numerical double bottom residual strength calculations establishing force equilibrium over the
whole transverse section of the ship. The set of estimated neutral axes allows the definition of a new load
condition to induce a higher bending moment on the double bottom structure. The new residual strength
is compared with previous numerical calculations for the intact and minor damaged double bottom in
which the bending moment was induced considering the neutral axis fixed during the entire simulation.
The comparison showed a reduction in the capacity of the double bottom structure when the bending
moment is induced by the new load condition.
1
INTRODUCTION
411
MARSTRUCT.indb 411
2/18/2011 5:50:35 PM
Figure 1.
model).
412
MARSTRUCT.indb 412
2/18/2011 5:50:36 PM
300
Outer Buckling
Inner Buckling
250
Figure 2.
Intact
"total"
200
Damage
150
100
"inner"
50
"outer"
0
0.0
defined initial imperfections corresponded to fabrication tolerances and the shape was defined using
sinusoidal expressions.
The true stress-strain relationship of the material was defined by an isotropic plasticity model
using a power law hardening rule (Mat.18 Power
Law Plasticity in LS-DYNA). The inputs of the
material were: yield stress 275 MPa, strength coefficient 740 and hardening exponent 0.24; strain
rate effects were ignored. Since only large plastic
deformations were studied, failure was not required
in the material definition.
Symmetry boundary conditions were defined at
the center line and the fore and aft floors were fully
clamped. Both boundary conditions were properly modified to induce a bending moment. As
the tanker was considered in full load condition,
water and oil pressure were applied on the bottom
and tank top, respectively. In the intact case the
sequence of the loads was pressure and a bending
moment whereas in the damaged case the sequence
was pressure, indentation damage and a bending
moment. In both intact and damaged cases the
bending moment was induced by defining prescribed displacements and rotations on the fore
and aft floors.
The hogging bending moment applied on the
double bottom structure induced axial strains and
stresses which were represented by mean strains
and resistance forces. The mean strain was
obtained by the ratio between the longitudinal
displacement of a node located in the central fore
floor and the span of the stiffeners. The resistance
forces were obtained from elements located forward the central aft floor. It must be noted that the
resistance forces were given for only one side (starboard) of the double bottom, which represented all
the thickness of the centre vertical keel.
Figure 3 shows the resistance force-mean strain
relationships of the intact and damaged cases. The
selected indenter to induce damage has triangular
shape, the depth is 150 mm and causes damage
to five stiffeners located between the second and
third side girder. The total resistance force is a
summation of the resistance force of the structural
elements located below and above the local neutral
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
413
MARSTRUCT.indb 413
2/18/2011 5:50:36 PM
Figure 4.
Figure 6.
414
MARSTRUCT.indb 414
2/18/2011 5:50:37 PM
22000
zi [mm]
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
-0.006
-0.004
Base Line
0
0.000
0.002
-0.002
Strain [n.u.]
0.004
0.006
22000
zi [mm]
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
0
-300
-200
Figure 7.
section.
-100
Stress [N/mm ]
Base Line
0
100
200
300
6.0
0.9
z/D
0.8
5.0
0.7
0.6
4.0
0.5
3.0
0.4
0.3
2.0
0.2
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.1
Figure 9.
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 10.
Definition of loads.
415
MARSTRUCT.indb 415
2/18/2011 5:50:39 PM
70
60
50
40
30
Previous
New
Exact
20
10
0
0.0
0.1
Figure 11.
0.2
0.4
0.5
time [s]
Displacement-time curve.
Outer Buckling
300
Inner Buckling
250
Resistance Force [MN]
0.3
"total"
200
"Previous"
"New"
150
100
"break"
Inner Elements
Outer Elements
50
0
0.0
Figure 12.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
-3
Curvature*10
416
MARSTRUCT.indb 416
2/18/2011 5:50:41 PM
300
250
200
150
100
REFERENCES
50
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
-3
Curvature*10
CONCLUSIONS
A method to estimate the displacement of the neutral axis of a damaged ship subjected to bending
moment is described. The method uses the loadend shortening relationship obtained from previous numerical residual strength calculations of
a double bottom establishing force equilibrium
over the whole transverse section of the ship. The
method allows the definition of a new load condition to induce a higher bending moment on the
double bottom structure.
The ultimate strength of the structural elements
below and above the local neutral axis of the double bottom structure are slightly overestimated
in the new calculations, demonstrating that the
double bottom structure is subjected to a higher
compressive load at smaller induced strains, and,
consequently experiences smaller contribution of
induced bending moment.
The most important difference between the previous and the new finite element calculations is the
shortening in the distance between the buckling of
the elements below and above the local neutral axis
of the double bottom (outer and inner elements).
This difference is due to the increment in the rate
of the compressive load. The conclusions are valid
for intact and damaged cases.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been performed within the project
FLAGSHIP (European Framework for Safe,
417
MARSTRUCT.indb 417
2/18/2011 5:50:42 PM
418
MARSTRUCT.indb 418
2/18/2011 5:50:43 PM
ABSTRACT: The paper presents numerical simulations of previously reported drop weight impact tests
examining the dynamic response of fully clamped steel circular plates struck transversely at the centre
by a mass with a spherical indenter. The impact velocity varied from 0.5 to 6.0 m/s. The plates showed
no visible damage at the very low incident energies, but suffered both permanent indentation and global
deformation as incident energy was increased. The numerical modelling was performed using the LSDYNA nonlinear, dynamic finite element software and is based on a previous finite element analysis
of aluminium plates under lateral impact. The numerical calculations used can accurately predict the
response of deflections, forces and absorbed energies, using both shell and solid element types. However,
solid elements were required to obtain a satisfactorily accurate prediction of the deformed shape including the indentation into the thickness. The steel plastic response is compared and discussed with that of
similar aluminium plates.
1
INTRODUCTION
419
MARSTRUCT.indb 419
2/18/2011 5:50:43 PM
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
600
Thick (4.0 mm)
Stress [MPa]
500
230MPa
200
100
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain [-]
350MPa
300
Figure 3.
Figure 2.
465MPa
400
NUMERICAL MODEL
420
MARSTRUCT.indb 420
2/18/2011 5:50:43 PM
Strain-rate sensitivity was considered by including nominal strain-rate coefficients (Jones 1989).
However, this resulted in predicting lower displacements than the experimental results and hence
these strain-rate coefficients were not included in
the model.
In order to try to investigate the source of vibrations seen in the experimental force-deflection
results, the time interval between outputs was
decreased ten times in comparison with the
previous analysis on aluminium plates.
Figure 4. Details of finite element model (Villavicencio
et al. 2010).
t = e (e + 1)
(1)
t = 1n (e + 1)
(2)
Experimental
Shell2
Shell1
Solid1
20
Force [kN]
15
10
5
0
2
3
4
Displacement [mm]
421
MARSTRUCT.indb 421
2/18/2011 5:50:45 PM
1.00
25
0.75
Force [kN]
Force [kN]
20
15
10
0.50
0.25
5
0.88m/s
0
0
2.65m/s
4.80m/s
2
3
4
Displacement [mm]
5.90m/s
0.00
0.00
10
4.39m/s
6
2.55m/s
4
0.60m/s
2
0
0
4
6
8
Displacement [mm]
10
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Displacement [mm]
1.25
1.50
5.90m/s
8
Force [kN]
Experimental
Shell2
Shell1
Solid1
12
422
MARSTRUCT.indb 422
2/18/2011 5:50:46 PM
14
12
1.4 mm
Numerical
10
8
Experimental
4.0 mm
4
2
0
0
Figure 9.
plates.
2
3
4
5
Impact Velocity [m/s]
25
Maximum Force [kN]
4.0 mm
20
Numerical
15
Experimental
1.4 mm
10
5
0
0
2
3
4
5
Impact Velocity [m/s]
423
MARSTRUCT.indb 423
2/18/2011 5:50:47 PM
Steel 4.0 mm
Energy [J]
80
60
Kinetic
Internal
Sliding
Internal+Sliding
Total
40
20
0
0
100
4
time [ms]
Steel 1.4 mm
80
Energy [J]
60
40
Kinetic
Internal
Sliding
Internal+Sliding
Total
20
0
0
4
time [ms]
424
MARSTRUCT.indb 424
2/18/2011 5:50:48 PM
Experimental
Shell2
Solid1
Shell2_Old
10
Force [kN]
4.3
12
8
6
4
2
0
0
6
8
10
Displacement [mm]
12
14
Figure 14. Force-displacement response thin aluminium plate. Impact velocity 5.9 m/s.
425
MARSTRUCT.indb 425
2/18/2011 5:50:51 PM
14
12
2.0 mm
Experimental
10
Numerical
6.0 mm
6
4
2
0
0
Figure 15.
2
3
4
5
Impact Velocity [m/s]
Maximum deflection-velocity.
25
6.0 mm
20
Numerical
15
Experimental
2.0 mm
10
5
0
0
Figure 16.
2
3
4
5
Impact Velocity [m/s]
Maximum force-velocity.
CONCLUSIONS
426
MARSTRUCT.indb 426
2/18/2011 5:50:52 PM
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work has been performed in the scope of the
project MARSTRUCT, Network of Excellence
on Marine Structures (http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/
marstruct/), which has been financed by the EU
through the GROWTH Programme under contract TNE3-CT-2003-506141.
The first author has been financed by the
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under contract SFRH/BD/46369/2008.
REFERENCES
Dieter GE. 1986. Mechanical behavior under tensile and
compressive loads. ASM Handbook. 8: 9910.
Ehlers S. 2010. Strain and stress relation relation until
fracture for finite element simulations of a thin circular plate. Thin-Walled Structures. 48 (1): 18.
Hallquist JO. 2005. LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
Jones N. 1989. Structural Impact. Cambridge University
Press.
Shen WQ. 1995. Dynamic plastic response of thin circular
plates struck transversely by nonblunt masses. Int. J.
Solids Structures. 32 (14): 20092021.
427
MARSTRUCT.indb 427
2/18/2011 5:50:53 PM
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to investigate residual Ultimate Longitudinal Strength (ULS)
of a panamax bulk carrier being subjected to sagging moment. ULS of panamax bulk carrier in intact
condition is estimated using large-scale nonlinear FEM analysis code LS-DYNA as well as simplified
analysis method based on the Smith method. ULS in intact condition estimated by FEA is compared
with that estimated by simplified method. It can be found that ULS estimated by FEA and that by
simplified analysis show a fairly good agreement although small discrepancy can be seen. Moreover ULS
in damaged condition is estimated assuming collision at midship region of the side shell, where damaged
area is artificially created as a first phase of the research project.
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Tier I: Goals
Figure 1.
Residual strength
429
MARSTRUCT.indb 429
2/18/2011 5:50:53 PM
(1)
Figure 2.
430
MARSTRUCT.indb 430
2/18/2011 5:50:54 PM
Table 1.
Main particulars.
Length
Breadth
Depth
Dead weight
Table 2.
Nodes
Elements
Lpp
Bm
Dm
DW
278
45
24
170281
m
m
m
ton
Table 2 shows a number of nodes and elements used in the finite element model. In order to
carry out ship-ship collision analysis as well as
ULS analysis, three cargo holds (No. 4, No. 5 and
No. 6 holds) around amidships are modeled with
elastic-plastic elements, and remaining fore and
aft parts are modeled with rigid element. No. 5
cargo hold is set to target cargo hold and modeled with fine mesh and adjacent cargo hold of
No. 4 and No. 6 are modeled with slightly coarse
mesh than No. 5 hold. Usually in ship-ship collision, only the struck side of target hold is modeled with fine mesh and the other side might be
modeled with rather coarse mesh or rigid elements in order to reduce a computation time. In
this study, however, in order to carry out ULS
analysis after collision it is important both sides
are symmetrically modeled, therefore both sides
of the target hold (No. 5) are modeled with
fine mesh, consequently a number of elements
increases considerably.
It is noted that since both sides are modeled with
elastic-plastic elements effect of global hull girder
horizontal bending moment can also be considered
in this model especially being subjected to collision.
Plates and web stiffeners are modeled with shell
elements and flange of stiffeners are modeled with
beam elements in fine mesh region. Default element
types of LS-DYNA are used for both beam and
shell elements respectively. That is Belytscko-Tsay
element for shell elements, Hughes-Liu element
for beam elements. The ship is designed to comply with a class rule, and built of typical mild steel
and high tensile steel. Material model of MAT24
is used where strain hardening effect and fracture
of elements are taken into account. The strain rate
effect can also be taken into account by MAT24.
However in this study in order to investigate quasistatic ULS and also to compare ULS estimated by
FEA with that by smith method, strain rate effect
is not taken into account. Strain rate effect can be
taken into account in order to investigate dynamic
ULS of ships considering time duration of wave
ULTIMATE LONGITUDINAL
STRENGTH (ULS) IN INTACT
CONDITION
431
MARSTRUCT.indb 431
2/18/2011 5:50:55 PM
Analysis results
M02-C35a
(Mmax=16 GNm, t=2.0s, DT2MS=10ms)
30
Moment [GNm]
3.2
Applied Moment
20
Reaction Moment
10
0
0.0
0.5
Figure 7. Time
(t = 2.0 s).
Figure 3. Collapse of the ship due to vertical bending
moment (Intact Condition).
histories
of
2.0
bending
2.5
moments
1.0
1.5
Time[s]
(2)
432
MARSTRUCT.indb 432
2/18/2011 5:50:55 PM
M02-C35a
(Mmax=16GNm, t=2.0s, DT2MS=10ms)
Moment [GNm]
30
20
10
0
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
1/[1/m]
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
Applied Moment
Reaction Moment
20
M u* =
10
0.2
Figure 9. Time
(t = 0.3 s).
Moment [GNm]
30
0.4
0.6
Time [s]
histories
of
0.8
1.0
bending
20
10
0
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
1/[1/m]
6.0E-04
moments
M02-C05a
(Mmax=20GNm, t=0.3s, DT2MS=10ms)
0.0E+00
Mu
Mp
(5)
0
0.0
(4)
30
Moment [GNm]
M02-C05a
(Mmax=20GNm, t=0.3s, DT2MS=10ms)
(3)
8.0E-04
(6)
curvature center
UP.DK.
Neutral Axis
BTM.
T.BHD.
T.BHD.
433
MARSTRUCT.indb 433
2/18/2011 5:51:00 PM
25
Mu [GNm]
20
14.44
15.22
MARS2000
FEA (C35a)
15
10
5
ULTIMATE LONGITUDINAL
STRENGTH (ULS) IN DAMAGED
CONDITION
In this section, ULS in damaged condition is estimated using FEA as well as simplified analysis,
where a collision at midship region of the ship
is assumed as an accident scenario. Hussein &
Guedes Soares (2009) assumed a vertical collision
damage of ship from upper deck to downward
in estimating RULS by using MARS2000. Since
two-dimensional transverse section is considered
in the smith type simplified method, extent of
longitudinal damage is not explicitly considered.
However rapid estimation of RULS by the Smith
type method is very useful and effective from the
view point of initial step of ship design. However
it is important and useful to compare RULS estimated by simplified analysis and that by FEA. On
the other hand a 3-D ship-ship collision simulation
is going to be carried out in the present research
project in order to set up actual damage of the
struck ship. However it is not practical to carry
out a lot ofship-ship collision due to restriction by
time-consuming large scale simulation.
Therefore considering these above as well as a
first phase of the research project, artificial vertical
damages, which are similar to those assumed by
Hussein & Guedes Soares (2009) on the side shell,
M u,damage
M u,int act
(7)
(8)
ANALYSIS RESULTS
434
MARSTRUCT.indb 434
2/18/2011 5:51:06 PM
16.0
FEA (M16GNm_T2.0s)
Simplified
14.44
14.0
13.0
12.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
h/D
Figure 15.
RSI
S 2=
Simplified
1.0
RSI
FEA (M16GNm_T2.0s)
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
h/D
Figure 16.
M u,damage
(9)
Mp
0.9
RSI2
Mu [GNm]
15.22
15.0
Simplified
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
h/D
Figure 17.
435
MARSTRUCT.indb 435
2/18/2011 5:51:08 PM
CONCLUSIONS
436
MARSTRUCT.indb 436
2/18/2011 5:51:13 PM
ABSTRACT: Non-linear finite element method is a powerful tool for analyzing ship collision problem
and has been seen more and more applications in the recent years. Ship collision simulations still face
some difficulties in terms of providing reliable results. The accuracy of numerical modeling results significantly depends on the proper definition of the phenomenon and careful control of the some critical
parameters such as rupture criteria. A series of FEM indentation analysis have been carried out quasistatically on various configurations of stiffened steel panels with T- and Y- stiffeners. The analysis method
presented has been implemented into explicit finite element code LS-DYNA, being linked with ANSYS
for pre- and post-processing of the related computations.
1
INTRODUCTION
Stiffened plates are used as main supporting members in many civil as well as marine structural applications. They typically consist of a plate with equally
spaced stiffeners welded on one side, often with
intermediate transverse stiffeners or bulkheads.
The most common stiffener cross-sections are
bulb, flat bar or T- and L-sections. Such structural
arrangements are common for both steel and aluminium structures.
Recently, some new steel double hull structures
were invented to achieve better energy absorption
capacity. Y-, rectangular box section, trapezoidal
box section, X- and corrugated frames are some of
new innovation stiffened structures. The intention
of these new designs was to prevent early crack
occurrence during a collision or grounding. Some
examples of this type illustrates in Figure 1.
Ship grounding scenarios can be divided into two
sub groups: stranding and powered grounding.
During powered grounding, structural damage is
437
MARSTRUCT.indb 437
2/18/2011 5:51:13 PM
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Recent advances in computers and calculation algorithms have made non-linear finite element analysis
a viable tool for assessing the internal mechanics
of collisions. Two types of FE methodologies are
relevant, namely implicit and explicit techniques.
Implicit methodologies obtain solution by simultaneous solving of systems of equations needing
frequent updating of the stiffness matrix for nonlinear FE analysis. This places demands on the equation solver and the computer capacity especially in
terms of memory resources and CPU cycles. Explicit
codes obtain system solutions based on mass matrix
that remain constant not needing frequent updating
as in the case of stiffness approach. Explicit method
however needs smaller time steps to comply with
stability requirement for equation solving.
To analyze a collision and grounding accident
involving high non-linearity and phenomena such
as colliding surfaces contact, friction and rupture,
the explicit methodology is suitable. The required
calculation efforts are fewer than the commonly
used implicit methods. Converge of calculations is much easier to realize. Explicit methodologies based computer codes include ABAQUS/
Explicit, DYTRAN, LS-DYNA, PAM-CRASH
and ANSYS/LS-DYNA, and implicit methodologies based codes include ABAQUS/Standard,
ANSYS, MARC and NASTRAN.
Non-linear finite element (FEM) is a powerful
tool for analyzing ship collision problem and has
(1)
438
MARSTRUCT.indb 438
2/18/2011 5:51:14 PM
P
1+
C
(2)
.
where: = strain rate
C, P = Cowper-Symonds parameters
The material model properties that used in this
paper are given in Table 1. Yield stresses of used
material are given in Table 2.
A Cowper-symonds material property was
selected in ANSYS/LS-DYNA material list. In
this material properties C and P parameters (strain
rate parameters) must be entered. In these analyses
dynamic relaxation option in ANSYS was
applied and then only static parameters were used
in analysis.
Two of effective parameters on collision and
stranding are failure strain and element size. The
rupture failure may be explained using metal
Density [kg/m3]
Young modulus [GPa]
Poisson ratio []
Tangent modulus [GPa]
Cowper-Symonds strain
rate parameter [Hz]
Cowper-Symonds strain
rate parameter
Table 2.
y
n
n
Etan
C
7850
210
0.303
1
40.4
Stiffener
285
0.71
0.24
340
0.71
0.225
n)
t
le
(3)
Table 1.
+ (n
A recent years, some research was done on collision and grounding of ship structure and stiffened
panels. One of them is penetration of stiffened
panel both experimentally and numerically by
Alsos et al. (2009a, b).
Verification studies were conducted in order to
check present analysis for using in panels grounding damage studies. To achieve this verification,
stiffened panels of Alsos et al. (2009a) was selected
and analyzed numerically to compare present analysis with experimental analysis.
Alsos et al. papers deal with hull damage in
ships which were subjected to grounding actions.
A ship was assumed to settle vertically on a rock.
It was further assumed that contact actions were
local and restricted to one plate section. The scenario was analyzed by conducting a series of panel
indentation experiments. Various configurations
of stiffened panels were loaded laterally by a cone
shaped indenter until fracture occurred.
439
MARSTRUCT.indb 439
2/18/2011 5:51:14 PM
Penetration tests
Platestiffener configuration.
Specimen
Num. of stiff.
Stiffener type
US
1-FB
1-HP
2-FB
2-HP
None
one
one
two
two
120 6 mm
120 6 mm
120 6 mm
120 6 mm
440
MARSTRUCT.indb 440
2/18/2011 5:51:15 PM
Figure 4.
441
MARSTRUCT.indb 441
2/18/2011 5:51:17 PM
Figure 7.
b y
t E
(4)
a y
t E
(5)
442
MARSTRUCT.indb 442
2/18/2011 5:51:20 PM
Table 4.
Geometrical characteristics stiffened panels with Y-stiffener (YB panels)-all dimensions in [mm].
Y stiffener
Plate
Hat section
Tee section
Model ID
BT
t1
B1
B2
H1
t2
H2
B3
t3
YB-1
YB-2
YB-3
1200
800
5
6
7
120
160
200
80
120
160
80
120
120
5
6
7
80
120
120
80
80
120
5
6
7
Tee section
Model ID
BT
t1
Hw
Bf
t2
TB-1
TB-2
TB-3
1200
800
5
6
7
137
185
191
80
120
120
5
6
7
Figure 11.
Figure 10.
443
MARSTRUCT.indb 443
2/18/2011 5:51:23 PM
Each set of 2 groups has same bending rigidity. Weight ratio of YB to TB panels in set 1 is
1.297, while contact force ratio is 1.614. Same
as this, weight ratio of set 2 and 3 are 1.349 and
1.426 respectively and contact force ration is 2.226
and 2.126. This comparison shows that YB panels
compared to TB panels have greater contact force
to weight.
6
Figure 15.
CONCLUSIONS
444
MARSTRUCT.indb 444
2/18/2011 5:51:27 PM
REFERENCES
Alsos, H.S. & Amdahl, J. 2009a. On the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part I: Experiments. Int. J.
Impact Engineering 36:799807.
Alsos, H.S., Amdahl, J. & Hopperstad, O.S. 2009b. On
the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part
II: numerical analysis. Int. J. Impact Engineering
36:875887.
Badran, S.F., Nassef, A.O. & Metwalli, S. 2007. Stability
of Y-stiffeners in ship plating under uniaxial compressive loads. Ships and Offshore Structures 2(1):8794.
Ehlers, S. 2009. A procedure to optimize ship side structures for crashworthiness, J. of engineering for maritime environment 224:111.
Quinton, B.W.T. 2007. Ship collision mitigation: redesign
of an oil tanker side shell. 8th Canadian marine hydrodynamics and structures conference, St. Johns, 1617
October. NL: Canada.
445
MARSTRUCT.indb 445
2/18/2011 5:51:30 PM
ABSTRACT: If a ship strands it is important to estimate the acting forces and moments in respect to its
ultimate hull girder strength. The influence of the shear force in combination with the bending moment
needs to be taken into account. Therefore a procedure to calculate the moment-shear force interaction
curve of a ships cross section is introduced. Three specimens of an experiment (carried out by Reckling
et al.) are recalculated with the FE method to validate the procedure. In the experiment longitudinal
stiffened girders are loaded with pure bending. After the FE results are satisfactory equal to those of the
experiment and the computing time is optimised, the shear force is additionally introduced by different
load cases. Enough nodes for the moment-shear force interaction curve are found. Three normalised
curves are presented- one for each of the three specimens. Various cross sections and lengths of the
specimen result in different curves.
1
INTRODUCTION
THE EXPERIMENT
447
MARSTRUCT.indb 447
2/18/2011 5:51:30 PM
Table 1.
Table 2.
value.
Nr
lk [mm]
t [mm]
b [mm]
h [mm]
31
22
23
1410
1210
1410
2.5
2.5
2.5
120
85.7
85.7
133
100
100
Stiffeners [mm]
31
22
23
Top/bottom
Side shell
4 L-profiles 30 20 3
6 L-profiles 30 20 3
6 L-profiles 30 20 3
2 I-profiles 30 2.5
3 I-profiles 30 2.5
3 I-profiles 30 2.5
Nr
F [N/mm2]
E [N/mm2]
Me [kNm]
fe [mm]
31
22
23
255
255
239
2.09 105
2.09 105
2.09 105
231.7
256.6
240.5
15
11.1
14.1
Figure 1.
Cross section.
Figure 2.
Experimental setup.
Analysis of tests
448
MARSTRUCT.indb 448
2/18/2011 5:51:30 PM
Generals
3.2
Pure bending
800
Model 31, 22
700
Stress [N/mm2]
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Strain
Figure 3.
449
MARSTRUCT.indb 449
2/18/2011 5:51:31 PM
top plate. The shown maximum/minimum displacement includes the deflection of the complete
system in negative z-direction.
If no pre-deformation is applied, one buckle
occurs in negative z-direction in the middle of
the top plate (area 3). Its deepest point with
20 mm of displacement is right in the middle
of the plate between the longitudinal stiffeners.
After reaching the ultimate bending moment
additional buckles establish between the remaining stiffeners. Whereas area 2 and 4 buckle in
positive, the outer areas (1 and 5) deform in negative z-direction. Between the two pictures the
maximal displacement differ 13 mm measured at
the same node in area 3.
450
MARSTRUCT.indb 450
2/18/2011 5:51:32 PM
Cicular Pre-Deformation
2.3E+08
Original Pre-Deformation
2.2E+08
M [Nmm]
2.1E+08
2.0E+08
1.9E+08
1.8E+08
1.7E+08
1.6E+08
1.5E+08
9.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
19.0
21.0
23.0
f [mm]
2.2E+08
M [Nmm]
2.1E+08
2.0E+08
1.9E+08
1.8E+08
11.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
19.0
21.0
23.0
f [mm]
451
MARSTRUCT.indb 451
2/18/2011 5:51:34 PM
2.5E+08
M [Nmm]
2.0E+08
1.5E+08
Ideal 31
Specimen 31
FEM 31
1.0E+08
Initial Stress 31
5.0E+07
0.0E+00
0.0
Figure 11.
5.0
10.0
f [mm]
15.0
20.0
25.0
452
MARSTRUCT.indb 452
2/18/2011 5:51:36 PM
3.0E+08
2.5E+08
2.0E+08
M [Nmm]
1.5E+08
FEM 31
Specimen 31
FEM 22
Specimen 22
1.0E+08
FEM 23
Specimen 23
5.0E+07
0.0E+00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
f [mm]
Figure 13.
and 23.
453
MARSTRUCT.indb 453
2/18/2011 5:51:36 PM
Table 3.
2.5E+08
Load cases.
Case
Force P
1
1aa
1a
1b
2
3
3a
3b
1 P
5/6 P
1/2 P
1/6 P
0P
1P
1/2 P
1/30 P
Mpl = F Wpl
Case 1
Case 1a
Case 1b
Case 2
Case 3b
M [Nmm]
Case 3a
Case 3
1.5E+08
F
3
(2)
Case 1aa
2.0E+08
(1)
1.0E+08
5.0E+07
0.0E+00
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
f' [mm]
Figure 15.
1.0
Case 1
Case 1aa
0.9
Case 1a
0.8
3.0E+05
Case 1
Case 1b
Case 2
0.7
Case 1aa
Case 3b
0.6
2.5E+05
M/Mpl
Case 1a
Case 1b
Case 2
Case 3b
Q [N]
2.0E+05
Case 3a
Case 3
0.5
0.4
Case 3a
Case 3
0.3
0.2
1.5E+05
0.1
1.0E+05
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
Q/Qpl
5.0E+04
Figure 17.
curve.
0.0E+00
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
f' [mm]
Figure 16.
1.0
Model 31
0.9
Model 22
Model 23
0.7
0.6
M/Mpl
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
Q/Qpl
Figure 18.
curve.
454
MARSTRUCT.indb 454
2/18/2011 5:51:39 PM
CONCLUSIONS
455
MARSTRUCT.indb 455
2/18/2011 5:51:41 PM
Dynamic analysis
MARSTRUCT.indb 457
2/18/2011 5:51:41 PM
ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on the numerical methods for the ship hull structure strengths and
fatigue analyses, in order to estimate the initial design ship service life period. The applied methods have
been improved in the Marstruct Project. The numerical analyses are divided in three-interlinked parts.
The first part includes the hull strength analysis method, based on 3D/1D-FEM models, under equivalent
quasi-static head wave loads. The second part presents the ship hull dynamic response analysis method,
based on non-linear hydroelasticity theory with second order wave spectrum. The third part includes the
fatigue analysis method for the initial ship hull structure, based on the long-term prediction ship dynamic
response, the cumulative damage ratio and the design S-N material curves. The numerical analyses are
carried out for a large double hull oil-tanker with 275 m length between perpendiculars. The full and ballast loading cases are analysed. The numerical results outline the extreme hydroelastic wave loads and the
ships initial service life evaluation.
1
INTRODUCTION
459
MARSTRUCT.indb 459
2/18/2011 5:51:41 PM
285.00
275.00
46.00
23.80
dMLD [m]
cB
Vcargo [m3]
Dw [t]
17.622
0.834
188500
167000
WB ,D =
Iy
eB ,D
; K n
838.283
9.432
4.822
0.429
eB [m]
eD [m]
WB [m3]
WD [m3]
11.912
13.088
70.375
64.048
Table 3.
Syn n
I y tS
(1)
E [N/m ]
G [N/m2]
2.1 1011
8.1 1010
m[t/m3]
7.7
0.001
ReH-A [N/mm2]
Rm-A [N/mm2]
adm-A [N/mm2]
adm-A [N/mm2]
235
400
175
110
ReH-AH32 [N/mm2]
Rm-AH32 [N/mm2]
adm-AH32 [N/mm2]
adm-AH32 [N/mm2]
315
440
224
141
Table 4.
cases*.
Load
No case
1
2
Figure 1. The large oil-tanker TK 167000 tdw offset
section lines.
Iy [m4]
A [m2]
Afz [m2]
Knn S [m2]
nS
S
[t]
dm
[m]
daft
[m]
dfore
[m]
vs
[Knots]
Full
191680 17.622 17.742 17.492 15
cargo
Ballast 146570 13.711 15.677 11.889 16
460
MARSTRUCT.indb 460
2/18/2011 5:51:41 PM
based on the hydroelasticity theory. The equivalent ship girder 1D-FEM has 40 equal length beam
elements along the ship, so that from the original
ship offset lines (Figure 1) are selected only the
transversal sections disposed at the middle of each
element. The diagrams of the transversal section
characteristics (Table 2) are idealised with trapezoidal distributions along the ship.
The 3D-CAD/FEM model (Domnisoru 2006,
2008) of the large oil-tanker TK 167000 tdw
is developed using the SolidWorks Cosmos/M
(SWCM 2007) FEM program, for the enhanced
ship hull strength analysis (Section 3). Table 6
presents the main characteristics of the 3D-CAD/
FEM model. The 3D-FEM model (including stiffeners) is based on auto-mesh procedure with thick
triangular shell elements (SHELL3T), ensuring
the mesh convergence also on surfaces with high
curvature. Figures 4a, b, c, d present the 3D-FEM
model, full length extended. In Section 3 the
3D-FEM model boundary conditions and loading
cases are presented.
Sections 35 include the numerical analyses
results.
mx [t/m]
1400
1260
1120
980
840
700
560
420
280
x[m]
140
0
3
12
18
29
37
46
55
66
73
94
104
122
143
160
170
192
214
223
238
248
263
273
285
mx[t/m]
1400
1260
1120
980
840
700
560
420
280
x[m]
140
0
1
19
31
39
Figure 2b.
case 2.
51
71
93
110
123
143
149
171
192
214
224
239
248
268
277
285
Oscillations
Vibrations
0.866
0.629
0.897
0.645
1.904
1.478
2.085
1.505
3.434
2.536
3.882
2.750
1
2
Full
dry
Number of points
Number of curves
Number of surfaces
Number of nodes
Number of SHELL3T
elements
Number of element groups
Average/maximum
EL size [m]
Support condition
aft-peak node
Support condition
fore-peak node
PTmax
CRmax
SFmax
NDmax
ELmax
16310
40802
18598
31977
104275
EG
average/max
275
0.9/1.8
NDaft
5990
NDfore
4214
28.50
57.00
Mode 0 / 0.088Hz
Figure 3.
load case.
85.50
Mode 1 / 0.097 Hz
114.00
142.50
Mode 2 / 0.629 Hz
171.00
199.50
Mode 3 / 1.478 Hz
228.00
256.50
Mode 4 / 2.536 Hz
285.00
x [m]
461
MARSTRUCT.indb 461
2/18/2011 5:51:43 PM
Figure 4c. The large oil-tanker 3D-FEM model, cargoholds (view with the centre line longitudinal bulkhead
removed).
(2a)
RFZ(NDaft) 0
RFZ(NDfore) 0
(2b)
462
MARSTRUCT.indb 462
2/18/2011 5:51:45 PM
(3)
Ballast
Load case
Sagging
Hogging
Sagging
Hogging
Criterion
1.348
0.372
0.64
1.371
0.170
0.29
1.758
0.212
0.37
1.763
0.243
0.42
BBuckling > 1
max wz[m]
wzmax/wadm < 1
The 3D-FEM ship hull structure strength analysis is compared to the classical ship equivalent
1D-girder strength analysis (Table 8), based on
eigen program code (Domnisoru 2006).
Section 2 presents the numerical data of the
3D-FEM and 1D-girder oil-tanker models.
Table 4 and Figures 2a, b present the two
loading cases, full cargo and ballast, for the large
oil-tanker.
The external quasi-static head wave pressure,
with height hw = 012 m, step hw = 1 m is applied
on the 3D-FEM hull model, using an iterative
procedure for the vertical in plane equilibrium
condition. The sagging and hogging head
wave conditions are considered. Based on the
Germanischer Lloyds Rules (GL 2008), the Ship
Classification Society equivalent quasi-static
statistical wave height for the TK 167000 tdw
oil-tanker is hw = 10.692 m.
For the two loading cases (Table 4), the
numerical results of the ship strength analyses
are synthesized in Tables 7, 8 and Figures 59
(see Conclusions 13).
Table 8. The maximum TK 167000 tdw oil-tanker stresses, for a) the full cargo load case and b) the ballast load
case, under sagging and hogging quasi-static equivalent head wave conditions, with the reference wave height
hw = 10.692 m.
Sagging
Load case
1D-girder
Hogging
3D-FEM
3D/1D
1D-girder
3D-FEM
3D/1D
68.85
0.307
111.10
0.495
79.71
0.355
138.38
0.617
1.16
62.16
0.355
100.31
0.573
81.34
0.465
167.20
0.955
1.31
1.25
1.67
(3) Side shell tangential stresses, in the neutral axis of the ship transversal sections |xzSnn-max| [N/mm2]: adm-A = 110
a) full:
56.31
64.68
1.15
27.88
32.97
1.18
0.512
0.588
0.253
0.300
max/adm
b) ballast:
71.67
78.85
1.10
43.75
46.99
1.07
0.652
0.717
0.398
0.427
max/adm
(4) Deck von Mises stresses |vonD-max| [N/mm2]: adm-AH32 = 224
a) full:
167.75
184.91
1.10
0.748
0.824
max/adm
b) ballast:
119.02
124.74
1.05
0.530
0.556
max/adm
68.85
0.307
111.10
0.495
77.30
0.345
132.00
0.588
1.12
62.16
0.355
100.31
0.573
73.48
0.420
155.10
0.886
1.18
1.19
1.55
463
MARSTRUCT.indb 463
2/18/2011 5:51:46 PM
25.00
2
x [N/mm ] DECK 1D-beam Model Sagging / Quasi-static Wave / TK Oil-tanker Full Cargo
225.00
0.00
2
VON max [N/mm ] DECK 3D-FEM Model Sagging / Quasi-static Wave / TK Oil-tanker Ballast
200.00
-25.00
175.00
-50.00
150.00
-75.00
125.00
-100.00
100.00
-125.00
75.00
-150.00
50.00
-175.00
25.00
-200.00
-225.00
0.00
28.50
57.00
85.50
114.00
142.50
171.00
199.50
228.00
hw=0m
hw=1m
hw=2m
hw=3m
hw=4m
hw=5m
hw=6m
hw=8m
hw=9m
hw=10m
hw=10.69
hw=11m
hw=12m
adm
256.50
hw=7m
0.00
0.00
285.00
x [m]
57.00
85.50
114.00
142.50
171.00
199.50
228.00
hw=1m
hw=2m
hw=3m
hw=4m
hw=5m
hw=6m
hw=8m
hw=9m
hw=10m
hw=10.69
hw=11m
hw=12m
adm
256.50
hw=7m
285.00
x [m]
225.00
25.00
28.50
hw=0m
2
x max [N/mm ] DECK 3D-FEM Model Sagging / Quasi-static Wave / TK Oil-tanker Full Cargo
2
VON max [N/mm ] DECK 3D-FEM Model Hogging / Quasi-static Wave / TK Oil-tanker Ballast
200.00
175.00
0.00
-25.00
150.00
-50.00
125.00
-75.00
100.00
-100.00
75.00
-125.00
50.00
-150.00
25.00
-175.00
0.00
0.00
-200.00
-225.00
0.00
28.50
57.00
85.50
114.00
142.50
171.00
199.50
228.00
hw=0m
hw=1m
hw=2m
hw=3m
hw=4m
hw=5m
hw=6m
hw=8m
hw=9m
hw=10m
hw=10.69
hw=11m
hw=12m
adm
256.50
hw=7m
285.00
57.00
85.50
114.00
142.50
171.00
199.50
228.00
hw=1m
hw=2m
hw=3m
hw=4m
hw=5m
hw=6m
hw=8m
hw=9m
hw=10m
hw=10.69
hw=11m
hw=12m
adm
256.50
hw=7m
285.00
x [m]
x [m]
225.00
28.50
hw=0m
2
VON max [N/mm ] DECK 3D-FEM Model Sagging / Quasi-static Wave / TK Oil-tanker Full Cargo
200.00
175.00
150.00
125.00
100.00
75.00
50.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
28.50
57.00
85.50
114.00
142.50
171.00
199.50
228.00
hw=0m
hw=1m
hw=2m
hw=3m
hw=4m
hw=5m
hw=6m
hw=8m
hw=9m
hw=10m
hw=10.69
hw=11m
hw=12m
adm
256.50
hw=7m
285.00
x [m]
225.00
Figure 8a.
cargo.
Figure 8b.
cargo.
2
VON max [N/mm ] DECK 3D-FEM Model Hogging / Quasi-static Wave / TK Oil-tanker Full Cargo
200.00
175.00
150.00
125.00
100.00
75.00
50.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
28.50
57.00
85.50
114.00
142.50
171.00
199.50
228.00
hw=0m
hw=1m
hw=2m
hw=3m
hw=4m
hw=5m
hw=6m
hw=8m
hw=9m
hw=10m
hw=10.69
hw=11m
hw=12m
adm
256.50
hw=7m
285.00
x [m]
464
MARSTRUCT.indb 464
2/18/2011 5:51:47 PM
4
Figure 9b. vonM [KN/m2], hw = 10.692 m, x = 66216 m,
hogging, full.
465
MARSTRUCT.indb 465
2/18/2011 5:51:53 PM
wc (x, e )
( e )
et ws ( e ) i et
(4)
where e is the encountering ship-wave circular frequency of a wave component; wc,s(x,e) are the e
wave frequency domain components;
the calculation of motion equations system
terms: structural, hydrodynamic and wave excitation forces;
the solution in frequency domain of the ship linear
dynamic response on each wave component e;
the calculation of linear ship dynamic response,
based on spectral composition in time domain.
The TRANZY module, the non-linear and
transitory ship dynamic response, includes nonlinear oscillations and springing, bottom and side
slamming and whipping components.
This code program module includes the following main steps:
the ship data input and solution of STABY
module;
the calculation of the non-linear motion equations system terms;
Because the excitation force includes the
unknown non-linear dynamic response, it is necessary to use an iterative algorithm for the time
domain solution of non-linear motion equations
(Domnisoru 1998).
the solution of the differential non-linear motion
equations system, using a time domain integration procedure, -Newmark, at each iteration,
with simulation time Ts = 80s and time step
t = 0.01s (ftriggering = 100 Hz);
%vib/osc
linear
%vib/osc
non-linear
Bottom
slamming
Side
slamming
0.00
0.50
1.00
Average
5.86
4.91
5.00
5.26
5.90
5.08
5.22
5.40
no
yes
no
yes
Slamming occurrence
Table 9b. The ratios between the significant displacements and deformations %w1/3vib/w1/3osc, ballast case
(reference h1/3 = 12 m).
x/L
%vib/osc
linear
%vib/osc
non-linear
Bottom
slamming
Side
slamming
0.00
0.50
1.00
Average
7.21
5.10
6.11
6.14
7.83
5.64
6.49
6.65
no
yes
yes
yes
Slamming occurrence
%vib/osc
linear
%vib/osc
non-linear
Springing
0.25
0.50
0.75
Average
12.52
14.00
13.50
13.34
33.66
42.59
43.49
39.91
Linear:
Small
High
Non-linear:
Medium
Whipping
466
MARSTRUCT.indb 466
2/18/2011 5:51:55 PM
%vib/osc
linear
%vib/osc
non-linear
Springing
0.25
0.50
0.75
Average
11.81
12.32
12.65
12.26
63.55
75.15
63.43
67.37
Linear:
Small
Higher
Non-linear:
Medium
Whipping
1/3max_LIN + |sw|
deck
1/3max_LIN + |sw|
bottom
1/3max_NL + |sw|
deck
1/3max_NL + |sw|
bottom
1/3max_LIN + |sw|
side n-n
1/3max_NL + |sw|
side n-n
Strength
criterion
h1/3 [m]
limit
Beaufort
limit
153.67
0.685 < 1
12
11
131.49
0.751 < 1
12
11
175.54
0.782 < 1
12
11
149.77
0.856 < 1
12
11
Strength
criterion
89.07
0.397 < 1 12
11
75.65
0.432 < 1 12
11
125.54
0.560 < 1 12
11
106.31
0.608 < 1 12
11
56.92
0.517 < 1 12
11
67.21
0.611 < 1 12
11
wave [m]
7.50
6.00
4.50
3.00
1.50
50.71
0.461 < 1
12
11
56.55
0.514 < 1
12
11
0.00
-1.50
-3.00
-4.50
-6.00
-7.50
0
13
1/
M13
1/
,
,B
+ swD,B
adm
W
1
,B
1/13
1/3
= T/
max
a
30
40
50
60
70
t [s]
80
wave [m]
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
f [Hz]
3.00
K n nS
1///3maxSn n + swSn
swSn
S n
adm
20
Figure 10a.
x/L = 0.5).
13
1/
10
(5)
467
MARSTRUCT.indb 467
2/18/2011 5:51:56 PM
Mosc_nl [KNm]
2
x1/3nl+|ac| [N/mm ] DECK
Oil-tanker Full Cargo Section x/L=0.5 vs=15Knots Wave LH & ITTC h1/3=12m
Non-Linear Analysis Time Record : Bending Moment - Oscillation Response
225.00
8.0E+06
200.00
6.0E+06
175.00
4.0E+06
150.00
2.0E+06
125.00
0.0E+00
100.00
75.00
-2.0E+06
50.00
-4.0E+06
25.00
-6.0E+06
0.00
0.00
-8.0E+06
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
t [s]
80
Mosc_nl [KNm]
28.50
57.00
85.50
114.00
142.50
171.00
199.50
228.00
256.50
h1/3=0m
h1/3=1m
h1/3=2m
h1/3=3m
h1/3=4m
h1/3=5m
h1/3=6m
h1/3=7m
h1/3=8m
h1/3=9m
h1/3=10m
h1/3=11m
h1/3=12m
Sig_adm
285.00
x[m]
Oil-tanker Full Cargo Section x/L=0.5 vs=15Knots Wave LH & ITTC h1/3=12m
Non-Linear Amplitude Spectrum FFT Analysis : Bending Moment - Oscillation Response
225.00
2.5E+06
200.00
175.00
2.0E+06
150.00
125.00
1.5E+06
100.00
75.00
1.0E+06
50.00
25.00
5.0E+05
0.00
0.00
0.0E+00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
f [Hz]
2.50
3.00
M_nl [KNm]
4.0E+06
2.0E+06
0.0E+00
-2.0E+06
-4.0E+06
-6.0E+06
-8.0E+06
20
30
40
50
60
70
t [s]
80
M_nl [KNm]
85.50
114.00
142.50
171.00
199.50
228.00
256.50
h1/3=2m
h1/3=3m
h1/3=4m
h1/3=5m
h1/3=6m
h1/3=8m
h1/3=9m
h1/3=10m
h1/3=11m
h1/3=12m
Sig_adm
285.00
x[m]
6.0E+06
10
57.00
h1/3=1m
h1/3=7m
Oil-tanker Full Cargo Section x/L=0.5 vs=15Knots Wave LH & ITTC h1/3=12m
Non-Linear Analysis Time Record : Bending Moment - Hydroelastic Response
8.0E+06
28.50
h1/3=0m
Oil-tanker Full Cargo Section x/L=0.5 vs=15Knots Wave LH & ITTC h1/3=12m
Non-Linear Amplitude Spectrum FFT Analysis : Bending Moment - Hydroelastic Response
2.5E+06
2.0E+06
1.5E+06
1.0E+06
5.0E+05
0.0E+00
0.00
5
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
f [Hz]
3.00
Figure 12b. Hydroelastic bending moment amplitude spectrum FFT, non-linear analysis, h1/3 = 12 m,
vs = 15 Knots, x/L = 0.5, full cargo.
468
MARSTRUCT.indb 468
2/18/2011 5:51:57 PM
Dosc,vib =
ni_osc,vib = pi nmax_osc,vib
Ni _ osc,vibi
i=1
i _ osc
osc ,vib
i
i_osc,vib = 21/3i_osc,vib fc
where: fosc,vib the natural ship frequencies for oscillation and vibration modes (Table 5); nmax_osc,vib the
maximum number of cycles; pi(h1/3i), i = 1, M the
probabilities of World Wide Trade (WWT) wave
significant height h1/3 histogram (Fig. 14) (Price &
Bishop 1974); ni_osc,vib the number of stress cycles
for h1/3i; Ni_osc,vib the number of endured stress cycles
from the steel standard design S-N curves for a
stress range i_osc,vib; fc the correction for non-symmetric cycles.
For the oil-tanker the full cargo and ballast load
conditions are considered with the same occurrence probability scenario. The cumulative damage
ratio D has the following expression:
D = 0.5 Dfull + 0.5 Dballast 1;
L = 20/D
(7)
(8)
Full
Ballast Combined
Analyses
pi
0.40
0.35
Welding
L [years]
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
h1/3 [m]
0.00
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10
10.5 11
11.5 12
469
MARSTRUCT.indb 469
2/18/2011 5:52:01 PM
Full
Analyses
Welding
Ballast Combined
L [years]
CONCLUSIONS
470
MARSTRUCT.indb 470
2/18/2011 5:52:02 PM
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work has been performed in the scope of
the project MARSTRUCT, Network of Excellence on Marine Structures, (www.mar.ist.utl.pt/
marstruct/), which has been financed by the EU
through the GROWTH Programme under contract TNE3-CT-2003-506141.
REFERENCES
Bertram, V. 2000. Practical ship hydrodynamics. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Bhattacharyya, R. 1978. Dynamics of marine vehicles.
New York: John Wiley & Sons Publication.
Bishop, R.E.D. & Price, W.G. 1979. Hydroelasticity of
ships. Cambridge: University Press Cambridge.
Domnisoru, L. 2006. Structural analysis and hydroelasticity of ships. Galati: University Lower Danube
Press.
Domnisoru, L. & Domnisoru, D. 1998. The unified analysis of springing and whipping phenomena. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects
London 140(A): 1936.
Domnisoru, L., Dumitru, D. & Ioan, A. 2008. Numerical methods for hull structure strengths analysis and
ships service life evaluation, for a LPG carrier. OMAE
1520 June 2008, Estoril: 509518.
Fricke, W. & Kahl, A. 2005. Comparison of different
structural stress approaches for fatigue assessment
of welded ship structures. Marine Structures 18:
473488.
GL 2004. Guidelines for fatigue strength analyses of ship
structures. Hamburg: Germanischer Lloyd.
GL 2008. Germanischer Lloyds Rules. Hamburg.
Garbatov, Y., Tomasevic, S. & Guedes Soares, C. 2005.
Fatigue damage assessment of a newly built FPSO
hull. Guedes Soares. C., Garbatov Y. & Fonseca N.,
(editors). Maritime Transportation and Exploatation of Ocean and Costal Resources, Taylor & Francis
Group, London: 423428.
471
MARSTRUCT.indb 471
2/18/2011 5:52:03 PM
ABSTRACT: The vibratory behaviour of marine structures like the typical case of a vessel is a complex
phenomenon that involves the evaluation of different aspects as the assessment of the external added
mass water effect and its influence on the vibration characteristics. This added mass water effect can be
properly established by considering the fluid-structure interaction due to the surrounding water.
From that evaluation, reliable dynamic parameters were derived. Two analyses types were applied: a
forced response linear dynamic analysis (harmonic acoustic finite element method) and an unsymmetric
modal analysis, both considering the Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI).
A Lagrangian Eulerian finite element formulation was adopted for the FSI simulation.
The model employed for such analysis, was a simplified one: a model corresponding to a ship-like
structure (rectangular section hull girder). This model was considered representative enough to highlight
the main features of a marine structure vibration analysis.
In addition, a comparison between analytical values and Finite Element results related to frequencies
data was carried out. The compared values showed a good agreement.
1
INTRODUCTION
2
2.1
MODEL DESCRIPTION
Hull girder model
473
MARSTRUCT.indb 473
2/18/2011 5:52:03 PM
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Fluid model
The fluid model has two zones, a contact zone surrounding the pressure hull, having lagrangian finite
element formulation at the fluid-structure interface, and a non-contact zone, having eulerian finite
474
MARSTRUCT.indb 474
2/18/2011 5:52:03 PM
(1)
where:
[Ms] structural mass matrix, [Cs] structural
damping matrix, [Ks] structural stiffness matrix,
Fs applied load vector, u nodal displacement vector.
In ANSYS Code, the behaviour of the water
pressure is described with the acoustic wave
equation (Helmholtzs equation). This equation
is derived from the Navier-Stokes equation of
motion and the continuity equation, using the following assumptions:
{Ffs} = The fluid pressure load vector at the interface, which can be calculated by integrating the
pressure over the area of the surface.
After integration, the following equation is
obtained:
{
1 2 P
c 2 t 2
0 u Cs 0 u
Ms
+
T
M
Mf P
0 Cf P
0 R
Ks R u Fs
+
=
0 Kf P 0
(2)
where:
P: fluid pressure, c: sonic speed in the fluid medium,
t: time, : laplacian operator.
Written in matrix notation, the discretized
acoustic wave equation (Helmholtzs equation) at
the interface is:
C ]{P} + [ Kf ]{P} {Fsf
F }
[Mf ]{P} [Cf
(3)
where:
Mf: Fluid equivalent mass matrix; Cf: Fluid
equivalent damping matrix; Kf: Fluid equivalent
Stiffness matrix. The fluid load produced by
structure displacement at the interface: {Fsf}.
That fluid load at the interface can be represented by:
s }
{Fsf
o [R ]
{u}
(4)
where:
0: mean fluid density.
Coupling matrix [R] given by:
[ ]
}{ p}T {n}d(( )
(5)
} = [ ]{ }
(7)
(6)
(8)
475
MARSTRUCT.indb 475
2/18/2011 5:52:04 PM
Figure 6.
4N vertical modedisplacements.
Table 1.
Figure 7.
5N vertical modedisplacements.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Mode
Frequency (Hz)
2N
3N
4N
5N
0.448
1.057
1.724
2.42
Figure 4.
2N vertical modedisplacements.
3N vertical modedisplacements.
Analysis results correspond to the axial, horizontal direction and coupled modes. The obtained
476
MARSTRUCT.indb 476
2/18/2011 5:52:07 PM
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Frequency (Hz)
2N horizontal
3N horizontal
4N horizontal
5N horizontal
Axial
Torsional
0.645
1.476
2.423
3.416
0.665
2.429
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
477
MARSTRUCT.indb 477
2/18/2011 5:52:10 PM
girderresponse
curves
Location Description
A
B
C
D
E
F
Response curve A.
Figure 18.
Response curve B.
Figure 19.
Response curve C.
Figure 20.
Response curve D.
location
Curve
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
478
MARSTRUCT.indb 478
2/18/2011 5:52:14 PM
Figure 21.
Ratio a/b
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2.23
1.98
1.70
1.51
1.36
1.21
Response curve E.
1 B
2
2
(9)
= 1.025/9.81(t s2/m4)
Amv = 57.076(t s2/m2)
Hull girder mass per unit length: m = /L
Figure 22.
m = 22.878 (t s2/m2)
Response curve F.
FREQUENCIES COMPARISONFE
RESULTS VS. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
fa = 0.834 Hz
1
Amv
1 +
0.5
fa
(10)
fw = 0.446 Hz
Higher modes vertical bending natural frequencies, were obtained from Johannessen & Skaar
(1980) expression:
Nnv = N2v (n 1)
(11)
where N2v is the hull girder 2N vertical natural frequency, n is the number of nodes.
It was assumed a typical block coefficient for
the ship types, and Table 5 summarizes the resulting distribution.
By linear interpolation of Table 5 values, considering a block coefficient of 1.0 (box girder case),
the derived value is 1.20.
Therefore, the Equation (11) for the present box
girder case is:
Nnv = 0.446 (n 1)1.20
(12)
479
MARSTRUCT.indb 479
2/18/2011 5:52:16 PM
Ship type
Cargo ship
Bulk carrier
Tanker
0.68
0.80
0.82
0.845
1.00
1.02
Table 6.
Mode
Frequency (Hz)
2N
3N
4N
5N
0.446
1.025
1.667
2.354
2
(T )2
2
Amh
(13)
= 1.025/9.81(t s2/m4)
Amh = 13.162(t s2/m2)
Hull girder mass per unit length: m = /L
Frequencies Comparison
2.5
m = 22.878 (t s2/m2)
2
(Hz)
f ANSYS 1.5
fa = 0.811 Hz
fS
1
fw =
0
2
2.5
3.5
4.5
Nd
Node Number
(Frequencies Ratio)
0.5
(14)
fa
fw = 0.646 HZ
Nnh = N2h(n 1)
1.03
R ANSYSS
Amh
1 +
Higher modes horizontal bending natural frequencies, were obtained from Johannessen & Skaar
(1980) expression:
1.04
(15)
where:
N2h is the hull girder 2N horizontal natural frequency, n is the number of nodes.
1.02
1.01
1
2
2.5
3.5
4.5
Nd
Node Number
Figure 24.
The first four vertical hull girder frequencies calculated using Eq. (12) are shown in Table 6.
Frequency results from FE and Eq. 12 evaluations
(Table 1 and 6 data) are presented in Figure 23.
And the ratio FE480 / Eq. 12 frequencies are shown
in Figure 24.
Ratio a/b
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.14
1.21
1.36
1.51
1.70
1.98
480
MARSTRUCT.indb 480
2/18/2011 5:52:18 PM
(Frequencies Ratio)
1.002
Ship type
Cargo ship
Bulk carrier
Tanker
0.68
0.80
0.82
0.845
1.00
1.02
0.994
2
3.5
4.5
Figure 26.
6.2
1.2
1 B
3T
(17)
where:
v is the virtual displacement, including added
mass of water, in kg.
= ship displacement, in kg.
B = 32.2 m, T = 6.8 m.
2N
3N
4N
5N
0.646
1.484
2.414
3.41
I
N2 v =
3
vL
0.5
(18)
where:
= 1.61 106, I = 241.90 m4, L = 252.3 m.
N2v is the hull girder 2N vertical natural frequency,
in Hz.
Obtained N2v value from Eq. (18) is:
Frequencies Comparison
N2v = 0.498 Hz
And the Eq. (12), for the Kumai values becomes:
f ANSYS
(Hz)
2.5
Nd
Node Number
Mode
fS
0.998
0.996
Table 9.
1
R ANSYSS
(16)
1.004
0
2
2.5
3.5
4.5
Nd
Node Number
(19)
Calculating the first four vertical hull girder frequencies using Eq. (19), the derived results are presented in Table 10.
Frequency results from FE and Eq. 19 evaluations (Table 1 and 10 data) are shown in
Figure 27.
A greater difference exists against the FE values,
compared to the previous frequencies results
(in 6.1), in particular the N2v case.
481
MARSTRUCT.indb 481
2/18/2011 5:52:20 PM
Frequency (Hz)
2N
3N
4N
5N
0.498
1.145
1.862
2.629
Frequencies Comparison
2.5
(Hz)
f ANSYS
fK
1.5
0.5
0
2
2.5
3.5
4.5
Nd
Node Number
0.93
0.925
(Frequencies Ratio)
0.92
R ANSYSK
0.915
0.91
0.905
0.9
0.895
2
2.5
3.5
4.5
Nd
Node Number
Figure 28.
Such difference could be related to the background formulation, Sedov expressions are based
on a box girder case (Cb = 1.0), however Kumai
formulas are based on ships cases (Cb < 1.0), influencing the mode added mass value.
The consequence is an artificially higher N2v
frequency estimated value, employing Kumais
formula.
CONCLUSIONS
482
MARSTRUCT.indb 482
2/18/2011 5:52:22 PM
483
MARSTRUCT.indb 483
2/18/2011 5:52:23 PM
MARSTRUCT.indb 485
2/18/2011 5:52:23 PM
ABSTRACT: Fatigue crack propagation life assessment of a cargo hold is an overriding consideration
in the design of marine vessel such as crude oil, LNG, and LPG carriers. This paper studies the crack
propagation life of T-joint welded structure on which typical fatigue cracks are frequently initiated when
the marine vessels experience the storm load. Welding residual stresses are calculated to investigate its
effects on the fatigue life. Thereafter the residual stress distribution is applied to the AFGROW life
prediction program which incorporates the loading, the welding residual stress, and the geometric shape
of the structure. The fatigue tests of the T-joint welded specimen under storm loading show the beach
mark clearly generated on the cut section of the specimen. The crack propagation life estimated based
on the beach mark are compared with that of AFGROW to validate the life prediction. Evaluation of
the remaining service is discussed in order to allow the remaining fatigue lifetime to be estimated for the
marine vessels cargo hold if the random load or the storm load is introduced to the vessel.
1
INTRODUCTION
FATIGUE TESTS
Specimen and material properties
487
MARSTRUCT.indb 487
2/18/2011 5:52:23 PM
Table 1.
Yield
strength
Ultimate
strength
Type
GPa
MPa
MPa
AH32
211
315
459
Figure 1.
Dimension of specimen.
Figure 2.
Figure 4.
488
MARSTRUCT.indb 488
2/18/2011 5:52:23 PM
Figure 5.
Figure 6a.
Table 2.
Si
Mn
Ni
Cu
Mo
0.15
0.14
0.91
0.19
0.44
0.01
0.02
0.02
Table 3.
Si
Mn
Ni
0.04
0.36
1.37
0.008
0.008
1.4
Table 4.
DW-55LSR
Table 5.
RESIDUAL STRESS
Residual stress analysis
Offset yield
strength [MPa]
Ultimate
strength [MPa]
550
585
Current
Voltage
Speed
Arc efficiency
cm/min
230
27
50
80
489
MARSTRUCT.indb 489
2/18/2011 5:52:24 PM
5
Figure 7a.
Figure 7b.
Figure 8.
(1)
(2)
490
MARSTRUCT.indb 490
2/18/2011 5:52:26 PM
Figure 9a.
Figure 9b.
Kth
( f )
da
K
=C
K
q
dN
( R)
K max
1
K crit
n
Figure 9c.
(3)
491
MARSTRUCT.indb 491
2/18/2011 5:52:27 PM
daX
= C ( K )m = C S aX
dN
NX
K
S a
1
1
2 (m 2) / 2 (m 2) / 2
ai
ain
N =
( m 2 )C ( S )m ( )m / 2 ( )m
R*
Ry**
Step 2
1
2
3
4
5
0.33
0.52
0.44
0.52
1
0.68
0.94
0.81
0.94
0.58
20
Step 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.73
1
1.38
0.52/1.93
0.73/1.38
0.52/1
0.82
0.71
0.6
0.94
0.82
0.94
15
40
Step 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.52
0.46/1.93
0.69/1.38
0.46/1
1
0.52
0.94
0.84
0.73
0.84
0.71
0.94
20
20
(4)
(5)
(6)
492
MARSTRUCT.indb 492
2/18/2011 5:52:29 PM
CONCLUSIONS
493
MARSTRUCT.indb 493
2/18/2011 5:52:32 PM
Weiguo Wu
Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China
Key Laboratory of High-speed Ship Engineering, Ministry of Education, Wuhan, Hubei, China
ABSTRACT: In order to investigate slamming load distribution and its relation to the impact velocity,
a small scale trimaran model test was performed. During the water entry from a series of heights, the
peak pressure of the main hull, side hull and wet-deck were obtained. Based on the model test and the
similarity theory, this paper proposed a reasonable and effective prediction method of the trimaran
slamming loads.
1
INTRODUCTION
Trimaran, with its large deck area and excellent navigation performance, more and more world-widespread
attention is arisen by the shipping industry. Meanwhile, trimaran suffers wave slamming load during
the high-speed sailing caused by frequent water entry
and exit, especially in the cross structure where seriously impact by the sputtered wave. Its unique structure makes the slamming study different from the
traditional wedge and plate water entry. Trimaran
slamming contains both wedged body (main-hull
and side hulls) and flat body (wet-deck) water entry.
The impact of structure rush into the water is a complex fluid-structure interaction process. In theoretical
calculation and numerical simulation, there are many
approximations, such as the provision constraints of
the end of the structure, the assumption of ideal fluid
which is inviscid, incompressible and irrotational
flow, ignoring air cushion of the bottom and so on.
Thus, a more realistic test method can reveal law of
the trimaran water impact.
Predecessors have done similar experiments
in water entry. For example, Chuang (1966) first
found that the air cushion in the flat structure into
the water plays an important role, and completed a
series of tests and shot contact moments between
structure and the water surface by a high-speed camera. To explore the relationship between slamming
pressure and velocity, Ochi (1970, 1973) did three
types of impact pressure measuring test, and draw
the slamming pressure of all the three tests are similar to be proportional to the square of the impact
speed. Norway MARINTEK Zhao and Faltinsen
(1996) did body of typical profile of the bow-flare
falling into the water experiments, the accuracy of
495
MARSTRUCT.indb 495
2/18/2011 5:52:34 PM
VS = Vm CL
M P
f , ,E, I
v0 m 0 ,gg t, Fr = 0
(1)
E 3 4
10 11 12 13
Fr
6 7
i
0
114
Et 2
ML3 P
I
m
V
, = f L2 , , L3 , L3 , 0 , gL ,
P Li
,
,
L E V 2 L
Similarity index:
CM
3
C L C
= 1,
CP
C
1,
C EC t
C C L
Cm
CI
C L C ,
1, C 0 = 1, C Fr
C C L
= 1, C P
C CV
= 1, CV = C gC L
1
C Li
C L (5)
C = C L C EC
C CV 2
CL means PS /Pm = CL
(7)
0 9
(2)
That is guaranteed to derive the slamming pressure P of the prototype trimaran using this scale
based on meeting the similarity criteria:
PS = Pm * CL
2.2
ML3
P
Et 2
1 =
; 2 = ; 3 = 2 ;
L
I
m
4 5 = 3 ; 6 = 3 ;
L
L
V
7 = Fr =
8 =
;
gL
L
L E
Li
P
9
; 10 ; 11 =
L
V 2
(4)
(3)
496
MARSTRUCT.indb 496
2/18/2011 5:52:34 PM
Figure 2.
Trimaran model.
Figure 3.
Sensors arrangement.
the slimlarity index: CI = CL3C . Figure 1 respectively model cross section diagram, where B stands
for the width of the main hull and b stands for
the width of the cross-structure. Figures 2 and 3,
respectively, the internal structure as a model built
drawings and models.
3
SLAMMING EXPERIMENT
Figure 4.
Table 1.
0.75
2.264
2.00
3.344
1.00
2.452
2.25
3.619
1.25
2.668
2.50
3.968
1.50
2.836
2.75
4.236
1.75
3.123
3.00
4.432
497
MARSTRUCT.indb 497
2/18/2011 5:52:37 PM
EXPERIMENTAL PHENOMENA
AND RESULTS ANALYSIS
appears second peak, which caused by the waveinduced sputtering of side hull.
Figure 9 shows the slamming peak pressure
distribution of the cross structure. With the drop
height increases, the peak slamming pressure
498
MARSTRUCT.indb 498
2/18/2011 5:52:39 PM
The slamming pressure of the trimaran is determined by the impact water speed, in addition to
other nonlinear factors such as air cushions, splash
effect and so on, which have great different influence on the slamming pressure in various impact
speeds. Theoretical and experimental studies have
shown that the slamming peak pressure is linear
essentially with the square of the impact speed, so
the slamming pressure of trimaran can be used the
formula as followed:
Pm
k V 2
(8)
where:
Pm represents the slamming peak pressure, Pa
represents the water density kg/m3;
V represents the impact speed, m/s
k the factor changed with speed, reflecting the
various nonlinear factors effect on the slamming.
In this paper, the regression analysis of the coefficient k related with the slamming pressure of the
trimaran is completed based on a series of tests.
Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively, show the
(9)
Cross structure:
k
.
. 8 8e v / 0.97863
v / 0.97864
+ 101.58418e
(10)
Figure 12 and Figure 13, show k values regression curves of the main hull and cross structure,
reflecting that the k value would be exponentially
decreasing trend with the impact speed increases.
The k value decreases rapidly as speed increases
at low speed, while slow down at high speed. The
change trend of k value of the trimaran reflects
499
MARSTRUCT.indb 499
2/18/2011 5:52:41 PM
CONCLUSIONS
Figure 14.
Table 2.
Model
Cao
Peng
600
400
900
450
35
0.51
(3B/8)
0.66
(6B/8)
10
0.23
(B/10)
0.15
(5b/8)
REFERENCES
the effect on the slamming pressure coursed by
a variety of factors on different water impact.
Previous studies suggest that various factors effecting on slamming pressure is constant, reflecting the
k value is constant in the calculation, which would
cause some errors in the prediction of slamming
pressure on different impact speed. So it must be
extremely careful to use this method to predict the
slamming pressure.
The pressure of the cross structure is lower
than the main hull, which is in contradiction to the experimental result of Cao (2008).
Figure 14 shows the typical cross section of the
Caos model, and Table 2 compares the dimensions and results of two models. From the scenes
at the moment of water entry, it may cause by the
cancellation of the spray induced by the main hull
and the side hull interaction, which to function
as the bulbous bow in reducing the wave-making
resistance.
500
MARSTRUCT.indb 500
2/18/2011 5:52:43 PM
Appendix 1.
Material attribute
Geometry
Load
Dimension
Similar constants
Stress
Strain
Modulus of elasiticity
Poissons ratio
Density
Linear scaling
Thickness scaling
Pressure
Bending moment
Acceleration
Velocity
Time
Rotary viscosity
Kinematic viscosity
P
M
g
v
t
[FL ]
[FL2]
FL4T2
L
L
FL2
[FL]
[LT2]
LT1
[T]
[L2T1]
[FL2T]
CE
1
CE
1
CE/C1
C1
C1
CE
Froude number
Reynolds number
Fr V / gl
Re
1
1
1
C11/2
C11/2
C13/2
501
MARSTRUCT.indb 501
2/18/2011 5:52:45 PM
ABSTRACT: This paper analyses the failure modes based on experimental test results of multispan
corroded box-girders, representing amidships ship hull section and subjected to four-point loading.
Comparative study for three tested corroded box girder specimens with respect to collapse modes, strain
measurements, residual stresses, load-displacement and moment-curvature relationships and the effect of
different corrosion levels on structural integrity are performed.
1
INTRODUCTION
503
MARSTRUCT.indb 503
2/18/2011 5:52:45 PM
EXPERIMENTAL SET UP
Figure 1.
2.1
Corrosion test
504
MARSTRUCT.indb 504
2/18/2011 5:52:45 PM
Table 1.
Item
Deck
S.S.
P.S.
Bottom
Plating
Stiffener
Plating
Stiffener
Plating
Stiffener
Plating
Stiffener
Initially
corroded
Moderately
corroded
Severely
corroded
Units
4.1
25 4.4
4.0
25 4.3
3.9
25 4.3
3.8
25 4.4
2.2
24 4.1
2.7
24 4.1
3.5
24 4.1
1.9
24 4.2
1.9
23 2.7
2.5
21 3.1
2.9
21 3.2
1.8
21 2.5
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
During the service life of the ship, the structure deteriorates resulting in structural elements
Modes of collapse
The collapse modes of the plate panels under predominately compressive loads usually undergo
three main types, namely plate buckling, interframe flexural buckling (stiffener tripping) and
overall grillage collapse (plate and stiffener), see
Figure 2. In some cases there is an interaction
between two collapse modes, this interaction generally reduces the load-carrying capacity corresponding to a single buckling mode.
In the pre-buckling stage, the plates response
to load follows the Hookes Law where its load
displacement relationship is linear. When compressive loads reach the critical buckling load,
buckling occurs and the buckling profile of the
plate usually in the form of half-waves of approximately equal length.
Flat bar stiffeners provide very little torsional
restraint, therefore, if the plate between stiffeners buckles, the tripping starts to take place in
the stiffener. Finally, the overall collapse mode
involves the global buckling of plating, stiffeners
and transverses.
The first collapse mode observed for three boxes
was overall pre-buckling of the plating and stiffeners as one unit (see Figure 3), however, in this mode
each box behaves in different shape, due to the different level of corrosion deterioration present in
structures.
As can be seen from Figure 3(a), for initially
corroded box, only the bay no. 2 and the bay no. 3
are affected. However, the bay no. 3 in which the
achieved lateral buckling displacement in the
direction of the plate is bigger than the one in
the second bay in the direction of the stiffener.
Therefore, the global deformation was asymmetrical with respect to the middle section of the
box girder, and this can be explained with the fact
that the corrosion depth distribution was non
505
MARSTRUCT.indb 505
2/18/2011 5:52:46 PM
Figure 2.
Figure 3a.
roded box.
Collapse modes.
Figure 3c.
roded box.
Figure 4a. Interframe buckling mode (stiffeners tripping), initially corroded box.
Figure 5a. Interframe buckling mode (stiffeners tripping), moderately corroded box.
506
MARSTRUCT.indb 506
2/18/2011 5:52:46 PM
Figure 9b.
roded box.
Figure 10c.
roded box.
Figure 6c. Interframe buckling mode (stiffeners tripping), severely corroded box.
Figure 7.
Strain measurements
507
MARSTRUCT.indb 507
2/18/2011 5:52:50 PM
Residual stresses
Figure 12.
Load-disp.,
[kN, mm]
Moment-cur.,
[kN.m, rad/m]
Box
Area
Load
Disp.
BM
Cur.
Initial
Moderate
Severe
4016
1150
331
580.55
389.77
205.11
28.57
30.82
23.01
568.94
381.98
201.01
0.0059
0.011
0.0075
Figure 13.
Load-displacement relationship.
Load-displacement relationship
508
MARSTRUCT.indb 508
2/18/2011 5:52:53 PM
Table 3.
Linear
Nonlinear
Initial
Moderate
Severe
Units
1.89E + 05
7.34E + 04
8.57E + 03
8.51E + 04
2.08E + 04
7.38E + 03
4.50E + 04
2.09E + 04
7.15E + 03
[kN.m2]
Moment-curvature relationships.
Moment-curvature relationship
CONCLUSIONS
509
MARSTRUCT.indb 509
2/18/2011 5:52:54 PM
REFERENCES
Caldwell, J.B. 1965. Ultimate Longitudinal Strength.
Transactions RINA 107: 411430.
Domzalicki, P. Skalski, I. Guedes Soares, C. &
Garbatov, Y. 2009. Large Scale Corrosion Test.
Analysis and Design of Marine Structures. Guedes
Soares, C. and Das, P.K. London, UK, Taylor &
Francis Group: 193198.
Dow, R.S. 1991. Testing and Analysis of 1/3-scale Welded
Steel Frigate Model. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Marine Structures,
Dunfermline, Scotland; 749973.
Garbatov, Y. & Guedes Soares, C. 2009. Optimal Maintenance for Corroded Deck Tanker Ship Structures.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94(11):
18061817.
Garbatov, Y. & Guedes Soares, C. 2008. Corrosion
Wastage Modeling of Deteriorated Ship Structures.
International Shipbuilding Progress 55: 109125.
Garbatov, Y. Guedes Soares, C. & Wang, G. 2007.
Non-linear Time Dependent Corrosion Wastage of
Deck Plates of Ballast and Cargo Tanks of Tankers.
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
129(No 1): 4855.
Gordo, J.M. & Guedes Soares, C. 2004. Experimental
Evaluation of the Ultimate Bending Moment of a
Box Girder. Marine Systems & Ocean Technology 1:
3346.
Gordo, J.M. & Guedes Soares, C. 2008. Experimental
Evaluation of the Behavior of a Mild Steel Box Girder
under Bending Moment. Ships and offshore structures 3: 347358.
Gordo, J.M. & Guedes Soares, C. 2009. Tests on Ultimate
Strength of Hull Box Girders Made of High-Tensile
Steel. Marine Structures 22: 770790.
Loseth, R. Sekkesaeter, G. & Valsgard, S. 1994.
Economics of HighTensile Steel in Ship Hulls.
Marine Structures 7: 3150.
Mansour, A.E. Yang, J.M. & Thayamballi, A. 1990. An
Experimental Investigation of Ship Hull Ultimate
Strength Transactions SNAME 98: 411439.
510
MARSTRUCT.indb 510
2/18/2011 5:52:55 PM
ABSTRACT: Within a joint development project between the Korean Shipyard Daewoo Shipbuilding &
Marine Engineering Co., Ltd (DSME) and Germanischer Lloyd (GL) fatigue tests of 80 mm thick plates
have been performed. The objective of the fatigue tests was to investigate the effect of different post
treatment methods on the fatigue performance. Test specimens were butt welds as well as plate edges in
untreated and post treated conditions respectively. While for the butt weld specimens ultrasonic impact
treatment (UP) was applied as post treatment method the plate edge specimens were treated by chamfering
and different combinations of edge grinding, surface grinding and UP surface treatment. Material was
higher tensile steel HT40 for all specimens. The results of the fatigue tests are discussed and compared
with the values and recommendations from the Rules and corresponding guidelines.
1
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
Figure 1.
511
MARSTRUCT.indb 511
2/18/2011 5:52:55 PM
Figure 2.
512
MARSTRUCT.indb 512
2/18/2011 5:52:56 PM
0.35
0.012
0.045
0.018
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.14
28%
383 (AVE)
512 MPa
E.L.
T.S.
2.1
0.08
408 MPa
GL E40
1.55
0.02
Ceq
TI
N
S-AL
Nb
V
Mo
Cr
Ni
Cu
S
P
Mn
C
40C [J]
Y.P.
Name
Si
Actual material data for the base material of the butt weld specimens.
Table 1.
513
MARSTRUCT.indb 513
2/18/2011 5:52:57 PM
Table 2.
Process
EGW
Tandem
Brand name
Position
Diameter
DSW-50GTF
Face side
1.6 mm
Manufacturer
Current
(A)
Voltage
(V)
Speed
(cm/min)
Heat input
(KJ/cm)
375
39
3.1
608
400
42
KOBELCO
DSW-50GTR
Root side
1.6 mm
Figure 4.
514
MARSTRUCT.indb 514
2/18/2011 5:52:57 PM
25 mm
with n = 0.2 for butt welds resulting in ft = 0.79.
Finally this means that the fatigue test results of the
specimens in as-welded condition have to be modified
as follows, if it is intended to compare the test results
directly with the corresponding FAT-class or detail
category R = 80 N/mm2 given in Hobbacher, A.
(2009) and Germanischer Lloyd (2010).
Factors on fatigue strength accounting for
2.2
515
MARSTRUCT.indb 515
2/18/2011 5:52:59 PM
516
MARSTRUCT.indb 516
2/18/2011 5:53:01 PM
that the UP treatment is, under practical conditions, applied in a successful and effective way.
3
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
517
MARSTRUCT.indb 517
2/18/2011 5:53:02 PM
Figure 13. Evaluation of FAT classes for different treatment methods and slopes.
Table 3.
Series
m = 3.5
m = 4.0
m from test
1C
2R
2R + G
2R + UP
All
169
176
196
143
168
182
186
207
160
181
180 (m = 3.9)
143 (m = 2.5)
190 (m = 3.3)
207 (m = 6.2)
176 (m = 3.8)
518
MARSTRUCT.indb 518
2/18/2011 5:53:03 PM
CONCLUSIONS
519
MARSTRUCT.indb 519
2/18/2011 5:53:05 PM
ABSTRACT: In this paper, structural model test method was introduced to study the ultimate strength
of a model structure of high speed trimaran. Firstly, similarity theory with finite element method was
applied to instruct the structural model design. Then, to simulate the peak wave bending moment of
the high speed trimaran, three point bending was applied on the model by hydraulic jacks in the ultimate
strength test. Finally, The ultimate strength of the trimaran model was successfully determined from
the model test. The load-stress and load-displacement curves of the model, and the trimaran failure mode
were obtained.
Keywords:
1
high speed trimaran; ultimate strength; structure model test; similarity theory
INTRODUCTION
Trimaran is a special type of ship. Due to its excellent sea keeping and outstanding tactical performance, trimaran has a very wide prospects, such as
research ships, maritime shipping, maritime transport, exploration and rescue boats, etc. Therefore,
the ultimate bearing capacity of its complex
structure has been the concern of many researchers.
There are some common methods used to study
the hull ultimate strength, such as a direct calculation method, the idealized Structural Unit Method
(SUM), gradually collapse method, nonlinear
finite element method and model test method. On
the other hand, to completely predict the ultimate
bearing capacity by numerical simulation is very
difficult because the ultimate strength problem
involves geometric and material nonlinearities.
It is obvious that different ship types have different destruction modes. Wang, etc. proposed
similarity theory to apply to the structural model
test firstly (1986). Sun, etc. applied similarity
theory to design a model with large opening for
ultimate torsion strength test (2003). Liu, etc. also
used similarity theory to design a SWATH ship
model for transverse ultimate strength test (2009).
The destruction mode of trimaran structure is
much more complex and there is not any trimaran
ultimate strength test or study so far.
2.1
Similarity theory
CM
C
, C = F
CL2Ct
CLCt
(1)
521
MARSTRUCT.indb 521
2/18/2011 5:53:05 PM
r/
CL = Lr /Lm
m,
M r /M
Mm
CF = Fr /Fm , Ct
Table 2.
Steel plate
Angle steel
Flat steel
L30 30 3, L40 40 4
30 3
(2)
tr /ttm
er
= CL
em
(3)
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Model design
Section errors.
Errors
Sections
Neutral axis
Inertia moment
Calculated section 1
Calculated section 2
Calculated section 3
Middle section 1
Middle section 2
0.6%
0.1%
2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.9%
1.1%
0.04%
0.1%
1.8%
522
MARSTRUCT.indb 522
2/18/2011 5:53:05 PM
of three point bending was determined to simulate longitudinal ultimate bending moment.
Appropriate constraints were simulated to simply
supported constraint at bow and stern, load force
was exerted in calculated section. FE model of
trimaran was established by 40406 shell elements
and 23678 beam elements; while the FE model of
test model is by 22176 shell elements only. The
Von Mises stress distribution of main structure
was compared to test the similarity of the longitudinal strength. A number of point forces were
applied on the main deck.
According to equation (1) and the dimension
ratios, it can be assumed that when the stresses
on the real structure and the model are same, the
conversion coefficient should be 1/8.
Table 3 shows stress value of different stress
points. Figures 3 and 4 show that maximum stress
Table 3.
Trimaran Model
(MPa)
(MPa) Error
Figure 3.
85.2
57.2
86
0.35%
0.17%
0.23%
Figure 5.
4.1
MODEL MACHINING
Figure 4.
Model machining.
MODEL TEST
Load model
Hydraulic loading system was used to produce the external force on the structural model,
see Figure 6. Firstly, the model was pre-loaded
35 times to release residual stress. The maximum
523
MARSTRUCT.indb 523
2/18/2011 5:53:08 PM
Figure 7.
Figure 6.
Station arrangement
TEST RESULTS
524
MARSTRUCT.indb 524
2/18/2011 5:53:10 PM
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 12.
The ultimate strength of trimaran model was studied by model test in this paper. The ultimate load
and destruction mode of model were obtained, the
gradual destructive process was recorded. Based on
the test, some results and collusions are obtained.
Figure 11. Load-stress curves of key testing point in
typical section.
525
MARSTRUCT.indb 525
2/18/2011 5:53:13 PM
REFERENCES
Bin Liu, Weiguo Wu. Ultimate Strength Test Study of
SWATH Ships. Proceedings of International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan,
June, 2009.
Faxiang Wang, Zongliang Cheng, Junyu Ying, Wenbiao
Wang. Structure Design and Torsinal Strength Test
for Double Skin Barge Model. Shipbuilding of China.
1986.03.
Hai-Hong Sun, C. Guedes Soares. An experimental study
of ultimate torsional strength of a ship-type hull
girder with a large deck opening. Marine Structures,
16(2003)5167.
Rahman, M.K. Ultimate strength estimation of ships
transverse frames by incremental elastic-plastic finite
element analysis. Marine Structures, 11(1998)291317.
Weiguo Wu, Duan Hong. Experiment Research of
Stresses along the Junction Lines Between the Superstructure and the Deck. Journal of Ship Mechanics,
2002.06.
Xiaoqiong Huang, Li Cheng, Xionghui Yang, Xingtao
Zhou. Long Term Prediction and Analysis of Wave
Loadson Trimaran Cross Structure. Chinese Journal
Of Ship Research. August 2009.
526
MARSTRUCT.indb 526
2/18/2011 5:53:18 PM
C.S. Shim
Mokpo national university, Mokpo, Republic of Korea
J.K. Kang
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co. Ltd, Goeje, Republic of Korea
D.H. Kim
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, Ulsan, Republic of Korea
Y.S. Suh
Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, Goeje, Republic of Korea
Y.L. Shim
ABS, Houston, USA
H.S. Urm
DNV Korea Ltd, Busan, Republic of Korea
M.S. Kim
Lloyds Register Asia, Busan, Republic of Korea
G.B. An
POSCO, Pohang, Republic of Korea
ABSTRACT: IMO type B CCS (cargo containment system) is considered for LNG FPSOs. For the
three materials of SUS304, 9% Ni steel and Al 5083-O alloy, regarded as possible candidates for IMO type B
CCS, extensive tensile, fatigue, fatigue crack growth rate and CTOD tests were carried out at room, intermediate low (100C) and cryogenic (163C) temperatures in this paper. All materials show a tendency
for initial yield and tensile strengths to increase with decrease in the temperature, while change in elastic
moduli is not as remarkable. The largest and smallest increase ratios of the initial yield strengths due to
temperature reduction are seen in SUS304 and Al 5083-O alloy, respectively. In fatigue tests, fatigue
strengths increase due to the temperature decrease for three materials. The highest increase of fatigue
strength due to the temperature decrease is observed in Al 5083-O alloy, while 9% Ni steel shows lowest
increase. In fatigue crack growth rate test, SUS304 and Al 5083-O alloy show reduction in crack propagation rate, due to the reduction in temperature, while any visible improvement of da/dN is not witnessed in
case of 9% Ni steel. In CTOD test, CTODs tend to decrease in case of SUS304 and CTODs for Al 5083-O
alloy increase with reduction in temperature.
1
INTRODUCTION
527
MARSTRUCT.indb 527
2/18/2011 5:53:18 PM
EXPERIMENT PROCEDURES
MTT (Monotonic Tensile Test)
2.2
FT (Fatigue Test)
Fatigue tests with zero stress ratio (R = 0) were performed under load control at RT and CT. FTs were
carried out under axial loading and continued until
final fracture, except for tests exceeding 1E7 cycles.
Fatigue test specimens manufactured from
SUS304 stainless steel, 9% Ni steel and Al 5083-O
alloy are listed in Table 2 and presented in Figure 2.
Number of cycles to crack initiation, number of
cycles to failure were measured. Strains were measured throughout fatigue tests by using uniaxial
strain gages to evaluate the hotspot stress and
crack initiation life. It is assumed that 5% reduction in strain at hot spot location indicates crack
initiation (Matsuoka & Fujii 1995). Hotspot
stresses based on test data (hs) were calculated
using linear extrapolation by Equation 1 (IIW 1995)
for SUS304 and Equation 2 (DNV 2008) for 9% Ni
steel and Al 5083-O alloy. Hotspot stresses of butt
welded specimens include weld-induced initial
bending stress (bend). For this reason, concept of
effective hotspot stress (hs_eff) is introduced as
defined by Equation 3 (DNV 2008).
hs = 1.670.4 0.671.0
(1)
hs = 1.50.5 0.51.5
(2)
Metal
mm
SUS304
Base
Weld
Base
Weld
Base
Weld
B:13
B:16
B:10
B:10
:10
:10
9% Ni steel
Al 5083-O
alloy
Specimen
type
Plate
Plate
Round
Test speed
N/sec
1070
1020
400
400
200
200
Table 2.
Material
Weld type
SUS304
Butt weld
Longitudinal attachment weld
Transverse attachment weld
Butt weld
Longitudinal attachment weld
Butt weld
Longitudinal attachment weld
9% Ni steel
Figure 1. Geometries of specimens for monotonic
tensile tests.
(3)
Al 5083-O alloy
528
MARSTRUCT.indb 528
2/18/2011 5:53:18 PM
(a) SUS304
Figure 2.
2.3
B W
)
3
)2
Figure 3.
da/dN = C (K)m
(5)
529
MARSTRUCT.indb 529
2/18/2011 5:53:19 PM
(1 ) +
2
= K2
2YS E
0.46 (
0.46W
46W + 0 56a0 + z
1
=
mY
K2
Figure 4.
)+
)Vp
(6)
+z
) 1+
0.88a0 + 0 2W
Ap
B (
(7)
3
3.1
(b) 9% Ni steel
Figure 5.
530
MARSTRUCT.indb 530
2/18/2011 5:53:21 PM
531
MARSTRUCT.indb 531
2/18/2011 5:53:23 PM
3.2
FT (Fatigue Test)
(8)
532
MARSTRUCT.indb 532
2/18/2011 5:53:25 PM
3.3
Material
SUS304
9% Ni steel
Al 5083-O
alloy
Weld
type
n
based
hs_eff
or hs
based
Butt
Longi.
Trans.
Butt
Longi.
Butt
Longi.
1.476
1.608
1.684
1.342
1.063
1.838
1.634
1.475
1.511
1.638
1.437
1.089
2.018
1.875
533
MARSTRUCT.indb 533
2/18/2011 5:53:26 PM
Figure 15.
and CT.
Figure 18.
CONCLUSIONS
534
MARSTRUCT.indb 534
2/18/2011 5:53:28 PM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by DSME, HHI, SHI,
ABS, DNV, Lloyds Register and POSCO Research
Grants under project SNAMF. The experimental
work was conducted in the INHA UNIVERSITY,
Incheon, Republic of Korea and MOKPO
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Mokpo, Republic
of Korea.
REFERENCES
ASTMThe American Society for Testing and Materials.
2004. E8M-04. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. HIS: West Conshohochen.
Baek J.H., Kim, Y.P., Kim, W.S. & Kho, Y.T. 2001.
Fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth properties of the base metal and weld metal of a type
304 stainless steel pipeline for LNG transmission.
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping.
Vol. 78. pp. 351357. Elsevier.
Choung, J.M. & Cho, S.R. 2008. Study on true stress
correction from tensile test. Journal of Mechanical
Science and Technology. Vol. 22. pp. 10391051.
DNVDet Norske Veritas. 2008. Fatigue Assessment of
Ship Structures. Classification Notes. No. 30.7.
IIWThe International Institute of Welding. 1995.
Stress Determination for Fatigue Analysis of Welded
Components. IIS/IIW-1221-93.
IIWThe International Institute of Welding. 2005.
Fatigue Recommendations. XIII-1965-03/XV-1127-03.
Matsuoka, K. & Fujii, E. 1995. An evaluation method on
fatigue crack initiation life at welded joints in steel
structures. Journal of the Society of Naval Architects
of Japan. Vol. 178. pp. 513522.
Park, W.S., Kang, K.Y., Kim, J.H. & Lee, J.M. 2010.
A comparative on mechanical behavior of low temperature application materials for ships and offshore
structures. Proceedings of Autumn Meeting of SNAK.
Changwon. 2122 Oct. pp. 13001312.
Shim, K.T., Kim, J.H., Lee, K.H., Ahn, B.W. &
Kim, Y.K. 2008. A study on the fatigue crack growth
behavior of 9% Ni steels. Proceedings of Fall Annual
Conference of KSME. Pyeongchang. 17 Nov. pp.
167172.
535
MARSTRUCT.indb 535
2/18/2011 5:53:32 PM
MARSTRUCT.indb 537
2/18/2011 5:53:32 PM
ABSTRACT: A comprehensive model was developed for the calculation of the thermal profile based
on frictional heating from FSW tool and absorption of laser energy on the plate surface. The calculations
showed that using a suitable laser source 75% of the desired temperature level was attained through conduction mode and the rest was attained through frictional heat. Thus achieving desired plasticizing of the
plate material, the forces required to move the FSW tool through the butt will be considerably less resulting in less wear and tear and longer life of the FSW tools. The computed temperature profile due to laser
source agreed well with the corresponding experimental data. The good agreement demonstrates that the
comprehensive model can serve as a basis for development of a feasible FSW process for shipbuilding
quality normal strength and higher strength steels.
1
INTRODUCTION
539
MARSTRUCT.indb 539
2/18/2011 5:53:32 PM
2
2.1
(3)
Therefore dQ = rdAcontact
(4)
(5)
HEAT GENERATION
dQ = rp dA
In friction stir welding heat is generated due to friction and plastic deformation at the tool-work piece
interface and at TMAZ. The heat generation at the
contact surfaces due to friction is the product of
frictional force and the tangential speed of the tool
with respect to the work piece. Whereas the heat
generated due to plastic deformation at the toolwork piece interface is the product of shear stress
and the velocity of the work piece material sticking
to the tool as it traverses. This velocity is actually
the tangential speed of the tool.
The heat generation due to friction on an elemental area dA at the tool-work piece interface
considering high rotational speed compared to
traverse speed of the FSW tool, is given by,
i.e. dQ = rdF
(6)
where dF = p dA
In this study all the three tool-work piece interface surfaces, i.e. tool shoulder, tool pin side and
tool pin tip were considered. Q1, Q2 and Q3 are the
components of the respective heat generated from
these interfaces as shown in Figure 1. Therefore
the total heat generated is given by,
Qtotal = Q1 + Q2 + Q3
dQp = (1 )rydA
dAV = r d dz,
dQf = rpdA
(1)
(2)
540
MARSTRUCT.indb 540
2/18/2011 5:53:32 PM
2 RS
ppr 2 (
2
= p
3
(R
Q1
0 RP
d?
dr
(9)
Q2
Q1
dQV = r dFV
dz
Rp
RP3 (1 +
rd?
Q3
3
S
ta )) ddrd
d
Rs
2 HP
Q2
ppR
RP2 ddzd
0 0
= 2 p RP2 H P
(10)
2 RP
Q3
ppr 2ddrd
0 0
2
= p RP3
(11)
3
Therefore the total heat generation is given by,
dAH = r d dr.
Qtotal = Q1 + Q2 + Q3
(7)
(8)
2
3
)( +
)+
3
P
+ 3RP H P
2
(12)
2
3
(R
3
S
3RP2 H P
(13)
541
MARSTRUCT.indb 541
2/18/2011 5:53:33 PM
3Qtotal r
2 RS3
fo r r0
(14)
2Q 2 rb
qb (r ) =
e
rb2
(15)
zzM 2 2
rb = r0 1 +
2
r 0
where r0 is the beam radius at the focal point,
is the beam wavelength, z is the beam defocused
length, i.e. the distance between the focal point to
the plate top surface, and M2 is a dimensionless
beam parameter. It is given by,
M2
r0
10
5.8
35
10
25
Figure 2.
tool pin.
542
MARSTRUCT.indb 542
2/18/2011 5:53:36 PM
Enthalpy (MJ/m3)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
>1000
0
360
720
1100
1500
1980
2500
3000
3700
4500
5000
300
250
Laser parameters.
200
Temperature ( C)
Table 1.
Parameters
Values
2.0
1000
200
0.63
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time (s)
Thermal conductivity
(Watt/mK)
Specific heat
(J/KgK)
0
100
300
450
550
600
720
800
1450
51.9
51.1
46.1
41.05
37.5
35.6
30.64
26
29.45
450
499.2
565.5
630.5
705.5
773.3
1080.4
931
437.93
56
278
556
2778
1.815
9.079
18.15
52.66
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
543
MARSTRUCT.indb 543
2/18/2011 5:53:39 PM
THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE
ELEMENT MODEL
A three dimensional finite element transient thermal model was used to determine the thermal
history on the work piece based on the dual heat
source given by Equations (14) and (15). The following assumptions were made in the analysis,
i. Linear Newtonian convection cooling was considered on all the surfaces.
ii. 95% of the frictional heat was transferred to the
work piece.
Figure 5.
qn = qsup
FSW tool
Laser beam
position
Rotational Traverse
ahead of
speed
speed
Plunging FSW tool
Sl. No. (rpm)
(mm/min) force (N) (mm)
1
2
3
4
5
1000
1000
1000
1400
2000
80
80
80
80
80
6500
6500
6500
5000
3800
15
20
25
20
20
qconv
Table 6.
T
or k
= h f (T T ) fo t > 0.
n
Laser parameters.
Parameters
Values
2.0
650
80
0.63
544
MARSTRUCT.indb 544
2/18/2011 5:53:40 PM
Figure 6.
welding.
1400
Temperature rise
due to frictional heat
1000
Temperature ( C)
1200
Temperature rise
due to laser heating
800
600
400
200
0
0
25
50
(Clausen, H. B. 2000). Thus it plasticizes the material sufficiently and thereby would reduce the tool
plunging force. Subsequent friction between the
tool and the plate surface provided the additional
heat to raise the temperature to about 1200C as
shown in Figure 7.
This would enable forward movement of
the FSW tool resulting in required stirring of
the plate material to achieve welding along the
plate butt. It can also be observed from Figure 7
that the time, t85 taken to cool over the range
800500C was about 25 s. Whereas in case of
manual metal arc welding process with a heat
input of about 1.3 kJ/mm, it is around 12 s
(Nandan et al. 2007).
The effect of variation of laser beam position ahead of the FSW tool on thermal history
is shown in Figure 9. As expected with the laser
beam closer to the FSW tool, the rise in peak temperature was more. The maximum temperatures
achieved for different laser beam positions keeping other parameters constant is shown in Table 7.
Here one can see that the increase in temperature
by moving the laser beam closer by 10 mm was
only about 42C. Hence for a FSW tool having
shoulder diameter 30 mm, laser beam position was
taken 20 mm ahead of the centre line of the FSW
tool in subsequent analysis.
The effect of increasing tool rpm, keeping the
traverse speed and the laser beam position fixed
at 80 mm/min and 20 mm ahead of FSW tool
respectively, is shown in Figure 10. The maximum
temperatures achieved with the dual heat source
for different tool rpm is shown in Table 8.
The combination of weld parameters as shown
in Sl. No. 3 of Table 8 will lead to a temperature
level of 1227C. At this temperature it will be very
much feasible to carryout FSW of steel without
excessive wear and tear of the FSW tool.
Time (s)
1200
Temperature ( C)
1000
300
250
200
150
100
800
600
400
200
50
0
200
400
600
800
1000
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
Temperature (C)
Figure 8.
different
545
MARSTRUCT.indb 545
2/18/2011 5:53:41 PM
Table 7.
Sl. No
Plate thickness
(mm)
Rotational
speed (rpm)
Traverse speed
(mm/min)
Plunging
force (N)
Laser beam
position ahead
of FSW tool (mm)
Maximum
temperature
rise (C)
1
2
3
6.0
6.0
6.0
1000
1000
1000
80
80
80
6500
6500
6500
15
20
25
1105
1082
1063
Table 8.
Sl. No.
Plate
thickness (mm)
Rotational
speed (rpm)
Traverse speed
(mm/min)
Maximum
temperature (C)
1
2
3
6.0
6.0
6.0
1000
1400
2000
80
80
80
20
20
20
1082
1151
1227
1200
Temperature ( C)
1400
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time (s)
Figure 10. Temperature distribution for dual source
with varying tool rpm at a welding speed of 80 mm/min.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
6
CONCLUSIONS
546
MARSTRUCT.indb 546
2/18/2011 5:53:44 PM
c
dA
k
p
r
r0
rb
z
AH
AV
M
Q
Q1
Q2
Q3
Qtotal
RP
RS
T
REFERENCES
Adak, M. & Mandal, N.R. 2003. Thermo-mechanical
analysis through a Pseudo-linear Equivalent Constant stiffness System, Journal of Engineering for the
Maritime Environment, Vol. 217, No. M1, pp.19.
Biswas, P. & Mandal, N.R. 2009. Experimental Study
on Friction Stir Welding of Marine grade Aluminum
Alloy, Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 25, No. 1,
pp.16.
Brown, S. & Song, H. 1992. Implication of threedimensional numerical simulations of welding large
structures, Welding Journal, 71(2), pp.55s62s.
Chao, Y.J. & Qi, X. 1998. Thermal and ThermoMechanical Modeling of Friction Stir Welding of
Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6, Journal of Materials
Processing & Manufacturing Science, 7, pp.215233.
Chao, Y.J., Qi, X. & Tang, W. 2003. Heat transfer in friction stir weldingExperimental and numerical studies,
Transaction of the ASME, 125, 138145.
Cho, J.H., Boyce, D.E. & Dawson, P.R. 2005. Modeling
strain hardening and texture evolution in friction
stir welding of stainless steel, Mater Science and
Engineering, A 398, pp.146163.
Christner, B.K. & Sylva, G.D. 1996. Friction stir weld
development for aerospace applications. Proceedings of ICAWT 1996, pp.311320. EWI, Columbus,
Ohio.
Clausen, H.B. 2000. Plate Forming By Line Heating,
PhD thesis, Published in Denmark by Department
of Naval Architecture and offshore Engineering
Technical University of Denmark.
Daftardar, S. 2009. Laser Assisted Friction Stir Welding:
Finite Volume Method And Metaheuristic Optimization, A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
547
MARSTRUCT.indb 547
2/18/2011 5:53:45 PM
548
MARSTRUCT.indb 548
2/18/2011 5:53:45 PM
ABSTRACT: Concrete is commonly used in many civil engineering structures, often re-enforced in some
way with steel, either as tensioning rods or as part of a composite structure. Composite steel-concrete
structures have been used in bridge building for many years, with rules for design freely available (British
Standards Institution, 2008a,b), and has been a topic of research for maritime structures, e.g. for arctic
structures (Matsuishi et al. 1985) or impact resistance (Iwata & Hattori 1994).
This paper explores the potential of steel-concrete-steel sandwich in floating structures and exposes
the advantages, disadvantages and challenges of using this material through two design studies. The use
of light weight concrete (with a density as low as 1000 kg/m3) is compared with more traditional higher
strength concretes (density 2500 kg/m3) and it is found that the lighter weight concrete is desirable if the
sandwich is to be competitive with steel designs on weight. The paper concludes by proposing where this
technology may have potential and suggests areas for further exploration.
1
INTRODUCTION
549
MARSTRUCT.indb 549
2/18/2011 5:53:45 PM
The proposed steel-concrete-steel beam is a structural sandwich consisting of five elements as shown
in Figure 1.
This constitutes a sandwich panel where the faces
primarily carry in-plane loads and bending and
the core primarily carries transverse shear loads.
Sandwich panels are particularly effective in carrying
transverse loading and providing flexural stiffness.
The relevant theory is described in any textbook on
sandwich structures, for example (Zenkert 1995).
To maintain the sandwich effect there must be
sufficient adhesion in the bondlines (indicated in
Figure 1) where the shear stress at the interface
does not exceed the shear strength of the concrete
core. In practice this can be difficult to achieve with
a bond of concrete to a smooth steel surface. In the
civil engineering industry it is common to use an
additional bonding agent, for example epoxy, or
mechanical fastenings (Raina 1994).
Concrete is a much weaker material than steel,
both in compression and especially in tension. This is
highlighted by the material properties given below in
Table 1, where the best high strength concrete and
lightest low strength concrete are used as examples.
It will be apparent from this table that under
load the concrete core is significantly weaker than
the steel face plates and so if the steel plate were utilised to the maximum permissible the concrete core
may crack. This cracking can be characterised as
due either to Bending, Vertical Shearing or due to
shear transfer between the face plates and the core.
3.1
Bending cracks
If the core consists of a material that is weak in tension, the tensile bending stresses may cause cracking
of the core at a lower value of applied bending
moment than yielding of the faces. If this happens
the part of the core that experiences tensile strains
will undergo extensive cracking and contribute
1
2
3
Figure 1.
Steel-concrete-steel beam.
550
MARSTRUCT.indb 550
2/18/2011 5:53:45 PM
Table 1.
Characteristic cylindrical
compression strength
Youngs modulus
Type of concrete
kN/m3
MPa
MPa
GPa
Light weight
High strength
9.8
25
9
90
1.1
5
5.4
44
Density
Characteristic yield
strength
Characteristic ultimate
strength
Youngs modulus
kN/m3
MPa
MPa
GPa
78.5
235
360
206
Summary
Design codes
Because steel and concrete are widely used engineering materials many standards exist to guide the
551
MARSTRUCT.indb 551
2/18/2011 5:53:47 PM
It is common in concrete construction to compensate for the poor tensile strength of concrete by the
use of pre or post stressing. The advantage of pre
or post stressing can be seen in Figure 4 for a SCS
beam with a high strength concrete core.
The y-axis shows the axial force used to tension
the concrete core. Plotted against the bending
moment capacity of the SCS beam this gives a
curved surface from which the optimum stressing
force can be obtained. Where the curve crosses
the x-axis (marked with a cross) is the maximum
bending capacity without applying a stressing force.
The knuckle in the curve to the right of the graph
shows the possible increase in bending capacity
by pre or post stressing. The applied load must sit
within the boundary of the curve allowing for any
factor of safety placed on the maximum bending
capacity. The graph shows that a 55% increase in
Cylindrical
studded connector
Figure 2. SCS beam with shear studs. Maximum spacing indicated to avoid complete cracking of the core between
the steel faces.
Figure 3. SCS beam with shear studs. Maximum spacing to avoid wrinkling of compression plate when subject to
in-plane loads.
552
MARSTRUCT.indb 552
2/18/2011 5:53:47 PM
Capacity curve
Applied load
14
Floating Point
12
Increase in bending
capacity of 55%
10
8
Pre-stressing force
6
4
2
0
-2
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
-4
-6
BENDING MOMENT [MNm]
Figure 4. Capacity curve for a SCS beam with a core of high strength concrete. Core thickness is 200 mm sandwiched
between two steel face plates each 10 mm thick.
CAPACITY CURVE - SANDWICH WITH LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE
6
Capacity curve
Applied load
Floating Point
Pre-stressing force
Increase in bending
capacity of 9%
2
0
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0,45
0,5
-2
-4
-6
BENDING MOMENT [MNm]
Figure 5. Capacity curve for a SCS beam with a core of light weight concrete. Core thickness is 200 mm sandwiched
between two steel face plates each 10 mm thick.
DESIGN STUDIES
Knowledge gained from these studies could therefore indicate what span was feasible to cover as well
as the expected self weight of the panels. Based on
this knowledge two typical marine applications
were selected to compare original steel design with
an SCS sandwich solution.
5.1
RoRo ship
553
MARSTRUCT.indb 553
2/18/2011 5:53:48 PM
Transverse Girder
Longitudinal Girder
Pillar
Figure 6. RoRo deck structural girder system. Shaded areas show where SCS panels would replace existing steel
structure.
554
MARSTRUCT.indb 554
2/18/2011 5:53:50 PM
Table 2.
Boundary conditions
Depth of concrete core (mm)
Thickness of steel plates (*) (mm)
Studs:
Weight of concrete (kg/m2)
Weight of steel plates and
studs (kg/m2)
Total weight of panel (kg/m2)
Material costconcrete (**) (USD/m2)
Material coststeel and
studs (**) (USD/m2)
Total material cost (**) (USD/m2)
Maximum deflection (mm)
Simply supported
(Option 1)
Continuous
(Option 2a)
Continuous
(Option 2b)
200
10
83 mm diameter,
13 per m2
194
173
150
10
110 mm diameter,
16 per m2
144
182
235
6
66 mm diameter,
16 per m2
227
118
367
58.2
121.1
326
43.2
127.4
345
68.1
82.6
179.3
63
170.6
75
150.7
52
(*) Normal steel with 235 MPa yield strength; (**) Per metre squared of deck area.
555
MARSTRUCT.indb 555
2/18/2011 5:53:51 PM
2.5 metres
Girders
Stiffeners
SCS Panel
Figure 7. Structural arrangement of the process deck, showing underdeck stiffeners and girders. SCS panel shown
shaded. Total SCS panel assumed to be constructed of interconnected panels placed atop the existing girder system.
Figure 8.
Table 3.
Static model of the FPSO process deck, showing point loads for heavy equipment.
SCS panel design for the FPSO process deck.
SCS panel 1
SCS panel 2
360
10
37 mm diameter, 25 per m2
345
207
553
103.8
144.9
248.7
89
460
8
30 mm diameter, 25 per m2
444
178
622
133.2
124.6
257.8
67
(*) High strength steel with 355 MPa yield strength; (**) Per metre squared of deck area.
5.2.1 Advantages
Material costs competitive with original steel
structure.
Increased flexibility for the location of the
equipment because:
For the existing steel structure, welding directly
on one side of the plate will not damage the
steel treatment on the other side of the plate.
556
MARSTRUCT.indb 556
2/18/2011 5:53:51 PM
5.3
Limitations
FURTHER WORK
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has demonstrated that Steel-ConcreteSteel structure can be used in ships and offshore
structures however the challenge will be to remain
competitive on weight and cost.
To be competitive on weight light weight concrete must be used in place of more traditional
heavier concretes.
Cost competitiveness is likely to depend on
developing simple build processes that minimises
weld length and structural joints.
The most promising applications for this technology appear to be for smaller ships or barges
where local build using local resources offers significant cost advantages compared with building
at a remote shipyard. Ship types should be selected
where build and operation costs are not highly sensitive to overall weight.
Concrete has disadvantages when used in conjunction with steel in a layered plating system. Maintaining a good bond between the steel and concrete
is critical and, using todays accepted standards, can
only be obtained by using studs extending between
the two face plates. Large scale cracking of the
core due to tensile loading must also be avoided,
although with a studded solution there will be some
tolerance to cracks in the core material.
Unless a construction process can be developed that allows for the pouring of the concrete
into prefabricated steel plates representing the hull
557
MARSTRUCT.indb 557
2/18/2011 5:53:52 PM
558
MARSTRUCT.indb 558
2/18/2011 5:53:52 PM
ABSTRACT: When welding block joints of ships it may occur that the gaps between them are relatively
large. Furthermore high stresses due to the constraint conditions may result in high residual stresses.
Therefore an investigation was performed to determine if gap widths up to 30 mm fulfil the requirements
regarding the fatigue and fracture strength. The welding of butt joints at 250 mm wide plates was performed under definite constraints presenting the surrounding ship structure. Among other parameters
the welding method (string-bead, weaving technique) was varied. During the welding the reaction force
was measured and it was noticed that it was remarkably higher for the weaving technique compared to the
string-bead technique. Both welding techniques lead to different fracture and fatigue results. The weaving
technique seems to be more adequate when welding large gaps. A numerical welding simulation using the
weaving technique showed compressive plastic strains in the root layer that maybe reasonable for the good
results. Generally the investigations indicated a clear influence of welding technique on the fatigue and
fracture strength. The gap width did not have a significant influence.
INTRODUCTION
The welding of large gaps at block joints in shipbuilding is regulated by the classifications societies regarding the welding procedure. At present
the maximum permitted gap amounts to 25 mm.
Furthermore this gap width has to be welded with
the string-bead technique. Additionally high constraints due to the surrounding ship structure can
support the development of high and unfavorable
residual stresses and distortions. For this reason
different welding joint variants at 15 mm thick
plates were fabricated to examine their fatigue
and fracture strength. Several parameters were
investigated; three of them are presented in the
following:
Figure 2.
559
MARSTRUCT.indb 559
2/18/2011 5:53:52 PM
600
400
200
weaving D36
string-bead D36
0
8
15
30
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Table 1.
FATIGUE TESTS
Material properties.
Base
material
Filler
material
Steel grade
D36
FILARC PZ 6113
Yield stress fy
Actual yield stress
355 MPa
390 MPa
Tensile stress
520 MPa
29%
Min. 22%
Welding procedure
Automatic MAG
Figure 5. Finite element model for the string-bead technique and computed stresses.
Table 2. Load types for the fatigue tests.
Load types
II
[MPa]
upper [MPa]
Stress ratio R []
270
270
0
270
Max. 400
Max. 0.325
560
MARSTRUCT.indb 560
2/18/2011 5:53:54 PM
180
weaving technique
string-bead technique
R=0,27
R=0
Ps=10%
R=0
140
R=0
R=0,27
100
Ps=50%
R=0
R=0,32
R=0,32
107
85
111
99
96
Ps=90%
Ps=97,7%
85
78
76
60
8 mm gap width
Figure 6.
30 mm gap width
300
R=0
30 mm gap width
FAT classes [MPa]
S=String-bead technique
P=Weaving technique
200
R>0
100
R=0
S
R=0
R>0
R>0
R=0
R>0
R>0
R=0
R=0
R>0
P
0
nominal
stress
1
2
structural
stress
3
4
notch5 stress r = 16 mm
561
MARSTRUCT.indb 561
2/18/2011 5:53:56 PM
MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Table 3.
HV10.
30 mm
Gap width
Weld
HAZ
Weld
HAZ
Weaving (top)
String-bead (top)
Weaving (root)
String-bead (root)
200
222
180
205
178
205
172
201
176
207
149
171
165
211
157
186
562
MARSTRUCT.indb 562
2/18/2011 5:53:58 PM
the hardness measurements, since a higher proportion of carbon explains the higher hardness
values of the string-bead technique specimens.
Overall, the requirements for material composition
of Germanischer Lloyd (2009) are fulfilled for all
specimens. Inclusions or other crack influencing
contents were not found.
As a main indicator for the fracture behaviour
the Crack Tip Opening Displacement values
(CTOD) were also determined. The CTOD values can be interpreted as the displacement of
the surfaces of a crack normal to the original
(undeformed) crack plane at the tip of the fatigue
precrack. Therefore three point bending tests
were performed using small specimens (cross
section 15 15 mm). The CTOD values were
measured with 5-clips (Eren et al., 2010).
Figure 9 presents the maximum CTOD values as a result of the bending tests. It was found
that the base material has the highest fracture
toughness CTOD-values within a scatter band of
0.851.05 mm. The fracture resistance of the filler
material welded with the weaving technique is in
the range of about 0.7 mm, the CTOD-values of
the string-bead technique are listed in the lower
part of the figure as columns separately for the
different gap widths. On average, these specimens
only reach half the fracture resistance of those
welded with the weaving technique, some values
were even critical.
The material characteristics were investigated
to search for any reasons that maybe have caused
the unexpected crack initiation point as well
as to evaluate the fracture behaviour. In general the
investigations confirm better material properties
for the weaving technique, especially in the root.
The partly martensitic structure and the higher
hardness of the string-bead technique specimens
To investigate further the influence of the different welding techniques several welding simulations
were done with the finite element program ANSYS.
The computation of residual stresses that maybe
influence the fatigue characteristics of a specimen
needs a detailed modelling of the welding process
and especially the welding technique. Due to this
both welding techniques, string-bead and weaving
technique, as well as a simple single-layered butt
weld process were computed. The geometrical
model was the same for all variants, see Figure 10.
The centrepiece in welding simulations is the
heat generation process. The computation subjects
range from modelling of heat generation and weld
pool phenomena, heat flow to thermal stresses and
deformations. The possibilities regarding models
for microstructure evaluation, cracking and other
phenomena that are determined by the temperature and deformation history of the material are
almost unlimited. The most limiting factor to
date is the technical capability of the operational
computer. The following computation results
are based on a relatively simple model, excluding
phase transformation. The thermal and the structural part are uncoupled. The heat input refers to
the welding parameters used in the tests for both
welding techniques. To investigate the influence of
the number of weld layers a butt weld with only
one layer was also computed. The heat input for
this model was estimated with the aim of similar
temperature distributions for all models.
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
8 mm gap width
30 mm gap width
Figure 10.
563
MARSTRUCT.indb 563
2/18/2011 5:54:00 PM
Table 4.
Computed variants.
Boundary condition
Fixed
String-bead (1 layer)
String-bead (20 layers)
Weaving (5 layers)
Elastic
400
300
200
100
weaving fixed
0
-200
weaving elastic
single layer
-100
0
100
Distance to welding line [mm]
200
0,05
0
single layer
-0,05
weaving fixed
weaving elastic
-0,1
-200
-100
0
100
Distance to welding line [mm]
200
564
MARSTRUCT.indb 564
2/18/2011 5:54:01 PM
1
single-layer
weaving fixed
string-bead elastic
0
-1
-200
-100
0
100
Distance to welding line [mm]
200
Figure 14. Vertical Displacement of weaving, stringbead technique and single-layer computation along
bottom path.
400
weaving elastic
string-bead elastic
200
notch
locations
0
-200
-100
100
200
Figure 15. Transverse stresses of weaving and stringbead technique along centre path.
565
MARSTRUCT.indb 565
2/18/2011 5:54:03 PM
0,002
0
-0,002
-0,004
notch
locations
-0,006
weaving
-0,008
-0,01
-200
string-bead
-100
0
100
Distance to welding line [mm]
200
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
0,02
-0,02
weaving
string-bead
-0,04
-200
-100
0
100
Distance to welding line [mm]
200
REFERENCES
7
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of the investigations described was to evaluate the weaving technique in comparison to the
string-bead technique used in shipbuilding practice
as well as the applicability of both welding techniques
for large gap widths welded under unfavorable constraints. The focus was on the strength properties
with respect to fatigue and fracture strength, exemplified by 15 mm thick steel specimens.
The fracture investigations regarding the material
properties pointed out that the weaving technique
leads to a more homogeneous microstructure, less
hardness values and good crack resistance values
compared to the string-bead technique. An influence of the gap width could not be found.
With respect to the fatigue tests this result
can be confirmed due to the sufficient and rule
confirming fatigue strength of the weaving technique specimens. Welding by the string-bead technique, however, leads to a surprisingly low fatigue
strength for the local approaches. The reason is
a possibly unfavorable combination of material
Eren, S.E. & Zacke, S. & Fricke, W. & Kocak, M.: Fatigue
and Fracture Strength of Ship Block Joints Welded
with Large Gaps. IIW doc. XIII-2336-10/X-1680-10.
IIW Conference, Istanbul, 2010.
Germanischer Lloyd: Classification Rules IShip Technology, Part 1; Seagoing ships, Section 20 Fatigue
Strength. Self-Publishing, Hamburg, 2009.
Germanischer Lloyd: Classification Rules IIMaterials
and Welding, Part 1; Metallic Materials, Chapter 2: Steel
and Iron Materials. Self-Publishing, Hamburg, 2009.
Hobbacher, A.: Recommendations for Fatigue Design
of Welded Joints and Components. IIW doc.1823-07,
Welding Research Council Bulletin 520, New York,
2009.
Niemi, E. & Fricke, W. & Maddox, S.J. 2006, Fatigue
Analysis of Welded ComponentsDesigners Guide
to Structural Hot-Spot Approach, Cambridge:
Woodhead Publ.
Radaj, D. & Sonsino, C.M. & Fricke, W.: Fatigue
Assessment of Welded Joints by Local Approaches.
Woodhead Publ., 2nd. Ed., Cambridge 2006.
Savu, D. & Huismann, G. Welding of Block Joints with
Large Gaps. Final Report BMBF-Research Project
03SX133B/ Part P3.1. Universitt der Bundeswehr.
Hamburg, 2003.
566
MARSTRUCT.indb 566
2/18/2011 5:54:05 PM
MARSTRUCT.indb 567
2/18/2011 5:54:07 PM
ABSTRACT: Fatigue aspects are leading criterion for the scantling optimization of ships structures.
LBR-5 software is an integrated package which performs, at the early design stage, cost and/or weight optimization of ships structures (scantling). This software takes into account structural constraints (yielding,
buckling, displacement, ultimate strength). Until now, the fatigue failure issue was not implicitly included in
the optimization loop. At the early design stage, limited information and details are available. Therefore simplified methods have to be applied. LBR-5 software provides the nominal stress, so chosen procedure uses the
nominal stress and the Miners rule. This approach requires a library of stress concentration factors for predefined typical structural details. The goal of the present work is to develop a tool for fatigue assessment that
can be integrated on LBR5 optimization process, to realize global optimization taking into account the fatigue
issues. Until now, the integration of the fatigue tool is not finished. Only fatigue verification on the optimized
structure is possible. On the present paper, the procedure adopted is presented and a longitudinal scantling of
the mid-ship section of a LNG is optimized with LBR-5. Production cost is considered as objective functions.
The optimized scantling is checked by the fatigue tool. The fatigue criterion is not respected on some panels.
Corrections are performed on these panels to have an optimized scantling without fatigue problems.
1
LBR-5 PRESENTATION
569
MARSTRUCT.indb 569
2/18/2011 5:54:08 PM
FATIGUE BACKGROUND
Figure 2.
2006).
570
MARSTRUCT.indb 570
2/18/2011 5:54:08 PM
571
MARSTRUCT.indb 571
2/18/2011 5:54:09 PM
(1)
(2)
x( p
+ y( p
3.2.1.1
nominal = |h + l|
( 1 , 2 )
nominal
x( p
y( p
2
p e)
+ xy ( plat
(3)
( 1 , 2 )
nominal
(4)
Figure 5.
x( p
+ y( p
/frame )
x( p
Figure 6.
y( p
2
/frame )
2
+ xy ( platee fframe )
(5)
572
MARSTRUCT.indb 572
2/18/2011 5:54:09 PM
The x( plate) is normal stresses at top or bottom surface of the deck plate at the intersection
with the frame, see Figure 6.
x( plate/ frame) and xy( plate/ frame) are normal
and shear stresses at frame web/plate junction.
3.2.1.4 Critical details situated at frame flange
In certain cases, the ends of frames can be a critical
areas. The hot spots are situated on the frame
flanges (Figure 7). The nominal stress is equal to
the normal stress on the frame.
nominal
y( fra
f meflange )
y(Girderflange)
nominal KG ,
notch
0.
hs ,
(9)
(7)
(6)
nominal
Values of some critical locations based on literature review (Bureau VERITAS 1998, 2009b, D.N.V.
2005, Remes et al., 2009) are presented on Table 1.
The values can be updated in the future based on
parametric FEanalysis. The user can also modify
and add new details to the library.
(8)
,
30
(10)
: Coefficient depending on the weld configuration, and given in Bureau VERITAS (2009a),
Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 4.
: Mean weld toe angle, in degrees, without being
taken less than 30. Unless otherwise specified,
may be taken equal to:
30 for butt joints
45 for T joints or cruciform joints
For flame-cut edges, Kw may be taken equal to
the values defined in Table 2 , depending on the
cutting quality, post treatment and control
quality.
3.2.4 Fatigue damage
The damage sum is calculated using a linear cumulative damage theory and Palmer-Miner rule,
Bureau VERITAS (2009a):
(11)
Figure 7.
where
N
Kp
notch
Figure 8.
573
MARSTRUCT.indb 573
2/18/2011 5:54:15 PM
Table 1.
Configuration
Concentration
factor
with non-watertight collar plate:
KG = 1.8
KG = 1.8
KG = 1.8
KG = 1.9
KG = 1.7
KG = 1.65
KG = 1.5
574
MARSTRUCT.indb 574
2/18/2011 5:54:19 PM
KF
1,4
1,6
2,0
2,5
Figure 9.
Table 3.
Variable
Lower limit
[mm]
Upper limit
[mm]
Plate thickness
Frames web thickness
Frames spacing
Stiffeners web height
Stiffeners web thickness
Stiffeners flange width
Stiffeners spacing
6
5
1000
80
5
10
400
25
20
3500
460
20
100
900
575
MARSTRUCT.indb 575
2/18/2011 5:54:20 PM
Figure 10.
Figure 12.
576
MARSTRUCT.indb 576
2/18/2011 5:54:21 PM
Table 4.
Before
optimization
Optimization (without
fatigue constraints)
Optimization
(fatigue corrections)
Damage
Damage
Damage
0.44
0.41
0.40
0.36
0.35
0.32
0.32
0.37
0.40
0.37
0.37
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.31
0.36
0.38
0.36
0.36
0.33
0.33
0.31
0.30
0.35
7.60
0.67
0.34
0.35
0.76
0.66
0.34
0.34
13.46
14.06
12.38
13.29
11.61
12.43
0.65
0.73
0.51
0.63
0.46
0.51
1.83
1.81
1.85
1.92
0.80
0.77
0.81
0.83
0.20
0.19
0.11
0.11
Table 5.
0.43
0.49
0.35
0.42
0.33
0.35
Optimization (without
fatigue constraints)
Optimization
(fatigue corrections)
Panel 8
Plate thickness
Web height
Web thickness
Flange breath
Flange thickness
17.61
305
10
59
35
13.17
230.7
5.3
92.3
10.7
13.2
287.2
10.0
55.8
32.8
Panel 24
Plate thickness
Web height
Web thickness
Flange breath
Flange thickness
19
305
10
59
35
16.55
182.8
6.8
80.6
10.3
20.0
287.2
10.0
55.8
32.8
HP320 12
Dimensions (mm)
HP320 12
(Continued)
577
MARSTRUCT.indb 577
2/18/2011 5:54:23 PM
Table 5.
(Continued )
Before optimization
Optimization (without
fatigue constraints)
Optimization
(fatigue corrections)
Panel 25
Plate thickness
Web height
Web thickness
Flange breath
Flange thickness
19
305
10
59
35
16.6
182.8
6.8
80.6
10.3
20.0
287.2
10.0
55.8
32.8
Panel 26
Plate thickness
Web height
Web thickness
Flange breath
Flange thickness
22
305
10
59
35
16.6
182.8
6.8
80.6
10.3
20.0
287.2
10.0
55.8
32.8
Scantling
Initial
Optimization
(without fatigue
constraints)
Optimization
(after fatigue
corrections)
Mass
[tons]
Gain in
mass
Cost
[M]
Gain
in cost
1840.44
1694.99
7.90%
3.16
3.00
5.16%
1714.13
6.86%
3.02
4.58%
HP320 12
HP320 12
Dimensions (mm)
Mass [tons]
Cost [M]
Optimized (without
fatigue constraints)
Optimized & Corrected
fatigue
Difference
%
1694.99
1714.12
3.02
19.14
1.13%
0.02
0.51%
CONCLUSIONS
A fatigue tool has been developed in the framework of the IMPROVE Project. A methodology is
chosen by taking into account of the capabilities
of the LBR5 software and the need to be used early
deigns stage. Some tests were performed by comparing the results to the results obtained with
VERISTAR software provided by Bureau VERITAS. This comparison shows that the LBR5
results are not perfect and further tests must be
performed to calibrate more the fatigue module
and to add more critical details on a library of
578
MARSTRUCT.indb 578
2/18/2011 5:54:23 PM
579
MARSTRUCT.indb 579
2/18/2011 5:54:23 PM
ABSTRACT: The issue of the environmental impact of shipping activities is treated in this work from
the specific viewpoint of underwater noise emissions from the vessels. There has been recently a rising concern about the negative effects that this kind of emissions can have on the marine wildlife in general and
in particular on marine mammals. In these animals, acoustic communication and perception has acquired
a privileged role compared with other senses and other zoological groups. The paper examines the role in
this scenario of noise emissions from shipping and explores how their impact can be quantified, in order
to establish a target for the control of such emissions. The standards recently issued for the characterisation of underwater noise signature by commercial vessels are also reviewed. The paper builds on the first
results of the project SILENV, funded with the 7th Framework programme of the European Union.
INTRODUCTION
581
MARSTRUCT.indb 581
2/18/2011 5:54:23 PM
Propellers
582
MARSTRUCT.indb 582
2/18/2011 5:54:23 PM
Machinery
583
MARSTRUCT.indb 583
2/18/2011 5:54:23 PM
Flow noise
Noise due to the flow around the hull and in particular on the appendages, is usually overcome by
other types of underwater radiated noise. It may
become an important component in high speed
vessels for radiation inside the ship. In general flow
noise is confined to a region near the hull and does
not transmit to far distances.
3
3.1
Propagation
584
MARSTRUCT.indb 584
2/18/2011 5:54:24 PM
efforts have been devoted to the definition of procedures for the quantification of such radiation. In
the following, a couple of recent standards will be
briefly reviewed.
0
500
1000
Depth [m]
1500
2000
2500
4.1
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1490
Figure 2.
1500
1510
1520
1530
1540
Sound Speed [m/s]
1550
1560
ANSI/ASA S12.64-2009
Instrumentation
Signal acquisition
Test site requirements
Sea surface conditions
Hydrophone deployment
Test course and vessel operating conditions
Test sequence
Post processing
In particular the layout suggested for the hydrophones (grades A and B measurements) is reported
in Figure 3.
The use of multiple hydrophones is fundamental to capture the source directivity in the vertical
plane.
MEASUREMENT OF SHIP
UNDERWATER NOISE
Figure 3.
585
MARSTRUCT.indb 585
2/18/2011 5:54:24 PM
Figure 4.
A key aspect in studying the impact of underwater noise pollution is the sensibility of the receiver,
i.e. how the marine fauna, in particular mammals,
perceive sound. Characterising the hearing capabilities of marine mammals is not a trivial task. First
of all, many species exist, each of them with different hearing sensibilities. For this reason a large
586
MARSTRUCT.indb 586
2/18/2011 5:54:25 PM
Masking
587
MARSTRUCT.indb 587
2/18/2011 5:54:25 PM
In general, limits on the waterborne noise emissions from ships can be set on the basis of two different aims, corresponding to a minimisation of
the impact on the marine fauna in terms of:
behavioral changes in single individuals or
reduction in communication between members
of the same species
Figure 7.
10
10
10
10
10
Frequency [Hz]
10
588
MARSTRUCT.indb 588
2/18/2011 5:54:25 PM
Table 1.
Categorisation of models.
Level
Impact
Ship
Emitter
Behavioural
Communication
Behavioural
Communication
Communication
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2
3
Receiver
x
x
Increasing further the complexity of the analysis of communication problems, the characteristics of the receiver in terms of audiogram and of
critical bandwidth could be added to the information about the ship and the emitting animal. With
this approach, the space in which an individual
can actually perceive the signals from another
one, in the presence of the disturbing ship, can be
evaluated. The ratio between the volume in which
communication can take place in the presence of
the ship and the (larger) volume where communication could occur without the ship can be used as an
indicator for the intrusiveness of the ships noise.
On the basis of what above the following categorisation of possible models could be derived,
following the complexity of data requirements:
The three levels correspond to an increasing
model complexity, but the main difficulties are
represented by the characterisation of the receiver.
In fact for a large number of species, the hearing
capabilities are still unknown, in particular those
of mysticetes. It is also recalled that these characteristics vary for each species.
In the following examples of the models
described above, present in literature, will be
analysed.
6.1
Figure 9. Hearing threshold for cod is shown, with indication of how this was utilised (modified from Mitson
1995).
Figure 10. Determination of the ship noise specification (at 200 Hz) from the proposed maximum acceptable
fish reaction range of 20 m. The line follows spherical
propagation [modified from (Mitson 1995)].
589
MARSTRUCT.indb 589
2/18/2011 5:54:27 PM
Figure 11. Proposed underwater radiated noise specification at 11 knots free running for all vessels used in
fisheries research (ICES 1995).
6.2
This work was developed in the frame of the collaborative project SILENVShips oriented Innovative soLutions to rEduce Noise & Vibrations,
funded by the E.U. within the Call FP7-SST-2008RTD-1 Grant Agreement SCP8-GA-2009-234182.
590
MARSTRUCT.indb 590
2/18/2011 5:54:28 PM
REFERENCES
ACCOBAMS 1996. Final Act of the Negotiation Meeting to adopt the Agreement on the Conservation of
Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and
Contiguous Atlantic Area, Monaco.
ANSI/ASA 2009. ANSI/ASA S12.64-2009/Part 1, Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Underwater Sound from Ships- Part1:
General Requirements.
ASCOBANS 1992. Agreement on the Conservation of
Small Cetaceans of the Baltic And North Seas, United
Nations, New York.
Carlton, J.S. 2007. Marine Propellers and Propulsion.
Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Clark, W.C., Ellison, W.T., Southall, B.L., Hatch, L., Van
Parijs, S.M., Frankel, A. & Ponirakis, D. 2009. Acoustic Masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis,
and implication. Marine ecology progress series 395:
201222.
DNV 2010. Det Norske Veritas: Rules for Classification
of Ships, Silent Class Notation, Part 6, Chapter 24.
Frantzis, A. 1998: Does acoustic testing strand whales?
Nature, 392:29.
Gordon, J., Gillespie, D., Potter, J., Frantzis, A.,
Simmonds, M., Swift, R. & Thompson, D. 2004: The
effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine
Technology Society Journal, 37:1634.
Hildebrand, J.A. 2005. Impacts of Anthropogenic
Sound. In: Reynolds, J.E. et al. (eds.). Marine Mammal Research: Conservation beyond Crisis. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. pp
101124.
IMO 2009a. Document MEPC 59/19, Noise From Commercial Shipping and its Adverse Impacts on Marine
Life.
IMO 2009b. Document MEPC 60/18, Noise From Commercial Shipping and its Adverse Impacts on Marine
Life.
IMO 2010. Document MEPC 61/19, Noise From Commercial Shipping and its Adverse Impacts on Marine
Life.
Kipple B., Gabriele C. 2004. Galcier Bay Watercraft
NoiseNoise Characterization for Tour, Charter, Private and Givernment Vessels, Naval Warfare Center,
Technical Report NSWCCD-71-TR-2004/545.
Mitson, R.B. 1995. Underwater noise of research vessels:
review and recommendations. ICES Cooperative
Report 209.
Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J.,
Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr., C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R.,
Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J.,
Thomas, J.A. & Tyack, P.L. 2007. Marine mammal
noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4):411522.
Southall, B.L. & A. Scholik-Schlomer. 2008. Final report of
the NOAA International Conference: Potential Application of Vessel-Quieting Technology on Large Commercial Vessels, 12 May 2007. Silver Spring, USA.
Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of underwater sound.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
591
MARSTRUCT.indb 591
2/18/2011 5:54:29 PM
ABSTRACT: The work addresses the problem of the ship noise emissions towards the inner part of
the vessel and towards the external space. In the former case, the focus is on the air-borne and structureborne transmission to living and working spaces on board. Limits and regulations are devoted primarily
to the preservation of the workers health and integrity and to the attainment of comfortable conditions in
resting and recreational spaces for crew and passengers. As regards airborne noise emissions from the ship,
the main concern is for the inhabitants of the living areas near ports and along the coast in case of heavy
ship traffic. Finally, noise emissions in water are considered; in this case, the concern is about their negative
impact on the marine wildlife. The present situation in terms of national, regional and international
requirements and the trends in the normative framework for the various emissions are highlighted.
1
INTRODUCTION
593
MARSTRUCT.indb 593
2/18/2011 5:54:29 PM
2.2.1
2.2.1.1 Application
The code applies to ships in service (at port or at
sea) with seafarers on board. It does not apply to
passenger spaces. Ships covered are:
New ships with gross tonnage 1600 tons
Existing ships with GT 1600 as far as reasonable and practicable to the satisfaction of the
Administration
New ships <1600 GT as far as reasonable and practicable to the satisfaction of the
Administration.
2.2.1.2 Measurements
Specifications contained in the code cover, as mentioned, the various aspects of the measurement
procedure. In particular there are sections devoted
to the identification of:
Measurement locations in the various spaces on
board
Equipment characteristics [reference to standards IEC 651 (1979), IEC 179 (1973)]
Aspects of signal processing [IEC 225 (1966)]
Documentation of the surveys
Provisions for the safety of personnel performing measurements.
The provisions of this part suffer from the technical obsolescence of the reference standards.
2.2.1.3 Operating conditions
A key point is also represented by the identification
of the ship conditions during the surveys of noise
levels. Two classes of conditions are covered: at sea
(navigation) and at port. They will be reviewed in
more details in the following:
Conditions at sea: The identification of operating conditions at sea include environmental
594
MARSTRUCT.indb 594
2/18/2011 5:54:29 PM
Work spaces
Limits
Space
type
Navigation
spaces
Accommodation
spaces
Service spaces
Leq (
Spaces
dB(A)
Machinery spaces
(continuously manned)
Machinery spaces (not
continuously manned)
Machinery control rooms
Workshops
Non-specified work spaces
Navigating bridge and
chartrooms
Listening post,
including navigating
bridge* wings
and windows
Radio rooms
(with radio equipment
operating but not
producing audio signals)
Radar rooms
Cabins and hospital
Mess rooms
Recreation rooms
Open recreation areas
Offices
Galleys, without food
processing equipment
operating
Serveries and pantries
Spaces not specified
90
) = 10log10
75
85
90
65
70
60
65
60
65
65
75
65
75
75
90
pA ( )
d
24h 24 h p0
1
110
(1)
595
MARSTRUCT.indb 595
2/18/2011 5:54:29 PM
Table 2.
Space
dB
Cabin to cabin
Mess rooms, recreation rooms
to cabins and hospitals
la = 30
la = 40
Figure 1.
Ear plugs
Ear muffs
Ear plugs +
ear muffs
la
l 10
log
W1
[dB]
W2 W3
(2)
dB(A)
20
30
35
Octave band centre frequency
kHz
0.125 0.25 0.5 1
Ear plugs
Ear muffs
0
5
5
12
10
20
3.15 4
15 22 22
30 30 30
6.3
22 22
30 30
596
MARSTRUCT.indb 596
2/18/2011 5:54:29 PM
Measurement procedures
Limits on noise and vibration for crew
Limits on noise and vibration for passengers
Limits on acoustic insulation
Limits on impact noise levels.
597
MARSTRUCT.indb 597
2/18/2011 5:54:30 PM
Lden
l
log
Lday
12 10 10 + 4 10
24
Lnight
+ 10
i
Lev . + 5
10
+ 8 10
10
(3)
598
MARSTRUCT.indb 598
2/18/2011 5:54:30 PM
3.3
Maximum sound
pressure level @ 1 m
kW
PN 10
10 < PN 40
PN > 40
dB
67
72
75
National regulations
The Italian legislation follows the EU (2002) directive issuing the Legislative Decree no. 194/2005,
defining the same acoustic indicators and the same
tools of acoustic planning. Currently, the Italian
legislation has not yet defined the sound limits as
required by EU (2002) directive.
Regarding the assessment of noise emitted by
recreational crafts, the Italian legislation follows
the European Directive 2003/44/EC issuing the
Legislative Decree no. 171/05, defining the same
limits for the maximum sound pressure level emitted by this type of vessels. No indications are available for other units.
Also the Spanish legislation follows the EU
(2002) directive. In Royal Decree 1367 the noise
limits are defined for the three day periods (day,
evening and night) but not for Lden.
Finnish, Swedish and English legislations have
different regulations from EU (2002), but none of
them give specific limits for airborne noise.
3.4
IMO framework
IMO deals with the problem in the following documents in chronological order:
IMO (2001). The purpose of these Guidelines
is to provide guidance to Contracting Parties to
the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by
the Protocol of 1978 in the formulation and submission of applications for the designation of
Special Areas under Annexes I, II, and V to the
Convention. In the Guidelines noise is explicitly
mentioned in the list of pollutants.
IMO (2007a), IMO (2008). This information
paper sent both to the Marine Safety Committee
and to the Marine Environment Protection Committee advises of the issue of noise generated by
international shipping and its potential adverse
impact on marine life. It requests Member
599
MARSTRUCT.indb 599
2/18/2011 5:54:30 PM
Figure 2. Proposed underwater radiated noise specification at 11 knots free running for all vessels used in
fisheries research (Mitson 1995).
Classification societies
As regards Classification Societies a very recent regulation issued by Det Norske Veritas (DNV Silent
Class Notation) represents the first attempt to fix
600
MARSTRUCT.indb 600
2/18/2011 5:54:30 PM
601
MARSTRUCT.indb 601
2/18/2011 5:54:32 PM
Noise in water
602
MARSTRUCT.indb 602
2/18/2011 5:54:32 PM
ABSTRACT: The present study has been performed by the University of Trieste within the BESST
European Project with the aim to design an operational procedure for predicting ships outdoor noise
in harbour. Procedure is here outlined in all its steps from the pre- to the post-processing phase and its
effectiveness is proved. Method is implemented by application to a comprehensive case study. Numerical
simulations are performed by exploiting a selected commercial software suited for acoustic mapping on
noise emission in open field conditions. Results are then discussed with the aim to check operational
procedure and computational tool. Basing on the same results, suggestions on the proper technique to
approach the topical subject of ships outdoor noise in harbour are given. Paper starts with an introduction
covering the matter of ships noise pollution in harbour and how it is today managed.
1
1.1
603
MARSTRUCT.indb 603
2/18/2011 5:54:32 PM
604
MARSTRUCT.indb 604
2/18/2011 5:54:32 PM
LAp
LApi
10
1 N
= 10 log i =1 10
N
(1)
LAp, corrected
LAp B LAp
10
LAp + 10 log 1 10
K 2A
(2)
LA
Ap
p corrected + 10 log
S
S0
(3)
605
MARSTRUCT.indb 605
2/18/2011 5:54:32 PM
2
2.1
606
MARSTRUCT.indb 606
2/18/2011 5:54:33 PM
Figure 2.
607
MARSTRUCT.indb 607
2/18/2011 5:54:33 PM
Figure 3.
exhaust).
608
MARSTRUCT.indb 608
2/18/2011 5:54:34 PM
Figure 4.
air fans).
In the simulations carried out for the overall outdoor prediction, the field points plane has been
placed in front of a building. Even tough in a real
case study prediction, analysis should be carried
out by collecting and discussing SPL outcomes
on the whole area of interest as, for instance, the
entire front of one or more buildings, in what
follows, SPL outcomes will be considered on a
single read-out point, in order to make more clear
explaining the procedure.
Outdoor noise predictions have been carried out
while the cruise ship is moored in a dock at different
berthing posts. The most interesting berthing post is
that for which direct measurements have been taken
(Station 1). Case 1 simulation gives at the analysis
point an overall SPL value of 46.4 dB(A).
The read-out plane is partially covered by buildings and so the noise level results to be attenuated
on the entire plane. The distance effect is prevailing on that barrier effect and the SPL values
decreases according to distance from the ship. At
the right side of the building face a maximum of
47.30 dB(A) has been computed. The latter value
is slightly lower than the true value obtained by a
direct measurement, which gave 48,5 dB(A). The
little discrepancy may be due to a higher level of
the high-frequency background noise measured on
site, probably due to very local sources.
3.4
Final considerations
609
MARSTRUCT.indb 609
2/18/2011 5:54:35 PM
Figure 7.
CONCLUSIONS
610
MARSTRUCT.indb 610
2/18/2011 5:54:36 PM
ABSTRACT: Fluid-Structure Interaction problems are solved by applying a smoothed particle hydrodynamics method to a weakly compressible Navier-Stokes equation as well as an equilibrium equation
for geometrically nonlinear structures in updated Lagrangian formulation. The geometrically exact
interface, consisting of B-spline basis functions and the corresponding control points, includes the high
order geometric information such as tangent, normal, and curvature. The exactness of interface is kept
by updating the control points according to the kinematics obtained from response analysis. Under the
scheme of explicit time integration and updated Lagrangian formulation, the required shape design
velocity should be updated at every single step. The update scheme of design velocity is developed
using the sensitivity of physical velocity. The developed sensitivity analysis method is further utilized in
gradient-based shape optimization problems and turns out to be very efficient since the interaction pairs
of particles determined in the response analysis can be directly utilized.
1
INTRODUCTION
SPH FORMULATION
611
MARSTRUCT.indb 611
2/18/2011 5:54:37 PM
Wab W (
= ddim
h
dim
ab ,
h)
3 | ab | 2 3 | ab | 3
|x |
+
, 0 ab 1,
1
2
h
h
h
3
1
| x ab |
|x |
,
1 ab 2,
2
4
h
h
| x ab |
> 2,
0,
h
(1)
where ()ab = ()a ()b. For two-dimensional system, the dimensional parameter dim is defined as
2 = 10/7.
3
3.1
In the SPH approach, the interface is approximately constructed using the distribution of particles as shown in Figure 1, where the red and
green dots are respectively the initial interface and
pseudo boundary particles that are the outmost
ones of solid domain. The approximated interface
particle xinta is defined as a constant distance in the
direction from the solid particles on the pseudo
boundary s to the fluid domain as Equation 2.
(the index inta means particle a that is defined
on the interface).
x int a = x a + 12 dnn a ,
Figure 2.
(2)
x int a
i =0
, p (
)Pint
int i ,
(3)
i p (
)=
p
Ni p 1( )
i + p i
p
Ni +1 p 1( ).
i + p +1 i +1
(4)
Figure 1.
612
MARSTRUCT.indb 612
2/18/2011 5:54:37 PM
b vbWh ( x int
m
( x intt
b Wh (x
mb
v int a =
xb )
(5)
xb )
N 1 v int ,
(6)
N0, p ( ) N1 p (1 ) N n p (1 )
N=
.
N0, p (n ) N , p (n )
N n, p (n )
d x
dT (
, )
=0
T ( x, )
=0
. (11)
=0
( )
n +1
n+1 t
n t
x = n x +
(12)
v dt.
d(
n +1
n+1
d(
=00
(7)
= +
=0
n+1
t
nt
d n+1t
n v dt
d t
=0
v dt
(13)
A new interface can be updated using the velocity of interface particle vint as Equation 8.
n +1
x int = x iint
nt + v int.
(8)
int
N P int . (9)
vt
(14)
d n a
= mb ( n a n b ) a nWab
d t = 0
b
+ t mb ( n v a n v b ) ( a nWaab )
SHAPE DSA
T ( n x, )
n+ 12
= n +
n ( n x ),
(10)
(15)
fluid
i
d n v a
t
=0
= mb
b
+
n
n
a2
pb
b3
pa
a2
+ mb
b
pa
pb
b2
pa
a3
l a nWaab
b + ab
pb
b2
+ ab l (
( a Wab ) + ( f a )
(16)
613
MARSTRUCT.indb 613
2/18/2011 5:54:40 PM
n v asolid
d t = 0
n
n
n a
b
a n
n 2 + n 2 n 3 a
a
b
a
a nWab
= mb
n
b n
n
n
b
n 3 b + ab l + ab
b
n a n b n
n
n
n
+ mb
+
+ ab l + abb (
( a Wabb ) + ( f a )
n 2
n 2
a
b
b
d
(17)
5
5.1
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
High order geometric information
Figure 4.
Approximated method.
Figure 5.
Proposed method.
614
MARSTRUCT.indb 614
2/18/2011 5:54:46 PM
(n
Min ( )
a)(
a)
(18)
n a =1
( xi
xi ) + ( yi
yi )
0.010636
1.0, ( i
(19)
and
gi =
( xi
xi + 3 )2 + ( yi
0.010636
yi + 3 )2
1.0, ( i
(20)
The design variables are the x coordinates of
control points 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10,
b = (x1, x2, x3, x8, x9, x10)T
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Analytical variations.
(21)
615
MARSTRUCT.indb 615
2/18/2011 5:54:49 PM
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Optimization histories.
Figure 13.
Figure 11.
Optimization histories.
Response analysis
Sensitivity analysis
2476.4 sec
338.6 sec
616
MARSTRUCT.indb 616
2/18/2011 5:54:52 PM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONCLUSIONS
617
MARSTRUCT.indb 617
2/18/2011 5:54:55 PM
S. Ehlers
Aalto University, School of Science and Technology, Marine Technology, Espoo, Finland
ABSTRACT: The continuous demand for efficient structures contributes to the development of lightweight steel structures, such as steel sandwich panels. However, these thin steel sandwich panels need to
be joined to one-another and to conventional structures. Hence, an appropriate joint shape needs to be
identified with an as low as possible equivalent stress level due to the joints sensitivity to fatigue. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to identify the optimum joint shape using a finite element-based optimisation
procedure together with a B-spline based parametric joint shape. The optimization is performed with two
objectives, i.e. to minimize the stress and mass of the joint. As a result, a series of optimum joint shapes
and their characteristics will be presented and discussed, followed by an outlook of future work aspects
related to the joint fabrication and welding.
1
INTRODUCTION
Sandwich panel
Figure 1.
Asymmetric joint
619
MARSTRUCT.indb 619
2/18/2011 5:54:55 PM
2.1
L
s2x
y
t1+t3
t1+t3
s3x
t3
fr
t1
s1y
s2y
H
s3y
t2
s1x
620
MARSTRUCT.indb 620
2/18/2011 5:54:56 PM
y
x
y
x
Min
Max
Optimum
slx
sly
s2x
s2y
s3x
s2y
0
60
4
11
138
85
0
60
4
0
126
0
0
60
3
11
138
60
0
60
0
1
0.9
mass
0.8
0.7
mass(min stress)
stress
0.6
0.5
0.4
2.3
0.3
0.2
VB.NET
application
Results.xls
Figure 4.
ANSYS
VOP
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Generation
621
MARSTRUCT.indb 621
2/18/2011 5:54:57 PM
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
3.2
3.1
Case 1
The shape optimization converged within 110 generations with a population of 40 design alternatives. The minimum stress alternative was found in
generation 71 and the minimum mass alternative
was found in generation 94, see Figures 7, 8 and 9
and Table 3.
The shape optimization converged within 110 generations with a population of 40 design alternatives. The minimum stress alternative was found in
generation 97 and the minimum mass alternative
was found in generation 95, see Figures 10, 11 and
12 and Table 4.
3.3
sly
s2x
s2y
s3x
s3y
t1 t2 t3 fr
Min
11
Max 138
Step
2
0
60
2
0
126
2
0
60
2
11
138
2
0
60
2
1
8
1
1
8
1
1
8
1
1
16
1
1
0.9
mass
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Generation
Figure 7.
(case 1).
Case 2
The principal finite element based shape optimisation resulted in the joint shapes shown in
Figures 8, 9, 11 and 12. Because the actual loading
condition was simplified to a unit displacement,
the purpose of this optimisation lies in the visualization of the rational assessment of the influence
of the shape on the stress and mass reduction. The
choice of boundary conditions allows some asymmetric loading distribution due to the asymmetric
geometry, but it remains for future work to identify if this simplification sufficiently represents
the panel-to-surrounding-structure connection.
However, due to the asymmetric support secondary bending is invoked resulting in the swan-neck
type of joint shape.
Considering the very simple boundary/loading
condition, the B-spline n2 is probably almost
completely unaffected by the optimization process.
The similarity of the shape for both minima alternatives in each case confirmed this. Thus indicating that case 2, without the additional grey
section, is the preferred joint shape. Additionally,
the results clearly indicate that the joint shape with
622
MARSTRUCT.indb 622
2/18/2011 5:54:59 PM
Table 3.
Generation
slx
sly
s2x
s2y
s3x
s3y
t1
t2
t3
Mass
Stress
71
94
122
88
60
46
14
12
38
38
64
98
50
26
1
1
4
1
1
1
0.270
0.181
0.014
0.024
1
0.9
CONCLUSIONS
mass
0.8
stress(min mass)
0.7
Figure 10.
(case 2).
Figure 11.
REFERENCES
stress
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Generation
Figure 12.
Table 4.
Generation slx
97
95
136 58 86
72 56 78
48
40
1
1
1
1
1 0.095 0.007
1 0.073 0.016
the minimal mass is most feasible from a production and technological point of view and may be
assembled from two curved plates or obtained by
extrusion. Furthermore, the geometric- and material discontinuities should be included to assess the
stress increase at these local hot spots.
623
MARSTRUCT.indb 623
2/18/2011 5:55:01 PM
A. Niemel
STX Europe, Turku, Finland
S. Bralic
Brze Vise Bolje d.o.o, Zagreb, Croatia
H. Naar
MEC Insenerilahendused, Tallinn, Estonia
ABSTRACT: The paper investigates the interaction between the hull and the superstructure in optimized passenger ships when exposed to bending loads. The investigation is done using the Coupled Beams
theory which extends the basic beam theory to account vertical and shear stiffness between various decks.
Optimization of passenger ship with respect to weight and Vertical Centre of Gravity (VCG) is carried
out to create a set of Pareto-optimal solutions. The responses of these designs are compared in detail. The
investigation shows that the vertical and shear coupling between different decks significantly affects the
response of the passenger ships and changes load carrying mechanism of the hull girder. In the weight
optimal design the vertical bending moment is shared equally by the hull and the superstructure, while
in VCG optimal design the neutral axis approaches bottom plating of the ship considerably increasing
the share of load carrying of the superstructure. This means that the global response evaluation needs
to include vertical and shear coupling along whole length of the ship, and thus the simplified 2D section
models are not adequate for the conceptual design of passenger ship structures.
1
INTRODUCTION
625
MARSTRUCT.indb 625
2/18/2011 5:55:02 PM
STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION
Global response
626
MARSTRUCT.indb 626
2/18/2011 5:55:02 PM
The division of hull girder to several macroelements results in large number of design variables.
In addition, the design space of multi-attributes
has a non-convex shape. Therefore, evolutionbased optimisation algorithms are most suitable.
The ConStruct platform uses the Genetic Algorithm with vectorization and constraint grouping
(Klanac and Jelovica, 2009) to create the Pareto
surface for the given optimization problem.
Case description and selected optimum
designs
Figure 2.
loads.
23
2.4
W opt.
22
21
20
19
18
17
VCG opt.
16
40
45
50
55
60
Weight [ton/m]
627
MARSTRUCT.indb 627
2/18/2011 5:55:02 PM
Figure 4.
Table 1. The weight and VCG optimal designs. First line indicates the plate thickness, stiffener spacing
and yield strength of the material, while the second line indicates the bulb flat dimensions and material. The
units are mm and MPa.
628
MARSTRUCT.indb 628
2/18/2011 5:55:04 PM
(1)
where WM and WQ are the deflections due to bending moment and shear force respectively. In beam
theory it is commonly assumed that all fibers
(i.e. decks) deflect the same amount. According to
Bleich (1952) this assumption is not necessarily valid
and therefore the total deflection between different
decks is selected for item to be investigated.
The normal strain, , is related to the curvature,
, of the beam by relation:
= z
d 2w
(2)
dx 2
dw
(3)
dx
629
MARSTRUCT.indb 629
2/18/2011 5:55:05 PM
630
MARSTRUCT.indb 630
2/18/2011 5:55:06 PM
Figure 10. Bending moment variation along ship longitudinal (x) axis.
DISCUSSION
631
MARSTRUCT.indb 631
2/18/2011 5:55:07 PM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research presented in the paper was carried
out in Finnish research project funded by Tekes,
STX Europe and Napa Ltd. The financial support
is gratefully appreciated.
REFERENCES
Andric, J. & Zanic, V., The Global Structural Response
Model for Multi-Deck Ships in Concept Design Stage,
Ocean Engineering, Vol. 37, 2010, pp. 688704.
Bleich, H.H., Nonlinear distribution of bending stresses
due to distortion of the cross section, Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 1952;29, pp. 95104.
Caprace, J.D., Bair, F. & Rigo, P., Multi-Criteria Scantling Optimization of Cruise Ships, Ship Technology
Research, Schifftechnik, Vol. 57, No. 3, September
2010, pp. 210220.
Carrera, E., A Unified Formulation to Assess Theories
of Multilayered Plates for Various Bending Problems,
Composite Structures, Vol. 69, 2005, pp. 271293.
Carrera, E., Historical Review of Zig-Zag Theories for
Multilayered Plates and Shells, Applied Mechanics
Review Vol. 56, No. 3, May 2003, pp. 287308.
Det Norske Veritas, Direct Strength Analysis of Hull
Structures in Passenger Ships, October 2007.
Fransman, J., The influence of passenger ship
superstructures on the response of the hull girder,
Transactions of RINA 1988, pp. 112.
Hughes, O., Mistree, F. & Zanic, V., 1980. A practical
method for the rational design of ship structures.
Journal of Ship Research 24(2): 10113.
Hughes, O., 1983. Ship structural design: a rationally-based,
computer-aided optimization approach. New York:
Wiley, p. 566.
ISSC, Committee II.1Quasi-Static Response, 13th
International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress,
1822 August 1997, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 158165.
Klanac, A., & Jelovica, J., Vectorization and constraint
grouping to enhance optimization of marine structures, Marine Structures 22(2), 2009, pp. 225245.
Mantere, H., Strength Analysis for the Design of Local
Ship Structures in Concept Stage, Masters Thesis.
Helsinki University of Technology, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Ship Laboratory, 2007.
Espoo.
632
MARSTRUCT.indb 632
2/18/2011 5:55:09 PM
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
algorithm.
General
scheme
of
the
optimization
633
MARSTRUCT.indb 633
2/18/2011 5:55:09 PM
INPUT DATA
Environment
Environmental data summarizes the characteristics of the site, data related to fatigue analysis and
load cases considered for the ultimate limit state
analysis.
Firstly, site data contains the values for water
depth d, the power law exponent characterizing
the vertical distribution of wind speeds over the
tower height, the densities of the air a and of the
sea water w.
Secondly, for fatigue concern a distinction is
made between waves and wind actions. On one
hand, waves participation is presented under the
form of a list of sea states (or scatter diagram), each
one being characterized by a significant wave height
HS, a mean zero up-crossing period TZ and a percentage of occurrence of the sea state PSS. On the
other hand, spectrums of punctual tower top loads
are used to describe fluctuating wind loadings on
the structure.
Finally, data related to ultimate limit states are
listed under the form of a series of environmental situations and their associated wind and waves
conditions: average wind speed at hub height Vhub,
water level elevation d compared to the mean still
water level MSL (elevation due to tide or storm for
example), wave height Hw and period Tw and a set
of punctual tower top loads.
3.2
Support structure
Figure 3.
ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRAINTS
Generals
Wind turbine
634
MARSTRUCT.indb 634
2/18/2011 5:55:10 PM
4.3
635
MARSTRUCT.indb 635
2/18/2011 5:55:11 PM
PSD
SDH f ) =
(f
H s2
e
4 Tz4 f 5
)4
(1)
kwave ( z*i ))
sin h( kwave d )
(2)
for
i j nuw
for
i j > nuw
(3)
D 2
Cm w i LF ,i
4
wa , k )
w
Td
m2
m0
( PRayeigh
(P
Rayeig
gh ( Swa , k + 1 )
PRayeig
Rayeigh
gh ( Swa , k ))
(5)
(4)
636
MARSTRUCT.indb 636
2/18/2011 5:55:13 PM
Figure 7. Normal stress range histogram of normal stresses at the clamping point of an offshore wind
turbine.
wind
i ,i
F
Fx ,top
o
M y,top
o
(6)
Mwiind ,i
press
2
wind
i (z)
(8)
(7)
Wi
637
MARSTRUCT.indb 637
2/18/2011 5:55:16 PM
Wsd ,wind
wind
i drag ( z ) = cd ( z ) qsd ,wind ( z ) D( z )
(9)
where cd = drag coefficient calculated from specifications prescribed by [5]; D = diameter of the
tubular structure at height z.
This drag load is to be multiplied by a gust
response factor G to account for the dynamic amplification of the structure response (equation 10).
Wsd ,wind
i
presss ( z )
pres
= GW
Wssdd ,wind ddrag ( z )
(10)
vw ( z, t )
d z*
cos h kwave
d (t )
2
1
Hwave
2
sin h ( kwave d )
Twave
2
cos
t
(11)
T
wave
aw ( z, t )
d z*
2 cos h kwave
d (t )
2
1
Hwave
2
sin h ( kwave d )
Twave
2
(12)
sin
t
t
wave
1
2
nddt
x(t ) = qk (t ) V k
k =1
(15)
w Cd Di Li | vw ( zi t ) | vw ( zi , t )
(13)
Di2
Li aw ( zi ,t )
4
(14)
Fi , wave iinertia (t ) = w Cm
638
MARSTRUCT.indb 638
2/18/2011 5:55:22 PM
j 1
nc
(16)
Pj k = C max, j k
1 C
j k
(17)
5.3
nc
Fitk = k
OPTIMIZATION OF A 5 MW OFFSHORE
WIND TURBINE
The fitness function is responsible for performing the evaluation of solutions compared to each
other. Basically, this module returns a positive integer number, or fitness value, that reflects how
optimal the solution is: the higher the number, the
better the solution.
The fitness values are then used in a process of
natural selection to choose the potential solutions
that will survive in the next generation and those
that will die out. However it should be noted that
natural selection process does not merely select the
top x number of solutions. Instead, solutions are
chosen statistically so that it is more likely for a
solution with a higher fitness value to be selected,
but it is not guaranteed. This tends to correspond
to the natural world.
6.1 Generals
The computerized tool has been tested on the
scantling of a 5 MW offshore wind turbine. The
characteristics of the support structure, environmental conditions, optimisation parameters and
results are described hereafter.
6.2 Characteristics of the offshore wind turbine
The main characteristics of the wind turbine are
summarized in the Table 1.
The initial monopile support structure considered in the study is made of steel S235 and its general dimensions are listed in Table 2.
Concerning the dynamic of the structure, the
logarithmic decrements on the first mode due
639
MARSTRUCT.indb 639
2/18/2011 5:55:25 PM
Table 1.
turbine.
Description
Value
Unit
Description
Value
Unit
5
3
118
390
[MW]
[]
[m]
[tons]
37.5
10
0.18
[m/s]
[m/s]
[]
414.2
[min1]
Value
Unit
80
77
30
5
4
5.7
25
115
902.1
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mm]
[mm]
[tons]
Environmental conditions
z-position
Section [m]
Dfat,wave
[]
Dfat,wind
[]
Dfat
[]
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
9.154e-9
1.077e-5
1.235e-4
3.534e-4
7.260e-4
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.012
0.014
0.017
0.019
0.020
0.021
0.019
0.014
0.012
0.012
0.012
8.425e-4
0.007
0.023
0.030
0.040
0.068
0.083
0.085
0.101
0.106
0.124
0.117
0.138
0.139
0.150
0.161
0.156
0.152
0.130
0.091
0.082
0.070
0.070
8.425e-4
0.007
0.023
0.030
0.041
0.070
0.086
0.089
0.106
0.112
0.133
0.126
0.150
0.153
0.167
0.180
0.176
0.173
0.149
0.105
0.094
0.082
0.082
Ve
1 25 Vreff
62, 5
m
s
(18)
640
MARSTRUCT.indb 640
2/18/2011 5:55:26 PM
Table 5.
S355.
Description
Value
Unit
Diameter at top
Diameter at seaground
Shell thickness at top
Shell thickness at seaground
Structural weight
4
5.3
22
94
712.5
[m]
[m]
[mm]
[mm]
[tons]
As the methodology aims to highlight the advantages of using high tensile steel in offshore structures,
this optimization was performed on an unstiffened
structure made of conventional steel grade S355.
The design variables selected for the process were
the shell thickness (ranging from 8 to 150 mm),
lower and upper diameters of shell rings (ranging
from 4 to 6 m). Optimizations based on the variation of number and profiles of stiffeners were not
envisaged.
6.5
Optimization results
The evolution of the structural weight and production cost during the optimization process for the
unstiffened structure made of steel S355 is presented on Figure 10. It can be seen that the convergence to the optimum solution is ensured after
about 1000 iterations.
The general characteristics of the optimum
solutions made of steel S355 are summarized in
the Table 5.
CONCLUSIONS
641
MARSTRUCT.indb 641
2/18/2011 5:55:27 PM
REFERENCES
Eurocode 1: Bases de calcul et actions sur les structures,
May 1995.
Guideline for the Certification of Offshore Wind Turbines,
Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie, edition 2005.
Khn M. 2001. Dynamics and Design Optimisation of
Offshore Wind Energy Conversion System, PhD Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Section Wind Energy,
Department of Civil Engineering.
Khn M., Cockerill T.T., Harland L.A., Harrison R.,
Schntag C., Van Bussel G.J.W. & Vugts J.H. 1998.
Opti-OWECS Final Report Vol. 2: Methods Assisting
the Design of Offshore Wind Energy Conversion Systems, Delft University of Technology, ISBN 90-7646803-6.
Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C202Buckling Strength
of Shells, Det Norsk Veritas, October 2002.
Van der Tempel J. 2006. Design of Support Structures for
Offshore Wind Turbines, PhD Thesis, Delft University
of Technology, ISBN 90-76468-11-7.
642
MARSTRUCT.indb 642
2/18/2011 5:55:29 PM
ABSTRACT: Using an isogeometric approach, a continuum-based shape optimization method is developed for elasticity problems. To obtain efficient and precise adjoint shape sensitivity, precise normal and
curvature information should be taken into account in shape sensitivity expressions, especially for designdependent problems. In this approach, the basis functions generated from NURBS are directly used to
construct a geometrically exact model in response and shape sensitivity analyses. Refinements and design
changes are easily implemented within the isogeometric framework. The isogeometric design sensitivity
analysis provides more accurate sensitivity of complex geometries including higher order terms. Also, it
vastly simplifies the design modification without communicating with the CAD geometry during optimization process. We demonstrate some numerical examples, where the accuracy and efficiency of the isogeometric sensitivity are verified by the comparison with finite difference one. Also, numerical examples
for design-dependent design problems are demonstrated to verify the applicability and effectiveness of
the proposed method.
1
INTRODUCTION
ISOGEOMETRIC ANALYSIS
NURBS basis function
(1)
643
MARSTRUCT.indb 643
2/18/2011 5:55:29 PM
1 if i < i +1
0 otherwise
(2)
x() = WI ()BI
and
Ni
i
Ni
i p i
( )
Ni
p 1
( ) ,
1 p 1
( ) +
i
i
p +1
and
p +1
i +1
p = 1, 2, 3,
z() = WI ()zI.
(3)
Ni p ( )Bi .
i p (
M j q )Bi j ,
(5)
i =1 j =1
S ( , )
i =1 j =1 k =1
Elasticity problems
a( , )
Z,
d (12)
I ,J
T
1
zJ WJ b J d
^ 1
T
zJ WJ J d .
(13)
cijkl zi, j zk ,l d
ISOGEOMETRIC SHAPE
OPTIMIZATION FOR
PRESSURE LOADING
(7)
: C : z I TWI
T
J WJ
and
i =1
S ( )
a( , )
(4)
(11)
( )
C ( )
(10)
(8)
and
cijkl zi, j zk ,l d
= cijkl zi ,mVm, j zk ,l d
cijkl zi, j zk ,mVm,l d
fi ,m ziVm d
+ fi zV
V
d
+
t
z
zV
V
i m,m
i,m i md
+ (ti zi )Vm nm d ,
(14)
( ) =
+ t ti zi d .
(9)
644
MARSTRUCT.indb 644
2/18/2011 5:55:29 PM
cijkl zi, j zk ,l d
= cijkl zi ,mVm, j zk ,l d
cijkl zi, j zk ,mVm,l d
cijkl zi , j zk ,lVm,m d
+
fi zzV
iVm ,m d
+ ( p, jV j ni zi + pV
V j j ni zi pVi j n j zi )d .
(15)
Figure 2.
(A)
1x
2x
3x
4x
5x
6x
2.935E-5
1.283E-5
1.140E-5
1.866E-5
8.162E-6
1.409E-5
(B)
Figure 1.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
645
MARSTRUCT.indb 645
2/18/2011 5:55:34 PM
d ,
(16)
subject to V
d Vinitial ,
(17)
uilower ui uiupper.
(18)
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
method.
(b) Computation
CONCLUSIONS
We presented some demonstrative numerical examples for shape optimization, where the accuracy
646
MARSTRUCT.indb 646
2/18/2011 5:55:37 PM
REFERENCES
Braibant V & Fluery C, 1984, Shape optimal design
using B-splines. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng,
44:247267.
Choi KK & Kim NH, 2004, Structural sensitivity analysis and optimization: Volume 1, Linear systems &
Volume 2, Nonlinear systems and applications, Springer,
New York.
Cho S & Ha S, 2009, Isogeometric shape design
optimization: exact geometry and enhanced sensitivity,
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 38(1):
5370.
Hughes TJR, Cottrell JA & Bazilevs Y, 2005, Isogeometric
analysis: CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 194:41354195.
647
MARSTRUCT.indb 647
2/18/2011 5:55:42 PM
MARSTRUCT.indb 649
2/18/2011 5:55:42 PM
Ge Wang
ABS, Shanghai, China
ABSTRACT: A case study was conducted to investigate the extreme value of the combination of
Still-Water Bending Moment (SWBM) and Vertical Wave-Induced Bending Moment (VWBM).
Three wave scatter diagrams, namely ABS Base 1, Base 2, and one from IACS Rec No. 34, were used for
the prediction of the extreme value of the VWBM based on the extreme value theory and Response
Amplitude Operators (RAOs). The SWBM is modeled as an alternating renewal pulse process. The pointcrossing method, load coincidence method, and Ferry Borges-Castanheta method are utilized for the
prediction of the extreme value of the combination of SWBM and VWBM. A sample tanker under sagging condition is utilized for the case study and results show that for the predicted extreme values of the
combination of SWBM and VWBM: 1) the results predicted based on the wave scatter diagram of ABS
Base 1 are higher than those predicted based on ABS Base 2 or IACS; 2) the results based on the wave
scatter diagrams of ABS Base 2 and IACS are very close; 3) the point-crossing method and load coincidence method yield almost identical results; 4) The Ferry Borges-Castanheta method yields higher values
than those predicted by the point-crossing method or the load coincidence method; 5) the highest value
with a design period less than 20 years is 93.3% of the total design bending moment, which is predicted
by the Ferry Borges-Castanheta method based on the wave scatter diagram of ABS Base 1.
1
INTRODUCTION
651
MARSTRUCT.indb 651
2/18/2011 5:55:43 PM
M sw,T
1
sw
sw
/N )
f( )=
(1)
where sw and sw are the mean value and the standard deviation of SWBM. (.) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function.
To account for the time dependency of SWBM,
an alternating renewal process is used herein.
In the process, the time a ship spent during voyages and in port is modeled as two pulse processes,
respectively. The rate of occurrence of load pulses
in a time unit, that is, the arrival rate of the process,
is given by:
1
1 + 2
VERTICAL WAVE-INDUCED
BENDING MOMENT
2
2+
1 1
1+ 1
1 2
1 2 exp 1
(4)
where is the bandwidth parameter of the spectrum defined by Cartwright and Longuet-Higgins
(1956), which is given by:
F ( ) =
= 1
m22
m0 m4
(5)
where
0 S ( | Hs Tz , )Ld ( | )d
m2 2S ( | H s Tz , )L
)L2d ( | )d
0
m4 = 4S ( | H s Tz , )L2d ( | )d
0
m0
(2)
2
exp
p 2
2
1 + 1 2
2
1 2
+ 1 2 exp 1
(3)
2
(6)
where
frequency
S wave spectrum
Ld dynamic response of the ship
652
MARSTRUCT.indb 652
2/18/2011 5:55:43 PM
n 1
n
(7)
f ( n ) = 0
2
(8)
LOADING COMBINATION
Point-crossing method
v + (a ) =
S( ) =
16 5
fX X ( x , x )
fXX (a,x
x)
1 1
(10)
Wave spectrum
5H s2 p4
x fXX (a x ) dx
fX
2X 2
(11)
Then,
(9)
v + (a ) =
x1 =
fX
where p is the modal (peak) frequency corresponding to the highest peak of the spectrum.
2X 2
(x
(a x1 x2 ) ddx2dx1dx1
2X 2
x f
x1 1 X1X1
x f
x1 2 X1X1
) dx2dx1dx1
( x1 x1 )
(12)
+
v ( y ) fX 2 a y dy
d
1
+
v ( y ) fX1 a y ddy
2
(13)
x1 = x1 = x 2
fX
x = x
4.2
d X j (t ) < 0 ] = 0
(14)
653
MARSTRUCT.indb 653
2/18/2011 5:55:45 PM
(15)
where mi is the mean pulse arrival rate of the process Xi(t), and:
Mc,T
(19)
Md
i (a ) 1 FX i (a )
12 ( )
2 (a ) + 1(a u ) fX 2 u )du
(16)
FX ( x x )
fX ( x ) ddx
(17)
Mw,T
M ssw,T
Mc,T M sw
s ,T
Mw,T
Mc,T
M sw,T
Mw,T
CASE STUDY
(18)
Nomenclature
Value
230.0
32.3
18.3
Table 2.
Mc,T
Distribution type
Normal
Mean value
Coefficient of variation
23.4
0.3
Table 3.
Distribution type
Shape parameter
Weibull
0.809
654
MARSTRUCT.indb 654
2/18/2011 5:55:49 PM
(a)
0.9
0.85
(a)
0.9
0.75
0
10
15
20
0.85
(b)
0.8
Wave scatter diagram: ABS Base 1
Wave scatter diagram: ABS Base 2
Wave scatter diagram: IACS
0.75
0
10
15
0.9
20
0.85
(b)
0.8
Ferry Borges - Castanheta Model
Point Crossing Method
Load Coincidence Method
0.9
0.75
(c)
0.8
15
20
10
15
0.9
0.75
0
10
0.85
20
0.85
(c)
0.8
0.95
0.9
0.75
0.8
0.75
0
10
15
20
0.85
10
15
20
design bending moment. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the ratio predicted using different load combination methods as a function of
design period T. Table 4 shows the ratios with a
design period of 20 years.
655
MARSTRUCT.indb 655
2/18/2011 5:55:52 PM
Table 4.
Ferry Borges
and Castanheta
model
Point-crossing
method
Load coincidence
method
Base 1
Base 2
IACS
0.933
0.894
0.888
0.909
0.874
0.869
0.909
0.874
0.869
CONCLUSIONS
The predicted extreme values of the combination of SWBM and VWBM based on the wave
scatter diagram of ABS Base 1 are higher than
those predicted based on the wave scatter diagram of ABS Base 2 or IACS.
The predictions based on the wave scatter
diagrams of ABS Base 2 and IACS are very close.
The point-crossing method and the load coincidence method yield almost identical extreme values of the combination of SWBM and VWBM.
Ferry Borges-Castanheta method yields higher
extreme values of the combination of SWBM
and VWBM than those predicted by the pointcrossing method or the load coincidence method.
The predicted extreme values of the combination
of SWBM and VWBM with a design period less
than 20 years are all lower than the total design
bending moment. The highest predicted value is
93.3% of the total design bending moment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks to Dr. Lyuben D Ivanov for his valuable discussion on the load combination methods
and Dr. Roger Basu and Mr. Jim Speed for improving the manuscript. The views expressed in the
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of ABS.
REFERENCES
Cartwright, D.E. & Longuet-Higgins, M.S. 1956. The statistical distribution of the maxima of a random function. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences
237:212232.
Chen, N.Z. & Wang, G. 2009. Fracture Mechanics
and Reliability Based Inspection Planning for Ship
Structures, The 10th International Conference on
Structural Safety and Reliability, Osaka, Japan,
pp. 20172024.
Ferry-Borges, J. & Castanheta, M. 1971. Structural safety.
Laboratoria Nacional de Engenhera Civil, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Guedes Soares, C. 1990a. Stochastic Modelling of Maximum Still-Water Load Effects in Ship Structures.
Journal of Ship Research 34(3):199205.
Guedes Soares, C. 1990b. Stochastic models of load
effects for the primary ship structure. Structural Safety
8:353368.
Guedes Soares, C. 1992. Combination of primary load
effects in ship structures. Probabilistic Eng Mech 7:
103111.
Guedes Soares, C. & Moan, T. 1988. Statistical analysis
of still water load effects in ship structures. SNAME
96:129156.
656
MARSTRUCT.indb 656
2/18/2011 5:55:54 PM
657
MARSTRUCT.indb 657
2/18/2011 5:55:55 PM
ABSTRACT: The objective of this work is to analyze various uncertainties related with the prediction of
the ultimate strength of a stiffened panel. The effect of different structural parameters on the uncertainty
is evaluated based on Monte Carlo simulation and an ANOVA methodology is used to determine the
most relevant parameters. The ultimate strength is predicted by the finite element method and the influence of plate thickness, Young modulus, yield and ultimate tensile strain of material, the shape of the
initial geometry imperfection and slenderness ratios are accounted for.
1
INTRODUCTION
A ship structure is basically an assembly of stiffened panels and an estimation of the maximum
load carrying capacity or the ultimate strength of
these elements is of high importance for the safety
assessment and economical design of the structure.
It is well recognized that the ultimate strength is a
base for structural design (Paik et al. 2006).
Stiffened panels behaviour under the effect
of compressive loads is particularly important
because the failure is generally in an unstable
mode, which has harmful consequences from the
point of view of safety.
Stiffened panels are fundamental structural components in marine structures. Typical examples are
the hull girder and superstructure of a ship and the
deck of offshore platforms. Parameters of major
importance for the behaviour of stiffened plates are
length/width ratio of the panel, stiffener geometry
and spacing, aspect ratio of the plate between stiffeners, plate slenderness, residual stresses, initial distortions, boundary conditions and type of loading.
The possible failure modes of a stiffened panel
under longitudinal compression may be classified
as plate buckling and ultimate collapse, interframe
flexural buckling of the longitudinal stiffeners and
restrained torsional buckling of stiffeners (Guedes
Soares and Sreide 1983).
However, most structures are designed to prevent overall grillage buckling. For short panels,
local plate buckling may be the critical mode and
for a long panel inter-frame flexural buckling of
the stiffener with associated plate flange becomes a
potential failure mode. Panels with heavy stiffeners
will follow a column mode of collapse.
A vast amount of research has been carried
out on the behaviour of stiffened plates in the
659
MARSTRUCT.indb 659
2/18/2011 5:55:55 PM
b y
t E
and =
l y
E
(1)
660
MARSTRUCT.indb 660
2/18/2011 5:55:55 PM
w ( x, y )
mx ny
w0 sin
sin
i
l b
(2)
3.500E+06
3.000E+06
Load, [N]
2.500E+06
1.500E+06
0.000E+00
0.000
0.003
0.006
0.009
Displacement, [m]
0.012
5.000E+05
0.000E+00
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Displacement, [m]
0.010
0.012
Load, [N]
2.500E+06
2.000E+06
1.500E+06
1.000E+06
Yield Stress=3.00E+08
Yield Stress=3.15E+08
Yield Stress=3.30E+08
5.000E+05
0.000E+00
0.000
Plate thickness=0.014 m
Plate thickness=0.015 m
Plate thickness=0.016 m
5.000E+05
2.000E+06
1.000E+06
Load ,[N]
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Displacement, [m]
0.010
0.012
of the ultimate strength response for different values of each of the input parameters. It can be seen
that while some variations produce changes in the
ultimate strength, others do not.
The variation of the plate thickness is significant (Fig. 3) and the effect of the shape of the
661
MARSTRUCT.indb 661
2/18/2011 5:55:55 PM
3.50E+06
1 2 3 4 5 6
0.80
3.00E+06
Load,[N]
2.50E+06
2.00E+06
1.50E+06
1.00E+06
0.70
0.65
5 R R R A A A
6 R R R A A A
0.60
,0.002
,0.004
,0.006
,0.008
,0.010
,0.012
m=1, n=1
m=2, n=1
m=3, n=1
m=4, n=1
5.000E+05
0.000E+00
0.000
0.003
0.006
0.009
Displacement,[m]
3
4
Ranked yield stress
Dsiplacement,[m]
Load, [N]
0.75
5.00E+05
0.00E+00
,0.000
1 A A R R R R
2 A A R R R R
3 R R A R R R
4 R R R A A A
0.012
considered include waves longer than the fundamental buckling mode. The plate ultimate strength
may be larger than that of a perfect one, when the
initial geometric imperfection shape is much different from the original collapse mode, having thus a
strengthening effect. This may be explained with
the fact that such an initial imperfection shape will
disturb occurrence of the plate collapse mode.
However, one of the parameters most strongly
influencing ultimate strength, in addition to the
ones already discussed is the slenderness (Faulkner,
1975, Guedes Soares, 1988 a,b). The effect of slenderness is significantly important for the variation of ultimate strength and for the uncertainty
induced into the structural response and is included
into the study presented here.
4
662
MARSTRUCT.indb 662
2/18/2011 5:55:57 PM
Table 1.
Pdf
Mean
COV
Min
Max
Statistical descriptors.
A
mm
GPa
MPa
MPa
N*
15
0.08
N*
210
0.12
N*
315
0.1
N*
500
0.1
N*
0.416
0.12
U**
1
6
yi y j > LSD
SDij ,
LSD
SDij
t /
, DF
FW
FACTORIAL ANALYSIS
(3)
0.80
(4)
1 1
MS
SE +
ni n j
2 3 4 5 6
1 A R R R R R
0.75
2 R A R R R R
3 R R A R R R
0.70
4 R R R A R R
0.65
5 R R R R A R
6 R R R R R A
0.60
1
3
4
5
Ranked plate thickness
663
MARSTRUCT.indb 663
2/18/2011 5:55:58 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
0.80
1 A A A A A A
2 A A A A A A
3 A A A A R A
4 A A A A A A
0.75
0.70
0.65
5 A A R A A A
6 A A A A A A
0.60
1
3
4
5
Ranked Young modulus
0.80
Figure 13.
0.75
2 A A R A R A
3 A R A A R A
0.70
4 A A A A R A
0.65
5 R R R R A R
6 A A A A R A
0.60
1
2
3
4
5
Shape of initial imperfection
0.80
1 A A A A A A
0.75
2 A A A A A A
3 A A A A A A
0.70
4 A A A A A A
0.65
5 A A A A A A
6 A A A A A A
0.60
1
2
3
4
5
Ranked column slenderness ratio
0.80
Interaction plot.
1 A A A A R A
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
1
2
4
5
Ranked plate slenderness ratio
2 3
4 5 6
A R R R R R
R A R R R R
R R A R R R
R R R A R R
5
6
R R R R A R
R R R R R A
UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
664
MARSTRUCT.indb 664
2/18/2011 5:55:59 PM
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
1
2
3
4
5
Ranked plate thickness
2
3
4
5
Ranked Young modulus
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ranked column slenderness ratio
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ranked plate slenderness ratio
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
1
2
3
4
5
Shape initial imperfection
i = 1,2, a
(5)
(Yi i )
MS
SE
n
(6)
0.80
Normalized ultimate strength
0.80
Normalized ultimate strength
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
1
2
3
4
5
Ranked yield stress
yi t /
+ t /
MS
SE
i yi
n
MS
SE
,a ( n
n )
n
,a ( n
(7)
665
MARSTRUCT.indb 665
2/18/2011 5:56:02 PM
0.6
0.7
0.8
95
95
3
0.7462
99.9
99
95
90
50
95
0.7603
1
95
99.9
3
95
99.9
99
99
90
90
50
0.7384
0.8
95
1
0.1
6
0.7506
0.7
0.7377
0.6
Percent
10
95
95
50
95
90
0.1
0.1
0.6
95
0.7
0.7625
10
0.7493
99
0.7300
99.9
0.7481
0.7946
Percent
10
0.8
95
0.6
0.7
0.8
50
1
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.7295
0.7348
10
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
95
3
0.7522
95
99.9
99
95
90
50
0.7437
5
95
90
50
99
10
90
50
0.7400
5
95
1
0.1
95
95
0.1
10
95
95
0.1
0.6
50
0.7421
99
99.9
0.7331
90
0.7479
95
0.7524
99.9
99.9
99
0.7160
95
10
3
0.7332
95
Percent
0.8
0.7519
0.7
2
Percent
0.6
1
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7536
10
1
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
Figure 22. Probability plot of normalized ultimate strength conditional to the shape of initial
imperfections.
0.8
0.6
0.7
2
95
95
95
1.00
0.8
0.6845
0.75
0.7541
95
99.9
99.9
99
95
90
99
50
95
90
10
99.9
99
95
90
95
90
95
0.7458
99.9
99
0.1
6
0.7558
95
0.7396
0.7186
0.6661
1
0.1
95
95
50
10
1
1
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.1
0.7758
0.7368
10
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.50
0.75
0.7506
50
0.7394
Percent
10
0.8202
Percent
50
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.8
666
MARSTRUCT.indb 666
2/18/2011 5:56:07 PM
0.6
0.7
0.8
95
3
0.7556
95
99.
99
95
90
50
0.7358
0.7770
4
99.9
99
95
90
0.6992
Percent
10
1
0.1
95
95
50
1
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.6816
0.7172
10
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
mean value, but also tells how stable the estimate mean value is and what the degree of
uncertainties is.
The analysis performed here may also be used
to define a nominal or characteristic measure of
capacity that corresponds to a specified percentage
below the probability curve for the corresponding
random variable. For instance, one may base characteristic strength or capacity on a lower bound or
95% exceedence value, while a characteristic load
or demands may be based on an upper bound or a
5% exceedence value.
CONCLUSIONS
This work analyzed the influence of plate thickness, Young modulus, yield and ultimate tensile
strain of material, column and plate slenderness
and the shape of the initial geometric imperfection
of stiffened plate.
The analysis pointed out that the plate thickness
and plate slenderness ratio ranks are fully rejected
by the null hypothesis for any par i j demonstrating a significant effect on ultimate strength.
A mixed behaviour of the effect of the yield stress
on ultimate strength demonstrated that for some
ranks the null hypothesis is rejected revealing
the statistical importance of the specified ranks.
The statistical importance of the ultimate tensile
Statistical descriptors of normalized ultimate strength conditional to the ranks of different parameters.
Rank
Yield stress
Mean
StDev
N
0.731
0.038
11
0.714
0.028
69
0.705
0.026
209
0.699
0.026
179
0.691
0.023
66
0.688
0.051
16
Mean
StDev
N
0.674
0.026
7
0.695
0.023
89
0.700
0.026
181
0.706
0.026
186
0.708
0.027
72
0.707
0.029
15
Plate thickness
Mean
StDev
N
0.644
0.014
11
0.667
0.011
76
0.693
0.016
186
0.715
0.014
197
0.732
0.014
65
0.750
0.015
15
Young modulus
Mean
StDev
N
0.696
0.026
15
0.702
0.027
75
0.699
0.024
183
0.704
0.028
188
0.708
0.026
77
0.706
0.034
12
Mean
StDev
N
0.705
0.026
89
0.710
0.026
94
0.700
0.024
83
0.706
0.028
86
0.690
0.026
93
0.703
0.024
105
Mean
StDev
N
0.724
0.058
5
0.701
0.032
84
0.703
0.026
204
0.701
0.023
172
0.704
0.022
67
0.702
0.029
18
Mean
StDev
N
0.748
0.017
27
0.725
0.018
87
0.710
0.015
180
0.691
0.016
175
0.672
0.016
64
0.654
0.016
17
667
MARSTRUCT.indb 667
2/18/2011 5:56:11 PM
strain and the shape of initial geometry imperfection revealed similar behaviour. The null hypothesis fully accepted any par combination of column
slenderness ratio ranks demonstrating that the
variation of this parameter, in the range that has
been defined here, statistically is not producing different results.
The main effects of different parameters have
confirmed the conclusions derived based on the
null hypothesis for acceptance/rejection.
The uncertainties introduced to ultimate
strength calculation by different parameters have
been demonstrated by probability plots. The smallest standard deviations of ultimate strength, averaged for all ranks, is calculated for plate thickness
followed by plate slenderness, shape of initial
imperfection, ultimate strain, column slenderness,
the Young modulus and yield stress.
The analysis performed may be used to define a
nominal or characteristic measure of capacity that
corresponds to a specified percentage below the
probability curve for the corresponding random
variable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work reported here is a contribution to
the activities of the MARSTRUCT VIRTUAL
INSTITUTE, (www.marstruct-vi.com), in particular, its Technical Subcommittee 2.3 on Ultimate
Strength.
REFERENCES
ANSYS, 2009, Online Manual, Release 11.
Bailey, R., 2008, Design of Comparative Experiments,
Cambridge University Press.
Faulkner, D., 1975, A Review of Effective Plating for
use in the Analysis of Stiffened Plating in Bending and
Compression, Journal of Ship Research, 19, pp. 117.
668
MARSTRUCT.indb 668
2/18/2011 5:56:13 PM
Safety analyses for bulk carriers using metamodels of still water loads
P. Georgiev
Technical University of Varna, Bulgaria
ABSTRACT: This paper presents an approach that combines metamodeling technique and MonteCarlo simulation for safety analyses of still water loads for bulk carriers. The approach is applied to study
the influence of deviations from cargo loading plan on net load of double bottom and still water bending
moments. As example a Handymax BC-A type ship is used. The metamodels approximate the work of
installed on board mandatory loading instrument and give the relation between the distribution of cargo
and the trim and still water bending moments in controlled sections. The Monte-Carlo simulation uses
the fitted metamodels to obtain a rich set of statistical data that permit preparing event tree analysis for
possible overloading of double bottom and the evaluation of likelihood for exceeding of permissible
bending moments.
1
INTRODUCTION
bulk carriers that are applicable for ships contracted for construction on or after 1 April 2006.
For the ships are to be assigned one of the following additional service notations: BC-A; BC-B or
BC-C. For BC-A ship design loading conditions
shall include at least one cargo loaded condition
with specified holds empty, with cargo density
3.0 t/m3, and the same filling ratio in all loaded
cargo holds at maximum draught with all ballast
tanks empty. Additionally, CSR define procedure
for determination of hold mass curves that specify the maximum and minimum mass of cargo in
each cargo hold and in any two adjacent holds as a
function of the draught at middle position.
In the operation of ships, the BLU (Bulk Loading and Unloading) Code provides guidance to
masters of bulk carriers, terminal operators and
other parties concerned with the safe handling,
loading and unloading of solid bulk cargoes. In
resent years the ship operators have experienced
increased pressure from terminals to load cargo
as quickly as possible. INTERCARGO carried
out a confidential survey of ships masters and
the main conclusions (MSC 2008) are: there are
terminal instructions, requiring a 14-hour turnround and 16,000 t/hr loading rate, for capesize
bulk carriers; the maximum loading rate should
be approximately twice the ballast pump capacity,
i.e., typically 10,000 t/hr; the BLU Code is not
being universally applied.
The loading condition and loading/unloading
plans are prepared by on-board loading instrument
and the results to a great extent depend on the
input information for cargo distribution between
the holds. According to the conclusions of ISSC
2006 (ISSC 2006), based on (Rizzuto 2006) for dry
bulk cargoes, no accurate and direct measurement
669
MARSTRUCT.indb 669
2/18/2011 5:56:13 PM
METAMODELING TECNHIQUE
Background
dP
Pi
, i = 1, 2, 3
10
(1)
xi / 10)P
)P0i
i = , 2, 3
(2)
b0 + x T b
x T Bx
(3)
670
MARSTRUCT.indb 670
2/18/2011 5:56:13 PM
x2
x3
x1
x2
x3
0.018583
0.021596
0.001311
0.003580
0.016679
0.016678
b0 =
1.368173
0.251147
0.979926
0.859706
x1
x2
x3
0.001536
0.000809
0.000946
0.003450
0.001600
0.003963
b0 =
0.096288
0.091438
0.008829
0.758067
0.000241
0.000567
0.002706
0.001191
0.002969
b0 =
0.125465
0.164884
0.023898
0.601142
0.000310
0.000131
0.001735
0.000675
0.001683
b0 =
0.109279
0.087475
0.022291
0.963968
Trim, m
Fr.93,
x1
x2
x3
0.001424
x1
x2
x3
0.001129
Fr.129,
Fr.165,
Pi Qmax
Qmin
(4)
Table 2.
MONTE-CARLO SIMULATION
The connection between the Monte-Carlo simulation and fitted metamodels is shown in Figure 1.
No of
runs
10 10
20 103
30 103
40 103
50 103
3
tmi
t iim tm
min
n trim
max
ax,
i =1
T1
T2
T3
T4
Total
696
1430
2197
2869
3565
676
1347
2034
2674
3415
567
1158
1797
2416
3012
501
1020
1465
1950
2397
2440
4955
7493
9909
12389
671
MARSTRUCT.indb 671
2/18/2011 5:56:16 PM
800
1000
-T1
-T2
-T3
-T4
800
600
400
200
0
11200
11600
12000
12400
12800
0
12400 12800 13200 13600 14000 14400 14800 15200
13200
Cargo mass, t
Cargo mass, t
a)
1200
Hold No 5
Frequency
800
400
b)
-T1
-T2
-T3
-T4
1000
600
Hold No 3
Frequency
200
600
Frequency
400
-T1
-T2
-T3
-T4
Hold No 1
200
0
12000 12400 12800 13200 13600 14000 14400
Cargo mass, t
c)
a, b, c) Cargo distribution for different trim ranges; d) Bubble plot for cargo distribution in the holds.
/2
0.4
and
w
wr = a
99%CI-Fitted function
wr %
0.8
(5)
95%CI-Fitted function
0.6
z1 / 2
wa
1.0
RelativewidthofCI,
Figure 2.
0.2
0
-T1
-T3
-T2
-T4
wr=19.255N-0.4917
R2=0.997
wr=14.686N-0.4921
R2=0.997
1000
2000
3000
4000
Numberofruns, N
(6)
Hold 1
Hold 3
Hold 5
Plan P0, t
MaxLoad, t
12536
12536
13884
13884
13186
13.835
, t
95% CI, t
99% CI, t
, t
CoV,%
Skewness
Ex. Kurtosis
12446.0
9.6
12.6
291.9
2.3
0.0001
0.1283
13818.4
18.3
24.0
556.8
4.0
0.0314
0.4916
13141.5
+11.2
14.7
341.7
2.6
0.0299
0.2440
672
MARSTRUCT.indb 672
2/18/2011 5:56:17 PM
4
4.1
SAFETY ANALYSES
Possible overloading of double bottom
P(B T )
, P (T ) 0.
P (T )
(7)
P ( B ) = P B Ti P (Ti ), i = 1, 2, ..., 4
i =1
(8)
P ( B Ti ) =
P ( B Ti )
, P (Ti ) 0; i = 1, 2, ..., 4
P (Ti )
(9)
P (Ti )P B Ti
P(B )
),
i = 1, 2, ..., 4
(10)
Figure 4.
During the Monte-Carlo simulation for feasible points the SWBM is calculated by fitted
metamodels. Descriptive statistics and confidence
673
MARSTRUCT.indb 673
2/18/2011 5:56:21 PM
Table 4.
Ti
B1
1369/3565
B3
3565/12389
2196/3565
811/3415
2604/3415
406/3012
3415/12389
3012/12389
2606/3012
156/2397
2241/2397
2397/12389
B5
228/1369
1141/1369
1403/2196
793/2196
37/811
774/811
1488/2604
1116/2604
1/406
405/406
1306/2606
1300/2606
0/156
156/156
1036/2241
1205/2241
Outcome
0/228
228/228
67/1141
1074/1141
0/1403
1403/1403
0/793
793/793
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
1111
1110
1101
1011
1011
1010
1001
1000
0.0
0.01840
0.00541
0.08669
0.0
0.11325
0.0
0.06401
0/37
37/37
154/774
620/774
0/1488
1488/1488
0/1116
1116/1116
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
2111
2110
2101
2011
2011
2010
2001
2000
0.0
0.00299
0.01243
0.05004
0.0
0.12010
0.0
0.09008
0/1
1/1
273/405
132/405
13/1306
1293/1306
36/1300
1264/1300
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
3111
3110
3101
3011
3011
3010
3001
3000
0.0
0.00008
0.02204
0.01065
0.00105
0.10437
0.00291
0.10203
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
4111
4110
4101
4011
4011
4010
4001
4000
0.0
0.0
0.07199
0.00046
0.00302
0.05292
0.01264
0.05244
155/156
1/156
56/1036
980/1036
234/1205
971/1205
No
100
H1only
H3only
1.2
H5only
60
40
Probability, %
80
39.4
30.1
20
22.2
43.6
42.9
18.2
32.7
4.4
6.5
27.4
42.0
27.1
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
674
MARSTRUCT.indb 674
2/18/2011 5:56:23 PM
Table 5.
Statistic
Fr. 75
Fr. 86
Fr. 93
Fr.111
Fr.129
Fr.139
Fr.147
Fr.165
Fr.183
,
95% CI 102,
99% CI 102,
,
CoV, %
Skewness
Ex. Kurtosis
0.5259
0.089
0.117
0.0271
5.2%
0.0512
0.4256
0.7732
0.138
0.182
0.0421
5.4%
0.0582
0.4047
0.8483
0.171
0.225
0.0522
6.2%
0.0584
0.3919
0.7473
0.258
0.339
0.0785
10.5%
0.0596
0.3858
0.5907
0.301
0.395
0.0916
15.5%
0.0604
0.3851
0.6292
0.287
0.377
0.0873
13.9%
0.0601
0.3783
0.7302
0.256
0.336
0.0780
10.7%
0.0591
0.3672
0.9520
0.195
0.256
0.0593
6.2%
0.0561
0.3335
0.6449
0.110
0.145
0.0335
5.2%
0.0538
0.3238
Plan,
0.5372
0.7845
0.8595
0.7579
0.6010
0.6399
0.7413
0.9639
0.6515
X/L
0.3245
0.3721
0.4023
0.4801
0.5579
0.6011
0.6357
0.7135
0.7913
3.0
16
wr = 42.475N-0.5013 ; R2=0.9956
wr = 24.328N
-0.4971
1.5
1.0
; R =0.9966
12
Relativewidth, wr,%
2.0
14
wr = 64.005N-0.5038 ; R2=0.9946
2.5
10
8
6
- CoV
-
0.5
Fr. 111
Fr. 129
1000
2000
Fr. 165
3000
x/L
0.0
0.3
4000
Number of runs, N
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.8
SWBM, -
max permissible
0.6
0.4
2
+2
0.4
0.6
Plan
0.2
Figure 9.
x/L 0.8
675
MARSTRUCT.indb 675
2/18/2011 5:56:25 PM
CONCLUSIONS
676
MARSTRUCT.indb 676
2/18/2011 5:56:28 PM
677
MARSTRUCT.indb 677
2/18/2011 5:56:28 PM
C. Guedes Soares
Centre for Marine Technology and Engineering, Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tcnico,
Lisboa, Portugal
ABSTRACT: This paper studies the reliability of two single hull bulk carriers subjected to damage.
Two damage scenarios are assumed, collision at side and grounding at the bottom. The ultimate strength
is calculated using the Progressive Collapse Method. The reliability is assessed for both damage scenarios
and compared with the intact ship reliability. In the damaged condition, the ship should not operate with
a very high speed, and she will avoid very rough sea. Therefore, the related wave-induced bending moment
may be smaller than that for the normal design extreme condition. On the other hand, damage to the vessels
hull may result in the ingress of water and for fluid cargoes cargo out-flow may occur which will result in a
change of the loading condition and a variation to the still water bending moment. The reliability is assessed
and sensitivity analysis is performed to study the importance of the variables after and before damage.
1
INTRODUCTION
679
MARSTRUCT.indb 679
2/18/2011 5:56:28 PM
Figure 2.
One can see from the figures that the two ships have
longitudinally stiffened bottom and deck. Bulk 1
has a transversely framed lower hoper tank while
this area is longitudinally stiffened in Bulk 2.
3
MAIN PARTICULARS
OF THE STUDIED SHIPS
LBP (m)
B (m)
D (m)
CB
Ship properties.
Bulk 1
Bulk 2
177
30
16.2
0.82
183
32.26
17
0.83
ULTIMATE STRENGTH
OF INTACT SHIPS
The ultimate strength of the two ships is calculated using Smiths method (Smith 1977). The
ship cross section is divided into small elements
composed of stiffeners and attached plating. The
stressstrain relationships of individual elements
are defined as given in the new IACS Common
Structural Rules (IACS 2006). Then a progressive collapse analysis is performed assuming that
a plane cross-section remains plane and each
element behaves according to its average stress
average strain relationships.
The ultimate strength was calculated for the two
ships and the results are presented in Table 2. One
can see from the table that the sagging moment is
always lower than the hogging moment, which indicates that the ship is more vulnerable to collapse in
sagging than in hogging.
4
Figure 1.
ULTIMATE STRENGTH
OF DAMAGED SHIPS
680
MARSTRUCT.indb 680
2/18/2011 5:56:28 PM
where Mdamage is the ultimate moment of the damaged section and MIntact is the ultimate moment of
the intact section.
The ultimate strength is calculated for both
Bulk carriers in sagging and hogging. Figures 4
and 5 show the RIF for the damages ships in the
five scenarios.
Bulk 1
Bulk 2
Sag
Hog
3142
2524
4311
3895
M Damage
M Intact
(1)
Figure 3.
Damage locations.
bulk 1
bulk 2
Intact Sagging
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
RIF
Table 2.
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
keel
Figure 4.
ships.
Table 3.
Intact
Keel
Bottom below hopper tank
Bilge
Sheer strake
Side at hopper tank joint
Bulk 2
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
3140
3103
3115
3140
2902
3140
3895
3601
3655
3846
3714
3838
2526
2482
2496
2524
2262
2486
3895
3601
3655
3846
3714
3838
681
MARSTRUCT.indb 681
2/18/2011 5:56:29 PM
bulk 1
bulk 2
IntactHogging
1.00
0.95
0.90
RIF
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
keel
bilge
Damage Location
Figure 5.
ships.
Table 4.
Hogging
Bulk 1
3142
251.36
4311
344.88
Bulk 2
2524
202
3895
312
4.1
The still-water load effects result from the longitudinal distribution of the cargo on-board. These
are likely to change at each departure and smaller
changes may occur during a voyage. Once the cargo
distribution is known, the still-water load effects
can be calculated. However, they will vary with
time and consequently, at the design stage, they can
only be described by a probability distribution.
Guedes Soares and Moan (1982), identified that
the vertical still water bending moments amidship can be described by a normal distribution.
LC1: Ballast
LC2: Homogeneous
LC3: Alternate
Table 6.
Bulk 2
0.74
0.15
0.85
0.09
0.2
0.04
0.79
0.21
0.85
0.12
0.09
0.09
SWBM of Bulk 1.
Load condition
Mean
St. Dev.
LC1: Alternate
LC2: Homogeneous
LC3: Ballast
771
234
812
220
67
232
Table 7.
SWBM of Bulk 2.
LC1: Alternate
LC2: Homogeneous
LC3: Ballast
Mean value
St. Dev.
1111
195
979
122
14
258
682
MARSTRUCT.indb 682
2/18/2011 5:56:32 PM
manual data. The values in the table are percentage of the maximum value defend in the loading
manual. One can see that the mean value of SWBM
in the ballast loading condition and the alternate
loading condition is much higher than that in the
homogenous loading condition.
6
x xn
Fe ( xe ) = exp exp e
(3)
(2)
w
[
k
]k
LC2
Table 8.
LC3
2000
VBM (MN.m )
]k
(4)
1 k
(5)
2500
LC1
xn
Gumbel
moments
Load
condition
Mean
Std
LC1
LC2
LC3
84.2
97.4
90.1
0.950
0.993
0.933
1384.4
1419.2
1640.7
130.6
128.3
150.1
1500
Table 9.
1000
Weibull
parameters
500
0
1.E-09
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
Q(x)
Gumbel
moments
Load
condition
Mean
Std
LC1
LC2
LC3
79.17
90.41
74.87
0.95
0.993
0.933
1301.1
1316.3
1362.3
122.7
118.9
124.7
683
MARSTRUCT.indb 683
2/18/2011 5:56:34 PM
RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT
IN INTACT CONDITION
In the present reliability assessment, a time independent first order reliability formulation corresponding to one-year operation is considered. The
limit state equation corresponds to the hull girder
failure under vertical bending:
g(x) = Mu XR [Mwn Xst Xnl + Msw Xsw]
(6)
i =
Distribution
XR
Xst
Xnl
XSW
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
0.85
1
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Table 11.
Bulk 2
LC1 sag
LC1 hog
0.488
2.571
0.616
3.508
LC2 sag
LC2 hog
2.829
4.365
2.72
4.904
LC3 sag
LC3 hog
0.414
1.980
0.616
3.421
(7)
Bulk 1.
Sagging
SWBM
WBM
UBM
Hogging
SWBM
WBM
UBM
Variable
. g ( x )
xi
n
g ( x )
x
i
i
1
Table 13.
Sagging
SWBM
WBM
UBM
Hogging
SWBM
WBM
UBM
LC1
LC2
LC3
0.32
0.33
0.53
0.28
0.61
0.41
0.55
0.30
0.45
LC1
LC2 h
LC3
0.27
0.44
0.51
0.17
0.71
0.37
0.49
0.36
0.47
LC1
LC2
LC3
0.31
0.34
0.55
0.28
0.56
0.43
0.40
0.33
0.52
LC1
LC2 h
LC3
0.23
0.53
0.51
0.17
0.71
0.39
0.31
0.50
0.51
Bulk 2.
684
MARSTRUCT.indb 684
2/18/2011 5:56:36 PM
LC1 s
0.80
LC 2 s
LC 3 s
Sagging
Sensitivity variables
0.60
RELIABILITY ASSESSEMNT IN
DAMAGED CONDITION
0.40
0.20
0.00
SWBM
WBM
UB M
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
Figure 7.
LC 2 h
LC 3 h
0.60
Hogging
Sensitivity variables
0.40
0.20
0.00
SWBM
WBM
UBM
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
Bulk 1 Sagging
7
6
(8)
3
2
1
0
intact
Figure 9.
keel
bottom
keel
Bulk 1 Hogging
where Kus and Kuw are load combination coefficients due to damage. The reliability is assessed
considering the ultimate bending moment after
damage presented in Table 3 and the load combination factors presented in Table 14. Results are
presented in Tables 15 and 16.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 10.
keel
bottom
keel
sheertrake
hopper side
Sagging
bottom
sheertrake
6.00
Grounding
Collision
Hogging
Kus
Kuw
1
1
1.1
0.5
1
0.7
Sagging
Kus
Kuw
1
1
0.9
0.5
1
0.7
5.00
4.00
Intact
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Intact
Figure 11.
keel
bilge
Table 15.
Hogging
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Intact
keel
bottom
bilge
sheertrake
hopper
side
Intact
Figure 12.
hopper
side
Sagging
LC1 0.488
LC2 2.829
LC3 0.414
Hogging
LC1 2.57
LC2 4.36
LC3 1.98
Keel
Bottom
Bilge
Sheer
strake
Hopper
side
3.04
3.10
2.43
3.07
5.82
2.45
3.12
5.84
2.50
1.18
4.05
0.84
1.71
4.42
1.28
4.10
7.00
3.33
4.13
7.02
3.35
4.29
7.13
3.49
3.22
5.45
2.58
2.51
4.97
1.96
685
MARSTRUCT.indb 685
2/18/2011 5:56:37 PM
Table 16.
Sagging
LC1
LC2
LC3
Hogging
LC1
LC2
LC3
Table 17.
Keel
Bottom
Bilge
Sheer strake
Hopper side
0.62
2.72
0.62
3.159
5.574
3.103
3.199
5.603
3.142
3.279
5.66
3.218
1.055
3.634
1.078
1.712
4.127
1.688
3.51
4.90
3.42
4.927
7.205
4.793
5.036
7.281
4.898
5.388
7.528
5.24
4.562
6.096
4.226
4.214
6.251
4.421
Keel
Bottom
Bilge
Sheer strake
Hopper side
LC1 s
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.32
0.33
0.53
0.29
0.36
0.36
0.40
0.39
0.31
0.54
0.36
0.26
0.26
0.44
0.39
0.31
0.54
0.36
0.26
0.26
0.44
0.39
0.31
0.54
0.36
0.26
0.26
0.44
0.38
0.30
0.54
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.41
0.37
0.32
0.54
0.34
0.30
0.30
0.42
LC2 s
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.28
0.61
0.41
0.04
0.42
0.42
0.32
0.27
0.74
0.36
0.04
0.34
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.74
0.36
0.04
0.34
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.74
0.36
0.04
0.34
0.34
0.30
0.32
0.69
0.39
0.05
0.38
0.38
0.31
0.29
0.70
0.38
0.04
0.37
0.37
0.30
LC3 s
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.55
0.30
0.45
0.21
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.63
0.23
0.46
0.31
0.23
0.23
0.36
0.63
0.23
0.46
0.31
0.23
0.23
0.36
0.63
0.23
0.46
0.31
0.23
0.23
0.36
0.63
0.25
0.45
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.33
0.61
0.26
0.45
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.34
One can see from the figures that the homogenous loading conditions represents the safest
condition, this is because of the uniform cargo
distribution inside the compartments. While the
ballast loading condition and the alternative loading condition which give high SWBM give low
reliability. The worst reliability occurred when
the side is damaged, whether at the sheer strake
or at the joint of the hopper tank with the side.
9
Sensitivity analysis is made for the damaged conditions to study the importance of the variable
686
MARSTRUCT.indb 686
2/18/2011 5:56:42 PM
Table 18.
Keel
Bottom
Bilge
Sheer strake
Hopper side
LC1 h
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.27
0.44
0.51
0.25
0.35
0.35
0.40
0.41
0.28
0.55
0.38
0.22
0.22
0.45
0.41
0.29
0.55
0.38
0.22
0.22
0.45
0.41
0.29
0.55
0.38
0.22
0.22
0.46
0.33
0.39
0.53
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.43
0.35
0.35
0.54
0.33
0.30
0.30
0.42
LC2 h
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.17
0.71
0.37
0.03
0.37
0.37
0.29
0.25
0.74
0.36
0.04
0.33
0.33
0.30
0.25
0.74
0.36
0.04
0.33
0.33
0.30
0.25
0.74
0.36
0.04
0.33
0.33
0.30
0.19
0.73
0.36
0.03
0.35
0.35
0.29
0.19
0.72
0.37
0.04
0.36
0.36
0.30
LC3 h
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.49
0.36
0.47
0.22
0.33
0.33
0.36
0.65
0.20
0.47
0.35
0.19
0.19
0.37
0.65
0.20
0.47
0.35
0.19
0.19
0.37
0.64
0.20
0.47
0.35
0.19
0.19
0.37
0.57
0.30
0.47
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.37
0.59
0.28
0.46
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.36
Table 19.
Keel
Bottom
Bilge
Sheer strake
Hopper side
LC1 s
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.31
0.34
0.55
0.30
0.37
0.37
0.34
0.39
0.33
0.56
0.37
0.27
0.27
0.37
0.38
0.34
0.56
0.37
0.27
0.27
0.37
0.38
0.34
0.56
0.37
0.27
0.27
0.38
0.38
0.31
0.56
0.36
0.32
0.32
0.36
0.37
0.33
0.56
0.35
0.31
0.31
0.36
LC2 s
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.28
0.56
0.43
0.08
0.41
0.41
0.28
0.27
0.68
0.40
0.10
0.33
0.33
0.27
0.27
0.68
0.40
0.10
0.33
0.33
0.27
0.27
0.69
0.40
0.10
0.33
0.33
0.27
0.32
0.59
0.42
0.11
0.37
0.37
0.28
0.29
0.63
0.41
0.10
0.36
0.36
0.27
LC3 s
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.40
0.33
0.52
0.27
0.37
0.37
0.33
0.48
0.30
0.54
0.35
0.26
0.26
0.36
0.48
0.31
0.54
0.35
0.26
0.26
0.36
0.48
0.31
0.54
0.35
0.26
0.26
0.36
0.46
0.35
0.52
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.33
0.45
0.37
0.52
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.33
687
MARSTRUCT.indb 687
2/18/2011 5:56:42 PM
Table 20.
Keel
Bottom
Bilge
Sheer strake
Hopper side
LC1 h
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.23
0.53
0.51
0.22
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.39
0.36
0.56
0.37
0.24
0.24
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.56
0.37
0.24
0.24
0.39
0.37
0.39
0.56
0.36
0.24
0.24
0.39
0.28
0.53
0.51
0.27
0.30
0.30
0.35
0.27
0.55
0.51
0.26
0.30
0.30
0.35
LC2 h
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.17
0.71
0.39
0.05
0.36
0.36
0.25
0.25
0.70
0.39
0.10
0.32
0.32
0.27
0.25
0.71
0.39
0.10
0.32
0.32
0.27
0.25
0.71
0.39
0.10
0.32
0.32
0.27
0.19
0.72
0.38
0.07
0.34
0.34
0.26
0.19
0.73
0.38
0.06
0.34
0.34
0.26
LC3 h
SWBM
WBM
UBM
xsw
xnl
Xst
xr
0.31
0.50
0.51
0.22
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.49
0.30
0.54
0.37
0.22
0.22
0.37
0.49
0.30
0.54
0.37
0.22
0.22
0.37
0.49
0.30
0.54
0.37
0.22
0.22
0.37
0.33
0.57
0.48
0.24
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.59
0.47
0.23
0.30
0.30
0.32
LC1: Ballast
LC2: Homogeneous
LC3: Alternative
0.77
0.18
0.85
0.11
0.15
0.07
CONCLUSIONS
This paper studies the ultimate strength and reliability of two single side bulk carriers. The ultimate strength is calculated using Smiths method.
The damage is simulated by removing the damaged elements from the mid-ship section and
re-calculating the ultimate strength of the section.
The reliability is calculated considering the
ultimate limit state function; the SWBM statistic
model is calculated based on studying the data
of the loading manual. The mean value and the
standard deviation are calculated as a function of
the maximum allowed value defined in the loading
manual.
A final conclusion can be given from that study
telling that the mean value and the COV values
of a bulk carrier of the same size can be taken as
shown in Table 21.
The stochastic model of wave induced load
effects is defined based on the evaluation of the
wave induced load effects that occur during longterm operation of the ships in a seaway.
Calculation of the reliability of the intact ships
showed that the sagging is more critical than
hogging. The homogenous loading condition has
the highest reliability, while the alternate and ballast
loading give very low reliability.
Sensitivity analyses showed that the ultimate
capacity importance is the highest among all the
variables in LC1 and LC3, while the WBM is
the most important variable in LC2. The SWBM
importance increases in the ballast condition while
688
MARSTRUCT.indb 688
2/18/2011 5:56:42 PM
689
MARSTRUCT.indb 689
2/18/2011 5:56:42 PM
690
MARSTRUCT.indb 690
2/18/2011 5:56:43 PM
M. Miyazaki
Yokohama National University, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa-ken, Japan (Now in Imabari Shipbuilding Co. Ltd.,
Marugame-shi, Kagawa-ken, Japan)
ABSTRACT: In this study, we propose a new strategy of lifecycle structural optimization by using
structural reliability analysis and risk evaluation. As a simple example, optimization of the hold frame of
a bulk carrier is carried out. In the first optimization, construction cost is used as an objective function
and the failure probability is used as a design constraint. In the second optimization, the lifecycle cost
including the risk of failure is regarded as an objective function, while lifecycle benefit is used as an objective
function in the last optimization. It is noted that not only the dimensions of the structural members but
also a number of repairs (re-coating) are used as design variables in the lifecycle optimization.
1
INTRODUCTION
2
2.1
691
MARSTRUCT.indb 691
2/18/2011 5:56:43 PM
MU(t) = xuZ(t)y
ps , pw
(c) Simple both-ends-clamped beam model
subjected to hydro-static pressure (ps)
and hydrodynamic pressure (pw)
Figure 1. Target structure (Hold frame of bulk carrier).
In this study, structural reliability analysis is carried out to compute annual probability of failure
of the frame for each ship year, and to calculate
the risk of the failure. Limit state function for the
structural reliability analysis is defined as follows,
g(t) = MU(t) ML(t),
(1)
(2)
t
(
)
t tC
C
1
(3)
692
MARSTRUCT.indb 692
2/18/2011 5:56:43 PM
bs
ts
tw
tf
Thickness
Reductionr
(t)
bf
Figure 2.
(4)
Table 1.
Principle dimensions.
Ship length
Breadth
Molded depth
Draft
Gross tonnage
Dead weight
Complement
L
B
D
d
G/T
DWT
p
S = lh
ts
OPTIMIZATION 1 (MINIMIZATION
OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
tw
Design Variables
bf
Figure 3.
bottom end
(connected
to the hopper tank)
188 [m]
32.26 [m]
18.0 [m]
15.0 [m]
35,750 [t]
55.000 [t]
50 [persons]
hw
tf
(5)
hw
2.00hw
lw
1.43hw
topend
(connected to
the wing
tank)
693
MARSTRUCT.indb 693
2/18/2011 5:56:46 PM
CShl 2 < Z
L
ts
(6)
(7)
(ts ))
(10)
(11)
Table 2.
PfL
(13)
(9)
(
i =1 j =1
Pf
i ) )Pfi
(12)
Design
variable
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
Gene
length
Interval
N
ts (mm)
tw (mm)
tf (mm)
hw (mm)
bf (ww)
27
13.0
12.0
10.0
200.0
10.0
42
20.5
27.0
41.0
820.0
320.0
4
4
5
5
5
5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
5.0
694
MARSTRUCT.indb 694
2/18/2011 5:56:48 PM
S=1087(mm)
tw=13(mm)
ts=20.5(mm)
hw=360(mm)
tf=27(mm)
bf=180(mm)
Design Variables
N=27
ts=20.5mm
tw=13.0mm
tf=27.0mm
hw=360.0mm
bf=180.0mm
OPTIMIZATION 2 (MINIMIZATION
OF LIFECYCLE COST (LCC))
Formulation of optimization problem
Table 3.
Design variable
Feasible value
Gene length
695
MARSTRUCT.indb 695
2/18/2011 5:56:49 PM
Ctotal +
tL
(CMi
i =1
CRISKi )
(14)
(15)
Sub-optimal solution
S=1087(mm)
LCC(1.0E+07[Japanese Yen])
30
tw=13(mm)
ts=20.5(mm)
hw=520(mm)
tf=30(mm)
Design Variables
N=27
ts=20.5mm
tw=13.0mm
tf=30.0mm
hw=520.0mm
bf=300.0mm
M=0(No recoating)
29
28
27
26
25
Sub-Optimal
Design
24
1.E-09
1.E-08
Optimal
Design
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
bf=300(mm)
Figure 7.
Table 4.
Optimal design
Sub-optimal design
ts [mm]
tw [mm]
tf [mm]
hw [mm]
bf [mm]
27
27
20.5
20.5
13.0
13.0
30.0
26.0
520.0
520.0
300.0
200.0
0
16
696
MARSTRUCT.indb 696
2/18/2011 5:56:50 PM
OPTIMIZATION 3 (MAXIMIZATION
OF LIFECYCLE BENEFIT (LCB))
5.1
tL
tL
55,000
ts [mm]
tf [mm]
bf [mm]
Opertional parameters
RC [yen/(ton voyage)]
Nr
1,920
9
ts=20.5(mm)
i =1
(DWTT
reef
+ Wdifff
RC NR ,
tw=13(mm)
hw=520(mm)
tf=21(mm)
bf=160(mm)
Figure 9.
LCB(x1.0E+08[Japanese Yen])
i =1
(17)
where RC is defined as the revenue for the unitweight cargo per one voyage, and NR is the number
of voyages in one ship-year. DWTref is the deadweight of a reference ship (Table 5), which is
introduced to compute the increase of deadweight
(Wdiff) of the optimized ship from the reference
ship by saving the weight of the structure.
Stated another way, we assume that the amount
of cargo which can be loaded on the ship can be
increased by designing the hold frame structure
lighter, and that operational revenue can also
becomes higher as a result of weight saving.
It is noted that the design variables and constraint condition in this optimization is completely
same as the optimization in the previous chapter.
Optimization result
Figure 9 shows the optimized solution by maximizing LCB. It can be observed that the thickness and
the width of the flange become smaller compared
with the solution by minimization of the LCC.
By this change, the strength of the frame becomes
lower and the effect of corrosion to the reduction
16
16
140
S=1087(mm)
LCB
C
5.2
DWTref [ton]
Design Variables
N=27
ts=20.5mm
tw=13.0mm
tf=21.0mm
hw=520.0mm
bf=160.0mm
M=16
281.6
281.4
Optimal
Design
281.2
281.0
280.8
280.6
280.4
280.2
280.0
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
Failure Probability at 30 ship-year (pf)
1.00E-05
697
MARSTRUCT.indb 697
2/18/2011 5:56:54 PM
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (B) 20360391. Also this work is
supported by Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation.
The authors are grateful for these supports.
Appreciation is also extended to Professor Sumi in
Yokohama National University who gave us a lot
of advises for this research.
REFERENCES
Bhattacharya, B. et al. 2001. Developing target reliability
for novel structures: the case of the Mobile Offshore
Base, Marine Structures, 14, pp. 3758.
ClassNK. 1992. Investigative Report about the Accident
of Aged Large Bulk Carriers (in Japanese).
ClassNK. 2008. Rules and Guidance for the Survey and
Construction of Steel Ships.
Kawamura, Y., Nishimoto, M. & Sumi, Y. 2009. A study
on a method for maintenance of ship structures
considering remaining life benefit, In Guedes Soares &
Das (eds), Analysis and Design of Marine Structures
(Proc. Marstruct2009), 2009, pp. 279289.
Kawamura, Y. & Sumi, Y. 2010. Comparison of Two
Different Hold Frame Structures of a Bulk Carrier
Based on Structural Reliability Analysis, Proc. 11th
International Symposium on Practical Design of
Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS 2010),
pp. 14211431.
Melchers, R.E. 1999. Structural Reliability Analysis and
Prediction, John Wiley & Sons.
Paik, J.K. et al. 2004. A time-dependent corrosion wastage model for seawater ballast tank structures of ships,
Corrosion Science, 46, pp. 471486.
Southwest Research Institute (SRI) 2009. NESSUS-PA
Users Manual, Version 0.5, November, 2009.
Thacker, B.H. et al. 2006. Probabilistic engineering analysis using the NESSUS software, Structural Safety, 28,
pp. 83107.
698
MARSTRUCT.indb 698
2/18/2011 5:56:58 PM
Eeteng Khoo
American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, Texas, USA
ABSTRACT: Corrosion is one of the most commonly found degradation mechanisms on marine
vessels. It is inevitable and can compromise the structural integrity if not properly addressed and
monitored. In extreme cases, it may have an impact on the safety of the vessel. Hence, proper and
wise corrosion management is essential. Many corrosion wastage models have been proposed by
researchers. One of the most important challenges to develop wastage models is consideration of
uncertainties within corrosion data. These uncertainties are generally dependent upon the environment, effectiveness of corrosion protection, or accuracy of the thickness measurement. The objective
of this study is to investigate these uncertainties involved and develop a process of generating corrosion wastage model. Characteristics of existing approaches are also reviewed and assessed while
developing a new model.
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
1.2
Background
Scope of work
2.1
699
MARSTRUCT.indb 699
2/18/2011 5:56:58 PM
Table 1.
Organization
ABS
NK
KR
TSCF
Ship type
Vessels
Measurement records
Ship size (m or DWT)
Ship age (years)
Build years
Measured
Data source
19922000
SafeHull condition
assessment
157
Not known
Gauging records
Not known
Gauging records
346
Not known
Not known
Gauging reports
Data Categorizing
(in accordance with corrosion environment)
Compartment type
Structural type
Location
Screening
Remove repaired member data
Remove negative & zero wastage
Remove pitting/grooving
Data Analysis
Verification with corrosion model
2.2
In this study, thickness measurement data of a single tanker taken from the database provided by
ABS are used for the development of the long-term
corrosion model. This is to eliminate the uncertainty caused by service environments, as indicated
in Section 2.1.
The collected raw data have to be filtered before
being used for analysis purposes. For example, as
general corrosion is the focus of the analysis, pitting and grooving corrosion data are not included.
This is due to their locally advanced and relatively
high wastage. The data also contains measurement
data taken on plates that were replaced by a new
plate during the vessels service life. Gauged data
that indicate negative or zero wastage are also
removed, as these would skew the statistics of corrosion wastage of the vessel.
Figure 1 illustrates the flow of data management proposed for this study. As stated above,
thickness measurement data are to be reviewed
appropriately before the analysis phase. The process includes categorization and screening of thickness measurement data using the gauging reports
and repair reports. First, thickness measurement
data are collected from the gauging reports. The
repair reports indicate structures that have been
repaired and the time when each repair took place.
These details are used to screen out those repaired
members records. Before the screening phase data
should be categorized in accordance with corrosion environment. For example, the data were categorized by structural member type such as upper
deck plate, side shell plate, bottom plate, stiffeners
and so forth. The data were also categorized by
tank location and compartment type.
700
MARSTRUCT.indb 700
2/18/2011 5:56:59 PM
Plate A
Plate B
+ Plate C
3.0
Plate D
2.0
Mean
+
1.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
t > C
t C
(1)
)b
t > t0
t t0
(2)
t c
d (t ) = d 1 exp
, t > c
t
d (t ) = 0
t C
Figure 3. Scatter plot of corrosion wastage on deck
plate in cargo oil tanks of the tanker.
t =
d
,
tan
d0
(3a)
(3b)
701
MARSTRUCT.indb 701
2/18/2011 5:56:59 PM
d (t ) = a (t
d (t ) = 0
)b ,
t > c + t
t c + t
(4)
Figure 6 shows the result of curve fitting to the corrosion data presented in Figure 3 by applying the
least square method. In addition to mean and
mean + standard deviation of wastage, 50 percentile
and 75 percentile of the data are also shown in the
chart. Here, corrosion initiation time t0 of each
model is determined from the trend of the wastage.
Corrosion models are to be developed by taking
into account the data size at each gauging survey.
At some ages, the amount of gauging data may be
limited and can be ignored when curve fitting is
carried out. Furthermore, to make the corrosion
wastage model more conservative and reliable,
the weighted regression method was applied.
The trends are presented by the ship ages where the
data indicates more severe wastage.
At a particular age (for example, 15 years old
shown as dotted area (a) in Fig. 6), the gap between
mean (data mean) and 50 percentile (50%) of the
data is relatively large. It is attributed to the fact that
a few extremely large values had skewed the statistics of the corrosion data. Thus at those ship ages
(here, ship age 15 in Fig. 6), it is preferred that the
corrosion progress model for mean wastage (curve
mean) passes between mean (data mean) and
50 percentile (50%), and the model for mean +
standard deviation (curve mean + sd) passes between
mean + standard deviation (data mean + sd) and
75 percentile (75%).
3.2
702
MARSTRUCT.indb 702
2/18/2011 5:57:02 PM
4
4.1
PROBABILISTIC REPRESENTATION
Ship age
Best fit
Lognormal
Weibull
Lognormal
Lognormal
Gamma
Gamma
Gamma
Gamma
Gamma
Gamma
Gamma
Lognormal
Lognormal
Weibull
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Weibull
Lognormal
Normal
Normal
Exponential
Gamma
Exponential
Gamma
Weibull
Weibull
Lognormal
The probability density function of Weibull distribution can be expressed by the following equation:
k 1
xk
k x
, x, k , > 0
f x ( x, k , ) =
exp
(5)
k=
1.08
, =
k+
(6)
703
MARSTRUCT.indb 703
2/18/2011 5:57:03 PM
Table 3.
COMPARATIVE STUDIES
Summary of existing corrosion models for upper deck plate in cargo oil tank of tankers.
Corrosion model
Vessels
>100 tankers
<140 tankers
Member
<140
tankers
Upper deck plate in
cargo oil tanks
4655
11.49
TSCF (1997)
>32 tankers
Upper deck plate in
cargo oil tanks
Unknown
Uncoated
704
MARSTRUCT.indb 704
2/18/2011 5:57:05 PM
CONCLUSIONS
705
MARSTRUCT.indb 705
2/18/2011 5:57:06 PM
E. Johnson
Department of Building Technology and Mechanics, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Bors, Sweden
ABSTRACT: Composite materials have been used successfully in vessels since the 1960s. Changes
during the last decade in international regulations, fuel prices and environmental concerns have dramatically increased the interest of the marine industry in lightweight composite materials. There are many
questions regarding the materials properties and behaviour that still remain, leading, in some instances to
too robustly designed crafts. Therefore, the new generation of composite vessels requires a finer tuning of
safety and weight, which can be achieved by analyzing thoroughly the behaviour of the material and the
effects of uncertainties and approximations found in the design process. This paper presents the study of
two design methodologies with different degrees of complexity, through deterministic and probabilistic
analyses, in order to determine their benefits, drawbacks and challenges.
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
1.2
Background
707
MARSTRUCT.indb 707
2/18/2011 5:57:06 PM
Current study
2.1
Types of failure
Figure 1.
708
MARSTRUCT.indb 708
2/18/2011 5:57:06 PM
Failure criteria
Criterion
Type of failure
Generalized lamina
failure
FF
IFF
Maximum strain
Puck
Structural analyses
709
MARSTRUCT.indb 709
2/18/2011 5:57:07 PM
ANALYSIS CASE
710
MARSTRUCT.indb 710
2/18/2011 5:57:07 PM
Table 2.
Property
Expectancy
COV
Distribution
126
11
6.6
0.28
1739
1480
48
200
79
1.380
1.175
0.436
1.818
1.196
1.10
5%
5%
5%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Weibull
Weibull
Weibull
Weibull
Weibull
Weibull
Weibull
Weibull
Weibull
Weibull
N/A
Figure 4.
4.2
711
MARSTRUCT.indb 711
2/18/2011 5:57:08 PM
SAFETY FACTORS
In order to guarantee a reliable design, classification societies state partial safety and model factors
that determine, along with the materials ultimate
strength or strain, the maximum allowable loading
conditions. Figure 4 depicts three maximum allowable strains, marked A, B and C, as recommended
by two different composite structure standards.
The maximum allowable strain A was calculated with a sole safety factor against FF stated in
DNVs High Speed Light Craft and Naval Surface
Craft classification rules (2010). This safety factor
is applied to the mean measured failure strain, and
3.3
1.0
1.046
1.7
1.0
1.7
*All factors are for ULS, brittle failure and high safety
class.
VARIABILITY
712
MARSTRUCT.indb 712
2/18/2011 5:57:08 PM
Figure 5.
CONCLUSIONS
The linear elastic model with progressive degradation is a powerful tool for optimizing the employment of FRP laminates. It provides valuable insight
on the accumulation of damage in the laminate.
However, it requires input data that can only be
obtained through thorough experimental testing.
The finite element analysis and the probabilistic
analysis gave valuable input on the benefits, drawbacks and challenges of utilizing a model with progressive degradation for analyzing FRP laminates.
Whether the benefits of the progressive degradation model out weights the inherent drawbacks,
such as the increased complexity and computing
time, depends greatly on two key factors: the onset
and progressive saturation of IFFs and the maximum allowable loading conditions defined by classification rules. Figure 5 clearly shows that IFF is
very likely to occur in a wide range of strains close
to the maximum allowable strains. However, it does
not provide information on the level of IFF saturation and its effect on the laminate. Generally, IFF
can be considered to be harmless, but for example,
under cyclic loading small delamination zones in
the crack tips might grow and lead to delamination
as well as stress concentrations that promote FF.
It is clear that with this laminate, if the maximum
allowable loading conditions defined by class rules
are to be followed, the linear elastic with progressive degradation model does not provide added
benefits to the structural analysis. The laminates
behavior can be simulated accurately enough with
the simple linear elastic model. However, if experimental data containing the IFF onset strain for
embedded laminas and the IFF saturation curves
were available, the linear elastic with progressive
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support from
Lighthouse Maritime Competence Centre (www.
lighthouse.nu), Sweden. This work is part of a
deliverable by the authors to the EU-project BESST
(www.besst.it).
REFERENCES
ANSYS, Inc. 2009. ANSYS academic research, Release
12.1.
Det Norske Veritas. 2009. Composite components.
Offshore standard DNV-OS-C501, April 2009.
Det Norske Veritas. 2010. Rules for high speed, light craft
and naval surface craft. January 2010.
Frangopol, D.M. & Recek, S. 2003. Reliability of fiberreinforced composite laminate plates. Probabilistic
Engineering Mechanics 18: 119137.
Garnich, M.R. & Akula, V.M.L. 2008. Review of degradation models for progressive failure analysis of fiber
reinforced polymer composites. Applied Mechanics
Reviews 62, 010801.
Jeong, H.K. & Shenoi, R.A. 1998. Reliability analysis
of mid-plane symmetric laminated plates using direct
simulation method. Composite Structures 43: 113.
Jeong, H.K. & Shenoi, R.A. 2000. Probabilistic strength
analysis of rectangular FRP plates using Monte
Carlo simulation. Computers and Structures 76:
219235.
Lekou, D.J. & Philippidis, T.P. 2008. Mechanical property
variability in FRP laminates and its effect on failure
prediction. Composites: Part B 39: 12471256.
713
MARSTRUCT.indb 713
2/18/2011 5:57:08 PM
Murotsu, Y. et al. 1994. Reliability design of fiber reinforced composites. Structural Safety 15: 3549.
Nader, J.W. et al. 2008. Probabilistic finite element analysis of modified ASTM D3039 tension test for marine
grade polymer matrix composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 27: 583597.
Nakayasu, H. & Maekawa, Z. 1997. A comparative study
of failure criteria in probabilistic fields and stochastic
failure envelopes of composite materials. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 56: 209220.
Puck, A. & Schrmann, H. 1998. Failure analysis of FRP
laminates by means of physically based phenomenological models. Composite Science and Technology
58: 10451067.
Soden, P.D. et al. 1998. Lamina properties, lay-up configurations and loading conditions for a range of fibrereinforced composite laminates. Composites Science
and Technology 58: 10111022.
714
MARSTRUCT.indb 714
2/18/2011 5:57:09 PM
ABSTRACT: Germanischer Lloyd currently update rules for stowage and lashing of containers to
ensure safe and reliable container loadings and adequate dimensioning of lashing equipment. Various
research and development works, focusing mainly on performance of fully automatic locks and reliable
calculation of container and lashing loads, were performed. Essentials of the corresponding findings and
their impact on classification rules are presented. Particular attention is given to the new test procedure
for fully automatic locks.
1
INTRODUCTION
2
2.1
CONCLUDED INVESTIGATIONS
Analyses of container loses
715
MARSTRUCT.indb 715
2/18/2011 5:57:09 PM
Figure 1.
716
MARSTRUCT.indb 716
2/18/2011 5:57:09 PM
Figure 2.
317.2 m
43.2 m
13.0 m
14.5 m
24.5 kn
Roll angle
Roll period
Vertical acceleration (astern)
Transverse acceleration (astern)
24,2
17.0 s
1.3 m/s2
0.5 m/s2
Figure 3.
717
MARSTRUCT.indb 717
2/18/2011 5:57:10 PM
718
MARSTRUCT.indb 718
2/18/2011 5:57:12 PM
719
MARSTRUCT.indb 719
2/18/2011 5:57:14 PM
Figure 11. General test setup for pull test and shear test.
720
MARSTRUCT.indb 720
2/18/2011 5:57:16 PM
Figure 13.
tests.
721
MARSTRUCT.indb 721
2/18/2011 5:57:17 PM
affected significantly the performance of considered locks (Fig 14). To allow for this effect in test
conditions, the corner castings were transversely
offset as shown in Figure 14. Based on numerical simulations of the pull test for different fully
automatic locks, the effect of the corner castings
transverse offset of 1 mm was found to be equivalent to the effect of the flexibility of a typical ISO
container.
Figure 15 summarizes the basic information
regarding the test setup, test loads and test
procedure for the pull test and the shear test, which
were required to assess the performance of fully
automatic locks in operation, considering both
failure modes relevant for this lock type. Numbers
in parentheses in Figure 15 indicate the sequences
for force application in both tests. The test loads
included safety factors and correction factors gained
from benchmark tests and numerical calculations as
described above.
First functionality tests of fully automatic locks
were carried out to validate the viability of the
new test procedure. Sufficient bearing capacity
was observed for some lock designs. On the other
hand, considerable shortcomings became apparent for other lock designs tested so far. The new
test procedure proved to be a practicable approach
for sound testing of the functionality of fully
automatic locks.
4
substantial effort to better understand the corresponding safety-related technical aspects and,
thus, to ensure further on the safe and reliable sea
transport of deck containers in the face of the
ongoing changes in container shipping. Research
work carried out to date focused mainly on the
sound assessment of the functionality of fully
automatic locks and the accurate calculation
of dynamic loads on flexible container stacks.
Investigations showed that the performance of
fully automatic locks was susceptible to various parameters, such as seemingly minor design
details, actual condition of container corner
castings in operation as well as the combinations of vertical and transverse dynamic forces
simultaneously acting on locks. The new method
for numerical simulation of container stacks
transported on weather deck enabled essential
insight into the complex physics of the container
and lashing forces and was the key part for the
development of an adequate test procedure for
fully automatic locks. Besides realistic load combinations, the new test procedure allowed more
accurately for relevant aspects and operation condition, such as container flexibility and abrasion
of corner castings. Insight into dynamic forces
acting on flexible container stacks revealed that
transverse wind, inertia, and gravity loads on
container stacks induce considerably magnified
vertical forces on the containers front end. This
fact has not yet been explicitly accounted for by
the standard approach underlying classification
rules. Its relevance and an appropriate way to
account for realistic container and lashing forces
during approval of Cargo Securing Manuals are
currently being checked. Moreover, the gained
sound knowledge of realistic container and lashing forces serves as basis for the ongoing safety
level assessment of existing stowage and lashing
systems. Furthermore, the determination of rule
values for design accelerations for ships with distinct roll behavior, such as wide-bodied container
postpanmax containerships with comparatively
high GM values, is planned.
REFERENCES
Germanischer Lloyd 2007. Rules for Classification and
Construction, IShip Technology, Part 1Seagoing
Ships, Chapter 20Stowage and Lashing of Containers.
Hamburg, Germanischer Lloyd.
Rathje, H. et al. 2008. Seaborne Container Losses and
Damages. Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft e.V. Yearbook
2008.
Wolf, V. & Rathje, H. 2009. Motion Simulation of Container Stacks on Deck. 2009 SNAME Annual Meeting
and Ship Production Symposium Proceedings, 2123
October 2009 1: 277285.
722
MARSTRUCT.indb 722
2/18/2011 5:57:19 PM
ABSTRACT: The statistical data for ship steel strength suggest that the best-fit probability density
functions vary depending upon the type of steel and the type of failure mode. Various studies suggest
that lognormal, Weibull, or Gumbel distributions may offer the best descriptions for yield stress, ultimate
stress and failure strain. In this paper, we select several distribution functions for yield limit states and
particular steels and study the resulting reliability of steel beam components. The beams are subjected to
compressive loading conditions as commonly encountered for marine structures and the loading resultants
are thus also treated as random variables. The influence of the use of various probability density functions is studied. The results of including uncertainty in the structural geometry are also discussed. It is
found that the probability of failure can vary by orders of magnitude for similar nominal safety factors
depending upon the type of steel or the yield function employed.
1
INTRODUCTION
The reliability of a structural system is the probability that it will survive for a given period of time
and/or under specified loading conditions (White
et al. 1985). Generally, the reliability analysis of
marine structures needs to consider three components: 1) loading, 2) structural strength and
3) method of calculating probability of failure
(Ayyub et al. 1995).
In this paper, we consider a commonly used
marine structure component, that is, a beam subjected to compressive loading. We generate the
random variable of applied stress on the beam
from two sources of uncertainty, each separately.
One is from the uncertainty of geometry caused by
imperfections in constructing the beam. The other
is from the uncertainty of the external forces that
act on the beam. Our motivation is to address how
one might expect the probability of failure to be
affected by choices of yield stress probability distributions in addition to the effects of geometric
and loading uncertainty.
The statistical data of the several steels material yield strength is taken from a previous study
(Yu et al. 2010) in which five different distributions
were applied to describe the random behavior of
material characteristics including failure strain,
yield stress and ultimate strength. Results from several thousand tests are included in this data base.
In the previous study, chi-square tests were applied
to test the goodness of fit and to find the best fitting distributions. In this paper, these results for
yield stresses are referred and compared to applied
723
MARSTRUCT.indb 723
2/18/2011 5:57:20 PM
w0 sin
x
L
(1)
w0
1 P/PE
(4)
1
2 v12
w0 2
2v12
< w0 <
C =
P P |w0 | t
+
A 1 P/PE 2 I y
(6)
where PE = EIy/L , is the Euler column buckling load, E is the steel Youngs Modulus and Iy is
the moment of inertia of the cross section of the
beam.
Therefore the maximum bending moment along the
beam is at the middle point and has the value of
2 v12
Pw0
1 P /PE
(3)
(5)
(2)
2
M=
Pw0 ymax
P
+
A 1 P/PE I y
pdf (w0 ) =
C =
w0 2
2v12
0 < w1 <
(7)
Let
a=
P
Pt
,b=
A
2II y ( P/PE )
(8)
Then
C = a + bw1
(9)
C)
2
b
v12
a )2
2 2
2b v
, a C <
(10)
724
MARSTRUCT.indb 724
2/18/2011 5:57:20 PM
pdf ( P ) =
(P P )2
2v 2
2 v p2
, 0
P<
(11)
C =
Pw0
P
t
+
A 1 P/PE 2 I y
(12)
P=
b(
C)
b2 (
4 AP
PE C
= g(
C)
(13)
A C + PE
AP
PE a2 , a2 =
tw0
2I y
Compressive force
A
AH32
AH36
AH40
P (kN)
P (kN)
83.0
91.0
94.0
96.4
3.20
2.00
1.70
1.39
Note that in this model the maximum compressive stress will reach the yield stress before the
external force reaches the critical buckling force.
Therefore the failure mode of this probabilistic
model of compressive stress generated from loading uncertainty is yielding. To avoid yielding for
the nominal conditions, we set the mean value of
the compressive stress of each material to be 2/3
of the corresponding mean value of yield stress to
have a nominal safety factor of approximately 1.5.
In order to generate such stochastic characteristics
of compressive stress, the mean value and standard
deviation of the external forces P for the analysis
of each material are listed in Table 1.
3
y)
1n( y )
1
erfc
f
2
2V 2
(16)
where
b(
(14)
F2 (
y ) = 1 exp
u
(17)
where
pdf (
C)
1
2 v p2
( g ( C )
2vP2
)2
| g ( C ) |,
(15)
1
2
1
= u( + ), v 2 = u 2 1 + 2 1 + (18)
k
k
k
725
MARSTRUCT.indb 725
2/18/2011 5:57:24 PM
Table 2.
A
AH32
AH36
AH40
Compressive stress
from loading uncertainty
Yield stress
(c)
(MPa)
(c)
(MPa)
SF
(c)
(MPa)
(c)
(MPa)
SF
(y)
(MPa)
(y)
(MPa)
106.9
106.9
106.9
106.9
47.6
47.6
47.6
47.6
2.747
3.594
3.993
4.409
186.5
248.4
281.4
313.9
20.3
20.2
21.3
21.2
1.575
1.547
1.517
1.501
293.7
384.2
426.9
471.3
13.14
16.35
16.28
19.66
Gumbel maximum:
F3 (
y)
y
= exp exp
(19)
where
a = =
v 6
, = 0.5772
(20)
Gumbel minimum:
y
F4 ( y ) = 1 exp exp
Figure 2.
A part.
Figure 3.
A part 2.
(21)
where
= + , =
v 6
, = 0.5772
(22)
Gumbel mix:
F5 (
y)
1
F ( y )Gumbel max
2
+ F ( y )Gumbel min
(23)
In Table 2, the mean values and standard deviations of the yield stresses and compressive stresses
generated from geometric uncertainty and force
uncertainty are compared. The nominal safety factors SF = (y)/(c), for both geometric and loading uncertainty cases are also provided in the table.
Comparisons of the distribution of compressive
stress and yield stress are shown in Figures 2 to 9.
The chi-square test method was used in our
former study (Yu et al. 2010) to evaluate the goodness of fit of each distribution of yield stress.
Chi-square values of all, first half and first quarter of the intervals in the histogram of yield stress
were calculated. Since the overlap of compressive
stress and the yield stress is mainly located at the
lower quarter of the yield stress distribution, both
726
MARSTRUCT.indb 726
2/18/2011 5:57:30 PM
Table 3.
stress.
AH32
AH36
Lognormal
2093
277.2
124.8
Weibull
3009
3937
1133
Gumbel max 255.1* 2625
229.1
Gumbel min 5256
1.168e4 2227
Gumbel mix
672.5
129.7*
95.10*
AH40
8.030*
54.17
25.72
68.68
23.26
Lognormal
Weibull
Gumbel max
Gumbel min
Gumbel mix
AH32
AH36
AH40
252.7
4.850*
7.160* 1.190
875.4
157.4
123.7
7.000
38.98* 2291
150.4
17.31
967.3
179.8
143.1
8.560
200.9
81.52
39.35
0.670*
727
MARSTRUCT.indb 727
2/18/2011 5:57:32 PM
Table 5. Probability
uncertainty.
Lognormal
Weibull
Gumbel max
Gumbel min
Gumbel mix
Table 6.
failure
from
geometric
AH32
AH36
AH40
(103)
(105)
(106)
(107)
1.763
1.826
1.747
1.840
1.793
2.342
2.734
2.186
2.869
2.528
1.927
2.434
1.748
2.628
2.188
1.388
2.489
1.127
3.283
2.205
AH32
AH36
AH40
(104)
(106)
(106)
(107)
1.607
2.734
1.402
3.275
2.338
6.675
33.83
4.225
51.49
27.86
3.988
22.15
2.558
39.94
21.25
12.39
270.6
5.254
635.5
320.4
PROBABILITY OF FAILURE OF
THE STRUCTURALCOMPONENT
x0 andd y x0 )
x )P ( y x0 )
c
dx
dx
= lim P x0
< C < x0 + (24)
dx 0
2
2
P ( y x0 )
c
P failure
f
)x0 = lim pdffC (x
( )dx
d cdf
cdff
dx 0
( x0 )
(x
(25)
P failure
f
) = pdffC ( x )cdff y ( x )ddx
Lognormal
Weibull
Gumbel max
Gumbel min
Gumbel mix
of
(26)
728
MARSTRUCT.indb 728
2/18/2011 5:57:34 PM
REFERENCES
Ayyub, B.M., Beach, J.E. & Packard, W.T. 1995. Methodology for the development of reliability-based design
criteria for surface ship structures. Naval Engineers
Journal. Volume 107, Issue 1, 4561, January 1995.
729
MARSTRUCT.indb 729
2/18/2011 5:57:36 PM