Riber PDF

Technical University of Denmark
Response Analysis of
Dynamically Loaded
Composite Panels
Hans Jrgen Riber

June 1997
Department of
Naval Architecture
And Offshore Engineering
Response Analysis of
Dynamically Loaded Composite
Panels
by
Hans Jrgen Riber

Department of Naval Architecture
and Offshore Engineering
June 1997
Copyright 1997 Hans Jrgen Riber

and Offshore Engineering
DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
ISBN 87-89502-36-1
3UHIDFH
The research of this thesis was carried out between October 1993 and March 1997 and
submitted as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Danish Ph.D. degree. The
work was carried out at the Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering, the Technical University of Denmark, with Professor Preben Terndrup Pedersen and
Ass. Professor Jan Baatrup as supervisors.
The financial support from the Danish Technical Research Council (STVF) and the Nordic Fund for Technology and Industrial Development (NI) is gratefully acknowledged.
Special thanks to all my colleagues at the Department and especially my two supervisors, Preben and Jan, for giving me the opportunity to carry out this study.
+DQV-UJHQ5LEHU
/\QJE\LQ-XQH
ii
3UHIDFHDQG$FNQRZOHGJHPHQW
$EVWUDFW
The background to this study is the need for handy design tools, which can, in a short
time, calculate the most appropriate material composition and panel scantlings for FRP
sandwich and single-skin vessels. Fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) is a frequently used
material for the building of high-speed light craft (HSLC). The scantlings of the hull
panels in these types of ships are often restricted by empirical and conservative design
rules and it is of great interest to investigate whether a more rational calculation procedure will lead to better composite panels. With this in mind, analytical and numerical
calculation methods are developed, in order to permit the designer to use efficiently the
composite materials in high-speed light craft.
Application of non-linear calculation methods to HSLC hull design seems meaningful,
since the lateral load response of composite hull panels is characterised by remarkable
geometrical non-linearities, due to large panel sizes and high lateral impact loads
(slamming), which is usually the dimensioning load.
In order to perform simple non-linear panel design without extensive computer application, two close-formed non-linear analytical solutions for laterally loaded composite
plates are developed by means of energy principles. The first method (6ROXWLRQ ) is
formulated as a complete solution. The second method (6ROXWLRQ) is a simplification of
6ROXWLRQ , dividing the governing equations into a linear part and a membrane part.
This makes 6ROXWLRQ 2 suitable as a supplement to existing linear design rules in this
field. The results calculated by use of both analytical methods are in good agreement
with experimental data and numerically calculated results.
A dynamic non-linear finite-difference-based program 3DQHO, dealing with orthotropic
sandwich and single-skin panels, is developed. 3DQHO calculates responses and failure
mechanisms for composite plates subjected to various lateral time-dependent loads. The
results of static as well as dynamic response are verified against the commercial finiteelement-based software program Ansys. However, the present method is approximately
50 times faster in CPU-time than Ansys.
A progressive damage model is developed and implemented in 3DQHO. This makes it possible to improve the design by use of plots of the failure modes, loads and locations. The
failure analysis uses the response from the non-linear analysis, leading to significantly
higher ultimate failure loads than predicted by application of a linear response analysis.
iii
iv
6XPPDU\
The ultimate failure loads predicted by 3DQHO are in good agreement with experiments
performed on single-skin FRP panels subjected to high lateral loads.
Analyses of existing HSLC hull panels are presented in order to demonstrate 3DQHO. A
design example is given to show the structural improvements which can be obtained by
application of non-linear calculation methods.
Finally, the '19High Speed Light Craft rule concerning FRP single-skin and sandwich
panels is discussed in the light of calculations with 3DQHO of hull bottom panels designed by application of the '19 rules. The single-skin rule, which is based on non-linear theory, is found to be good. However, the maximum lateral deflection criterion of
ZW equal to unity usually limits the design. The criterion seems unnecessary, since the
rule is based on a non-linear theory and, consequently, predicts accurately the panel responses. A non-linear analytical method, 6ROXWLRQ,is suggested as a replacement to the
'19 linear sandwich rule. In addition, the necessity of the maximum relative deflection
criterion of ZE equal to one percent should be further investigated. It seems reasonable
to omit this criterion for particular ships since it often limits the design without apparent
reason.
6\QRSVLVLQ'DQLVK
Baggrunden for dette arbejde er behovet for et hurtigt og godt designvrktj, som p
kort tid kan beregne optimale dimensioner og materialesammenstninger for skrogpaneler. Fiberforstrkede matrialer (FRP) er ofte benyttet ved bygning af hurtiggende lette
fartjer (HSLC). Dimensioneringen af skrogpaneler i disse typer fartjer er hovedsageligt baseret p empiriske designregler. Derfor er nye og mere rationelle beregningsmetoder ndvendige for at kunne forbedre designet. Med dette som motivation er der
udviklet analytiske og numeriske beregningsmetoder, som muliggr en bedre udnyttelse
af kompositmaterialer i hurtiggende lette fartjer.
Geometriske ikke-linere effekter (opbygning af membranspndinger) fra laterale udbjninger, der skyldes store paneldimensioner i FRP skrog samt relativt hje laterale
tryk (slamming), krver ikke-linere beregningsmetoder til korrekt responsberegning.
Simple analytiske ikke-linere lsninger er udviklet til paneldesign uden brug af
tidskrvende computerberegninger. Disse lsningsmetoder er fordelagtige i designfasen.
Baseret p energimetoder prsenteres to forskellige lsninger. Den frste, 6ROXWLRQ, er
en komplet lsning, hvor alle andenordensleddene indgr i pladeligningerne. Lsning to,
6ROXWLRQ , er en simplificering af den frste lsning. Her lses membrandelen
(andenordensleddene) separat fra den linre del. Dette gr 6ROXWLRQ ideel som supplement til eksisterende linre beregningsmetoder. Resultater beregnet ved hjlp af begge
metoder er i god overensstemmelse med eksperimentelle data samt numeriske
beregninger. En undtagelse er dog spndingsberegninger for fast indspndte plader.
Dernst er der udviklet en finite-difference baseret lsningsmetode til beregning af ortotropiske sandwich- og enkelt-skinds-paneler. Metoden er formuleret som et designvrktj, 3DQHO, til paneler udsat for svel statiske som dynamiske lastpvirkninger. Resultater med 3DQHO er verificeret ved hjlp af det kommercielle finite-element baserede
software program Ansys. Der er god overensstemmelse mellem gensvarsresultater fra de
to programmer, dog er beregningstiden med 3DQHO ca. 50 gange kortere end med Ansys.
En progressiv brudmodel er udviklet og indgr i 3DQHO, hvilket gr det muligt at forbedre et design ud fra beregningsresultater. Denne del af programmet kan plotte geometriske fordelinger af brudtyper og -laste. Den ikke-linere responsberegning giver som
resultat betydeligt strre brudlaste end man finder ved linre beregninger. Det vises, at
vi6\QRSVLV
ultimative brudlaste beregnet med 3DQHO er i overensstemmelse med eksperimentielt
bestemte brudlaste for en serie af enkelt-skinds-paneler.
Forskellige analyser og designeksempler udfrt med 3DQHO er vist for at demonstrere
programmet, samt for at synliggre mulighederne for at forbedre det strukturelle design.
Til slut diskuteres klassifikationsselskabet '19V HSLC regler for FRP paneler ud fra
beregninger af typiske skrogpaneler med henholdsvis reglerne og 3DQHO Enkelt-skindsreglen er begrnset af en relativ maximal udbjning p een. Dette krav virker undvendigt, idet reglen er baseret p ikke-linr teori og derfor producerer njagtige
beregninger. For sandwichpaneler foresls det at implementere ikke-linere beregningsudtryk i reglen samt at uddybe maximum udbjningskravet og tillade, at reglen kan
overskrides i specificerede tilflde.
&RQWHQWV
3UHIDFH
$EVWUDFW
6\QRSVLVLQ'DQLVK
&RQWHQWV
,QWURGXFWLRQ
1.1
Motivation ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Organisation of the Thesis ................................................................................. 4
1.3
Bibliography...................................................................................................... 5
'HVLJQRI)53+XOOV
2.1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2
Structural Design ............................................................................................... 8
2.3
2.2.1
Single-Skin Hull Design......................................................................... 9
2.2.2
Sandwich Hull Design.......................................................................... 13
Design Loads ................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1
Global Loads........................................................................................ 17
2.3.2
Local Loads ......................................................................................... 20
2.3.3
Slamming Loads .................................................................................. 20
2.4
Summary ......................................................................................................... 29
2.5
Bibliography.................................................................................................... 30
vii
&RQWHQWV
viii
1RQOLQHDU6DQGZLFK3ODWH7KHRU\

3.1
Introduction..................................................................................................... 33
3.2
Theory............................................................................................................. 34
3.3
3.2.1
Assumptions and Configurations ......................................................... 34
3.2.2
Strain Displacement Relations ............................................................. 36
3.2.3
Equilibrium Equations ......................................................................... 39
Analytical Solutions ........................................................................................ 41

3.3.1
A Complete Analytical Solution, 6ROXWLRQ......................................... 42
3.3.2
A Combined Analytical Solution, 6ROXWLRQ........................................ 45
3.4
Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 56
3.5
Summary ......................................................................................................... 59
3.6
Bibliography ................................................................................................... 59
1XPHULFDO)RUPXODWLRQRI'\QDPLF7KHRU\

4.1
Introduction..................................................................................................... 61
4.2
Integration Scheme in Time and Space ............................................................ 62
4.3
4.4
4.2.1
Central Finite Differences.................................................................... 63
4.2.2
Newmarks Method ............................................................................. 64
4.2.3
Numerical Formulation of Equilibrium Equations ................................ 65
4.2.4
Boundary Conditions ........................................................................... 70
Solution Procedure .......................................................................................... 71

4.3.1
Iteration Loops and Time Steps............................................................ 71
4.3.2
Eigenfrequency and Added Mass ......................................................... 73
4.3.3
Formulation of Coefficient Matrix ....................................................... 75
Verification of the Method .............................................................................. 81

4.4.1
Static Response ................................................................................... 81
4.4.2
Dynamic Response .............................................................................. 88
4.5
Summary ......................................................................................................... 91
4.6
Bibliography ................................................................................................... 91
&RQWHQWVix
)DLOXUHRI&RPSRVLWH3ODWHV

5.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 93
5.2
Failure Modes.................................................................................................. 94
5.3
5.4
5.2.1
Face Fracture ....................................................................................... 95
5.2.2
Local Buckling..................................................................................... 95
5.2.3
General Buckling ................................................................................. 96
Lamina Failure Analysis .................................................................................. 98

5.3.1
Principal Strains and Stresses............................................................. 100
5.3.2
Lamina Failure Modes and Criteria .................................................... 101
Laminate Failure Analysis ............................................................................. 108

5.4.1
5.5
Laminate Failure Model ..................................................................... 108
Core Failure Analysis .................................................................................... 109

5.5.1
Core Shear Failure ............................................................................. 110
5.5.2
Debonding of Core and Face .............................................................. 111
5.5.3
Shear Crimping .................................................................................. 112
5.5.4
Core Indentation ................................................................................ 112
5.6
Summary ....................................................................................................... 112
5.7
Bibliography.................................................................................................. 113
3URJUHVVLYH'DPDJH$QDO\VLV

6.1
Introduction ................................................................................................... 115
6.2
Plate Stiffness Reduction Model .................................................................... 116
6.3
Comparison of Damage Model and Experiments ............................................ 118
6.4
Failure Scenario Example .............................................................................. 121
6.5
Ultimate Strength, Linear and Non-Linear Analysis ....................................... 126
6.6
Summary ....................................................................................................... 128
6.7
Bibliography.................................................................................................. 129
&RQWHQWV
x
$QDO\VLVDQG'HVLJQZLWK3DQHO

7.1
Introduction................................................................................................... 131
7.2
The Structure of 3DQHO................................................................................... 131
7.3
Analysis of Existing Design........................................................................... 134

7.3.1
Rescue Vessel LRB ........................................................................... 134
7.3.2
Mine Hunter SF300 ........................................................................... 139
7.3.3
Racing Yacht ILC40 .......................................................................... 141
7.4
Design Example ............................................................................................ 144
7.5
Summary ....................................................................................................... 145
'LVFXVVLRQRIWKH'19&RGH

8.1
Introduction................................................................................................... 147
8.2
The Stiffened Single Skin Rule...................................................................... 147
8.3
The Sandwich Rule ....................................................................................... 151
8.4
Summary ....................................................................................................... 153
8.5
Bibliography ................................................................................................. 154
&RQFOXVLRQ

$$QDO\WLFDO6ROXWLRQ

%3URJUDP3DQHO

&KDSWHU
,QWURGXFWLRQ
7KRVHZKRIDOOLQORYHZLWKSUDFWLVHZLWKRXWVFLHQFH
DUHOLNHDVDLORUZKRVWHHUVDVKLSZLWKRXWDKHOPRU
FRPSDVVDQGZKRQHYHUFDQEHFHUWDLQZKLWKHUKHLV
JRLQJ
Leonardo Da Vinci
0RWLYDWLRQ
This thesis deals with the structural behaviour of laminated composite hull plates in highspeed light craft. Composites made of fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) are often superior to
steel and aluminium as building material for high-speed light craft (HSLC) due to a low
weight/strength ratio. The high specific strength of glass fibres together with the superior
specific stiffness offered by carbon and other high-modulus fibres has led to an increasing
use of these materials in fast marine vessels, such as ferries, special military ships and
high-performance sailing and power boats. The knowledge of the material behaviour,
strength and fatigue of FRP composites is still limited. Most designs are based on boat
building experience rather than structural analysis, which is often too expensive to perform. The background for this study is the need of a handy design tool which, in a short
time, is able to perform response and failure analysis of sandwich and single-skin FRP
structures.
Understanding of geometrical non-linear behaviour, due to large lateral deflections, is essential in order to produce correct and efficient composite designs. It has been known for a
number of years that the geometrical non-linearity of laterally loaded FRP plates is significant already at low load levels. This has been experimentally shown both for singleskin plates, Shenoi, Moy and Allen [7], and for sandwich plates, Bau, Kildegaard and
Svendsen [1].
1
&KDSWHU,QWURGXFWLRQ
At present, most of the dimensioning procedures for FRP hull plates rely on linear (small
deflection) theory. In addition, the scantlings of composite plates in HSLC are often restricted by the empirical and somewhat arbitrary rule of a maximum lateral deflection related to the panel span. This design criterion is imposed by many classification societies
such as %9 [2] and '19 [3] and further discussed in Riber and Terndrup [6]. Since this
criterion, in general, restricts the designs it is of interest to investigate alternative calculation procedures.
Motivated by this, a dynamic finite difference model is developed. The model is based on
geometrical non-linear plate theory including the transverse shear deformation, which is
pronounced for sandwich plates with relatively flexible core. It is formed into a Fortrancoded design tool 3DQHO dealing with orthotropic asymmetric composite single-skin and
sandwich plates. Subjected to time-dependent lateral loads and with different boundary
conditions, the plates are analysed statically as well as dynamically with respect to lateral
deflections, strains and stresses. Furthermore, failure loads, locations and modes are calculated and visualised by use of a progressive damage model based on the appropriate
failure criteria.
The concept of the model is to provide a simple and a fast tool, which can be used in the
dimensioning phase of hull panels. With a complete design based on calculations and
analyses with 3DQHO, more detailed information of the internal stress level can be obtained,
if needed, by use of 3-D finite element (FEM) analyses of particular details in the structure.
Various authors, among others Hildebrand and Visuri [5] and Falk [4], also using non-linear approaches for FRP plate response analysis, suggest the use of larger panel fields in
order to eliminate errors introduced by incorrect boundary conditions. However, those
methods are still based on time-consuming FEM calculations, and yet display the problem
of defining the correct boundary conditions for the large panel field.
As an example the rescue boat (Fig. 1.1) is built of foam core sandwich with glass/epoxy
skins. It is dimensioned for a vertical acceleration of 5 J, equivalent to a slamming load of
125 .3D in order to withstand the rough weather conditions in the North Sea. However,
the bottom part of the hull is conservatively dimensioned, since the structural design follows the common classification rules, and moreover, the strict requirements for structural
safety prescribed by the national authorities.
0RWLYDWLRQ3
Figure 1.1: 5HVFXHERDWPDGHRIHSR[\JODVVVDQGZLFKSDQHOV

Contrary to rescue boats, the requirements for structural safety in the design of high- performance sailing boats are low. These designs are governed by high performance rather
than structural safety and endurance. This could be observed during the recent round-theworld solo regattas, where structural failures resulted in loss of boats and human lives.
Too many designs among this type of boats are badly analysed with regard to structural response and safety.
Figure 1.2: 6DLOLQJERDWPDGHRIHSR[\FDUERQJODVVSDQHOV

Navy vessels form a third group of FRP high-speed craft consisting of mine hunters, gun
boats, patrol boats etc. These ships are normally well analysed with respect to the ultimate
strength. The hull structures are designed close to the structural limits, since the vessels,
in general, need no classification approval. At present, the most modern ship in the Danish
&KDSWHU,QWURGXFWLRQ
Navy is the 54 P multipurpose ship, 6) (Fig. 1.3), which is a glass/polyester foam
core sandwich design originating from the Swedish Navy. Among the most advanced ships
in this group are the Swedish high-speed craft 6P\JHQ and <6. The first is a 30 P
SEStest boat, whereas the latter is a 75 P multi-purpose ship with approximately the same
displacement as the 6).
Figure 1.3:
SDQHOV
'DQLVKPXOWLSXUSRVHQDYDOYHVVHO6)EXLOWRISRO\HVWHUJODVVVDQGZLFK
2UJDQLVDWLRQRIWKH7KHVLV
The subject of this thesis is presented in 9 chapters composed as follows. Chapter 2 gives
an overview and an introduction to FRP hull manufacturing and structural hull design,
followed by the appropriate design loads with special focus on slamming pressures. In
Chapter 3 the general non-linear sandwich theory is presented and two analytical solutions
are derived in order to provide alternative simple design methods for FRP sandwich
plates. Chapter 4 presents a numerical formulation of the theory given in Chapter 3. The
result is programmed into a design tool 3DQHO, which is intended for preliminary design of
FRP hull panels. Chapter 5 discusses different failure criteria and failure modes, which are
implemented in a progressive damage model described in Chapter 6.
A brief introduction and a description of the design tool 3DQHO are given in Chapter 7 illustrated with examples of designs and analyses of FRP sandwich hull plates. Chapter 8
discusses the '19 HSLC code in the light of results calculated with 3DQHO.
%LEOLRJUDSK\5
%LEOLRJUDSK\
[1] Bau-Madsen N.K., Svendsen K.H. and Kildegaard A. Large Deflections of Sandwich
Plates - an Experimental Investigation. &RPSRVLWH 6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 23, pp. 47-52,
1993
[2] Bureau Veritas. Rules for the Construction and Classification of High Speed Craft.
17 bis, Place des Reflets, La Defense 2, 92400 Courbevoie, France, 1995.
[3] DNV. Classification Rules for High Speed Light Craft, Det Norske Veritas Research
AS, Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Hvik, Norway, 1991.
[4] Falk L. Membrane Stresses in Laterally Loaded Marine Sandwich Panels. 3URFHHG
LQJV RI WKH UG ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RQIHUHQFH RQ 6DQGZLFK &RQVWUXFWLRQV, Southampton,
UK. Vol. 1 (4A), 1995.
[5] Hildebrand M. and Visuri M. The Non-linear Behaviour of Stiffened FRP-Sandwich
Structures for Marine Applications. 7HFKQLFDO 5HSRUW 977 9$/% , Espoo, Finland, 1996.
[6] Riber H.J. and Terndrup Pedersen P. Examination of Criteria for Panel Deflection in
DNVs Rules for High Speed and Light Craft. Technical Report No. 96-2014, Det
Norske Veritas Research AS, Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Hvik, Norway, May, 1996.
[7] Shenoi R.A., Allen H.G. and Moy S.S.J. Strength and Stiffness of FRP Plates. 3URF
,QVW&LYLO(QJUV6WUXFWXUHVDQG%XLOGLQJV, May 1996.
&KDSWHU,QWURGXFWLRQ
&KDSWHU
'HVLJQRI)53+XOOV
,QWURGXFWLRQ
Fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) composites are among the most commonly used building
materials for high speed light craft (HSLC) hulls. This is mainly because of the high
strength-to-weight ratio of the material, which is ideal for construction of ship hulls and
makes it a cost-efficient material. Further, the FRP is corrosion-resistant and has a low
maintenance cost. Finally, the low magnetic characteristic of most FRPs makes them
suited for smaller naval ships assigned for special tasks, such as mine hunting.
In order to design a high-speed vessel the use of light materials in the structure is obviously an advantage. However, for longer ships (/ > 50 P) the hull flexibility must be
considered as the relatively low hull beam stiffness of FRP ships compared to steel ships
may introduce fatigue damages in the hull, Hansen et al. [8].
ZO
The common definition made by 7KH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 0DULWLPH 2UJDQLVDWLRQ (,02), of
when a vessel is categorised as a high-speed craft is a minimum requirement for the service speed/displacement ratio, which states:
9 3.7 1/ 6
(2. 1)
with the forward speed, 9, in knots and the displacement, , in tons. In general, the classification societies use this definition for HSLC and apply special design rules for these
types of vessels. The leading classification societies providing rules for HSLC design are
American Bureau of Shipping ($%6), Bureau Veritas (%9), Det Norske Veritas ('19),
Lloyds Register (/5) and Registro Italiano Navale (5,1D).
Most of the existing FRP high-speed craft are small (/ P). This is mainly due to the
limitations of the technical aspects in the construction of large FRP hulls. However, this
ZO
8&KDSWHU'HVLJQRI)53+XOOV
limit has been exceeded for several ships and, certainly, more FRP vessels beyond 50 P of
length will appear in the future. Currently, the Swedish Navy is building a multipurpose
warship with a maximum speed of approximately 50 NQRWV and a length of about 75 P,
using foam core sandwich with skins of glass, carbon/aramid fibres in a vinylester resin
for the hull.
6WUXFWXUDO'HVLJQ
A structural hull design is primarily based on the knowledge of the ultimate load conditions the particular ship will meet during its lifetime. From these design loads the preliminary hull layout can begin and each structural member can be dimensioned in accordance
with the prescribed rules. When it is decided to use FRP composite as the building material, either sandwich or stiffened single skin can be selected for the hull structure. Often,
the choice is determined from building traditions and design philosophy rather than simply
technical considerations. E.g. the sandwich technology is widely used in the high-performance craft built by the Swedish Navy. In contrast, the British Navy has a long tradition of
using stiffened single skin for their HSLC marine vessels from the point of view that
shock loads may cause delamination of the skin from the core.
The primary structural design criteria, which should be taken into consideration in the design phase of sandwich and single-skin hulls, are listed in the following:
global hull bending, shear and torsion deformations

panel deflections
stresses in the skins or in the laminates
stresses in the core
skin wrinkling
global panel stability
Prior to the choice of hull type, the assets and the drawbacks involved in the manufacturing and design of either single skin or sandwich should be taken into consideration. The
two concepts are outlined in the following, in addition to the FRP design rules imposed by
some of the leading authorities, in order to provide the reader with an overview of the two
different building concepts and to give an idea of the limits of the design rules.
6LQJOH6NLQ+XOO'HVLJQ
The stiffened single-skin concept is technically the simplest way of building a FRP composite hull. Basically, it requires a female mould in which the fibre mats impregnated with
resin are applied. Pre-fabricated stiffeners are then attached by use of additional fibre-re-
6WUXFWXUDO'HVLJQ9
inforced mats or by use of an adhesive (resin). Alternatively, the stiffeners are shaped directly on the skin by use of a light type of foam as an inner mould for the stiffener (Fig.
2.1).
The lay-up is usually done by hand, and more recently, with help by sophisticated vacuum
techniques and temperature-regulated moulds. This technique requires expensive tools
such as special moulds, vacuum-bags and -pumps. However, improved and costly manufacturing techniques are required in order to ensure sufficient quality of the hulls in modern FRP high-performance vessels.
Transverse stiffener
Longitudinal stiffener
Foam core
Single skin
Resin, adhesive
or filler material
Figure 2.1: 6LQJOHVNLQFRQFHSWZLWKORQJLWXGLQDODQGWUDQVYHUVHIRDPFRUHVWLIIHQHUV
The often complicated stiffener system is laborious to manufacture, especially as the stiffener attachment to the hull requires careful mechanical surface preparations. Delamination
of the stiffener from the hull is often observed in regions with high impact loads and
where the stiffener has been badly assembled. The stress concentrations can be decreased
drastically by rounding the corners of the stiffener reinforcement as illustrated in Fig. 2.2.
High stress concentrations are introduced in the left stiffener attachment, since the radius
of curvature is very small, whereas the right stiffener evens out the stress level due to the
longer radius of curvature.
Stiffener reinforcement
Stress concentrations
and delamination
Curvature 1/U
TR
Figure 2.2: 6WLIIHQHUDWWDFKPHQWWRKXOO
The primary structural design criteria for single-skin plates in the bottom of the hull provided by the classification societies, Bureau Veritas, %9 [3], and Det Norske Veritas, '19
[5], are listed and commented on in the following (Eqs. 2.2-7). The numbers in brackets
refer to the numbers in the respective rule set. Note that the units are in SI.
Minimum thickness, Wmin , of the skin:
%9
W min = 15
. 10 3 0.97 / + 10
'19
W min = 10 3
ZO
5.0 + 0.09 /
ZO
. 10 8
16
(C.3.8.4.3.34)
(2. 2)
(A 202, Sec. 6)
(2. 3)
QX
where /
ZO
is the waterline length and

W
PLQ
QX
is the ultimate tensile stress.
[PP] Minimum hull thickness as function of hull length
16
%9 Eq. 2.2
'19 Eq. 2.3
14
12
10
QX = 160 03D
8
6
4
0
20
40
60
80
Length /
ZO
100
[P]
Figure 2.3: 0LQLPXPVNLQWKLFNQHVVUHTXLUHGE\%XUHDX9HULWDVDQG'HW1RUVNH9HULWDV.
6WUXFWXUDO'HVLJQ11
In the range of 10 - 100 metres of length the '19 requirement for the minimum skin
thickness is approximately 12 % lower than the requirement for %9, (Fig. 2.3). The minimum thickness rule is intended for design against impact, however, it must be considered
in the design of laterally loaded panels.
Maximum stress,
PD[
, from a given load, T, on a square simply supported panel:
E
= 0.313 T
W
2
max
%9
'19 max
0.22 nu
Z
+ 6.47 E 2

W
=
T 0.30 QX
2
W
Z
30 + 23
W
(C.3.8.4.3.35)
(2. 4)
(B 202-3, Sec. 6)
(2. 5)
2.42
where Z is the midpoint lateral deflection, W is the skin thickness, E is the plate breadth
and T is the lateral pressure.
Eq. 2.5 is a combination of the '19rules B 202-203, in order to make a better comparison with the %9 rule (Eq. 2.4). The rules are presented for the special case of a plate with
an aspect ratio equal to one and simply supported boundary conditions. However, both sets
of rules provide correction factors depending on varying aspect ratios and boundary conditions. The '19 rules are based on non-linear theory and consequently, they are less conservative than the %9 rules (Figs. 2.4-5). Furthermore, the maximum allowable stress
value given by '19 is 35 % higher than suggested by %9.
PD[[03D] Maximum stress as a function of relative deflection
35
30
T .3D
EW
25
20
15
10
%9 Eq. 2.4
'19 Eq. 2.5
5
0
0
0,5
1,5
Relative deflection ZW
Figure 2.4: 6WUHVVUHVSRQVHDFFRUGLQJWR%XUHDX9HULWDVDQG'HW1RUVNH9HULWDV
The relative midpoint deflection is expressed for both the codes in Eqs. 2.6-7:
E
Z E T
148
. 10 2 , Z
=
W W (
100
4
%9
Z
Z
Z E T
'19 + 2.4 =
3.35 10 2 , 1
W
W W (
W
3
(C.3.8.4.3.38)
(2. 6)
(B 202, Sec.6)
(2. 7)
where ( is the elasticity-modulus of the plate. The formulae are given for a plate with
clamped boundary conditions (only case provided in the %9 code).
Relative deflection as a function of lateral load
ZW
%9, Eq. 2.6
2.0
'19, Eq. 2.7
( *3D
EW
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Lateral load T [.3D]
Figure 2.5: 5HODWLYH ODWHUDOGHIOHFWLRQDFFRUGLQJWR%XUHDX9HULWDVDQG'HW1RUVNH9HULWDV

At the maximum deflection (ZW ) the '19 rule, which is rewritten in the form of Eq.
2.7, allows 42 % more lateral load than calculated by the %9 rule (Eq. 2.6) for a representative GRP hull plate (Fig. 2.5). It is evident that the '19 code is more sophisticated than
the %9 code concerning the design of FRP single-skin plates, since it takes into account
the non-linearity from large deflections.
In the design of FRP stiffened single-skin plates, the above rules usually determine the
minimum scantlings. The rules must be supplied by additional design formulae regarding
local and global buckling, stress analyses at specific locations etc. in order to ensure a
complete structural analysis of the hull components.
6WUXFWXUDO'HVLJQ13
6DQGZLFK+XOO'HVLJQ
A sandwich consists of three main parts (Fig. 2.6): face (or skins), core and a bonding
material. The sandwich structure is defined by ASTM [2] as follows:
$VWUXFWXUDOVDQGZLFKLVDVSHFLDOIRUPRIDODPLQDWHGFRPSRVLWHFRPSULVLQJDFRPELQD
WLRQRIGLIIHUHQWPDWHULDOVWKDWDUHERQGHGWRHDFKRWKHUVRDVWRXWLOLVHWKHSURSHUWLHV RI
HDFKVHSDUDWHFRPSRQHQWWRWKHVWUXFWXUDODGYDQWDJHRIWKHZKROHDVVHPEO\
%RQGLQJPDWHULDO
)DFHPDWHULDO
&RUHPDWHULDO
Figure 2.6: 6FKHPDWLFGUDZLQJRIDVDQGZLFKVWUXFWXUH

The primary advantage of using the sandwich concept in a FRP hull instead of a stiffened
single-skin structure is the built-in flexural stiffness of the sandwich, which makes the
stiffener system unnecessary. The bending and the in-plane stresses are mainly carried by
the faces, whereas the shear stresses are taken by the core. The building of an FRP sandwich hull requires, however, more technical skills and advanced technology than building
a single skin hull.
The most common production method of a sandwich hull is to make use of a female mould
and proceed as for the single skin hull. After the outer skin has been formed in the mould
the core, usually PVC foams but also aluminium or resin-impregnated honeycomb, is
bonded to the skin employing an adhesive, which is most often the resin used for the
skins. Next, the core material is tapered before the inner skin is applied to the core.
Alternatively, the building process can be reversed, as done for the 6), in case of
large hulls or when only a small series of hulls is built. The ship is built upside down by
using the transverse frames as a male mould on which the core is formed. Then, the outer
skin is applied and the hull is turned around proceeding with the inner skin as for the single-skin hull production. In order to secure strong bonding between the skins and the core
the use of vacuum technique is an advantage.
6WLIIQHVVWRZHLJKWUDWLRRIVDQGZLFKYHUVXVVLQJOHVNLQSODWHV
Face thickness =Wand0DVV
IDFH
0DVV
FRUH
1
2
(2 W ) 3 = W 3
12
3
0DVV1 = 2 0DVV IDFH
W
,1 =
W
1
14 3
3
, 2 = 2 W W + 2 W 3 =
W = 7 ,1
2
12
3
2
0DVV2 = 2 0DVV IDFH +
0DVV IDFH = 1.04 0DVV1
25
,2
,1
= 6.73
0DVV2
0DVV1
5HODWLYHEHQGLQJVWLIIQHVV
W W
F
F
W
W
1
182 3
11
, 3 = 2 W W + 2 W 3 =
W = 91, 1
2
12
3
10
0DVV3 = 2 0DVV IDFH +
0DVV IDFH = 12
. 0DVV1
25
,3
,1
= 758
.
0DVV3
0DVV1
Figure 2.7: %HQGLQJVWLIIQHVVWRZHLJKWUDWLRVIRUVDQGZLFKDQGVLQJOHVNLQFURVVVHFWLRQV

The sandwich is a structurally efficient structure with regard to stiffness/weight ratio,
which is illustrated in Figure 2.7. The example shows the moment of inertia, ,, the specific
weight, :, and the stiffness/weight ratio, ,:, for a representative GRP hull sandwich. For
a modern sandwich hull design the face/core thickness ratio is about 1/10, which gives a
relative bending stiffness of almost 75 times the stiffness of the equivalent single skin. It
should be noted that the comparison neglects the stiffener for the single skin. However,
the example illustrates the structural efficiency of the sandwich concept.
The structural design criteria for sandwich plates in FRP hulls provided by Bureau Veritas, %9 [3], and Det Norske Veritas, '19 [5], are listed in the following (Eqs. 2.8-13).
Minimum thickness, Wmin , of the faces:
%9
W min = 0.6 10 3 0.97 / + 10

ZO
(C.3.8.4.4.42)
(2. 8)
6WUXFWXUDO'HVLJQ15
W min = 10 3
'19
. + 0.09 /
15
ZO
(A 203, Sec. 5)
. 10 8
16
(2. 9)
QX
PLQ
[PP]
Minimum face thickness as function of hull length
12
%9 Eq. 2.8
'19 Eq. 2.9
10
QX = 160 03D
8
6
4
2
20
40
60
80
Length /
ZO
100
[P]
Figure 2.8: 0LQLPXPIDFHWKLFNQHVVUHTXLUHGE\%XUHDX9HULWDVDQG'HW1RUVNH9HULWDV.

The linear '19 rule for minimum face thickness penalises unnecessarily long ships. The
non-linear formula given by %9 seems more reasonable.
Maximum stresses, max,
%9
max = 0.052
max = 0.55
TE
G
PD[
, and deflection, Z
TE 2
:
0.22 nu
0.4 nu
TE 2
'19 max = 0.050
0.30 nu
:
TE
max = 0.34
0.35 nu
G
PD[
, from a given pressure,T:
(C.3.8.4.4.43)
(2. 10)
(C.3.8.4.4.47)
(B 201, Sec. 5)
(2. 11)
(B202, Sec. 5)
where : is the section modulus of the sandwich plate. For a sandwich with equal face
thickness, we get : GW , where G is the distance between the neutral axes of the two
faces. The rules are given for sandwich plates with aspect ratio equal to one and simply
IDFH
supported boundary conditions. The '19 rules provide correction factors depending on
different aspect ratios and boundary conditions and, consequently, represent a more detailed set of rules, than the one of %9.
The face stress response is approximately the same for the two expressions (4 % higher
predicted by %9) but the maximum allowable stress given by '19 is 35 % higher than the
one imposed by %9. The core shear stress predicted by %9 is almost 62 % higher than the
one of '19. This is due to the simplification of the %9 rule, which covers all aspect ratios
in one single expression. For larger aspect ratios, the core shear stress (%9) is only 8 %
higher than calculated by '19, hence the %9 is based on beam theory more than plate
theory.
The relative midpoint deflection response is expressed for both of the codes below:
%9
E
TE 4
TE 2
Z
Z = 2.47
+ 75.6
2
*F G
100
(IG WI
(C.3.8.4.3.38)
(2. 12)
'19
E
TE 4
TE 2
Z
Z = 2.03
+ 74
2
*F G
100
(IG WI
(B 400, Sec. 5)
(2. 13)
where ( is the E-modulus of the faces and * is the shear-modulus of the core. The formulas are given for the case of a plate with clamped boundary conditions. In order to express the two rules in the same form, the following approximations are made for eliminating the moment of inertia, ,, in the %9 rule.
I
G 11
. W FRUH
0.25
G2
W
2 IDFH
The %9 rule is the most cautious of the two and gives the deflection response for clamped
boundary conditions and symmetric sandwich plates only. The '19 code also offers the
possibility of using different faces and simply supported boundary conditions.
The above discussion of the design rules for stiffened single-skin and sandwich plates,
using the classification societies '19 and %9 as examples, shows that there is extensive
guidelines for making such structures. Yet, the sandwich rules need further investigation
since the rules in this field are based solely on linear theory. Furthermore, the maximum
deflection criterion, ZE 0.01, generally determines the scantlings of the plate, even
though the stress levels are far below the allowable limits.
'HVLJQ/RDGV17
'HVLJQ/RDGV
The dimensioning loads for the hull of small high-speed craft are mainly impact loads
from vertical accelerations of the hull penetrating the water surface, i.e. slamming. The
structural response from the global loads, such as hogging and sagging of the hull beams,
are often minor compared to the response from slamming loads. The HSLC dimensioning
rules from most classification societies neglect the global loads. If the ship is below a
certain overall length. '19, for example, requires only analyses with local design loads if
the ship is less than 50 P in length.
*OREDO/RDGV
For vessels exceeding the limit criteria of the small craft definition as specified by the individual classification societies, the global hull strength must be taken into consideration
as well as the local strength requirements. Thus, the following load situations (Figs. 2.9ab) must be analysed with regard to global strength:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Crest landing moment

Hollow landing moment
Hogging moment
Sagging moment
Shear forces from longitudinal loading
For vessels with more than one hull, additional loads must be analysed:
1. Torsional moment
2. Transverse bending moment
3. Transverse shear force
Transverse stress resultants of twin hull
7UDQVYHUVHEHQGLQJVKHDUDQGWRUVLRQ
Figure 2.9a: &RQWLQXHGRQWKHQH[WSDJH.
Slamming-induced global moments
&UHVWODQGLQJ
+ROORZODQGLQJ
Wave-induced global moments
6DJJLQJ
+RJJLQJ
Figure 2.9b: *OREDOORDGVLQGXFHGLQWKHKXOOEHDPE\ZDYHVDQGVODPPLQJ

Rough estimates (from '19 [5]) of the above illustrated global bending moments and
shear forces for mono-hulls are given here. The crest and hollow moments are derived
considering the hull as a simple beam (Fig. 2.10), where is the ship displacement, J =
9.81 PV , D is the design acceleration and O the extent of the longitudinal slamming area,
(SI units).

KROORZ
FUHVW
/&* (longitudinal centre of gravity)
HZ
5HDFWLRQ
HU
) = J 0 + D GHVLJQ
5HDFWLRQ
)
/&* for forward

and aft half of ship
OV
5HDFWLRQ
Figure 2.10: %HDPPRGHOIRUDSSUR[LPDWHJOREDOEHQGLQJPRPHQWVLQVKLSKXOO
)
'HVLJQ/RDGV19
&UHVW/DQGLQJ0RPHQW
0 FUHVW =
OV
J 0 + D GHVLJQ HZ
2
4
(2. 14)
+ROORZ/DQGLQJ0RPHQW
0 KROORZ =
J 0 + D GHVLJQ 1 Z H Z
HU
2
(2. 15)
The hogging/sagging moments and the shear forces are derived by integration of the forces
from still-water analyses (buoyancy and body forces) in addition to the resultants from the
wave contribution (hydrodynamic forces), Pedersen and Jensen [15]. Tentative design
formulas are given below for ship length / P, '19 [5].
ZO
+RJJLQJ0RPHQW0 KRJ (still water + wave)
0 KRJ = 24 /3ZO %ZO &E
(2. 16)
6DJJLQJ0RPHQW0 VDJ (still water + wave)
0 VDJ = 10 /3ZO %ZO (&E + 0.7) 0.85 + 0.34

/ZO
(2. 17)
6KHDU)RUFH4 E
4E = 4
0 WRWDO 3
10
/ZO
(2. 18)
where / , % , & and 9 are length, breadth, block coefficient and maximum speed, respectively, (SI units).
ZO
ZO
/RFDO/RDGV
The non-linear sandwich theory does not take into account local bending of the faces due
to vertical displacement of the core. According to the definition of a sandwich: WRXWLOLVH
WKH SURSHUWLHV RI HDFK VHSDUDWH FRPSRQHQW WR WKH VWUXFWXUDO DGYDQWDJH RI WKH ZKROH DV
VHPEO\ (Sec. 2.2), it should not be necessary to include analysis of local bending of the
faces, as a structure with a significant effect of local face bending is simply not a sandwich. However, in real life local bending moments are sometimes introduced. As for fail-
ure prediction it is essential to analyse local bending effects in order to determine some
types of delamination.
Thomsen [16] derives an analytical expression for approximate solutions of local bending
effects in sandwich plates with orthotropic face layers subjected to localised loads. The
local loads can be concentrated external loads or line loads at the plate boundaries inducing large peeling stresses i.e a stress resultant in ] -direction, which may result in
face/core delamination.
In his work the local bending analysis is based on the assumption that the relative deflection of the loaded face against the core can be modelled by application of an elastic foundation model. This is achieved by introducing a two-parameter elastic foundation model,
which takes into account the vertical and shear stress effects between the loaded face and
the core. The overall solution is completed by superposition of the linear sandwich theory
and the local solution.
Nevertheless, it is doubtful if the solution can be superimposed with the non-linear sandwich theory presented in Chapter 3. For more detailed sandwich plate analysis concerning
edge delamination, the method is recommended for small lateral deflections.
6ODPPLQJ/RDGV
A rather irregular load on high-speed craft is the slamming pressure, which is caused by
the impact of the bottom of the hull against the water surface resulting in a sudden change
of the relative acceleration of the boat. Slamming is an impulsive pressure during a very
short period of time (milliseconds). For design of FRP hull panels the slamming pressure
is generally the dimensioning load. A theoretical derivation of the slamming pressure is
shown, followed by a simple approach to determine an equivalent static pressure as the
design load.
It may be argued that the peak pressures have little importance for the panel response
since they occur in a very short period of time. Thus, to compare slamming and strain response it is convenient to average the pressure over a period of time and a given area. Finally, the strain response is dependent on the pressure variation in time and place (Eq.
2.19).
= I () S(W , [ , \ )
where I () is a response function.
(2. 19)
'HVLJQ/RDGV21
Typical slamming measurements are shown in Fig. 2.11. The duration of the pressure
peaks is approximately 0.01 seconds, which requires a sample frequency of at least 100
+].
Slamming measurements on a 470 hull panel
Pressure [.3D]
8
+V
8Y
FJ
Sample frequency 33 +]
6
,PSDFW
Fig. 2.14
P
PV

0
-1
Time [VHF]
Figure 2.11: 7\SLFDOPHDVXUHGWLPHKLVWRU\RIVODPPLQJSUHVVXUH5LEHU>@
A simple way to model a hull slamming pressure is to consider the problem of a wedge
penetrating a liquid surface. Several two dimensional analyses of this type have been published, including those by Karman [9] and Wagner [17]. Among the more recent publications are Szebehely [14], Chuang [4], Ochi and Bledsoe [11] and Payne [12], the latter is
based on the theory by Karman.
Hansen [7] compares the different slamming theories of the above-mentioned authors and
concludes that the simple theory by Karman produces adequate results. The following
derivation of the slamming pressure is based on the work by Karman.
A wedge-shaped body of mass 0 and of a dead-rise angle strikes a horizontal surface of
water with the velocity 8 and generates a two-dimensional flow (Fig. 2.12). The wedge is
considered to be rigid and to enter the liquid with a velocity normal to the liquid surface.
Thus, neither hull flexibility nor forward speed is taken into account.
Y
After the body has entered the water its velocity at time W is 9 . The momentum, , , of this
system becomes:
Y
, 08 0P9 (2. 20)

P
neglecting the effect of gravity, buoyancy and skin friction, since they are considered negligible in comparison with the unsteady hydrodynamic force according to Szebehely [14].
z
H
H
piled up water
9Y
Figure 2.12: :HGJHVKDSHGERG\VWULNLQJWKHZDWHUVXUIDFH

The added mass, P, comes into existence when the body pushes away the fluid in front of
it, which creates a flow around the body. The added mass is found from the kinetic energy
of the fluid put in motion by
2 ( NLQ
= 2
2
9Y
9Y
P=
9RO (JUDG ) G9RO

2
(2. 21)
which is transformed by Greens theorem to

P=
9Y2
Q G6
6
(2. 22)
where is the velocity potential, 6 is the boundary area between the water and the body
and is the density of the fluid. For a flat plate of semi-width H, where the upper part of
the plate is not in contact with the water at the instant of impact, the added mass per unit
length becomes:
P=
1
H 2
2
(2. 23)
as the potential for the flat plate is given by
( \ , W ) = 9Y H 2 \ 2 , y < H
(2. 24)
The effect of piled-up water is neglected in Eq. 2.24. The true added mass is between
P1 =
1 2
1
H and P2 = H 2
2
2
(2. 25)
'HVLJQ/RDGV23
The ratio H
H = 1 is suggested by Karman [9] , whereas Wagner [17] uses H
H = /2 for
small dead-rise angles (tan ~ ). The phenomenon is profoundly discussed in Szebehely [14]. In the following derivation the piled-up water is neglected. Setting the velocity,
9 , as
G]
G\
9Y =
= tan
(2. 26)
GW
GW
Y
Eq. 2.20 becomes

G\
\ 2
0
tan (1 +
) = 08 Y
GW
20
(2. 27)
yielding
G\
(1 + 1 ) = 8 Y cot ,
GW
1 =
\ 2
20
(2. 28)
which gives the relationship between velocity and depth as

G\ 8 Y cot
=
GW
1 + 1
(2. 29)
Expressing the second derivative of \

G 2 \ G 1 G\ 2
= (2 ( ) )
GW
GW
GW 2
(2. 30)
and combining this expression with Eq. 2.29, we get

G 2]
G 2 \ 8 Y2 cot 2
\
cot
=
)
2
2 =
3 (
0
(1 + 1 )
GW
GW
(2. 31)
Finally, the expression from the force of impact, ), yields

8 Y2 cot \
G 2]
) = 0 ( 2 ) =
GW
(1 + 1 ) 3
(2. 32)
The average pressure becomes

S=
8 Y2 cot
)
=
2\
2 (1 + 1 ) 3
(2. 33)
and the maximum pressure is found at the moment of first contact for \ = 0:
S max
8 Y2
=
cot
2
(2. 34)
Eq. 2.33 averages the pressure over a given wet surface. In order to get the pressure variation along the wet surface of the wedge immersed into the water, we combine the velocity
potential (Eq. 2.24) with Bernoullis equation for unsteady potential flow, neglecting the
effect of gravity, (Eq. 2.35).
S = (
1 2
+ ( ) + I (W )) and ( \ , W ) = 9Y H 2 \ 2 , y < H
t 2 y
(2. 35)
Applying the substitutions and the differentiation (Eqs. 2.36-38) below to Eq. 2.35, an expression for the pressure variation is obtained (Eq. 2.39).
= 9Y ( H 2 \ 2 ) Y H 2 \ 2
W
W
W
1
2H
= 9Y2 (
tan
2
4 1 H 2 \ 2
)
+
H 2 \ 2 tan (1 + 1 ) H
1
\
= 9Y
2
\
H \2
(2. 36)
(2. 37)
where
9Y =
8Y
1 + 1
, 1 =
H 2
20
, H
9Y W
tan
(2. 38)
Finally, the expression for the pressure variation becomes
2
2 1
\
1
2
1
1 tan
2
S = 8 Y
1 2
2
2 H2
tan (1 + 1 ) 2
H
\ 2 (1 + 1 )
1 2
2 1
\
H
=
8 Y2
( WHUP1 WHUP2 WHUP3 )
tan (1 + 1 ) 2
(2. 39)
'HVLJQ/RDGV25
The pressure variation along the wedge is illustrated for a planing 470 dinghy in Fig. 2.13
for a moderate sea state.
0 54NJP 8 3.1 PV
Y
H 0.21P tan17 = 0.31 1015NJP .

The maximum pressure (Eq. 2.39) yields 8.7 .3D Zhich has to be compared to 4.1 .3D
calculated by Eq. 2.33, where the pressure is average over the plate width. This gives an
estimated pressure approximately half the maximum pressure.
Pressure variation along the bottom panel of a 470 sailing boat

3UHVVXUH [.3D]
9
WHUP
WHUP
WHUP
S
3
H 0.21
0
Length from keel [P]
1 2 1 (1 + 1 )
-3
-6
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Figure 2.13: 3UHVVXUHYDULDWLRQDORQJDERWWRP5LEHU>@

The first two terms come from the time derivation of , whereas the last term originates
from the gradient of , which is apparently of minor importance. It can be shown that the
first term is greater than the third term, except very near to the edge. Therefore, not considering the second term, which is finite, the pressure on the entire plate is positive. The
second term comes from the fact that the velocity of the plate 9 is not constant in time.
Y
If 1 > 1 there is a negative pressure zone around the keel as the second term approaches
the value 2 1 (1 + 1 ) , since first term always contributes 1 and the last term nothing at
the keel. For small masses 0 a relatively small plate length H is required to make 1 > 1
(Eq. 2.38). Consequently, a higher probability of having negative pressures around the
keel can be expected for smaller masses than for large. The balance between the first and
second term is physically explained as the balance between the deceleration of the body
and the motion of the water mass around it.
Impact with Flat Bottomed Hull

If a flat bottom (= 0) of the hull hits the surface, Eqs. 2.33 and 2.39 fail. The formulas
yield infinite impact pressures, since the water has been assumed to be incompressible.
Furthermore, neither the hull flexibility nor the damping effect from air cushions is taken
into account. By taking the compressibility of water into consideration, it is possible to
obtain an approximate value for the maximum pressure occurring when a flat body strikes
a horizontal water surface. The mass of fluid, GP, accelerated in the time, GW, is
GP = 6FGW
(2. 40)
where F is the speed of sound in the water (1440 PV) and 6 the surface of fluid struck by
the body. If the dominating force acting on the fluid originates from the body, the equivalent force ) acting on the body is found from
)=
G, P
G9
GP
GP
= 9Y
+ P Y 9Y
GW
GW
GW
GW
(2. 41)
Here, is the impulse from the mass of liquid surrounding the body and 9 is the vertical
velocity, which is assumed to be constant at the impact phase where the slamming pressure happens. Eqs. 2.40-41 yield
P
) = 6F8 Y
(2. 42)
and the pressure averaged over the surface 6 becomes:

) 8 Y2 2F
S= =
,
6
2 8Y
F = 1440 P V
(2. 43)
Thus, the pressure turns out to be a factor 2F8 times the stagnation pressure, which is
not a reasonable result.
Y
Design Method
A simple approach to providing an equivalent uniform static pressure for each structural
component under localised water impact is proposed by Allen and Jones [1]. This method
is based on extensive full-scale trials conducted on a 65-ft and a 95-ft slender planing Vshaped hull and on large-scale structural models in the laboratory. The '19 rule concerning bottom hull slamming pressure for HSLC is partly based on the results from Allen
and Jones [1] and given in the following for a mono-hull.
'HVLJQ/RDGV27

S = 13
. 10 3
10 $G
0 .3
700.7
50
D
50 FJ Fg
(2. 44)
in which $ is the load area of the element considered (for plates $ D E), is the
dead-rise angle at /&* (10 < < 30 [deg]), 7 is the draught at service speed and D is
the vertical design acceleration given as:
G
FJ
IJ
9
. ,
0.76 58138
/ZO /ZO
D FJ =
FJ
I J [1,7]
FJ
(2. 45)
where I is an acceleration factor depending of the type of vessel and the service area, i.e.
a safety factor depending on the probabilistic distribution of the sea-state in various areas
for a given type of vessel.
J
Accurate determination of the vertical design acceleration is difficult. In the design of

HSLC the acceleration levels for crew tolerance and structural design are most frequently
given as the average of the one-tenth highest acceleration, and the equivalent pressure is
found from this imposed or accepted acceleration level, without regard to any empirically
or theoretically based design formulas. Table 2.1 from Koelbel [10] provides a general
guidance for selection of vertical accelerations for structural design.
[J ]
Human affects
Structural application
0.6
minor discomfort
craft for passenger transport
1.0
maximum for military function

long term (> 4hr)
1.5
maximum for military function

short term (1-2 hr)
2.0
3.0
extreme discomfort
4.0
5.0
6.0
physical injury
patrol boats, crews, average owners, test

crews, anglers, long races
medium length races
race boat drivers, short races
military crew under fire
Table 2.1: *HQHUDOJXLGDQFHIRUVHOHFWLRQRIYHUWLFDODFFHOHUDWLRQVIRUVWUXFWXUDOGHVLJQ

$FFHOHUDWLRQOHYHOVUHIHUWRWKHDYHUDJHRIWKHKLJKHVWDWWKHFHQWUHRIJUDYLW\RIWKH
FUDIW
A serviceability design formula for a maximum allowable speed at a given significant
wave height, + , and the vertical design acceleration (Eq. 2.45) is given by '19 as
V
D FJ
where %
ZO
+V
9.81
=
50 FJ
1650 %ZO + 0.084
9 1852
/ZO %ZO2
.
/ 10 3
ZO
(2. 46)
is the waterline breadth at / .

ZO
Comparison of Formulas and Full Scale Tests

Results calculated by use of the above design formula (Eq. 2.44) and the theoretical derived expressions for the slamming pressures (Eqs. 2.33, 2.39, 2.43 and 2.44) are compared in Table 2.2 with experimental results from Riber [13], Fig. 2.14.
Full-scale slamming measurements on bottom panel of 470 sailing boat
Pressure [.3D]
8
7
6
Sample frequency IUHTXHQFH of +]

+V = P
8Y PV
FJ [GHJ]
[GHJ]
,PSDFW
(Fig. 2.11)
5
]
4
3
H = 0.21
0
= 17
\ = 0.2
pressure transducer
0,1
0,2
Time [VHF]
0,3
0,4
0,5
Figure 2.14: 6ODPPLQJLPSDFWRQDKXOOSDQHO5LEHU>@

The full-scale tests are carried out with a 470 sailing boat in protected water (I 1.0). A
pressure transducer is mounted in the bottom hull panel (Fig. 2.14) and the data are logged
while sailing. The constants in Eqs. 2.33, 2.40 and 2.47 are listed below.
J
0 54.JP 8 3.1PV
$
0.09P
7 0.10P
Y
G
H 0.21P 17
9 3.1PV I 1.0
J
10 1015NJP
/ 4.0 = 260.J
FJ
ZO
The results with the calculations of the different slamming expressions and the full-scale
tests are shown in Table 2.2.
'HVLJQ/RDGV29
0HWKRG
(T
(T
(TGHVLJQ
7HVWV)LJ
(T
3UHVVXUH>.3D@
4.1
8.7
9.6
7.9
4531
&RPPHQWV
average
peak
average
peak
flat out 1
Table 2.2: 6ODPPLQJSUHVVXUHRQERWWRPRIKXOOSDQHORIDVDLOLQJERDW

The highest pressure is obtained by the '19 design rule, which is used as a constant lateral load over the entire panel similar to the result obtained by Eq. 2.33, which is two
times lower. The measured pressure (WHVW) and the pressure obtained by Eq. 2.40 both represent peak values of the slamming. The above example indicates that the '19 rule provides reasonable and safe design loads.
6XPPDU\
An overview of FRP sandwich and stiffened single-skin hull manufacturing and structural
design is presented. In addition to this, the corresponding design rules provided by two of
the leading classification societies (%9 and '19) are discussed. The '19 rules are more
detailed and less conservative (except for the minimum thickness) than the %9rules. Furthermore, the '19 rules concerning stiffened single skin take into account the geometrical
non-linear behaviour for large deflections. However, the sandwich rules are still based on
linear theory for both the codes and need further investigation and development.
Global and local loads concerning FRP hull structural design are outlined with focus on
slamming, as this is usually the dimensioning load for the design of hull panels in HSLC.
Moreover, tentative rules for the design loads provided by '19 are presented. Results
from full scale tests on a 470 sailing boat are compared to the '19 design formula and to
theoretical derived expressions for the slamming pressures.
7KLVSUHVVXUHLVKLJKHUWKDQZRXOGDULVHLQWKHWHVWVDVWKHHODVWLFLW\RIWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQ
LVJUHDWHUWKDQWKDWRIWKHZDWHUXQGHUFRPSUHVVLRQ7KHDLUSRFNHWJLYHVDGDPSLQJHIIHFW
ZKLFK UHGXFHV WKH SUHVVXUH +RZHYHU LW LV HYLGHQW WKDW D IODW ERWWRPHG ERDW ZLOO EH OHVV
IDYRXUDEOHGXULQJLPSDFWZLWKWKHZDWHU
%LEOLRJUDSK\
[1] Allen R.G. and Jones R.R. A Simplified Method for Determining Structural Design
Limit Pressures on High Performance marine Vehicles. $,$$61$0($GYDQFHG0D
ULQH9HKLFOH&RQIHUHQFH, 1978.
[2] ASTM. Annual book of ASTM standards. Technical report, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 1991.
[3] Bureau Veritas. Rules for the Construction and Classification of High Speed Craft.
17 bis, Place des Reflets, La Defense 2, 92400 Courbevoie, France, 1995.
[4] Chuang S. Experiments on Slamming of Wedge-shaped Bodies. -RXUQDORI6KLSV5H
VHDUFK. Vol. 11 (4), pp. 190-198, 1967.
[5] DNV. Classification Rules for High Speed Light Craft. Det Norske Veritas Research
[6] DNV. Response of Fast Craft Hull Structures to Slamming Loads. 3URFHHGLQJVRIWKH
6HFRQG ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RQIHUHQFH RQ )DVW 6HD 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ. Vol. 1, pp. 481-398,
1991.
[7] Hansen A.M. Sammenligning af Slammingteorier. Department of Naval Architecture
and Offshore Engineering, DTU, Lyngby, Denmark, 1991, (in danish).
[8] Hansen P.F., Juncher Jensen J. and Terndrup Pedersen P. Long Term Springing and
Whipping Stresses in High Speed Vessels. 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH 7KLUG ,QWHUQDWLRQDO
&RQIHUHQFHRQ)DVW6HD7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ. Vol. 1 (2,1C), pp. 473-485, 1995.
[9] Karman T. The Impact of Seaplane Floats during Landing. NACA TN 321, 1929.
[10] Koelbel J.G. Comments on the Structural Design of High Speed Craft. 0DULQH7HFK
QRORJ\ Vol. 32 (2), pp. 77-100, April, 1995.
[11] Ochi K.M. and Bledsoe M.D. Hydrodynamic Impact with Application to Ship Slamming. )RXUWK6\PSRVLXPRI1DYDO+\GURG\QDPLFV. Washington DC, August. 1962.
[12] Payne P.R. The Vertical Impact of a Wedge on a Fluid. 2FHDQ (QJLQHHULQJ. Vol. 8
(4), pp. 421-436, 1981.
[13] Riber H.J. Strength of a 470 Sailing Boat. MSc. thesis at the Department of Naval
Architecture and Offshore Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 1993.
%LEOLRJUDSK\31
[14] Szebehely V.G. Hydrodynamics of Slamming of Ships. Navy Department Washington DC, report 823, 1952.
[15] Terndrup Pedersen P. and Juncher Jensen J. Styrkeberegning af maritime konstruktioner. Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 1982, (in Danish).
[16] Thomsen O.T. Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Local Bending Effects
in Sandwich Plates. &RPSRVLWH6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 30, pp. 85-101,1995.
[17] Wagner V.H. ber Stoss und Gleitvorgnge an der Oberflche von Flssigkeiten.
ZAMM. Vol. 12, pp. 193-215,1939, (in German).
&KDSWHU
1RQOLQHDU6DQGZLFK3ODWH7KHRU\
,QWURGXFWLRQ
This chapter focuses on analytical solution methods for the response of orthotropic sandwich composite plates with large deflections due to high lateral loads, with special application to the design of composite panels in ship structures. A geometrical non-linear theory is outlined, on the basis of the classical sandwich plate theory expanded by the higherorder terms in the strain displacement relations, including shear deformation. By use of
the principle of minimum potential energy, two different methods are derived for the simply supported and the clamped cases. The solutions are presented as simple design formulas. The results of the analytical calculations are discussed and compared to numerical
non-linear finite difference calculations and large-deflection experiments of equivalent
plates. The presented methods (also described in Riber [13]) lead to good results for plate
response and provide an alternative method for the design of sandwich plates subjected to
high lateral loading.
Pronounced lateral deflections introduce in-plane displacements and membrane strains in
the faces, as well as shear deformation in the core. Thus, the classical Kirchhoff plate theory is not sufficient to describe this kind of response. Reissner [12] and Mindlin [8] introduced a theory governing finite deflections of sandwich plates with isotropic faces and
cores. Based on Reissners theory, Alwan [2] solved the non-linear bending problem of
rectangular sandwich plates by means of double trigonometric series with simply supported edges. Kan and Huang [7] derived a large-deflection solution of clamped sandwich
plates by applying a perturbation technique. However, none of the above solutions are
easy to use in practice.
The non-linear theory for orthotropic single-skin and sandwich plates is outlined in Section 3.2, which concludes with the governing equations of the problem. In Section 3.3 analytical solutions for the sandwich problem are derived and a new simple analytical design
33
&KDSWHU1RQOLQHDU6DQGZLFK3ODWH7KHRU\
34
rule is presented for predicting deflections, strains and stresses in sandwich panels with
large deflections. The results are discussed and compared to experimental data obtained by
Bau, Kildegrd and Svendsen [3] and equivalent numerical finite difference calculations
performed by Riber [12] in Section 3.4, followed by a summary.
7KHRU\
The present formulation is in accordance with the work of Whitney [15] and Zenkert [16],
where the latter presents a simplification of the theory given in Allen [1] and Plantema
[9]. The theory is based on the classical sandwich plate theory supplemented with the
higher-order terms in the strain displacement relations, which are usually neglected in
plate analysis. The formulation is outlined for sandwich plates, but is also applicable to
single-skin plates, where the two faces of the sandwich plate form the single-skin plate
omitting the core. Hence, the term plate refers to either the single-skin plate or the
sandwich faces.
$VVXPSWLRQVDQG&RQILJXUDWLRQV
A standard [, \, ]co-ordinate system as shown in Fig. 3.1, is used to derive the equations. The displacements in the [, \, and ]directions are denoted X, Y, and Z, respectively. The origin of the co-ordinate system lies in the middle plane (for sandwich in the
geometrical symmetry plane of the core) with the positive ]-axis directed perpendicularly
to it and downwards. Consider a sandwich plate with its faces made of thin orthotropic
layers orientated with their material axes parallel to the plate sides and with the thickness
W and W and the core thickness W . The following basic assumptions are made:
I
I
1. The plate is constructed of an arbitrary number of layers of orthotropic sheets of constant thickness bonded together.
2. The thickness of the core is constant.
3. The material is linearly elastic.
4. The out-of-plane transverse normal strain is neglected.
]
5. Non-linear terms, i.e. the derivatives of the lateral deflection Z in the strain displacement relations, are retained whereas the equivalent non-linear terms of the in-plane
displacement terms are omitted.
7KHRU\35
6. The deflection Z can be divided into two parts: Z = Z
tion).
EHQGLQJ
+ Z
VKHDU
(partial deflec-
7. The position of the neutral axes for the [ and \directions is the same, i.e. ] = ] in
Eq. 3.1.
[
8. The Youngs modulus of the core is small compared with that of the face(s), i.e. ( <<
( and the faces are thin compared to the core, i.e. W << W . This simplifies the stress
distributions in a structural sandwich to:7KHIDFHVFDUU\EHQGLQJPRPHQWVDV WHQVLOH
DQG FRPSUHVVLYH VWUHVVHV DQG DQG WKH FRUH FDUULHV WKH WUDQVYHUVH IRUFHV DV
VKHDUVWUHVVHV DQG
F
[[
\]
\\
[]
9. The shear stresses are constant through the thickness of the core.
10. The core is considered isotropic.
\
W
G =W W W
I
W
I
I
W
I
]
]
W
I
]1
lamina 1
lamina 2
lamina 1
W
I
z
Figure 3.1: 6DQGZLFKSODWHDQGIDFHVLQJOHVNLQFRQILJXUDWLRQ
The distance between the geometrical symmetry plane and the neutral plane is denoted H
and the distances from the geometrical symmetry plane to the upper and lower face of ply
number N are denoted ] and] (see Fig. 3.1). The number of plies in each face is denoted
1 , where L for sandwich plates and L for single-skin plates.
N
36
6WUDLQ'LVSODFHPHQW5HODWLRQV
The displacement field is assumed to be of the form
X( [ , \ , ] ) = X( [ , \ ) + ] [ [ ( [ , \ )
Y ( [ , \ , ] ) = Y ( [ , \ ) + ] \ \ ( [ , \ )
(3. 1)
Z( [ , \ , ] ) = Z( [ , \ )
where XYZ are the displacements in the [\ and ]directions, respectively, and are the
cross-sectional rotations in the [] and \]-planes due to bending. Assuming that we may separate
the lateral displacement into contributions due to bending and shear and then superimpose them
to give the total deflection, we have
[
Z = ZE + ZV
(3. 2)
The reason for introducing partial deflections is to uncouple the equilibrium equation derived later. This indeed speeds up the numerical finite difference solution, which is the
backbone of the non-linear design program 3DQHO (Chapter 7). The cross-sectional rotations may now be written as
[ =
ZE
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
, \ = E DQG V =
+ \ , V =
+ [
[
\
\
\
[
[
(3. 3)
This means that the bending moments and the shearing forces will be independent of each
other, which is correct for panels with equal rigidities in both [- and \-directions or the
same neutral axis for both cross-sections. However, this also applies to orthotropic panels
and to most sandwich panels in general. Hence, bending causes the cross-section to rotate,
whereas shearing is a sliding movement and does not add to any rotation. Using this simplification, we reduce the number of independent field variables from five to four:
X, Y , Z, [ , \ X, Y , ZE , ZV
(3. 4)
The non-linear strain terms, which couple the in-plane and out-of-plane displacements, are usually neglected in classical plate theory. However, for large deflection they cannot be omitted as
the coupling effect becomes significant. Eqs. 3.5a-b express the strains in terms of the displacement derivatives and the above partial deflections for Z as follows:
7KHRU\37
2
2
2 ZE X 2
X 1 Z
Y
[ =
+ ]
, 0, 0
[
[
[ 2 [
[ 2
2 ZE X
Y
Y 1 Z
\ =
+ 2 ]
0, 0
2 ,
\
\
\
\
\
] 0
2
(3.5.a)
and
2 ZE
X Y Z Z
+
+
2]
= [\
\ [ [ \
[\
ZV
2 [] =
= []
[
ZV
2 \] =
= \]
\
2 [\ =
(3. 5b)
If +RRNHV ODZ for an orthotropic material is applied and it is assumed that the stress component in the ]-direction vanishes everywhere, the constitutive relations for the Nth layer
are given as
N
[
4 11

\ = 412

0
[\
0 [

0 \
4 66 2 [\
4 12
4 22
0
(3. 6)
N
4 44
\]
=
0
[]
N
0 2 \]

4 55 2 []
In the above expressions, the coefficients 4 in the stiffness matrix are defined in Vinson
[14] for linear elastic materials. If the principal main material axes do not coincide
with the global plate axes [, \, the local stiffness matrix, defined in the material co-ordinate, is transformed into the global plate co-ordinate system by means of the transformation matrix 7:
N
LM
[4] = [7 ] [4] [7 ] ,
N
1 N
[7 ]N
cos 2
= sin 2
cos sin
sin 2
cos2
cos sin
2 cos sin
2 cos sin
cos 2 sin 2
(3. 7)
where is the angle between the main fibre direction and the plate axis of ply number N.
Combining Eqs. 3.5-6 and integrating over the thickness of the plate, we obtain the inplane forces, the moments and the shear forces (see Fig. 3.2):
38
1[
1\ =
1
[\
$11
$12
4\ N 44 $44
=
4 [ 0
0[
0\ =
0
[\
'11
'12
0
X 1 Z 2
0 [ + 2 [ %11

2
Y 1 Z
0
+ 2 + %12
\
\
X Y Z Z
$66 +
+
0
\ [ \ [
$12
$22
0
%12
%22
0
2 ZE
0
2
2[
ZE
0
\ 2
2 ZE
%66 2
[\
ZV
0 \
N 55 $55 ZV
[
'12
'22
0
(3. 8)
(3. 9)
2 ZE
2
0 2[ %11
ZE
0
+ %12
2
\
'66 2 Z 0
E
2 [ \
%12
%22
0
X 1 Z 2
+
[ 2 [
0
2
Y 1 Z
0
+ (3. 10)
\
2 \
%66 X Y Z Z
\ + [ + \ [
The matrices $ , ' (LM=1,2,6) and $ (LM = 4,5) represent the extensional, bending- and
shear-stiffness, respectively. The coupling matrix % between in-plane forces and bending
deformations vanishes in the case of plate symmetry. The relation between the transverse
forces and the shear deflection (Eq. 3.9) becomes
LM
LM
LM
LM
4[ = N 5 $55
ZV
[
and
4\ = N 4 $44
Z V
\
(3. 11)
where the N factors are dependent on the core material. For homogeneous isotropic plates,
it can be shown that the value of N is 5/6 according to Reissner [11]. The stiffnesses, $ ,
% and ' , are given below for a single-skin plate and for the faces and core (indices FRUH)
of a sandwich plate, as follows:
L
LM
LM
LM
$LM = 4LMN ] N ] ( N 1)
N =1
and
$LMFRUH = 4LMFRUH t c
L , M = 1,2,4,5,6
(3. 12)
7KHRU\39
%LM =
1 1 N 2
4 ] ](2N 1)
2 N =1 LM N
1 1
'LM = 4LMN ] N3 ] (3N 1)
3 N =1
%LMFRUH = 0
L , M = 1,2,6
(3. 13)
L , M = 1,2,6
The above expressions can be applied directly to a single-skin plate. As for the sandwich
plate, assuming that the faces are thin and the shear is carried by the core (DVVXPSWLRQ),
we get the following expressions for the stiffness matrices:
$LMVDQ = $LMIDFH1 + $LMIDFH 2
LM = 12 6
$LMVDQ = $LMFRUH
(3. 14)
LM = 4 5
and
VDQ
LM
'
WF
$LMIDFH1 $LMIDFH 2
2
2
2
WF + W I 1
WF + W I 2
IDFH1
$ IDFH 2
$
=
+
2 LM
2 LM
%LMVDQ =
LM = 12 6
(3. 15)
LM = 12 6
where W refers to face 1 and W refers to face 2. Here the coupling terms % do not arise
due to asymmetry in the faces since they are considered thin, but as a result of the different in-plane stiffness $ of the two faces.
I
I
LM
LM
(TXLOLEULXP(TXDWLRQV
Referring to the sign convention in Fig. 3.2 below, we get the following equilibrium equations including the body forces
\
]
G\
G[
[\
\[
[]
T[\W
][
]\
1\0[
\]
1[
0\[1\[
0[\1[\
4[
4\
Z 2 Z
+
G[
[ [ 2
G[
Figure 3.2: 6LJQFRQYHQWLRQRIWKHSODWH.
1[0\
1[ +
1 [
G[
[
40
1 [ 1 \[
+
=0
[
\
1 \ 1 \[
+
=0
\
[
4 [ 4 \
2Z
+
= T +
[
\
W2
0 [ 0 [\
+
+ 4[ = 0
[
\
0 \ 0 \[
+
+ 4\ = 0
\
[
(3. 16)
where
T = T + 1 [
2Z
2Z
2Z
+
1
+
2
1
,
\
[\
[\
[ 2
\ 2
= G] + P
Here, P is the added mass from the flow of the surrounding liquid. The above five equilibrium equations can be reduced to four by differentiating the last two equations and inserting them in the third equation. In order to express the equilibrium equations in terms
of the displacements, we combine Eq. 3.16 with Eqs. 3.8-10 and obtain four coupled nonlinear differential equations in X, Y, Z and Z , where Z Z Z . The two in-plane equilibrium equations (Eqs 3.17-18):
V
E
2X
2X
2Y
3Z
3Z
$11 2 + $66 2 + ( $12 + $66 )

= ; + %11 3 + (%12 + 2 %66 )
[\
[
\
[
[\ 2
(3. 17)
where
; =
Z
2Z
2 Z
Z 2 Z
$11 2 + $66 2 ( $12 + $66 )
[
\ [\
[
\
and
$66
2Y
2Y
2X
3Z
3Z
+
$
+
$
+
$
=
<
+
%
+
%
+
2
%
(
)
(
)
22
12
66
22
12
66
[\
[ 2
\ 2
\ 3
\[ 2
where
Z
2Z
2 Z
Z 2 Z
< =
+ $66 2 ( $12 + $66 )
$
\ 22 \ 2
[ [\
[
(3. 18)
7KHRU\41
The shear equation becomes
$55
2
2 ZV
2 ZV
Z
+
=
$
2
44
2
2 T
[
\
W
(3. 19)
and finally the bending equation yields
4 ZE
4 ZE
4 ZE
'11
+ '22
+ 2('12 + 2 '66 ) 2 2 =
[ 4
\ 4
[ \
3X
2Z
3X
3Y
3Y
+
+
+
+
2
+
+
T
%
%
%
%
(
)
11
12
66
22
W2
[ 3
\ 3
[ 2 \ \ 2 [
(3. 20)
The above set of equations must be combined with the appropriate boundary conditions of
the specific problem. If we regard the right hand side of the equations as body forces and
as lateral loads of magnitude ; < and T (% XY), the equations are identical to the
governing equation for small deformations of an elastic plate. The numerical solution of
these equations will be described in Chapter 4, whereas the analytical solutions based on
energy principles will be outlined in the following.

LM
$QDO\WLFDO6ROXWLRQV
In this section two different analytical solutions of the non-linear differential equilibrium
equations in Section 3.2 are presented. The methods provide closed-form approximate solutions for large deflections of orthotropic sandwich or single-skin plates. They are based
on the theorem for the minimum potential energy, which states:7KHWRWDOSRWHQWLDOHQHUJ\
RIDV\VWHPKDVWKHORZHVWVWDWLRQDU\YDOXHIRUDOOVPDOOGLVSODFHPHQWVZKHQWKHV\VWHPLV
LQ HTXLOLEULXP. The energy introduced from a virtual displacement Z due to an external
loadT corresponds to the equivalent strain energy in the plate. The total energy 8(X,Y,Z),
which has a stationary value, is then minimised and the assumed deflection functions X, Y
and Z are found by use of known boundary conditions together with the derivatives of the
total energy 8 of the system, with respect to the unknown deflections X, Y and Z.
The author has not, so far, found simple non-linear analytical solutions for sandwich
plates in the literature. Hence, the derivation of the equations to the final closed-form solutions will be described step by step for the reader in the following sections. Two different analytical solutions are described. A complete solution, 6ROXWLRQ , and a combined
solution, 6ROXWLRQ.
Many design rules concerning single-skin composite plates are already based on non-linear
theory. However, this is not the case in analytical design of sandwich structures, where the
42
existing design rules recommended by the classification societies are based on linear plate
theory. The method presented in this paper provides an alternative and more accurate solution procedure for sandwich plates in the design phase. Moreover, the method takes into
account non-linear effects, without the need for costly and complex finite-element-based
computer models. These may, of course, be used in later structural verification and optimisation of the design or for problems with special boundary conditions.
$&RPSOHWH$QDO\WLFDO6ROXWLRQ6ROXWLRQ
The total energy 8 of the plate can be expressed as the sum of internal strain energy, 8 ,
and the potential energy, 8 , due to external loads T. Minimisation of the total energy 8 +
8 , with respect to the parameters in the deflection functions, gives the following equations:

(8 1 + 8 2 )
=0
D
(3. 21)
where D present undetermined parameters in the deflection functions, which depend on

the given plate boundary conditions. The strain energy of an elastic plate in terms of an [
\]- co-ordinate system is given by the relationship
L
8 =
1
+ \ \ + ] ] + [] [] + \] \] + [\ [\ G[G\G]
2 9 [ [
(3. 22)
where the triple integration is performed over the volume of the plate. Taking into account
the assumption of no strain in the ]direction (DVVXPSWLRQ ) together with the ply
stress/strain relations stated in Eq. 3.6, we obtain:
81 =
1
4 2 + 422 \2 + 2412 [ \ + 466 [\2 + 444 \]2 + 455 []2 G[G\G]
2 9 11 [
(3. 23)
This relationship can be expressed in terms of the plate displacements X, Y, Z and Z by
substituting the strain-displacements relations of Eqs. 3.5 into the above equation. Integration over the plate thickness yields the total strain energy of the plate (Appendix A, Eq.
A.1).
E
In order to simplify the analytical expression, the in-plane bending terms % in the energy
expressions are omitted in the following. For general practical design purposes, it is reasonable to neglect these terms in the first place as most ship hull panels are close to being
symmetric. The assumed deflection functions for X, Y, Z and Z depend on the type of
LM
$QDO\WLFDO6ROXWLRQV43
boundary conditions. The complete solution for the plate response due to a lateral load T
will be derived for the simply supported and the clamped cases.
Simply Supported Plate

The simply supported edge is described by zero deflection Z and bending moments, 0
and 0 . A third condition illustrated in Fig. 3.3 can either be zero effective twisting moment:
[
4[
0 [\
0 [\
= 0 and 4\
=0
\
[
(3. 24)
along the edges parallel to the [- and \axes, allowing for shear, 0, 0, i.e. VRIW
boundary conditions, or zero shear deformation , , allowing for the existence of
effective twisting moments, i.e. KDUGboundary conditions
[]
[]
\]
\]
=0
0 =0
[]
[\
[]
VRIW
]
[\
KDUG
\ E
Figure 3.3: 7UDQVYHUVHVKHDUERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQIRUVDQGZLFKSODWHV

For practical purposes, the hard boundary condition is more realistic since, in most cases,
there will be an edge stiffener or some symmetry constraint preventing such shearing. The
plate edges are not allowed to move in the in-plane directions [ and \ which may, of
course, not be true in all practical cases. Thus, we need deflection functions which satisfy
the following boundary conditions:
[ D
\ E
Z Y 0
Z X 0
[
\]
[]
The following deflection functions satisfy these boundary conditions:
(3.25a)
44
Z = (Z E + Z V )sin [ sin \
X = X sin 2[ sin \ ,
, =
D
E
(3. 25b)
Y = Y sin 2 \ sin [
\
E
D
Figure 3.4: 6LJQFRQYHQWLRQIRUWKHSODWH

Inserting the deflection functions in Eq. 3.25 into the energy expression Eq. A.1 and integrating over the plate, we obtain the total strain energy of the plate 8 and the potential
energy 8 from the work of the external lateral load T expressed in the following and
shown in detail in Appendix A.

VV
1
33
= XL = 8 1VV X, Y , Z E , Z V
L =1
(3. 26)
8 2VV = TZG$ = T Z E + Z V sin [ sin \G$ =

$
4TDE
ZE + Z V
2
(3. 27)
The in-plane displacements, X and Y, do not contribute to the potential energy of the external load as we only consider lateral load and no in-plane loads. Hence, minimisation of the
total energy, 8, with respect to ZE , ZV , X, Y gives us adequate equations to determine these
coefficients. The final expressions yield
Z V = 7 Z E ,
X = 8 Z E ,
Y = 9 Z E
(3. 28)
ZE + D2 ZE + D3 = 0
where the constants 7 , 8 , 9 , D and D (Appendix A) are functions of the plate properties, including length and breadth, D, E, and the stiffness matrices, $ , % ,' .

LM
LM
LM
Clamped Plate
The procedure for the simply supported case is applied to the clamped case except for different boundary conditions, which can be expressed as
Z

[
Z

Z X
\
[ D
Z Y
\ E
\]
(3.29a)
[]
where the deflection functions satisfying these boundary conditions are

Z = (Z E + Z V )sin 2 [ sin 2 \
X = X sin 2[ sin \ ,
, =
D
E
(3. 29b)
Y = Y sin 2 \ sin [
Using the same procedure as in the case of the simply supported plate, we obtain the total
strain energy:
33
8 1FO = X = 8 1FO X, Y , Z E , Z V
=1
(3. 30)
The energy terms are outlined in Appendix A. The potential energy, 8 ,from the work of
the external lateral load, T, is slightly smaller and becomes:

8 2FO = TZG$ = T Z E + Z V sin 2 [ sin 2 \G$ =

$
TDE
Z V + ZE
4
(3. 31)
Finally, we obtain the same relations as for the simply supported case expressed in Eq.
3.26, with the constants 7 , 8 , 9 , D and D given in Appendix A.

The strains and stresses can be derived from the displacement functions of Z, X and Y,
which will be demonstrated along with the derivation of 6ROXWLRQ.
$&RPELQHG$QDO\WLFDO6ROXWLRQ6ROXWLRQ
A complete non-linear analytical solution is demonstrated for the large deflection of single-skin and sandwich plates. Even though the final expression for the deflection functions
is simple, the coefficients in these expressions are quite complicated and not very practical for simple analytical calculations. In order to simplify further the final expressions for
the non-linear plate response, an alternative method,6ROXWLRQ,is presented here.
The idea is to use the linear solution for sandwich plates and combine it with the membrane solution, to give a good approximate result. By use of this method, the additional
46
membrane solution can be integrated into linear design rules given in standard textbooks,
such as Hughes [6] and Zenkert [16], and in a simple way provide a non-linear plate solution. The energy method provides a good means of obtaining an approximate solution for
both the membrane displacements and the bending/shear deflection of a plate. Large-deflection solutions of the plate response are obtained by combining the two separate solutions.
To obtain an approximate large-deflection solution for a rectangular sandwich plate
(simply supported or clamped with in-plane displacements fixed at the edges), a simple
method consisting of a combination of the known theory of small deflections and the
membrane theory solutions may be used. We assume that the load T can be resolved into
two parts, T and T , so that T is balanced by the bending and shearing stresses calculated
from the small-deflection theory and T is balanced by the membrane stresses. Thus, we
obtain:

T T T 5 Z5 Z3

(3. 32)
This third-order polynomial is solved for Z:
Z = 3 ) + (3 + )2 + 3 ) (3 + )2
5
T
)=
(= 1 ,
352
2 52
(3. 33)
Hence, T andT are found from Eq. 3.32, where the corresponding stresses are calculated
by using T for the small-bending/shear deflection and T for the membrane deflection.
The total strains and stresses are achieved by superposition of strains and stresses due to
the loads T and T . The parameters 5 and 5 are found from the small-deflection plate
bending/shear theory and membrane theory, respectively. They are in the following expressed as functions of the plate aspect ratio and the material properties.

The membrane solution is obtained by use of the strain energy expression and the principle of virtual displacements with suitable expressions for the displacements X, Y and Z by
application of the same procedure as for the previously demonstrated 6ROXWLRQ . The
strain energy 8 of a membrane, which is due solely to stretching of its middle surface, is
given by Eq. A.1 omitting the terms involving ' and % .
P
LM
8P =
=
1
+ \ \ + [\ [\ G[G\G]
2 9 [ [
$ ( $
11
LM
[ + $22 \ + 2 $12 [ \ + $66 [\ G[G\

2
m
The membrane parts of the strains, [P , \P and xy
, (Eq. 3.5 ) can be expressed as
(3. 34)
X 1 Z
[P =
+ ,

2
and
2 [
Y 1 Z
\P =
+
\
(3. 35)
2 \
Y X Z Z
+
+
[ \ [ \
xym =
Substituting these strain expressions into Eq. 3.34, we obtain an energy expression 8 for
the membrane part, using the same procedure as in the previous section.
P
4
2
X 2
Y
1
1 Z
X Z
8 P = $11 + $11 + $11 + $22
2 $ [
4 [
[ [
\
4
X
1 Z
Y Z
Y
+ $22 + $22 + $66 + $66
[
4 \
\ \
\
Z Z
X Y
Z Z X Y
X Y
+ 2 $66
+ $66
+ + 2 $12
+ 2 $66
\ [
[ \ \ [
[ \
[ \
(3. 36)
2
2
1
X Z
Y Z
Z Z
+ $12 + $12
+ $12 G[G\
[ \
2
[ \
\ [
2
When the energy method is applied we must assume suitable expressions for the displacements X, Y and Z in order to satisfy the boundary conditions. A rectangular plate with its
edges fixed in the [, \ and ]directions behaves like a simply supported plate in all cases
as the membrane has no bending stiffness. Thus, we obtain the same functions as the ones
in Eq. 3.25. Inserting these functions into Eq. 3.36 and integrating over the plate area, we
obtain
16
8 = X = 8 X, Y , Z
P
=1
(3. 37)
where each of the 16 integrals in Eq. 3.37 is similar to the equivalent integrals for the simply supported case in 6ROXWLRQ, given in Appendix A. Application of the principle of virtual displacements leads to the following three equations:
8 P
8 P
= 0
= 0DQG
X
Y
8 P E D
= TZ sin [ sin \G[G\
Z 0 0
(3. 38)
48
After some reduction, the final expression for the parameters X, Y and Z in Eq. 3.37 becomes
X = 11 Z , Y = 12 Z , Z =
2
T2
52
(3. 39)
and 5 becomes

52 =
2
( + 112 + 12 3 )
4DE 1
(3. 40)
The and values are shown in Appendix A for the simply supported case, i.e. the
membrane case.
LM
With an isotropic core the solution can be expressed as a function of the magnitude of orthotropy
of the faces and the plate aspect ratio. In order to solve the third-order polynomial (Eq. 3.32), it is
necessary to express the parameters 5 and 5 in a simple way. Thus, they are presented in diagrams, which make a calculation by hand of the plate responses possible. The following assumptions are made for the stiffness moduli in the faces.

1
$22
2
1
'11 = . '22 , '12 = '22 , '66 =
'22
2
$44 = $55 = 6
$11 = . $22 , $12 = $22 , $66 =
(3. 41)
Here, the factor . expresses the magnitude of orthotropy, i.e. stiffness ratio in the [ and
\ directions. For sandwich plates, Eq. 3.41 has to be combined with Eqs. 3.14-15.
The variation of the membrane parameter 5 (Eq. 3.40) with the aspect ratio DE and the
stiffness ratio . is shown in Fig. 3.5. In practical terms, the parameter is independent of
Poissons ratio and we obtain a simple expression for 5 . An expression of the curve fit
for . = 1 is given in Eq. 3.42 below.

52 =
$11 1165
.
+ D E 387
.
4
E D E + 0.50
(3. 42)
Parameter 5 for the membrane part in 6ROXWLRQ
5
70
. = $11 $22
60
$12 = $22
50
1
$66 =
$22
2
. = 1
.= 2
.= 3
.= 5
.= 10
40
30
52 =
20
$11 11.65
D 3.87
+
E
E 4 D 0.50
10
0
0
4
Aspect ratio DE
Figure 3.5: &RHIILFLHQW5 PHPEUDQHSDUWRI(T)RUGLIIHUHQWDVSHFWUDWLRVDQGPDJQL

WXGHVRIRUWKRWURS\RIWKHIDFHV

We have now obtained the non-linear part of the right side in Eq. 3.32, T = 5 Z , and
need the linear solution for the bending/shear deflection of a plate to obtain the linear term
T = 5 Z. This solution is described in various textbooks, e.g. Zenkert [16]. The procedure
is in accordance with the one described in the above solution. Only the bending/shearing
part is retained in the general energy expression (Eq. A.1), and the deflection functions are
assumed for both the simply supported and the clamped cases, as discussed in Section
3.3.1. A simple expression for the coefficient 5 is presented as:

2
51 = 12
, simply supported
4DE
4
51FO = 12FO
, clamped
DE
VV
VV
(3. 43)
where the parameter 12 is expressed in Eq. A.2 and depends on the boundary conditions.
The coefficients, Z E and Z V , for the deflection functions become:
VV
VV
FO
FO

Z E = 5 , Z V = 5 , VLPSO\VXSSRUWHG
4
6

Z E = 5 , Z V = 5 , FODPSHG
4
6
(3. 44)
50
By use of the assumption Eq. 3.41 5 can be expressed as:

51 =
'11 6
T1
T1 E E 4 T1 V E 2
,
Z
=
=
Z
+
Z
=
+
E
V
51
'11
6
6 E E 4 + '11 V E 2
(3. 45)
The parameter is dependent of the plate aspect ratio only (Fig. 3.6a), whereas is dependent of both stiffness ratio . and the aspect ratio DE (Fig. 3.6b). Both of the parameters are invariant to Poissons ratio due to the assumption Eq. 3.43. The derivation of the
parameters and is shown in Eq. A.7.
V
V
Parameter V for simply and clamped b.c.
V
0.16
Simple supported
0.14
Clamped
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
4
Aspect ratio DE
Figure 3.6a: 3DUDPHWHU IRUDQLVRWURSLFFRUHVLPSO\VXSSRUWHGDQGFODPSHGEF

V
Curve fittings of Figs. 3.6a-b are shown in Eq. 3.46 as formulae for both the clamped and
the simply supported cases for . .
1
EFO =
+ 0.004
355 D E + 27
1
EVV =
+ 0.021
33 D E + 27
1
VFO =
+ 0151
.
10.3 D E + 2.0
1
VVV =
+ 0183
.
.
8.5 D E + 16
(3.46)
Parameter E for simple supported and clamped b.c.
0.050
.= 1, ss
. = 1, cl
0.045
0.040
. = 2, ss
.= 2, cl
.= 3, ss
.= 3, cl
0.035
0.030
0.025
. ' /'
' = ' )/
' = '

0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0
0
4
Aspect ratio DE
Figure 3.6b: 3DUDPHWHU IRU GLIIHUHQW PDJQLWXGHV RI RUWKRWURS\ LQ WKH IDFHV VLPSO\
VXSSRUWHGDQGFODPSHGEF
E
The system, including Figs. 3.5-6 and Eq. 3.33 together with the given plate data, is sufficient to determine the non-linear plate response in a simple way by solving the third-order
polynomial for Z. Thus, the strains and stresses can be found from Z, by means of the
strain-displacement relations (Eq. 3.5). The method provides fairly good results except for
the strains near the edges of clamped plates, because they are derivatives of the deflection
functions, which are themselves approximate. In order to complete the method and, in this
way, provide an alternative to the existing simple linear solution method suggested in
standard textbooks (e.g. [6] and [16]), formulas are derived for the strains. The membrane
strains, which are independent of the boundary conditions, can be found from Eqs. 3.25,
3.35 and 3.39. Combining these three equations, we obtain
2
[P = Z 2 11 cos 2[ sin \ + cos2 [ sin 2 \
E
2
\P = Z 2 12 cos 2 \ sin [ + cos2 \ sin 2 [
E
2
[\P = Z 12 cos[ sin 2\ + 11 cos \ sin 2[
E
E
+ cos [ sin [ cos \ sin \ )
(3. 47)
52
where the coefficients and are functions of the aspect ratio as shown in Fig. 3.7,
and expressions for the curve fittings are presented in the following for different magnitudes of orthotropy of the faces.

Parameters for the membrane strains in 6ROXWLRQ
0.1
. $$$ $$ $
. , = 0.2
. , = 0.25
0.0
. , = 0.3
.
-0.1
.
1
11 = 0.25 =
+ 0.09
2.63 D + 0.06
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
= 0 .25
12
=
0.34
34 D 12.6
4
5
Aspect ratio DE
Figure 3.7: 7KHFRHIILFLHQWV DQG LQFOXGHGLQWKHVWUDLQH[SUHVVLRQV(T)RUGLIIHU

HQWPDJQLWXGHVRIRUWKRWURS\RIWKHIDFHV

The parameter is, in practical terms, independent of Poissons ratio and the stiffness
ratio .. The parameter is dependent of Poissons ratio for stiffness ratios . close to
one, whereas it becomes independent of for larger stiffness ratios. The parameters are
expressed in Eq. 3.48, where the equation for is given for stiffness ratio equal to unity
(isotropic faces) and for Poissons ratio equal to 0.25.

+ 0.09
11 =
2.63 D + 0.06
12
1
=
0.34
34 D 12.6
(3. 48)
Similarly, we obtain the bending strains according to the boundary conditions (Fig. 3.3).
+ ] 2 ZE
, VV
=
2
2
] 2 2 ZE Z E sin \ , FO
E
[
+ ] 2 ZE
, VV
=
2
2
] 2 2 ZE Z E sin \ , FO
E
\
(3. 49)
] Z E cosxcosy
, VV
[\E =
] 4 Z E cosxcosysinxsiny , FO
The total strain is the sum of the bending and membrane strains. By application of
Hookes law and the assumption Eq. 3.43, the stresses yield
[ = 4 11 [ + \ . , \ =
[\
4 11
.
+ [
411 1
=
, xz = 4 55 [] , yz = 4 44 \]
. 2 [\
(3. 50)
where
(
1 2
= 4 55 = *FRUH
4 11 =
4 44
The maximum core shear strains (at the middle of the edges) are underestimated by use of
the derivatives of the deflection function of Z . Thus, an alternative design formula for
maximum shear strains is given in Eq. 3.51. The formula is based on simple linear sandwich plate theory derived by means of energy methods, Allen [1], and produces very conservative values of the peak shear strains, as non-linear effects are neglected. However, by
replacing the total load T with the linear part of the lateral load, T 1 = T- T 2 (Eq. 3.32), we
obtain fairly accurate results. By so doing, we assume that the core is influenced only by
the linear load T1 , which makes sense, as the non-linear part of the load, T2 , is carried only
by stretching of the faces.
V
54
T1E
TE
1 , \] = 1 2
G
G
D
D
1 = 0.3 log 10 47 29 0.04

E
[] =
(3. 51)
D
. log 10 + 17
. 0.04
2 = 115
E
E
The coefficients are plotted in Fig. 3.8.
L
coefficients for shear strains
0.50
0.46
D
1 = 0.3 log 10 47 29 0.04
E
E
0.42
D
. log 10 + 17
. 0.04
2 = 115
E
E
0.38
0.34
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Aspect ratio a/b
Figure 3.8: &RHIILFLHQWV DQG LQFOXGHGLQWKHVKHDUVWUDLQH[SUHVVLRQV(T)RUVDQG

ZLFKSDQHOVZLWKLVRWURSLFFRUHV

The above solution method is easy to use and gives good results, which will be shown in
Section 3.4, where the analytical solutions are compared to a numerical finite difference
method. In order to understand the procedure of6ROXWLRQ, the method is summarised as
follows:

Find 5 and 5 using Figs. 3.5-6.

Find the deflection Zfrom Eq. 3.32.
Find the strains and stresses using Figs. 3.7-8 and Eqs. 3.47-51.

The method is illustrated with an example where a symmetric simply supported orthotropic sandwich plate is analysed for maximum deflections, strains and stresses. Material data and plate scantlings are listed below:
D 1.4 P
E 1.0 P
(
W

IDFH
20 *3D
= 0.005 P
*
W
85 03D
= 0.05 P
FRUH
FRUH
0.25
T = 100 .3D
IDFH
The in-plane, bending and shear stiffnesses (Eqs. 3.14-15) yield
.=2

213 03D
'

161 .3D 6 4.25 03D
From Figs. 3.6a-b we obtain the parameters and (. 2 and DE = 1.4), which are inserted in Eq. 3.45 yielding the parameter 5 , thus
E
= 0.013 = 0.110 5 = 9.38 106

The parameter 5 is found from Fig. 3.5, equal to 10 multiplied with $11 E 4 , as
E
5 = 2.13 109

The deflection amplitude, Z, and the load terms, T and T , are solved (Eqs. 3.32-3) using
the values for 5 and 5 . Consequently,

T T T 5 Z5 Z3 105 = 9.38 10 6 Z + 2.13 109 Z 3

Z = 0.0438-0.0334 = 0.0104 P T = 97552 3D and T = 2448 3D

The and parameters are obtained from Fig. 3.7 in order to get the membrane
strains in the skins (Eq. 3.47), hence

= -0.18

= -0.32
[P = 8.7410-5
\P = 2.1710-4
The maximum bending strains in the upper and lower skins (] = 0.03 P) are obtained
from Eq. 3.49 by use of the bending part of the deflection, Z , found from Eq. 3.45, we
get
E
Z = 7.87 PP
E
[E = 1.1810-3
\E = 2.3210-3
The total strains are the sum of the membrane and bending strains where the bending
strains in the upper skin are negative. From Eq. 3.50 we find the stresses as
[ORZHU = 33.8 03D
\ORZHU = 30.4 03D
[XSSHU = -29.003D
\XSSHU = -25.3 03D
The maximum core shear stresses at the middle of the edges are obtained from Eq. 3.51,
where the parameter 1 and 2 are found from Fig. 3.8, thus
1 = 0.41
2 = 0.36
[]FRUH = 0.70 03D
\]FRUH = 0.80 03D
56
The above results are summarised in Table 3.1 where they are compared to results obtained by use of numerical calculations.
5HVXOWV
6ROXWLRQ
Numerical
[PP]
Z
10.4
10.0
7.85
7.75
2.55
2.25
Lower [03D]
33.8
31.1
30.4
28.6
Upper [03D]
-29.0
-26.1
-25.3
-23.0
Core [03D]
[]
0.70
0.66
\]
0.80
0.76
Table 3.1: 5HVXOWVRIPD[LPXPUHVSRQVHVRIVDQGZLFKSODWHREWDLQHGXVLQJ6ROXWLRQ

The method represents a simple alternative to non-linear plate response calculations. Furthermore, it is ideal for combination with existing linear design rules. This is so in the
case of the Det Norske Veritas, High Speed Light Craft Rule [5], which consists of only
the linear part (the 5 -part) in the section on sandwich plates.

5HVXOWVDQG'LVFXVVLRQ
Results of response calculations by application of the above methods are compared to numerically computed finite difference results from Riber [12] and experimental results from
Bau et al. [3]. The following parameters are discussed: deflections, in-plane strains and
shear strains (Z, , ) calculated in the middle of the plate and along the [-axis for \ =
E/2. The results are shown in Figs. 3.9-14, where the terms QXPHULFDO, 6ROXWLRQ, 6ROXWLRQ
and H[SHULPHQW refer to the central finite difference solution, the complete analytical
solution, the combined analytical solution and experiments, respectively. The experiment
in Bau [3] was performed with a clamped square sandwich panel only, and the analytical
solution is obtained by use of the plate properties given (Bau [3]) as follows:
[
[]
D E 0.6 P,
0.30,
FRUH
(
73.4 *3D,
' 5.901.1P
IDFH
0.32,
*
6 1.440 01P
IDFH
FRUH
110 03D,
The geometrical non-linear behaviour is most pronounced for the simply supported plate
illustrated in Fig. 3.9, where the lateral deflection in the centre of the plate is plotted
against the lateral load T. The analytical results are almost identical and quite accurate (~3
%) compared to the numerical results and the experimental data.
5HVXOWVDQG'LVFXVVLRQ57
Z [PP]
12
Midpoint deflection of the plate

QXPHULFDO
6ROXWLRQ
6ROXWLRQ
H[SHULPHQW
/LQHDU
10
8
6
simply supported
clamped
4
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 3.9: 0LGSRLQWGHIOHFWLRQZRIDFODPSHGDQGDVLPSO\VXSSRUWHGVDQGZLFKSODWH

If we consider the deflections along the [-axis (\ = E/2) in Fig. 3.10, the analytical solutions are not accurate for the clamped case, whereas, for the simply supported case, the deflection curves agree well with the numerical results. This indicates that the strains (and
stresses) derived from these analytical deflection functions are not reliable for the clamped
case.
Deflection along the x-axis, y = b/2
w [mm]
12,00
numerical
Solution 1
Solution 2
10,00
8,00
simply supported
experiment
clamped
6,00
4,00
2,00
0,00
0
1/10
1/5
3/10
2/5
x/a
1/2
Figure 3.10: 'HIOHFWLRQZDORQJWKH[D[LV\ EFODPSHGDQGVLPSO\VXSSRUWHG /DWHUDO

ORDGT .3D
58
[PPP]
Strains along the [-axis, \= E
2,50
Simply supported
2,00
1,50
QXPHULFDO
outer face
1,00
0,50
6ROXWLRQ
0,00
6ROXWLRQ
-0,50
inner face
-1,00
-1,50
0
1/10
1/5
3/10
2/5
[D
1/2
Figure 3.11: 6WUDLQV DORQJWKH[D[LV\ EVLPSO\VXSSRUWHG/DWHUDOORDGT .3D

[
The analytical solutions for the strains along the centre line for the simply supported sandwich plate in Figs. 3.11-12 show less good agreement with the numerical results. However, in the centre of the plate on the outer face, where the maximum tension strains are
found (simply supported case), the values lie within 5 % compared to the numerical results.
[PPP]
2,50
Midpoint strains in the faces

Simply supported
2,00
1,50
QXPHULFDO
Outer face
1,00
6ROXWLRQ
0,50
6ROXWLRQ
DQG
6ROXWLRQ
0,00
6ROXWLRQ
-0,50
-1,00
Inner face
-1,50
0
40
80
120
160
Figure 3.12: 0LGSRLQWVWUDLQV LQQHUDQGRXWHUIDFHVRIVLPSO\VXSSRUWHGSODWH/DWHUDOORDG

T .3D
[
The highly non-linear behaviour of midpoint strains is seen in Fig. 3.12. The analytical solutions show good agreement with the numerical solutions, however, slightly conservative
5HVXOWVDQG'LVFXVVLRQ59
results for both the inner and outer faces. For the clamped case, the maximum strains are
found at the edge, and the analytical results are about 35 % lower than the experimental/numerical results. In the centre of the plate, the analytical methods predict strains approximately 20 % higher.
Fig. 3.13 shows the maximum core shear strain at the midpoints of the edges (\ EDQG
[ D) for the simply supported case. 6ROXWLRQ provides good results for the maximum
core shear strain. Taking into account that core shear failure is one of the most common
failure modes in composite ship hull panels, the author suggests the same method may be
used for the clamped case.
xz
Shear strains at the middle of the edge
[PPP]
25
numerical
20
solution 1
solution 2
linear/solution 2
linear
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Lateral load T[.3D]
Figure 3.13: 6KHDUVWUDLQV DWPLGGOHRIHGJH[ \ EVLPSO\VXSSRUWHG

[]
6XPPDU\
Two non-linear analytical methods, assigned 6ROXWLRQ and 6ROXWLRQ, are derived for response calculations of laterally loaded sandwich plates. The simplest method - 6ROXWLRQprovides results, which are as good as the results from the more complex solution method
- 6ROXWLRQ . 6ROXWLRQ is presented as a simple design procedure for sandwich plates.
Both the methods give good predictions for the maximum deflection of the plate. For the
simply supported case, the strains are reasonably accurate, whereas for the clamped case,
the strains are overestimated in the plate centre and underestimated near the plate edges.
The maximum shear strains in the core are underestimated and an ordinary linear solution
combined with 6ROXWLRQ is suggested in this case. The linear part of 6ROXWLRQ may be
replaced by other solutions based on more complex deflection functions (Cheng et al. [4])
60
than Eq. 3.29 resulting in accurate curvatures (strains) close to the edges for the clamped
case.
%LEOLRJUDSK\
[1] Allen H.G. Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1969.
[2] Alwan A.M. Bending of Sandwich Plates with Large Deflections. - (QJQJ 0HFK
'LY3URF$6&(. Vol. 93 (EM3), pp. 83-93, 1967.
[3] Bau-Madsen N.K., Svendsen K.H. and Kildegaard A. Large Deflections of Sandwich
Plates - an Experimental Investigation. &RPSRVLWH 6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 23, pp. 47-52,
1993.
[4] Cheng Z., Wang X. and Huang M. Large Deflection of Rectangular Hoff Sandwich
Plates. ,QW-6ROLGV6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 30, pp. 2335-2346, 1993.
[5] DNV. Classification Rules for High Speed Light Craft, Det Norske Veritas Research
[6] Hughes O. Ship Structural Design. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1983.
[7] Kan H.P. and Huang J.C. Large Deflections of Rectangular Sandwich Plates. $,$$
-O. Vol. 5(9), pp. 1706-1708, 1967.
[8] Mindlin R.D. Influence of Rotatory Inertia and Shear on Flexural Motions of Isotropic, Elastic Plates.-RXUQDORI$SSOLHG0HFKDQLFV. Vol. 18, pp. 336-343, 1951.
[9] Plantema F.J. Sandwich Construction. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966.
[10] Reissner E. The Effect of Transverse Shear Deformation on the Bending of Elastic
Plates. -RXUQDORI$SSOLHG0HFKDQLFV. Vol. 12, pp. 69-77, 1945.
[11] Reissner E. Finite Deflections of Sandwich Plates. - RI $HURQDXW 6FL. Vol. 15 (7),
pp. 435-440, 1948.
[12] Riber H.J. Rational Design of Composite Panels. 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH UG ,QWHUQD
WLRQDO &RQIHUHQFH RQ 6DQGZLFK &RQVWUXFWLRQV, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southampton, UK. Vol. 1 (session 6B), 1995.
[13] Riber H.J. Non-linear Analytical Solutions for Laterally Loaded Sandwich Plates.
6XEPLWWHGWR&RPSRVLWH6WUXFWXUHV, March, 1997.
%LEOLRJUDSK\61
[14] Vinson J.R. and Sierakowski R.L. The Behavior of Structures Composed of Composite Materials. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, P.O. Box 163, 3300 AD Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 1986.
[15] Whitney J.M. Structural Analysis of Laminated Anisotropic Plates. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., 851 New Holland Avenue Box 3535, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA, 1987.
[16] Zenkert D. An Introduction to Sandwich Construction. Chameleon Press LTD, London, 1995.
&KDSWHU
1XPHULFDO)RUPXODWLRQRI'\QDPLF
7KHRU\
,QWURGXFWLRQ
As the time factor is of great importance in the preliminary design of ship structures, plate
scantlings are often calculated by use of simple analytical design rules. In some cases
more sophisticated numerical methods are applied, in order to obtain better design and
more detailed information about the response of the structure. These methods are most
frequently computer programs based on linear finite element theory, requiring extensive
time-consuming geometrical modelling before the calculations can take place. If, in addition, geometrical non-linear calculations are required, the computer time needed to solve
the equations increases drastically.
In order to perform such non-linear dynamic calculations, without using extensive computer time, a finite-difference-based solution method dealing with geometrical non-linear
orthotropic sandwich and single-skin plates is developed. The solution method is implemented into a FORTRAN program 3DQHO (Chapter 7), aimed at preliminary design of ship
hull panels.
The present formulation is based on Gorji [4]. Here, the non-linear terms of the lateral displacements are considered as an additional set of lateral loads, acting on the plate. The solution procedure is an iterative finite difference method applied to an equivalent plate, undergoing small deflections. The differential equations are uncoupled as the lateral deflection, Z, is separated into a bending and a shear contribution, which indeed speeds up the
numerical solution. Hence, bending causes the cross-section to rotate, whereas shearing is
a sliding movement and does not add to any rotations. Using this definition, we reduce the
number of independent field variables from five to four.
61
&KDSWHU1XPHULFDO)RUPXODWLRQRI7KHRU\
62
,QWHJUDWLRQ6FKHPHLQ7LPHDQG6SDFH
The dynamic analysis of the plate, consisting of inertia and damping forces as functions of
time (W), is solved by use of Newmarks method [5], whereas the central finite difference
method solves the governing equilibrium equations with regard to space ([, \, ]). The
central finite difference method, which is described in various text books, among others
Timoshenko [7], is used to express the derivatives of the four displacements XYZ E and
ZV , where the configuration is outlined in Figure 4.1. The choice of the central finite differences, alternatively to forward or backward finite differences, is due to the higher accuracy, as the truncation error is of the order 2 compared to , for forward or backward finite differences. The grid distance is chosen to be equidistant in the [ and \-directions
in order to simplify the linearised differential equations.
[M
u
[ D
M Q
r
ZLM
Z
d
\L
\ E
L P
Figure 4.1: &HQWUDOILQLWHGLIIHUHQFHQHWFRQILJXUDWLRQ
Newmarks constant-average integration scheme, Newmark [5], is chosen partly due to its
simplicity. Nevertheless, the most important effect is that the accuracy is obtained without
requirement for the time increment W, which is said to be an unconditionally stable
scheme. The configuration is shown in Fig. 4.2.
,QWHJUDWLRQ6FKHPHLQ7LPHDQG6SDFH63
Z 2+1
2 (W + W )
W
Z 2
2W
W
Z 2+1
1 Z 2
+
2 2 W 2 (W + W )
W
W
Figure 4.2: 1HZPDUNVFRQVWDQWDYHUDJHDFFHOHUDWLRQVFKHPH
&HQWUDO)LQLWH'LIIHUHQFHV
By use of the central finite differences for the derivatives of X Y Z E ZV and Z
(demonstrated for Z only), the following expressions for the derivatives are obtained:
Z
Z
= (Z6 Z4 ) / 2 ,
= (Z8 Z2 ) / 2 ,
[
\
2Z
2Z
2
=
Z
+
Z
Z
= (Z8 + Z2 2 Z5 ) / 2 ,
2
/
,
(
)
6
4
5
[ 2
\ 2
(4. 1)
2Z
= (Z9 + Z1 Z7 Z3 ) / 4 2
[ \
and
3Z
3Z
3
3
3 = (ZU ZO 2 Z6 + 2 Z4 ) / 2 ,
3 = (ZG ZX 2 Z8 + 2 Z2 ) / 2 ,
[
\
3Z
3
2 = (Z9 Z7 + Z3 Z1 2 Z6 + 2 Z4 ) / 2 ,
[ \
3Z
3
2 = (Z9 + Z7 Z3 Z1 2 Z8 + 2 Z2 ) / 2
\ [
and
(4. 2)
64
4Z
4
4 = (ZO 4 Z4 + 6 Z5 4 Z6 + ZU ) / ,
x
4Z
= (ZX 4 Z2 + 6Z5 4 Z8 + ZG ) / 4 ,
y 4
(4. 3)
4Z
= (Z9 + Z7 + Z3 + Z1 2 Z8 2 Z6 2 Z2 2 Z4 + 4 Z5 ) / 4
[ 2 y 2
The notation of the indices in the above expressions refers to Fig. 4.1. The expressions are
implemented in the governing equilibrium equations (Eqs. 3.17-20), resulting in a set of
linearised non-linear equations, which are solved for each of the grid points in combination with the known boundary conditions.
1HZPDUNV0HWKRG
The central finite difference method is combined with Newmarks integration scheme, in
order to calculate the dynamic behaviour of the plate. The deflection, velocity and acceleration at a time step WW(denoted by indicesW) are expressed by the values at the previous time step W. The present formulation is in accordance with Bathe and Wilson [3],
where the following assumptions are used:
Z
+1
Z
1 2Z
2 Z +1 2
W + 2 +
=Z +
W
W
4 W
W 2
W
Z +1 Z 1 2 Z 2 Z +1
=
+
+
W
W
W 2 W 2
W 2
W
(4. 4)
which is the so-called constant-average-acceleration method. In order to reduce the expression the comma denotes differentiation with respect to time in the following. As we
need the acceleration and the velocity at time W the above expressions are manipulated
to
Z,
+1
WW
Z, +1
W
2 Z +1
=
= 2 (Z +1 Z ) 2Z, Z,
2
W
2
Z +1
=
=
= ( Z +1 Z ) Z, ,
W
t
W
WW
(4. 5)
These expressions (Eq. 4.5) are inserted in the equilibrium equations (Eqs. 3.17-20), reducing the unknown variables deflection (Z W ), velocity (Z W W ) and acceleration (Z WW W )
at time step W to the unknown Z W , Z W W and ZWW W .
1XPHULFDO)RUPXODWLRQRI(TXLOLEULXP(TXDWLRQV
Inserting the finite differences and Newmarks scheme in the governing equations (Eqs.
3.17-20), we get four equilibrium equations. Here, the unknown values areXY Z E andZV
at time step W W (left side of the equations) expressed by known values at time step W
(right side). The four equilibrium equations are expressed in condensed form below, where
matrices and vectors are denoted by [] and {}, respectively. By use of the central finite
differences we obtain the bending/shearing equilibrium equations:
[ ' ]{Z } + [& ]{Z } + [ 0 ]{Z } = {T } + [ % ]{(X, Y) }
(4. 6)
(4. 7)
W +1
E
W +1
E ,W
W +1
,WW
W +1
W +1
and
2
[ ]{ } [ ]{ }
V
$
{ZVW +1 } &V ZVW ,+W1 0 Z,WWW+1 = {TW+1 }
where
[& ] = [ ' ]
E
[& ] = [ $ ]
V
and
(4. 8)
Where the operators are defined in Eqs. 4.10-16. The damping is related to the bending- and shear stiffness with E and V , respectively. They are included in the equilibrium
equations for bending and shear, although they are difficult to determine without doing insitu tests with the particular plates. The inertia and the damping contributions from the inplane displacements are neglected in the in-plane equilibrium equations, as they are regarded as small in comparison with the out-of- plane contributions. Thus, the following
equations are obtained:
L
[
[
]{(X, Y) } = { ; } + [ % ]{Z }
]{(Y, X) } = {< } + [ % ]{Z }
W
+1
+1
W +1
W +1
+1
+1
(4. 9)
The condensed notation of the equation keeps an acceptable length of the expression. Nevertheless, in order to understand each matrix term (indicated by []), they are written in finite difference notation for an arbitrary node in the following. We start with the stiffness
operator in the bending equilibrium equation (Eq. 4.6) at time W:
66
4 ' ZE = '11
4 ZE
4 ZE
4 ZE
+
2
'
+
2
'
+
'
(
)
12
66
22
[ 4
[ 2 \ 2
\ 4
= 2 '( Z1E + Z3E + Z7E + Z9E ) 4('22 + ')( Z2E + Z8E )

4('11 + ')( Z + Z
E
4
E
6
) + ' (Z
11
E
O
+Z
E
U
+ '22 ( ZXE + ZGE ) + (6 '11 + 6 '22 + 8 ')Z5E
(4. 10)
where
' = '12 + 2 '66
The mass matrix operator yields

0 Z, = G]
WW
2 Z5
W 2
(4. 11)
whereas the bending/stretching operator yields
E
3 %
(X, Y ) = %11
3X
3X
3Y
3Y
%
%
+
+
+
22
[ 3
\ 3
[ 2 \ \ 2 [
= %11 (XU XO + 2X4 2X6 ) + %22 (Y G Y X + 2Y 2 2Y8 )

+ B (X9 X7 + X3 X1 + 2X4 2X6
(4. 12)
+ Y 9 + Y 7 Y 3 Y1 + 2Y 2 2Y8 ) 2 3
where
% = %12 + 2 %66
The equivalent lateral load including the in-plane membrane strains becomes:
T = T + 2 1 Z
= T + 1[
2Z
2Z
2Z
+
1
+
2
1
\
[\
\ [
[ 2
\ 2
= T5 + 1 [ (Z6 + Z4 2 Z5 ) + 1 \ (Z8 + Z2 2 Z5 )
1 [\ (Z9 + Z1 Z7 Z3 ) 2
(4. 13)
Written in finite difference form the shear equation (Eq. 4.7) yields
V
2 $
ZV = $55
2 ZV
2 ZV
+
$
44
[ 2
\ 2
(4. 14)
= $55 ( Z6 + Z4 2 Z5 ) + $44 ( Z8 + Z2 2 Z5 )
V
Considering the two in-plane equations (Eq. 4.9), we obtain the following expressions for
the in-plane stiffness operators applied to the displacements, X and Y:
2X
2Y
2Y
$ (X, Y ) = $11 2 + $66 2 + $
$
[ \
[
\
2
$ + $66 )
= $11 (X6 + X4 2X5 ) + $22 (X8 + X2 2X5 )
(4. 15)
+ $(Y 9 + Y1 Y 7 Y 3 )
and
2Y
2X
2X
$ (Y , X) = $22 2 + $66 2 + $
, A=
[\
\
[
2
(A 12 + $66 )
= $66 (Y 6 + Y 4 2Y 5 ) + $22 (Y8 + Y 2 2Y 5 )
(4. 16)
+ $(X9 + X1 X7 X3 ) 2
whereas the two right sides in Eq. 4.9 become:
; =
Z
2Z
2 Z Z 2 Z
$
$ =
$11 2 + $66 2 +
[
[
\ \ \[
($
12
+ $66 )
= $11 (Z6 Z4 )(Z6 + Z4 2 Z5 ) + $66 (Z6 Z4 )(Z8 + Z2 2 Z5 )
(4. 17)
+ $(Z8 Z2 )(Z9 Z7 Z3 + Z1 )
and
< =
Z
2Z
2 Z Z 2 Z
$
$ =
$66 2 + $22 2 +
\
[
\ [ \[
($
12
+ $66 )
= $66 (Z8 Z2 )(Z6 + Z4 2 Z5 ) + $22 (Z8 Z2 )(Z8 + Z2 2 Z5 )
+ $(Z6 Z4 )(Z9 Z7 Z3 + Z1 )
(4. 18)
68
Finally, the stretching/bending operators in Eq. 4.9 become:

3 % (Z) = %11
3Z
3Z
%
+
[ 3
\ 2 [
= %11 (ZU ZO + 2X4 2X6 )
(4. 19)
+ %(Z9 Z7 + Z3 Z1 + 2 Z4 2 Z6 ) 2 3
and
3 % (Z) = %22
3Z
3Z
%
+
\ 3
[ 2 \
= %22 (ZG ZX + 2X2 2X8 )
(4. 20)
+ %(Z9 + Z7 Z3 Z1 + 2 Z2 2 Z8 ) 2 3
By applying Newmarks scheme (Eq. 4.5) to the equilibrium equations (Eqs. 4.6-9), we
obtain the following time dependent set of non-linear differential equations after some
simplification:
[( + 1)[ ' ] [ 1 ] + [ 0 ]]{Z

+ [ [P ] [ 1 ]]{Z }
4
W +1
E
W +1
V
{ }}[
]
+ { {Z } + 2{Z } + {Z }}[ 0 ] + [ % ]{(X, Y ) }
= {T W+1 } + E {ZEW } + ZEW ,W

W
W
,W
4 '
W
,WW
(4. 21)
W +1
and
[(1 )[ $ ] + [ 1 ] [ 0 ]]{Z
+ [ [P ] + [ 1 ]]{Z }
2
= {T
W +1
E
} {{Z } + {Z }}[ $ ]
{Z } + 2{Z } + {Z }}[ 0 ]
W +1
W
V
W
V ,W
W
,W
W
,WW
W +1
V
}
(4. 22)
Thus, the above set of equations, formulated by use of the finite difference method and
Newmarks method, expresses the lateral deflections, Z E and ZV , at the time WW. The inplane displacements, X, Y, are coupled to the above equations through the right-side terms
{T } and [%E ]. The bending/shearing equations (Eqs. 4.6-7) are de-coupled, in order to
speed up the numerical solution. In this way, we obtain two separate equations for each of
the unknowns ZEW+1 and ZVW +1 . The bending equation yields:
[( + 1)[ ' ] [ 1 ] + [ 0 ]] {Z }
= {T } [ [ 0 ] [ 1 ]] {Z } + [ ' ] {YHO }
4
W +1
[ ]
W +1
V
]{
W +1
E
+ 0 {DFFEW } + 3 % (X, Y )
W +1
W
E
(4. 23)
where
{YHO } = {Z } + {Z } and {DFF } = {Z } + 2{Z } + {Z }

W
E
W
E
W
E ,W
W
E
W
,W
W
,WW
The shearing equation yields:
[(1 )[ $ ] + [ 1 ] [ 0 ]] {Z
= {T } + [ [ 0 ] [ 1 ]] {Z }
2
W +1
W +1
V
W +1
E
[ ]
(4. 24)
V
V 2 $
{YHOVW } 0 {DFFVW }
where
{YHO } = {Z } + {Z } and {DFF } = {Z } + 2{Z } + {Z }

W
V ,W
,W
,WW
The coupled in-plane equations (Eq. 4.9) are expressed in a combined matrix-vector equation below:
2 $ X
2
$ Y
; +1 3 % Z
= +1 + 3
+1
<
% Z
+1
+1
+1
(4. 25)
The matrix-vector system of equations (Eqs. 4.23-25) forms the problem of the geometrical non-linear dynamic response of laterally loaded non-symmetric orthotropic composite
plates. By combining Eqs. 4.23-25 with the finite difference expressions in Eqs. 4.10-20
we obtain a set of linear equations for each grid point. The system of equations is solved
in load and time steps, whereas the coefficient matrices must be updated, since it is still a
non-linear problem.
70
%RXQGDU\&RQGLWLRQV
The solution of the system of equations (Eqs. 4.23-25) requires precise knowledge of the
displacements at the boundaries. As for the fourth-order differentiation in the bending
equation (Eq. 4.10 or 4.23), we need to know the lateral bending deflection outside the
boundaries. The boundary conditions will be explained for the simply supported and the
clamped cases in the following on the assumption of symmetry.
Simply supported
Clamped
ZEL
:EL
ZEL
ZEL
ZEL
ZEL
ZEL
ZEL
[M
]Z
XYZVL XYZVLERWKFDVHV
Figure 4.3: )LQLWHGLIIHUHQFHDSSOLFDWLRQRIERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQV

Fig. 4.3 shows the finite difference notation for both simply supported and clamped cases.
Using the plate edges as symmetry lines, we have anti-symmetry for the simply supported
case and symmetry for the clamped case with regard to the lateral deflection, Z. Symmetry
is found for the in-plane deflections, X and Y, in both cases. In order to solve the equilibrium equations (Eqs. 4.23-25) by use of the finite difference method, we assume known
deflection fields, X, Y, Z and Z , at the plate edges, and the deflection field, Z , outside
the plate edges. For the two analysed boundary conditions (Fig. 4.3), the following deflection fields are implemented:
E
Simply Supported
Lateral displacement, Z
Z(1, M) = Z(P, M) = 0 ,
Z(L,1) = Z(L, Q) = 0 ,
Z (0, M) = -Z (2, M) ,
Z (L,0) = -Z (L,2) ,
E
Z (0, M) = -Z (2, M) ,
Z (L,0) = -Z (L,2) ,
V
V
In-plane displacements, X and Y, straight immovable edges

X(1, M) = X(P, M) = 0 ,
X(L,1) = X(L, Q) = 0 ,
Y(1, M) = Y(P, M) = 0 ,
Y(L,1) = Y(L, Q) = 0 ,
M
L
M
L
Q
P
Q
P
M Q
L P
In-plane displacements, initial in-plane displacement,X and Y
X(1, M) = I(M)X
X(L,1) = I(L)X
Y(1, M) = J(M)Y
Y(L,1) = J(L)Y
, X(P, M) =0 ,
, X(L, Q) = 0 ,
, Y(P, M) = 0 ,
, Y(L, Q) = 0 ,
M
L
M
L
Q
P
Q
P
where I and J are shape functions depending on the prescribed in-plane initial displacements.
Clamped
Lateral displacement, Z
Z(1, M) = Z(P, M) = 0 ,
Z(L,1) = Z(L, Q) = 0 ,
Z (0, M) = Z (2, M) ,
Z (L,0) = Z (L,2) ,
E
E
Z (0, M) = -Z (2, M) ,
Z (L,0) = -Z (L,2) ,
V
V
M Q
L P
The in-plane boundary conditions are the same as for the simply supported case. Hence,
in-plane initial forces, 1 , 1 and 1 , are applied as equivalent in-plane displacements,
X ,Y.
[
\
[\
6ROXWLRQ3URFHGXUH
By combining the equilibrium equations (Eqs. 4.23-25) with the finite difference expressions (Eqs. 4.10-20), we get three systems of equations, concerning Z , Z , and X, Y, respectively. They are solved by use of a sparse matrix solver, as each of the systems are
formulated into global sparse matrices. In geometrical linear problems the coefficient matrices are constant, whereas in non-linear problems the matrices must be recalculated at
each integration step, which of course becomes more time-consuming. In the following,
the solution procedure is outlined, focusing on the formulation of the matrices, iteration
loops and load- and time-steps.
E
,WHUDWLRQ/RRSVDQG7LPH6WHSV
Eqs. 4.23-25 are solved separately, reducing the computer time. In order to do so, iteration
loops are applied within each time step. Fig. 4.4 illustrates the procedure. The time-step
integration is straightforward by updating the accelerations and velocities at each time increment, whereas the static solution within each time step requires numeral iterations,
until equilibrium is obtained for the whole set of equations. The system is tuned by the
72
relative allowable displacement error, o, and the time increment, W, where the latter determines the size of the load increment, T(W).
0DWUL[6ROYHU
Initial values
ZE , Eq. 4.23
Time step W
XY, Eq. 4.25

1R
ZV , Eq. 4.24
(Z , Z , X, Y ) (Z , Z , X, Y )
(Z , Z , X, Y )
E
QHZ
ROG
<HV
ROG
< R
Solving Eqs.
4.23-25
by use of
Matrix solver
8SGDWHV
DFFHOHUDWLRQV
YHORFLWLHVDQG
ORDG
Time step W W

W W W
Figure 4.4: 6ROXWLRQSURFHGXUHRI(TVVKRZLQJWLPHVWHSVDQGLWHUDWLRQORRSV
In general, large load increments require many iterations, whereas small load increments
require few iterations. Too large load increments will make the system of equations unstable and the displacement increment, , will increase at each iteration.
Solving the bending equations (Eq. 4.23) for the first load increment gives us the trial values of the deflection, Z, in each grid. Hence, we find the non-linear right-hand terms in
Eq. 4.25 (; *+ 3 % ,<*+ 3 % )and the in-plane equation is solved for X and Y. From the inplane displacements we obtain the in-plane forces, which are included in the right-hand
side of Eq. 4.24, solving the lateral displacements, Z . The right-hand side of Eq. 4.23 is
now updated and a new iteration loop takes place, until we reach an acceptable value of
the relative displacement error (see Fig. 4.4).
V
(LJHQIUHTXHQF\DQG$GGHG0DVV
In order to avoid time increments which correspond to the eigenfrequency of the system a
simple linear analytical solution for the lowest eigenfrequencies of the plate is used to indicate the critical value of W. Prediction of the vibrations in hull plates is of great importance. Bad design in this sense may result in uncomfortable sailing and in the worst case
6ROXWLRQ0HWKRG73
intolerable vibrations leading to in fatigue damage and damage to the navigation equipment, loose fittings, delamination of panel faces, etc.
In order to simplify the expression, the non-linear terms and the bending-stretching terms
due to asymmetry are neglected in the derivation. Thus, a linear analytical solution to the
lowest frequencies of a simply supported plate is presented. It gives us a conservative estimate of the lowest eigenfrequency as the non-linear influence (the in-plane forces due to
lateral deflection) increases the plate stiffness, which again increases the lowest eigenfrequency. Thus, the non-linear terms at the right side in Eqs. 3.19-20 from the in-plane displacements, X and Y, are neglected and the governing equations of the problem are reduced
to a bending and a shear equation only, expressed as:
2
2 ZV
2 ZV
Z
$55
+ $44
=
T
[ 2
\ 2
W2
(4. 26)
and
'11
4 ZE
4 ZE
4 ZE
+
'
+
2
'
+
2
'
(
)
22
12
66
[ 4
\ 4
[ 2 \ 2
(4. 27)
2Z
2 2 ZE 2 ZE
=
+ T + 2 5 2 +
W2
W [
\ 2
where the rotary inertia 5 and the mass * are defined as:
5 = * ] 2 G]
= G] + P
(4. 28)
The effect of the rotary inertia is small compared to the vertical inertia and for most sandwich panels in marine structures it is about 50 -100 times less than the shear deformation
(Zenkert [8]). By omitting the effect of rotary inertia in the following and by inserting Eq.
4.26 in Eq. 4.27 and rearranging, we obtain:
4
2
*
' ZV
* Z
' Z T
1
=0
V
W 2 2 $
ZV
(4. 29)
Free vibration is characterised by zero external force T and Eq. 4.29 yields

4
2 Z ' ZV
' Z +
1
=0
V
W 2 2 $
ZV
4
(4. 30)
On the assumption of free harmonic excitations the deflection, Z([\W), can be written as
74
Z([ , \ , W ) = (W ) ([ , \ ) = ( $ cos W + % sin W ) (Z E + Z V )sin
P[
Q \
sin
D
E
(4. 31)
This function satisfies the boundary conditions: zero moments and deflections at the
edges. By inserting Eq. 4.31 in Eq. 4.30, we have:
4 '
(4. 32)
4 '
*
1 + 2 V
$
where
2
'
PQ 2
P
Q
= '11
+ ('12 + 2 '66 )
+ '22
D
D
DE
2 $
P
Q
= $44
+ $55
D
E
(4. 33)
Equation 4.32 gives the frequencies of a simply supported sandwich plate for the different
V
becomes large, the stiffness ratio
vibration modes, P, Q. If the shear stiffness $
V
' $
0 , and thus Eq. 4.32 corresponds to that of ordinary plate theory.
The added mass P arises from the water flow due to the motion of the plate and depends
of the vibration mode. From the theory of potential flow a simple expression (Eq. 4.34)
for the added mass can be deduced (see Terndrup and Jensen [6]) as shown below for a
plate with water on one side.
P =
ZDWHU
P
Q
+
D
E
2
(4. 34)
For water on both sides the expression (Eq. 4.34) must be multiplied by two.
)RUPXODWLRQRI&RHIILFLHQW0DWUL[
The finite difference coefficient matrices in Eqs. 4.23-5 are outlined in this section. They
are generated by use of do-loops implemented in the FORTRAN code program 3DQHO presented in Chapter 7. They are formulated for both the simply supported and clamped
boundary conditions, which in fact only has an influence on the bending equations (Eq.
4.23) as discussed in Section 4.1.4.
6ROXWLRQ0HWKRG75
The system of equations with the coefficient matrices, outlined in the following, is solved
in two steps, using existing matrix solvers from the commercial IMSL Math/Library [2],
which is a collection of FORTRAN-coded subroutines for mathematical applications. The
first step computes the /8 factorisation of the coefficient matrix, whereas the second step
solves the sparse system of linear equations given the /8 factorisation of the coefficient
matrix. By doing so the same /8 factorisation can be used in several steps, without updating the coefficient matrix in case of geometrical linear behaviour.
Coefficient Matrix in the Bending Equation

The structure of the coefficient matrix '
(Eq. 4.35) in the bending equation Eq. 4.23
is illustrated in Eq. 4.36. It is a matrix with (P)(Q) (P)(Q) elements consisting of
four different types of sub-matrices: ' , ' , ' , ' forming a sparse matrix. The matrix is updated after each iteration loop (see Sec. 4.2.1) as the terms (Eq. 4.35) including
in-plane forces and vertical inertia depend on the last values of the unknown lateral bending deflection Z in each grid point. These terms can be identified in the matrix elements
listed after the sub-matrices shown in the following.
EHQGLQJ
E
E
E
E
['
EHQGLQJ
] = ( + 1)[ ' ] [ 1 ] + [ 0 ]
4
(4. 35)
The sub-matrices are diagonal matrices and contain (Q) (Q) elements. They are outlined in Eq. 4.37-40 followed by the information of each element. Hence, the coefficient
matrix yields
['
EHQGLQJ
[' ] [' ]
[' ] [' ]
[' ] [ ' ]
0
[' ]
E1
O
E3
E4
X
E3
E2
O
E3
E4
['
['
['
['
E4
X
E3
E2
O
E3
0
0
] 0
0
] [' ] 0
] [' ] [' ] 0
] [' ] [ ' ] [' ]
E4
X
E3
E2
.
0
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
and the (Q)(Q)sub-matrices become:
E4
X
E3
E4
.
.
'E 4
0
.
.
'EO 3
'E 4
0
0
.
.
0
.
.
'E 2
'EO 3
.
.
.
'EX3
'E 2
E4
O
E3
0
0
0
0 (4. 36)
'E 4
'EX3
'E1
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
0
0
[' ] [' ] [ ]
76
[' ]
E1
G 0
G
4
G K
= .
0
0
0
G4
GK
G5
G4
GK
G4
.
G5
.
G4
.
GK
.
GK
G4
G5
G4
GK
G4
G5
GK
G4
0
0
.
GK
G4
G 0
(4. 37)
where
[' ] = [' ] , where G

E2
E1
=0
(4. 38)
The sub-matrices at each side of the diagonal sub matrix yield:
[' ]
X
E3
G 2
G
1
=.
0
0
G6
G2
G6
G1
G2
G1
0
0
G6
G 6
(4. 39)
Here, the equivalent matrix below the diagonal in main matrix (Eq. 4.36) becomes
[' ] = [' ] , where G

O
E3
X
E3
G6
(4. 40)
and the last sub-matrix yields
[' ]
E4
G Y
0
=
.
0
GY
.
.
0
. 0
. .
0 GY
.
(4. 41)
The elements in the above sub-matrices are listed below:

G 0 = G 5 + G K + 2Q [ (L, M )Q \ (L, M )
G5 = G 3 + G Y
G 3 = (1 + E) 6('11 + '22 ) + 8('12 + 2 '66 ) 4 + * 2
G 4 = 4(1 + E )('11 + '12 + 2 '66 ) 4 Q [ (L , M ) Q [ (L , M )
6ROXWLRQ0HWKRG77
G 1 = 2(1 + E )('12 + 2 '66 ) 4 + Q [\ (L , M )
G 6 = 2(1 + E )('12 + 2 '66 ) 4 Q [\ (L , M )
G 2 = 4(1 + E)('22 + '12 + 2 '66 ) 4 Q \ (L , M )
G K = (1 + E)'11 4
G Y = (1 + E)'11 4
clamped boundary conditions .
G K = (1 + E)'11 4
G Y = (1 + E)'11 4
simply supported boundary conditions .
Here, the terms Q (L,M) and Q (L,M) are elements in the matrix term 2 1 (Eq. 4.35), repre[
senting the in-plane forces at grid point (L,M) due to the in-plane displacements, X, Y, given
in the membrane equation Eq. 4.25.
Coefficient Matrix in the Shear Equation

In a similar manner we obtain the coefficient matrix $
in the shear equation Eq. 4.24.
The updating of the coefficient matrix with regard to the in-plane forces is time-consuming and, consequently, these terms are left on the right hand side of the shear equation.
The in-plane forces have little influence on the shear coefficient matrix in comparison
with the bending coefficient matrix, which allows us to move the in-plane terms to the
right side of the equation without violating the solution.
VKHDU
In general, the system of equation converges, as the solution is an iterative process. The
updating of the shear coefficient matrix is only necessary in the dynamic case, where the
vertical inertia changes at each iteration loop within the time steps. The (P)(Q) (P
)(Q) shear coefficient matrix can be expressed in the form below:
[ $ ] = [(1 )[
VKHDU
Written in matrix form $
VKHDU
] [ ]]
V
$
2 0
yields
(4. 42)
78
.
0
[ ] [$ ] 0 0
.
0
[ ] [$ ] [$ ] 0
0
[$ ] [$ ] [$ ] .
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
[ $ ] [ $ ] [ $ ]
.
0
0
[ $ ] [ $ ]
$V1
$V2
0
$VKHDU =
.
0
0
The sub-matrices contain
[$ ]
V1
D V 2
D
V1
= .
0
0
V2
V1
V2
V2
V1
V2
V2
V1
V2
V2
V1
(4. 43)
(Q) (Q) elements and are outlined in the following:
D V1
D V2
D V1
D V1
D V2
D V1
0
0
D V1
D V2
(4. 44)
and
[$ ]
V2
D 3
0
=
.
0
D3
.
.
0
. 0
. .
0 D3
.
(4. 45)
The elements in the above sub-matrices are listed below:
D1 = (1 V) $55 2
D 2 = 2 (1 V)( $44 + $55 ) 2 * 2

D 3 = (1 V) $44 2
Coefficient Matrix in the Membrane Equation

The membrane coefficient matrix $
in the membrane equation (Eq. 4.25) concerning the in-plane displacements X and Y is constant, as the vertical inertia is neglected and
the right hand side is assumed to be known from the previous iteration step. The coefficient matrix is expressed below in Eq. 4.46.
PHPEUDQH
[$
PHPEUDQH
2 $
= 2
Hence, we obtain the following simple 2(P)(Q) (P)(Q) matrix:
(4. 46)
6ROXWLRQ0HWKRG79
[$
PHPEUDQH
0
.
0
[$ ] [$ ] 0
.
0
[$ ] [$ ] [$ ] 0
0
$
$
$
.
0
] . [. ] [.] [.] .
.
0
.
0
[ $ ] [ $ ] [ $ ]
0
.
0
0
[ $ ] [ $ ]
P1
P3
P2
P1
P3
P2
P1
P2
The sub-matrices $ , $
P
D P1
0
D P2
0
$P1 = 0
.
0
0
0
[ ]
P3
P
and $
P
P1
P3
P2
P1
(4. 47)
are listed in the following:
D P2
EP1
D P4
D P1
D P2
D P4
EP1
D P4
D P2
D P1
D P2
.
0
.
D P4
.
0
.
0
EP1
.
0
D P2
D P1
D P4
0
0
0
0
.
DP4
0
EP1
(4. 48)
and
[ $P ]
2
and
D P4
0
D P 6
= 0
.
0
0
0
D P6
D P4
D P5
D P6
D P6
0
D P6
DP4
.
D P6
.
0
.
0
.
0
D P5
.
DP6
D P6
D P4
D P6
D P5
D P6
D P6
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
D P5
(4. 49)
80
D P4
0
D P6
$P3 = 0
.
0
0
0
D P6
D P5
D P6
D P6
D P4
DP6
D P5
D P6
DP6
DP4
.
D P6
.
0
.
0
.
0
D P5
D P6
D P6
[ ]
D P6
DP4
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
D P5
(4. 50)
In which the elements D in the above sub-matrices are as follows:

PL
D P1 = 2( $11 + $66 ) 2
D P2 = $11 2
D P3 = 2( $66 + $22 ) 2
D P4 = $66 2
D P5 = $22 2
D P6 = ( $12 + $66 ) 4 2
9HULILFDWLRQRIWKH0HWKRG
The central finite difference method (FD) outlined in this chapter is verified by comparing
the results (denoted Riber in the figures) with results of calculations from the commercially available finite element based (FEM) program ANSYS [1] (denoted Ansys in the
figures). The finite element calculations with ANSYS use the Shell91 element, which is
an eight-node, higher-order, layered shell element made for sandwich structures. The element takes into account geometrical non-linear behaviour from large deflections as described in Chapter 3.
The responses from both static and dynamic loads are compared. For the static cases two
different examples of boundary conditions (simply supported -VV and clamped -FO) are analysed verifying the deflections and strains (~ stresses). Both a sandwich plate and a singleskin plate are examined, as the shear effect is pronounced in the first type of plate,
whereas membrane effects are dominant in the latter.
9HULILFDWLRQRI0HWKRG81
In the dynamic case, midpoint deflections, Z, are compared for simply supported plates of
both sandwich and single skin. The dynamic solution procedure in Ansys is also based on
Newmarks method, where each time step determines the size of the load, T. Hence the
solution within each time step is a quasi-static solution including the inertia and damping
terms, which are omitted in the static analysis.
Two types of symmetric plates are used in the comparison. A single-skin plate of 11 P
and a sandwich plate of 22 P with isotropic material properties as listed below:
6LQJOHVNLQSODWH
D E 1.0 P,
20.0 *3D,
IDFH
IDFH
0.30,
IDFH
= 0.01 P
6DQGZLFKSODWH
D E 2.0 P,
(
143 03D,
FRUH
(
*
IDFH
FRUH
20.4 *3D,
55.0 03D,
IDFH
FRUH
0.30,
0.30,
W
W
= 0.003 P
= 0.06 P
IDFH
FRUH
6WDWLF5HVSRQVH
Deflection and strain responses for two types of composite plates with a constant lateral
load T are compared in the following by application of the methods Ansys ~ FEM and
Riber ~ FD.
Clamped Single-Skin Plate

[ [PPP]
Z[FP]
Midpoint strains and deflections, [\ DE

Deflection
2,0
Riber
Ansys
1,5
1,0
Riber
Ansys
Strain bottom
0,5
0,0
-0,5
Riber
Ansys
Strain top
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Figure 4.5: 0LGSRLQWGHIOHFWLRQZDQGLQSODQHVWUDLQ FODPSHG

[
100
82
Z[PP]
Deflection along the [-axis, \ E
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,6
0,5
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
T .3D
-5
-10
Riber
-15
Ansys
-20
-25
[ [P]
Figure 4.6: 'HIOHFWLRQZDORQJWKH[D[LVFODPSHG

Strains along the [-axis, \ E
x [PPP]
8
T .3D
6
Riber
Ansys
Bottom
2
0
Riber
-2
Top
Ansys
-4
-6
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
[ [P]
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
Figure 4.7: ,QSODQHVWUDLQ WRSDQGERWWRPRISODWHDORQJWKH[D[LVFODPSHG

[
All of the Figures 4.5-7 show good agreement of the two solutions. Small variations are
found in Fig. 4.7, where the strains at the top and in the bottom of the plate have different
slopes towards the edges. The maximum strain in the bottom of the plate situated at D is
approximately 3 % higher calculated by Ansys in comparison with Riber. The rest of the
response lies within this margin for this particular case and the FD method seems accurate.
Simply Supported Single-Skin Plate

x [PPP]
Z[FP]
Midpoint deflections and strains, ([\ DE

Deflection
2,0
Riber
Ansys
1,5
Strain bottom
1,0
Riber
Ansys
Strain top
0,5
Riber
Ansys
0,0
-0,5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4. 8: 0LGSRLQWGHIOHFWLRQZDQGLQSODQHVWUDLQ VLPSO\VXSSRUWHG

[
[ [PPP]
Bottom
Riber
2,0
Ansys
1,5
T .3D
1,0
Top
Riber
Ansys
0,5
0,0
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
[[P]
Figure 4.9: ,QSODQHVWUDLQV WRSDQGERWWRPRIWKHSODWHDORQJWKH[D[LVVLPSO\VXSSRUWHG

[
84
Deflection along the [-axis, \ E
Z[PP]
0
0,1
0,2
-5
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
Riber
Ansys
-10
T .3D
-15
-20
-25
[ [P]
Figure 4.10: 'HIOHFWLRQVZDORQJWKH[D[LVVLPSO\VXSSRUWHG
The results calculated by the two methods (Figs. 4.8-10) in the simply supported case
show an agreement similar to that of the clamped case. The maximum strain in the bottom
of the plate located at [,\ = D/2, E/8, calculated by Ansys, is approximately 4.5 % higher
than when calculated by Riber. However, the slope calculated by Ansys in this maximum
elicits a discontinuity with no physical meaning. In calculations by Ansys there are both
membrane and bending strains at the edges, whereas in calculations by Riber there are
only membrane strains. The FEM shell element calculates the strains at Gauss nodes,
which do not necessarily lie at the edges. This may cause the differences in the results by
the two methods. The results by the FD method seem more accurate in this particular case.
Clamped Sandwich Plate

Figures 4.11-13 show the response of the sandwich plate with clamped boundary conditions. Shear strains in the core along the [axis are included in the sandwich analysis (Fig.
4.12). The two methods are in good agreement, except for the transverse core shear strains
at the edges and the in-plane strains in the lower face, also at the edges.
Midpoint strains and deflections, [\ DE
[[PPP]
Z [FP]
Strains, bottom
14
12
Riber
Ansys
10
8
Deflection Z
6
w/Riber
w/Ansys
Strains, top
4
2
Riber
Ansys
0
-2
-4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Figure 4.11: 0LGSRLQWGHIOHFWLRQZDQGLQSODQHVWUDLQ FODPSHG

[
Shear strains and deflections along the[-axis, \ E
[] [PPP]
Z [FP]
T .3D
150
Shear strains
100
Riber
Ansys
50
0
Riber
Ansys
-50
-100
Deflection
-150
-200
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2,0
[[P]
Figure 4.12: 6KHDUVWUDLQ DQGGHIOHFWLRQZDORQJWKH[D[LVFODPSHG

[]
86
[[PPP]
40
T .3D
Riber
Ansys
30
Bottom
20
10
0
Riber
Ansys
-10
-20
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Top
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2,0
[ [P]
Figure 4.13: ,QSODQHVWUDLQ WRSDQGERWWRPRISODWHDORQJWKH[D[LVFODPSHG

[
The shear strains as calculated by Riber are approximately 6 % lower than the ones obtained by Ansys, whereas the in-plane strains in the bottom of the plate at the edges are 16
% higher when calculated by Riber. As discussed for the single-skin plate the strains calculated by the FEM shell element may not be exactly at the edges, but at an interpolated
node within the element. Except for this inconsistency at the edges, the methods are in
good agreement for this particular case.
Simply Supported Sandwich Plate

[[PPP]
Z [FP]
Midpoint strain and deflections, [\ DE

Strain bottom
14
Riber
Ansys
12
10
Deflection
8
6
Riber
Ansys
Strain top
Riber
Ansys
2
0
-2
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Lateral load T[.3D]
Figure 4.14: 0LGSRLQWGHIOHFWLRQVZDQGLQSODQHVWUDLQV VLPSO\VXSSRUWHG

[
[] [PPP]
Z [PP]
Shear strains along the [-axis, \ E

T .3D
40
Shear strains
Riber
Ansys
0
-40
Deflection
-80
Riber
Ansys
-120
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2,0
[ [P]
Figure 4.15: 6KHDUVWUDLQV DQGGHIOHFWLRQVZDORQJWKH[D[LVVLPSO\VXSSRUWHG

[]
[[PPP]
Strains along the x-axis, y = b/2
18
16
Riber
Ansys
14
bottom
12
T .3D
10
8
top
Riber
Ansys
4
2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2,0
x [m]
Figure 4.16: ,QSODQHVWUDLQV WRSDQGERWWRPRISODWHDORQJWKH[D[LVVLPSO\VXSSRUWHG

[
The last case in the static analysis shows a simply supported sandwich plate (Figs. 4.1416). Also here, the two methods are in good agreement, but still with some inconsistency
near the edges. The maximum strain occurs in the bottom face at approximately 1/8 of the
length from the edges and not in the centre of the plate, which is an important observation.
88
'\QDPLF5HVSRQVH
In order to verify the dynamic response, two simply supported sandwich and single skin
plates are analysed according to Riber with respect to midpoint lateral deflection, Z, and
the results compared with results obtained by Ansys with similar plates. The plate properties are identical to the ones for the static case (Section 4.4.1). Two different types of
loads are applied to the plates and the results are illustrated in Figs. 4.17-20 in the following.
Simply Supported Sandwich Plate

Z [FP]
T [105 3D]
Midpoint deflection Z, sandwich plate
16
12
8
4
Riber
Ansys
load
-4
0
0,005
0,010
0,015
0,020
0,025
0,030
0,035
0,040
0,045
0,050
Time [VHF]
Figure 4.17: '\QDPLFUHVSRQVHZRIVLPSO\VXSSRUWHGVDQGZLFKSODWH.
Midpoint deflection, Z, sandwich plate
Z [PPP]
T [105 3D]
15
10
5
0
Riber
Ansys
load
-5
-10
-15
0
0,005
0,01
0,015
0,02
0,025
0,03
0,035
0,04
0,045
0,05
Time [VHF]
Figure 4.18: '\QDPLFUHVSRQVHZRIVLPSO\VXSSRUWHGVDQGZLFKSODWH
Simply Supported Single-Skin Plate

Z [FP]
T [105 3D]
Midpoint deflection, Z, single skin
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
Riber
Ansys
load
0,0
-0,5
-1,0
0
0,005
0,010
0,015
0,020
0,025
0,030
Time [VHF]
Figure 4.19: '\QDPLFUHVSRQVHZRIVLPSO\VXSSRUWHGVLQJOHVNLQSODWH
90
Z [FP]
T [105 3D]
Midpoint deflection, Z, single skin
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
Riber
Ansys
load
-0,5
-1,0
-1,5
0
0,005
0,01
0,015
0,02
0,025
0,03
Time [VHF]
Figure 4.20: '\QDPLFUHVSRQVHZRIVLPSO\VXSSRUWHGVLQJOHVNLQSODWH
The results obtained with the two methods are in good agreement for all the above load
and boundary cases. Nevertheless, for the sandwich plate the results from Ansys show a
slightly higher vibration frequency.
6XPPDU\
A numerical formulation of the non-linear plate theory for orthotropic sandwich and single
skin plates is deduced. The formulation is based on the central finite difference method
and Newmarks constant acceleration method regarding space and time solutions, respectively.
The matrix system of the governing equations is presented in detail in order to understand
the numerical solution procedure. The method is programmed in FORTRAN code and implemented into a design software program 3DQHO (Chapter 7). The results of static as well
as dynamic response are verified against the commercial FEM-based software program
Ansys.
The method yields results in perfect agreement with results obtained by Ansys, and furthermore, it is approximately 50 times faster in CPU-time than Ansys. This factor is found
by performing dynamic calculations on a sandwich plate, where the number of nodes is
minimised for both methods, until the results lie within 3 % of the converged results, with
respect to number of nodes.
%LEOLRJUDSK\91
%LEOLRJUDSK\
[1] ANSYS. FEM-Software Program. ANSYS, Inc.,Houston, PA 15342-1300, Texas,
USA, 1994.
[2] IMSL Math/Library. FORTRAN Subroutines for Mathematical Applications. IMSL,
Inc., Houston, Texas, USA, 1991.
[3] Bathe K.J. and Wilson E.L. Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976.
[4] Gorji M. On Large Deflection of Symmetric Composite Plates under Static Loading.
3URF,QVW0HFK(QJUV Vol. 200 (C1), June 1986.
[5] Newmark N.M. A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics. -RXUQDO RI WKH
(QJLQHHU0HFKDQLFVGLYLVLRQ. Vol. 85 (EM 3), July 1959.
[6] Terndrup Pedersen P. and Juncher Jensen J. Styrkeberegning af maritime konstruktioner. Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 1982
[7] S.P. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger. Theory of Plates and Shells. McGrawHill, Inc. Singapore, 1959.
[8] D. Zenkert. An Introduction to Sandwich Construction. Chameleon Press LTD, London, 1995.
92
&KDSWHU
)DLOXUHRI&RPSRVLWH3ODWHV
,QWURGXFWLRQ
The previous chapters focused on the non-linear response of sandwich and single skin FRP
plates. The work presented in this chapter now addresses the broader objective: application of the acquired knowledge from the response analysis methodology to the design of
structural safe systems. This task is illustrated in the design loop below (Figure 5.1).
1
/RDGV
6WUXFWXUDO
FRQILJXUDWLRQ
'HVLJQGULYHU
5HGHVLJQ
5HVSRQVH
Failure criteria
&
Failure modes
3HUIRUPDQFH
Figure 5.1: 'HVLJQORRSIRUFRPSRVLWHSODWHV

As the structural quality of a composite sandwich or single skin may differ quite a lot
compared to similar constructions made of homogeneous materials, such as metals, the design criteria for composite structures are often very conservative. Thus, because of insufficient understanding of failure mechanisms in composites and because of the uncertainty
93
&KDSWHU)DLOXUHRI&RPSRVLWH3ODWHV
94
in material properties within the composite, it is a difficult task to make safe and structurally optimal design.
The following sections discuss various failure criteria for fibre-reinforced plastics and
core materials, and fracture mechanism for sandwich and single-skin plates with their resulting failure modes. The result of this discussion is formulated as a progressive damage
model (Chapter 6) and implemented in the design program 3DQHO (Chapter 7).
)DLOXUH0RGHV
Sandwich and single-skin plates can fail in several ways, and the failure modes are often
quite different to those of isotropic metal plates such as steel and aluminium. Where steel
and aluminium have a reserve when reaching the upper limit of the elastic behaviour
(yielding), this stage of the loading is most critical for composite plates, as they are brittle
and show little tendency to yield. Delamination between two plies in the faces and
debonding between the core and the face are both examples of complicated failure mechanisms, which are difficult to predict.
(a)
(b)
(c )
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Figure 5.2: )DLOXUHPRGHVIRUFRPSRVLWHVDQGZLFKSODWHV=HQNHUW>@7KHIDLOXUHPRGHVDUH

GHQRWHGDIDFH\LHOGLQJIUDFWXUHEFRUHVKHDUIDLOXUHFIDFHZULQNOLQJGIDFHFRUHVHSDUD
WLRQLHSHHOHJHQHUDOEXFNOLQJIVKHDUFULPSLQJJIDFHGLPSOLQJDQGKORFDOLQGHQWDWLRQ
)DLOXUH0RGHV95
)DFH)UDFWXUH
Fracture of the laminate or the faces in either tension or compression can be predicted by
use of failure criteria based upon stress/strength ratios in fibres and matrix (Section 5.3).
In addition to this we also deal with failure in the laminate initiated from more global failure phenomena such as: Face wrinkling, global buckling, shear crimping, face dimpling.
These failure modes must also be included in a failure damages model, in order to find the
correct mode of the final failure of the structure.
Face dimpling or intercellular buckling, however, is only a problem in sandwich structures
with honeycomb or corrugated cores and is not included in the present damage model. It is
described in Zenkert [17] for both honeycomb and corrugated cores. Shear crimping is described later under core failure as it is failure due to a weak core.
/RFDO%XFNOLQJ
In the sandwich theory (Chapter 3) we assume infinite core stiffness in the out-of-plane direction i.e. the out-of-plane transverse strain, z, is negligible. This assumption is based on
several investigations (e.g. Allen [1] and Reissner [10]) and seems reasonable. However,
for sandwich plates with thin faces and a weak core, we may have face wrinkling or local
buckling, illustrated in Fig. 5.3 of symmetrical or asymmetrical form.
&RXSOHGDV\PPHWULFDO
&RXSOHGV\PPHWULFDO
8QFRXSOHG
Figure 5.3: )DFHZULQNOLQJPRGHVRIVDQGZLFKSODWHVXEMHFWHGWRDQLQSODQHORDGDQGDODWHUDO

EHQGLQJPRPHQW
For bending of laterally loaded sandwich plates, wrinkling in the compressive face may
occur (uncoupled wrinkling). For compressive in-plane loads combined with bending the
coupled wrinkling modes are prone to happen.
The critical face stress depends on the elastic stiffness of the core and the face. A detailed
investigation of the face wrinkling phenomena is found in Allen [1], Hoff[7] and Zenkert
[17] for both the uniaxial and the biaxial state of stress. A simple general formula for face
96
wrinkling based on experimental work and proposed by Hoff [7] gives good results. The
formula states
1IDFH = 0.5 3 (1IDFH (1FRUH *1FRUH
and
2IDFH = 0.5 3 ( 2IDFH ( 2FRUH *2FRUH
(5. 1)
For a face made of different plies and by use of the 4-stiffness notation used in Chapter 3,
we get an average value for the critical face stress as
IDFH L
3
DYHUDJH
M = 0.5
$ MMIDFH L
W IDFH L
(1
2
IDFH L
) 4 (1 )
FRUH
MM
2
FRUH
444FRUH 455FRUH ,
(L , M ) = (1,2)
(5. 2)
The wrinkling mode is determined by the thickness ratio W c /Wf and the stiffness of the core
and face. The asymmetrical wrinkling mode is more likely to happen for small thickness
ratios, where the deformations of the two faces are affected by each other by the displacement in the core, whereas for larger core thicknesses the displacements in the core are
damped out and will not affect the opposite face.
The wrinkling failure may happen as an indentation in the core, if the compressive
strength of the core is lower than the tensile strength of the core and the tensile strength of
the bonding between face and core. Alternatively, it may happen as a tensile fracture in the
core if the compressive strength of the core is higher than the tensile strength of the core
or the bonding between face and core.
*HQHUDO%XFNOLQJ
If the core moduli ( F and * F are high enough to suppress local buckling, the sandwich
plate stability can be designed by classical theory of shell buckling. For single-skin plates
the global buckling is more prone to happen due to the lower plate stiffness. Global buckling occurs if the in-plane compressive load 3 > 3H , where 3 H is the Euler buckling load
given for the specific structure.
Using the Euler load by assuming simply supported boundary conditions for a plate, we
get a conservative estimate for the maximum in-plane load, solving the equilibrium equation (Eq. 4.29) of the plate for an in-plane load 3. The sandwich plate equation yields
4
2
*
' ZV
* Z
' Z T
1
=0
V
W 2 2 $
ZV
where
(5. 3)
)DLOXUH0RGHV97
T = T + 2 1 Z
2Z
2Z
2Z
= T + 1 [ 2 + 1 \ 2 + 2 1 [\
\[
[
\
(5. 4)
The plate analysis in Chapter 4 concerns laterally loaded composite plates, whereas this
case concerns a plate with an in-plane load forceand no lateral load, T. Thus, the in-plane
internal force, 1 , is now considered as the external force, whereas the lateral load, T, is
zero. For an in-plane load 3 [ = -E 1 [ , omitting the inertia forces, the above equations become
3
' Z + [
E
4
4 ' ZV 2 Z
1 2 V
=0
$ ZV Z 2
(5. 5)
Inserting a solution of the form below

Z = Z sin
P[
Q \
sin
D
E
(5. 6)
which satisfies the simply supported boundary conditions, we get the limit of stability
Q
PQ
P
'11 + ('12 + 2 '66 ) + '22
E
DE
D
4
3[ D
=
E P
Q
PQ
P
'11 + ('12 + 2 '66 ) + '22
E
DE
D
4
1
+
2
Q
P
$44 + $55
E
D
2
(5. 7)
In order to find the critical buckling load, we need the minimum value of 3 [ . Since the
above function has its minimum for Q = 1, we obtain
1
E
E
'11P 2 + ('12 + 2 '66 ) + '22 2
2
D
D
3[ D
P
=
4
2
E
E
PE
PE
'11 + ('12 + 2 '66 ) + '22
2
D
D
E
+
2
PE
$44 + $55
D
4
(5. 8)
98
The parameter P is found by solving the above equation for the minimum value of 3 [ . By
solving with regard to the parameter P, we get the critical value for P = DE. The critical
IDFH
in-plane average face stress DYHUDJH
becomes:
IDFH
DYHUDJH
=
3[
E W IDFH1 + W IDFH 2
) (W
IDFH1
+ W IDFH 2
'11 + ('12 + 2 '66 ) + '22
2
'11 + ('12 + 2 '66 ) + '22
E
+

$44 + $55
(5. 9)
In the case of isotropic material properties in a sandwich plate, we obtain the flexural
stiffness, ', of the faces and a shear stiffness, 6, of the core, hence
IDFH
=
DYHUDJH
2 2
W IDFH1 + W IDFH 2
'
2 ' 2
2
E +
6
(5. 10)
For a single-skin plate with no shear deformation the critical buckling stress yields
ODQLQDWH
DYHUDJH
2 2
W ODQLQDWH
'
E2
(5. 11)
/DPLQD)DLOXUH$QDO\VLV
We now focus on the failure mechanisms in composite laminae, which are the building
blocks in the composite laminate forming a single-skin or a sandwich face. The most
common failure criteria are evaluated, in order to find the most appropriate criteria for
lamina failure analysis.
Over the last three decades, the efforts have been continuous to develope failure criteria
for anisotropic composites. When FRP composites were introduced in structural design,
the failure analysis of these structures was based on already known failure criteria developed for isotropic metals, such as the von Mises and the Tresca criteria. Since then a
number of criteria have been presented in various textbooks such as Jones [8] and Vinson
& Sierakowski [14].
Most experimental determinations of the strength of a lamina are based on uniaxial stress
states. However, the general practical problem involves at least a biaxial or even a triaxial
state of stress. Thus, a logical method for using uniaxial strength information in the analysis of multiaxial loading problems is required. A main problem of the design is the selection of an appropriate failure criterion. For monolithic materials such as metals, it is suffi-
/DPLQD)DLOXUH$QDO\VLV99
cient to use one observable metric such as the ultimate tensile and compressive or shear
stress to describe failure. For composites, however, the engineer must select a reasonable
criterion based on a number of observable stress metrics. Thus, one of the most difficult
subjects in the design of composite structures involves finding a suitable failure criterion
for the system.
All existing lamina failure criteria are phenomenological, where the macro-mechanical
failure mechanisms are not described. The lamina strength is determined by evaluating the
set of equations provided in each criterion, consisting of one or more combinations of the
principal (material direction) stress or strain components, 1 , 2 , 12 or 1 , 2 , 12 .
The purpose of the lamina failure criterion is to determine the strength and the mode of
failure of a unidirectional composite or lamina in a state of plane stress (3 = 23 = 32 =
0). All lamina failure criteria require basic principal strength properties. Since most laminae can be considered as either transversely isotropic or orthotropic, we generally need
only five independent strength parameters to define the material system. These are defined
in a composite system as follows (values in stress):
;:
tensile strength of a unidirectional ply in the fibre direction (denoted ).
There is no necking before failure. It is a sudden explosion in the case of
glass/epoxy composites, where matrix is removed from the fibre after fibre failure.
For graphite/epoxy composites, the ply is often torn into parallel strips before the
ultimate failure.
;: compressive strength of a unidirectional ply. The failure is a shear-type failure (45-degree) or a stability failure by a kink band formation. Compressive
strength is affected by both fibre and matrix properties and the interfacial strength.
<:
tensile strength of a unidirectional ply in the transverse direction (perpendicularly to fibres, denoted ). The failure is a cleavage type failure along the fibres, transverse to the applied uniaxial load. In terms of fracture, the failure is
caused by a crack opening mode.
<: compressive strength of a unidirectional ply in the transverse direction
(perpendicularly to fibres, denoted ). The failure is a shear type failure, along a
45-degree plane to the applied uniaxial load.
6:
shear strength of a unidirectional ply. The failure is a transverse cracking
similar to the transverse tensile failure. In terms of crack propagation, it is determined by a shear mode parallel to the axis of the fibres.
For strain based-analysis we have the equivalent ultimate strains, ; ; < < and 6 .
100
3ULQFLSDO6WUDLQVDQG6WUHVVHV
In the process of failure prediction, we need some measurable parameters from the load
response analysis of the composite structure. The principal strains in each constituent of
the composite seem useful for this purpose, as they can be compared to ultimate strength
parameters for the various materials in the composite structure. From the lamina theory in
Chapter 3 we obtain the maximum global strains in each of the plies in the laminate (or
faces) and the strains in the core. These strains are transferred to the principal strains (in
the co-ordinate system) according to the material axes by means of the transformation
matrix 7 (Eq. 3.7). The relation between local and global stresses and strains are given
below as
[
1

\
2
N
= [7 ] \]
23

31
[]
12 local
[\
N
[
1

\
2
N
= [7 ] \]
23

31
[]
12 local
[\
N
and
global
(5. 12)
global
where
cos 2
[7 ]N = sin 2
cos sin
sin 2
cos2
cos sin
2 cos sin
2 cos sin
cos 2 sin 2
(5. 13)
The principal stresses in each lamina and in the core are obtained from the stress-strain
relationship (Eq. 3.6) by use of the stiffness matrix 4 N for each lamina, N, and the stiffness
matrix, 4F , for the core. Assuming plane stress in the faces, that is 3 = 4 = 5 = 0 , we
obtain the maximum stress by means of the local stiffness tensor, 4 , for each lamina as
N
LM
1N = 411N 1N + 412N 2N , 2N = 412N 1N + 422N 2N ,
6N = 466N 12N
(5. 14)
For the core with only transverse shear stresses and 3 = 0 , we get
4F = 444F 23F ,
5F = 455F 31F
(5. 15)
The ultimate strength of various core materials, resins, fibres and FRP laminae is listed in
textbooks and manuals, among others Smith [11] and Divinycell [4]. The strength properties of a lamina depend mainly on the volume fraction of the fibres and the resin. In general, the limit of fracture for a lamina is different depending on the material being in com-
pression or in tension. The damage, which causes the principal stresses or strains to exceed the maximum allowable failure criteria, eventually leads to failure of the plate.
/DPLQD)DLOXUH0RGHVDQG&ULWHULD
Lamina failure can be divided into the following modes:
)LEUH EUHDNDJH Principal stress, 1 , or principal strain, 1 , in fibre direction
dominates lamina failure.
7UDQVYHUVHPDWUL[FUDFNLQJ Principal stress, 2 , or principal strain, 2 , in transverse fibre direction dominates lamina failure.
6KHDU PDWUL[ FUDFNLQJ Principal shear stress, 12 , or principal shear strain, 12 ,
dominates lamina failure.
For analysis of the existing lamina failure criteria, they are categorised into four groups.
Some of the most used criteria are listed within each group.
/LPLWFULWHULD (stress- or strain-dominated)
These criteria predict failure load and mode by comparing maximum principal stresses or
strains separately with the principal strength properties. There is no interaction between
the stresses (or strains), and the failure mode is defined by the criterion.
Maximum stress
1
= 1,
;
2
= 1,
<
21
= 1,
6
1
=1
;
2
=1
<
fibre failure (tension, compression)

transverse matrix cracking
shear matrix
(5. 16)
102
Maximum strain
= 1, 1 = 1
;
;
2
2
= 1,
=1
<
<
12
= 1,
6

transverse matrix cracking
(5. 17)
shear matrix
,QWHUDFWLYHFULWHULD
These criteria state that failure occurs under a combined set of stresses by application of a
single quadratic or higher-order polynomial, consisting of all stresses and the ultimate
strength. The mode of failure is determined by comparing the principal stress/strength ratios.
Hill-Tsai
1
2
1 2 12
+ + = 1
;
<
; ; 6
(5. 18)
)1 1 + )2 2 + )11 12 + )22 22 + 2 )12 1 2 + )66 122 = 1
(5. 19)
Tsai-Wu
where
1
1
1
1 1
, )2 = + , )11 =
,
+
; ;
< <
;;
1
1
1
, )12 =
, )66 =
)22 =
<<
6
2 << ;;
)1 =
6HSDUDWHPRGHFULWHULD
These criteria separate matrix and fibre criteria, which can take the form of a limit criterion or an interactive criterion. The failure mode is defined by the actual failure criterion.
Eqs. 5.20-21 express the Hashin-Rotem criterion and a modification of this extended by an
extra parameter, , for the matrix failure proposed by Quinn & Sun [9]. They both exemplify the concept of separating modes of failure while some stress interaction is maintained.
Hashin-Rotem
= 1 , 1 = 1,
;
;
2
2
2
12
+ = 1,
<
6
2
12
+ = 1,
<
6
2

matrix failure (tension)
(5. 20)
matrix failure (compression)
Hashin-Rotem modified
= 1 , 1 = 1,
;
;
2
2
2
12
+ = 1,
<
6
matrix failure (tension)
(5. 21)
12
2
= 1,
+
<
6 2
2
matrix failure (compression)
where
0.4 < < 0.5 for 2 0 and
= 0 for 2 0
([SHULPHQWDO
Various test procedures are described in textbooks for standards concerning testing,
among others $670',1and ,62. However, a standardisation of material specifications, processing and testing procedure is needed for, as discussed in Burke [3], surveying 1300 industries engaged in structural design and analysis of composite structures.
The above failure criteria are graphically presented in Fig. 5.4 as a series of failure envelopes for combined stresses, in order to show the characteristics of the lamina failure criteria.
104
Failure envelopes for loads in principal axis

2 /<
FRPSUHVVLRQWHQVLRQ
WHQVLRQWHQVLRQ
2
Max strain
-1
1/X
-1
Tsai-Wu
-2
Hill-Tsai
-3
Max stress
-4
FRPSUHVVLRQFRPS
Hashin-Rotem (modified)
WHQVLRQFRPSUHVVLRQ
Figure 5.4: )DLOXUHHQYHORSHVRIDQHSR[\JODVVODPLQDXQGHUWKHELD[LDOVWUHVV

Figure 5.4 shows the six failure criteria for a biaxial state of stress. The envelopes are
composed of failure stresses normalised by the tensile strength, ; and <, by use of a typical unidirectional E-glass/epoxy lamina with the following material properties:
411 = 39.2 *3D
466 = 4.14 *3D
< = 31 03D
422 = 8.39 *3D

; = 1062 03D
<=-118 03D
4 12 = 2.18 *3D
; = -610 03D
6 = 72 03D
In order to validate the failure criteria, comparison of the criteria with experimental test
data must be made. Quinn & Sun [9] recently performed a comprehensive evaluation and
comparison of different failure criteria with experimental tests by Swanson & Qian [12].
The test data by Swanson and Qian indicates that the shear strength becomes greater when
2 is compressive. Thus, a compressive fibre/matrix interfacial normal stress, which is
proportional to 2 , will result in a greater fibre/matrix interfacial shear strength. To reflect
this behaviour Quinn and Sun came up with the modified Hashin-Rotem criterion in Eq.
5.20. The failure envelope in the 2 - 12 stress field with = 0.45 is in good agreement
with the experimental data of a T800/3900-2 carbon/epoxy (Fig. 5.5).
2 ultimate [03D]
50
20
40
60
80
100
12 ultimate [03D]
-50
Max stress,
Max strain
Hashin-Rotem,
Hill-Tsai
Hashin-Rotem
= 0.45
Tsai-Wu
Experimental
Swanson [11]
Figure 5.5: &RPSDULVRQRIODPLQDIDLOXUHFULWHULDZLWKH[SHULPHQWDOGDWDXQGHU ORDGLQJ

4XLQQ 6XQ>@

The polynomial failure criterion (Eq. 5.19), commonly used in several classification societies, may lead to misunderstanding in some cases. This is illustrated with two examples
in Figure 5.6. The first example shows that the biaxial tensile strength is increased, reducing compression strength (micro -buckling or similar effects). The second example shows
how to optimise the material used for submarine hulls, thus decreasing transverse-tension
strength in the material, which apparently increases the biaxial compressive strength. Both
examples show that, in some particular cases, the failure model lacks physical meaning.
y
y

Increased tensile strength
Reducing transverse tension
?
x
Reducing compressive strength
x
?
Increased compressive strength
Figure 5.6: /DFNRISK\VLFDOPHDQLQJLQWKHSRO\QRPLDOIDLOXUHFULWHULD"
106
However, the polynomial criterion is mathematically more convenient than the other interactive criterion (Eq. 5.18), as the failure envelope is described by a single equation.
Hence, the polynomial criteria may not be useful for anisotropic materials with different
material properties in tension and compression such as a fibre-matrix composite. For an
isotropic homogeneous material, such as resins, polynomial failure criteria are appropriate
and usually give good failure prediction as seen for the von Mises criterion applied to
metals.
In order to validate further the criteria, each constituent of the composite should be studied. Thus, a discussion of the failure behaviour of the fibres and the matrix is given in the
following section.
Fibre Failure
Assume that the stresses in the fibres are 1 , 2 and 12 . Using a quadratic failure criterion (Eq. 5.18), we get:
I
+ 2
<
2

;
12
+ = 1
6
(5. 22)
where the strength properties, ; , < and 6 refer to the fibres. For unidirectional fibre
composites with the fibre volume fraction & , the fibre stresses are approximately related
to the composite stresses as
I
1
,
2 = 2 ,
12 = 12
(5. 23)
&
The longitudinal composite strength, ;, is related to the longitudinal fibre strength, ; , as
1 =
I
; =
I
;
&
(5. 24)
By use of Eqs. 5.23-24 we rewrite Eq. 5.22 in the form below:

2
+ 2 1
;
;
<
2
2

;
12
+ = 1
6
(5. 25)
The values of 2 and 12 are limited by < and 6, respectively. Since < >> < 2 ,
I
; >> < > 2 and 6 >> 6 > 12 , the expression in Eq. 5.25 can be approximated to
I
1
=1
;
2
or
1
=1
;
(5. 26)
This explains the fibre failure criteria used in the limit criteria and the separate mode criteria.
Matrix Failure
Matrix failure is recognised as matrix cracking along the fibre direction. If cracking occurs in the matrix, all the three stress components, 1 , 2 and 12m , are included in the
quadratic failure criterion. Matrix cracking occurs along the fibre/matrix and failure is
governed by the interfacial stresses, 2P and 12m . Thus, the matrix failure criterion can be
expressed as
P
2P
12P
+ =1
<
6
2
or

2
+ 12 = 1
6
<
(5. 27)
The above considerations of failure mechanisms in composite systems, i.e. fibre and matrix, indicate that the failure criteria for the lamina should be separated into a criterion for
the fibres and the matrix, respectively.
From the previous discussion it seems rational to assume that there are failure modes for
both fibre and matrix. As the stresses in the fibre and the matrix are different, their failures are determined by different strains or stresses. Hence, a lamina failure criterion must
distinguish between the stress states in the fibre and the matrix, which is the case for the
separate mode criteria consisting of the separate failure characteristics for fibre and matrix
as illustrated in Figure 5.7.
2
Fibre failure criterion
Matrix failure criterion
1
Failure envelope
for "lamina"
Figure 5. 7: )DLOXUHHQYHORSHIRUDODPLQDWHGHWHUPLQHGE\WKHIDLOXUHHQYHORSHVRIWKHFRQVWLWX
HQWV
108
/DPLQDWH)DLOXUH$QDO\VLV
We now turn our attention from single-lamina analysis to failure analysis of multiple
laminae or a composite laminate. The objective of this analysis is to determine the
strength of the laminate by analysing the strength behaviour of each lamina in the laminate
on the assumption that a plane state of stress exists for each lamina independent of its orientation and position within the laminate. The stresses of each lamina must be transformed to the material axes (Sec. 5.3.1) and compared to lamina failure criteria. In reality,
the failure mechanisms in the laminate are more complicated than in a unidirectional
lamina in plane stress. In addition to the failure mechanisms described in the previous
section, we also deal with delamination, which can be described as debonding of laminae
or as matrix failure between two laminae. Further stress concentrations may occur at the
free edges, producing new failure modes along the free edges.
In order to account for these complex failure mechanisms, the 2-D laminate analysis is not
sufficient and a 3-D analysis is normally required. However, for single-skin and sandwich
plates with simply supported or clamped boundaries there are no free edges, consequently,
it is assumed that laminate failure does not initiate from the edges. Concerning the delamination we do not have sufficient stress information from the 2-D analysis. Nevertheless,
by use of simple expressions for the peel stress, 3 , we are able to predict some types of
delamination by applying an interactive failure criterion and assuming that the matrix is an
isotropic material.
/DPLQDWH)DLOXUH0RGHO
The damage effects to be included in the laminate strength analysis are the inter-lamina
failures such as fibre breakage and transverse matrix cracking due to in-plane stress. The
loss of laminate stiffness during progressive lamina failure must be included in a laminate
failure model. The currently used methods of analysing laminate failure are summarised
below.
3O\E\3O\'LVFRXQW0HWKRG
The ply-by-ply discount method calculates the stresses and strains according to normal
laminate theory, i.e. according to the methods outlined in Chapters 3-4. When a ply fails
according to the applied lamina failure criterion, the ply still remains within the laminate
as a volume, but it now carries load according to the failure criteria. A stiffness reduction
model is used to reduce the stiffness of the laminate, due to that individual ply failure. The
laminate is analysed again applying the reduced laminate stiffness properties. The next ply
/DPLQDWH)DLOXUH$QDO\VLV109
failure is found by use of the actual lamina failure criterion and the laminate stiffness is
reduced accordingly. This cycle continues until ultimate laminate failure is reached.
The stiffness reduction model may reduce the whole lamina from carrying any load (4 11 =
422 = 4
4 66 = 0), or it may use that the failure mechanism of the lamina is known. For
example, if the matrix failure in a particular ply is known to occur, the transverse properties of that ply can be omitted (4 22 = 4 66 = 0). Alternatively, if the fibre failure occurs
within a given ply, the ply can be treated for subsequent analysis as having zero stiffness
(411 = 0).

Instead of a complete reduction of the lamina stiffness moduli, it might be more realistic
to apply the stiffness reduction locally, since the stresses in a failure location are redistributed through nearby intact fibre/resin material. Hence, the stiffness reduction takes place
in the actual failure location only and the lamina stiffness is reduced accordingly by recalculating the lamina stiffness moduli.
'LUHFW/DPLQDWH0HWKRG
In this method the laminate is analysed as a whole by use of effective laminate strength
values. Thus, lamina failure criteria become laminate failure criteria. This method requires
the appropriate strength values for each laminate to be analysed. A variation of this
method is used in fibre-dominated laminates, where the stiffness reduction due to progressive matrix failure is insignificant. Laminate failure coincides with the fibre failure of the
load-carrying ply. In this analysis, a lamina failure criterion for the fibres is chosen and
the failure load is determined from the fibre failure in the load-carrying ply.
The Hart-Smith strain-based maximum shear stress criterion, [5] and [6], is a direct laminate method. He developed a graphical method based on the Tresca yield criterion to predict failure in fibre-dominated composite laminates with a 45 o-truncation at the shear-failure lines. However, Quinn & Sun [9] state that the Tresca yield criterion for isotropic materials cannot be directly adopted for anisotropic materials without further modifications
and point out that the failure strain envelope proposed by Hart-Smith can be obtained from
extension of Coulomb-Mohrs criterion for brittle fracture to orthotropic materials.
&RUH)DLOXUH$QDO\VLV
Usually the core material in a sandwich consists of foams or structural honeycomb made
of light metals. For sandwich in marine structures, the core material is usually made of
rigid close-celled PVC foams. They are considered almost linear elastic-ideal plastic in
compression and brittle in tension according to Fig. 5.8 taken from Branner [2].
110
For composite plates in fast-moving hulls, core shear failure due to weak cores close to
the bulkheads or face delamination from the core is among the commonest failure modes.
The latter caused by fracture in the core close to the face bonding material. In order to
avoid these types of failure, heavier core materials, which are exposed to high lateral loads
(slamming), are used in the lower part of the hull.
Stress, [MPa]
tension
compression
1.0
= 100 kg/m3
G
= 4.5 10 4 V 1
GW
0.2
0.2
0.4
Strain,
0.6
Figure 5.8: (ODVWLFEHKDYLRXURIDSRO\XUHWKDQHIRDPLQXQLD[LDOORDGLQJ7KHGHIRUPDWLRQLV

VLPLODUWR39&IRDPV%UDQQHU>@
&RUH6KHDU)DLOXUH
The core material is mainly subjected to shear and carries basically the entire transverse
force. The interactive criteria are commonly used for failure prediction in isotropic linearelastic metals and seem reasonable to use for failure prediction in PVC foams. The TsaiWu and the Hill-Tsai criteria are among the most commonly used criteria in analyses of
cores in composite sandwich structures. Applying the Hill-Tsai criterion to the core, we
get
2
F
23
13F
1F
2F
1F 2F 12F
+ + + =1
;F
<F
; F ; F 6F
6F
6F
(5. 28)
&RUH)DLOXUH$QDO\VLV111
where the material strength is for the core only (subscript F). For the case of sandwich
plate analysis, where the shear is taken solely by the core and the in-plane stresses by the
faces, the expression reduces to
2
F
23
F
+ 13 = 1
6F
6F
(5. 29)
'HERQGLQJRI&RUHDQG)DFH
Debonding is failure between the face and the core. It arises from peel stress, particularly
at fixed or loaded boundaries where the distribution of the transverse shear changes suddenly. The resin or adhesive, which bonds the two materials together, fails and debonding
appears. For many sandwich panels made of foam core and FRP skins, failure occurs in
the foam core rather than in the skins or the adhesive layer. The ultimate tensile strain of
the adhesives, which is most often the matrix used in the skins, is 2-5 times larger than the
ultimate tensile strain of the laminate or the core. Thus, the debonding problems in structural sandwich are in general due to low core strength properties (low density of the core)
or poor manufacturing.
Local bending moments in the faces are sometimes introduced from local loads. Concerning failure prediction, it is essential to be able to analyse local bending effects in order to
determine debonding. A detailed investigation of local bending effects in sandwich plates
with orthotropic face layers subjected to localised loads is presented in Thomsen [13] and
in Yoshii [15] -[16]. The analysis deals with the peeling stresses initiated by external local
loads or line loads at the plate, which may result in face/core debonding.
Yoshii provides a semi-empirical formula for the peel stress
SHHO
, which states
3 = SHHO = 4 / 2
(5. 30)
where 4 is the maximum shear force per unit width. For a sandwich with flexural stiffness
' and shear stiffness 6, the parameter is defined as
= 6 2'
(5. 31)
For some adhesives the ultimate bonding strength of the adhesive ;

(often the
resin) is given by the manufacturer, however, accurate values of ultimate bonding strength
are still difficult to obtain in the literature. Using the von Mises criterion for the adhesive,
we obtain the failure limit expression for debonding as
DGKHVLYH
112
2
2
2 ) + ( 1 3 ) + ( 3 2 ) + 6( 122 + 23
+ 132 ) = 2 ; DGK
2
(5. 32)
6KHDU&ULPSLQJ
Shear crimping occurs when the stress in the face exceeds the critical shear buckling load.
The critical buckling stress for the plate (Eq. 5.10) can be divided into a shear buckling
stress and a flexural buckling stress as shown below.
1
EXFN
W I E2
2 '
2
WI
6
EHQGLQJ
EXFN
VKHDU
EXFN
(5. 33)
Hence, for a sandwich with isotropic core the critical shear buckling stress in the faces becomes
IDFH L
VKHDU
DYHUDJH
= EXFN
=
26
W IDFH1 + W IDFH 2
(5. 34)
&RUH,QGHQWDWLRQ
For sandwich plates with thin faces and a weak core we may get core indentation from
concentrated loads. This can be avoided by applying the load over a sufficient large area
$ , determined by the compressive stress of the core and the flexural stiffness of the
face. Denoting the compressive strength of the core: ; F , we get the following conservative criterion for the indentation:
LQG
3]
$LQG
=1
; F
(5. 35)
6XPPDU\
Failure modes and failure criteria for composite sandwich and single-skin plates have been
discussed. General rules predicting the limit stress of the different failure modes are outlined. The most commonly used failure criteria for fibre-reinforced composites are compared with regard to lamina and laminate level. The overall trend of failure prediction by
the different failure criteria discussed in this section is that the separate mode criteria,
%LEOLRJUDSK\113
which take into account the different failure modes of fibre and matrix, seem to outperform the limit criteria and the interactive criteria. This is also confirmed by micro-mechanical considerations, which indicate that fibre and failure are governed by different
failure criteria.
%LEOLRJUDSK\
[1] Allen H.G. Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1969.
[2] Branner K. Capacity and Lifetime of Foam Core Sandwich Structures. Department of
Ocean Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark,
1995.
[3] Burk R.C. Standard Failure Criteria Needed for Advanced Composites. $VWURQDXWLFV
DQG$HURQDXWLFV. Vol. 21, pp. 58-62, 1983.
[4] Divinicell. H-grade, High Performance Core Material for Sandwich Constructions.
Box 21 S-312 22, Laholm, Sweden, 1995.
[5] Hart-Smith L.J. Predicting the Strength of Fibrous Composites by an Orthotropic
Generalisation of the Maximum-Shear-Stress (Tresca Criterion). 'RXJODV $LUFUDIW
&RPSDQ\0F'RQQHOO'RXJODV&RUSRUDWLRQ, 1991.
[6] Hart-Smith L.J. A Scientific Approach to Composite Laminate Strength Prediction.
&RPSRVLWH0DWHULDOV7HVWLQJDQG'HVLJQ$670673, Glenn C. Grimes, Ed.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. Vol. 10, pp. 142 -169,
1992.
[7] Hoff N.J. and Mautner S.E. Buckling of Sandwich Type Panels. -RXUQDORIWKH$HUR
QDXWLFDO6FLHQFH. Vol 12 (3), pp. 285-297, 1945.
[8] Jones R.M. Mechanics of Composite Materials. Hemisphere Publishing Corp., USA,
1975.
[9] Quinn B.J. and Sun C.T. A Critical Evaluation of Failure Analysis Methods for
Composite Laminates. 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH 'R'1$6$)$$ &RQIHUHQFH RQ )L
EURXV &RPSRVLWHV LQ 6WUXFWXUDO 'HVLJQ, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, USA,
1993.
WK
114
[10] Reissner E. Finite Deflections of Sandwich Plates. -RXUQDORI$HURQDXWLFDO6FLHQFH.

Vol. 15 (7), pp. 435-440, 1948.
[11] Smith C.S. Design of Marine Structures in Composite Materials. Elsevier Science
Publishers Ltd. Crown House, Linton Road, Barking, Essex IG11 8JU, UK, 1990.
[12] Swanson S.R. and Qian Y. Multi-axial Characterisation of T800/3900-2 Carbon/Epoxy Composites. &RPSRVLWHV 6FLHQFH DQG 7HFKQRORJ\. Vol. 43, pp. 197-203,
1992.
[13] Thomsen O.T. Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Local Bending Effects
in Sandwich Plates. &RPSRVLWH6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 30, pp. 85-101, 1995.
[14] Vinson J.R. and Sierasowski R.L. The Behavior of Structures Composed of Composite Materials. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1986.
[15] Yoshii A. Optimum Design of Advanced Sandwich Composite Using Foam Core.
$GYDQFHG&RPSRVLWH0DWHULDOV. Vol. 2 (4), pp. 289-305, 1992.
[16] Yoshii A. and Chikugo R. Peel Stress at Face-to-Core Interface in Sandwich. 3UR
FHHGLQJVRI&RQIHUHQFHRQ0DWHULDOVDQG0HFKDQLFV-60(&RQIHUHQFH1R.
Japan, Nov. 1991.
[17] Zenkert D. An Introduction to Sandwich Construction. Chameleon Press LTD, London, 1995.
&KDSWHU
Progressive Damage Analysis
,QWURGXFWLRQ
From the discussion in the previous chapter of failure and failure modes a progressive
damage model (Fig. 6.1) is proposed and implemented in the program 3DQHO (Chapter 7).
This damage model is demonstrated and tested against experimental data for orthotropic
FRP single-skin plates, Shenoi et al. [5]. A failure analysis example is also given for a
sandwich plate until complete failure. Based on the failure history from the calculations
an improvement of the design is made. Furthermore, linear and non-linear response and
failure analyses are compared.
The non-linear plate analysis begins with the plate properties, the initial boundary conditions and the first step of the load history. The load is applied progressively according
to the time-load history. Damage occurs in a lamina, core or the interface of the
core/face of the plate, when predicted by the appropriate failure criteria applied to the
particular constituent of the plate. Damage below the limit of complete failure of the
plate will imply a change in the internal stress distribution of the laminate/core according to the stiffness reduction.
The loading continues until complete failure is obtained and it is followed by detection
of the failure mode, location and load. The failure location and type in each lamina and
the core are registered and plotted for better understanding. In the case of structural improvement the failure types in each constituent of the plate are used to tailor the material (fibres) in each lamina in a more suitable way.
115
&KDSWHU3URJUHVVLYH'DPDJH$QDO\VLV
116
3URJUHVVLYH'DPDJH0RGHO
Add load
Load
Plate scantlings
material properties
material strength
Strains in each lamina

No!
Analysis
Strains and stresses in matrix

and fibres in each lamina
Failure of
plate
Yes!
No!
Reduction in
stiffness moduli of
fibre, matrix and core
Yes!
Failure modes
Failure criteria
'DPDJH"
Failure
Failure mode and location
Figure 6.1: 3URJUHVVLYHGDPDJHPRGHOIRUGHVLJQRIVDQGZLFKDQGVLQJOHVNLQSODWHV
3ODWH6WLIIQHVV5HGXFWLRQ0RGHO
Based on the discussion of failure in laminates, core and the interface between face and
core (Chapter 5), the following stiffness reduction model is proposed for the entire composite plate (faces/core/adhesive).
/DPLQDWH
a)
fibre failure (tension or compression) in the ply N located in ([ 1 \ 1 ):
1N
1,
;
1N
1
;
(6. 1)
3ODWH6WLIIQHVV5HGXFWLRQ0RGHO117
resulting in a stiffness reduction of the ply N in the point ([ 1 \ 1 ):
411N ([1 , \1 ) = 0
b)
(6. 2)
matrix failure in the ply N located in ([ 1 \ 1 ):

2
12N
2N
+ 1
6
<
2
tension
2
12N
2N
1
+
N
6 2
<
compression
(6. 3)
6
0,
N
2 2
resulting a stiffness reduction of the ply N in the point ([ 1 \ 1 ):
422N ([1 , \1 ) = 466N ([1 , \1 ) = 0
(6. 4)
&RUH
c)
core shear failure in the [] or \]plane located in ([ 1 \ 1 ):

2
F
13F
23
+ 1
6F
6F
(6. 5)
resulting in the following stiffness reduction of the core:

444F ([1 , \1 ) = 0
455F ([1 , \1 ) = 0
c
, 23
> 13F
(6. 6)
c
, 13F 23
'HERQGLQJIDFHFRUH
d)
Interfacial failure between core and face:
DGK 2 ) + ( DGK1 DGK 3 ) + ( DGK 3 DGK 2 )

2
DGK1
2
2
2
2
+ 6( DGK
12 + DGK 23 + DGK13 ) = 2 ; DGK
(6. 7)
118
The flexural plate stiffness, 'LMVDQ , (Eq. 3.15), is gradually reduced to the
minimum plate bending stiffness, 'LMUHG . At this stage there is no sandwich
effect, i.e. no contact between face and core (the notation refers to Fig. 3.1
and Eqs. 3.14-15):
'
WI1
WI2
= $LMIDFH1 + $LMIDFH 2
12
12
'LMUHG
1 W IDFH1 + W IDFH 2 VDQ

'LM
6
G
UHG
LM
LM = 12 6
(6. 8)
Alternatively, Zenkert [7] presented a method, where the panel is divided into an intact
part and a debonded part. The additional plate deformation is determined by estimating
the released energy from the debonded part.
Delamination or damage in the interface between two plies is a complex failure mechanism and difficult to predict. Comprehensive studies are presented in Point et al. [4] and
Hitchings et al. [3], where FEM models are proposed. For very detailed failure analysis
these types of FEM models are appropriate. However, in order to follow the philosophy
of the present design tool, that is simple modelling and fast analysis of the structure,
the present damage model is not capable of predicting this type of failures. A reasonable
delamination criterion could be when matrix between two plies fails over a certain area.
The matrix failure can be predicted by a simple interactive failure criterion such as the
von Mises criterion.
In order to predict final failure and failure modes of the composite panel, the above
stiffness reduction model must be supplemented by analysis of the possible failure
modes. The progressive stiffness reduction model and the failure mode detection form
the progressive damage model.
&RPSDULVRQRI'DPDJH0RGHODQG([SHULPHQWV
Little experimental work has been done with regard to large deflection of composite
plates. The most accurate large-deflection tests have been made by Bau, Kildegaard, and
Svendsen [2], who carried out experiments with clamped sandwich plates. These results
are used to validate the non-linear numerical response analysis presented in Chapter 3.
However, the experiments do not include the ultimate failure of the sandwich plate. Recently, Shenoi, Allen & Moy [5] performed large-deflection tests with FRP single-skin
plates including ultimate failure of the plates. Results from these experiments are compared to those of the progressive damage model. Midpoint deflections of FRP single-
&RPSDULVRQRI'DPDJH0RGHODQG([SHULPHQWV119
skin plates with different aspect ratios are shown for experiments [5] and for the numerically obtained results by 3DQHO (Fig. 6.2). Numerous tests are completed in Ref. [5]
and the results used in this comparison are from the plates denoted 12, 13 and 14. They
have the aspect ratios 1, 1.5 and 2, respectively.
Midpoint deflection
Z [PP]
Ultimate failure of single skin FRP plates
60
2
1.5
50
&ROODSVH
40
30
7HVWV
3DQHO
20
10
a.r. = 2
a.r. = 1.5
a.r. = 1
a.r. = 2
a.r. = 1.5
a.r. = 1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure 6.2: &RPSDULVRQRIWKHSURJUHVVLYHGDPDJHPRGHOZLWKH[SHULPHQWDOGDWDIURP

6KHQRLHWDO>@6LQJOHVNLQ)53SODWHVZLWKGLIIHUHQWDVSHFWUDWLRV
The material properties for the laminae, the ply orientation and the plate data for the examined clamped single-skin plate are listed below:
Ply orientation: [0/+45/90/-45/0]
Ply properties, E-glass/polyester unidirectional:
411 = 28.0 *3D
412 = 156
. *3D
< = 40 03D
422 = 5.92 *3D

; = 260 03D
< = 120 03D
466 = 2.90 *3D

; = 260 03D
6 = 75 03D
Plate scantlings:
Length D = 0.60 PDVSHFWUDWLRV: 1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2.
Thickness W face = 3.12 PP
120
Although a heavy steel plate was used to fix the edges in order to prevent in-plane
movements in the experiments, this was not fully avoided and horizontal movements of
the plate edges were observed and measured. This sliding movement loosens the membrane stresses, which results in a larger lateral deflection of the plate. In order to compensate for this sliding in the numerical response analysis, the measured in-plane edge
movements are applied successively during the load period. The maximum edge movements measure 1 PP at the midpoint of the edges for plate 12 in Shenoi et al. [5]. This
value is applied over the entire plate edge in the numerical calculations (3DQHO) for the
squared plate. For the larger aspect ratios there is no such measurements and the edge
movements in the short direction are assumed to be the same, whereas the edge movements in the long direction are scaled inversely proportionally to the aspect ratio.
For the ultimate failure load of the three plates there is reasonable agreement between
the experimental data and the numerical calculations. Ultimate failure, predicted by
3DQHO, occurs when the plate has no more load-carrying reserve left. This happens at a
minimum value of the extensional, bending- and shear stiffnesses (Eqs. 3.12-12) of 15
% of the initial stiffness values where the numerical calculations break down.
For aspect ratios 1, 1.5 and 2 the difference of the numerical calculations from the experiments is +3 %, -10% and -12, respectively. Thus, for the aspect ratio close to unity,
we find the best agreement and more conservative failure prediction for larger aspect ratios in this specific example.
The actual failure mode for the plates in the tests with panel 12-14 in [5] was everywhere observed as matrix cracking. This is also predicted by the damage model, where
the matrix failure in each ply occurred in approximately 30 % of the entire matrix in the
plate.
The numerical prediction of the load-deflection curves, which are influenced by the progressive decrease in plate stiffness until the ultimate failure of the plates, lies within 5
% of the experiments for the aspect ratio equal to one. For larger aspect ratios there is
less good agreement, especially in the beginning of the load-deflection curves for all aspect ratios, where the tests show a higher level of membrane stiffness. As the numerical
model is verified against FEM codes and experiments (Chapters 3-4), this behaviour of
the test plates is not fully understood by the author.
Although the validation of the damage model is based on few experiments and only for
single-skin plates, the results obtained indicate that the damage model gives reasonable
results.
)DLOXUH6FHQDULR([DPSOH121
)DLOXUH6FHQDULR([DPSOH
In order to illustrate the failure scenario and how to use the information for further
structural improvements of the plate, an example of failure analysis is given with a
clamped symmetric sandwich plate (Fig. 6.3). The damage model is combined with a
non-linear plate response analysis for prediction of the progressive damage in each constituent of the plate. The failure types in each ply, the core and the interface between the
faces and the core are visualised and examined to clarify the failure history of the entire
sandwich plate. On the basis of the results from the failure scenario, the plate is structurally improved by changing the ply orientation.
6DQGZLFKSODWH
FODPSHG
Load T
Unidirectional
E-glass/epoxy
1
2
Epoxy
adhesive
3
4
WIDFH PP
SOLHVPP
D P
1
2
3
4
W FRUH PP
E P
<
W IDFH PP
SOLHVPP
Divinycell
H-100
;
Figure 6.3: 7RSRORJ\DQGSODWHVFDQWOLQJVIRUODWHUDOO\ORDGHGFODPSHGVDQGZLFKSODWH

The material properties and ultimate strength for the plies and the core are listed below.
Ply orientation [0/90/0/90] s , E-glass/epoxy unidirectional:
4 11 = 39.2 *3D
4 66 = 4.14 *3D
< = 31 03D
4 22 = 8.39 *3D
; = 1062 03D
<=-118 03D
4 12 = 2.18 *3D
; = -610 03D
6 = 72 03D
Core properties: H-100 divinycell:

6c
1.403D
4 11 = 121 03D
Adhesive properties, epoxy: ; DGK 03D
4 44 = 4 55 = 40 03D
122
This sandwich plate is analysed with 3DQHO up to the maximum lateral load, T o = 208
.3D, at complete failure of the plate. The damage in each of the plies and in the core is
schematically shown in Figs. 6.4-6. Each of the plies suffers from fibre and matrix failure, the latter failure type dominates. Core failure is located near the edges. Along the
edges wrinkling is seen in the lower face due to high compressive stresses.
8SSHUIDFHILEUHDQGPDWUL[IDLOXUH
Ply 1, [0]
Ply 2, [90]
No failure
No failure
Matrix failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Fibre failure
Ply 3, [0]
Ply 4, [90]
No failure
No failure
Matrix failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Fibre failure
Figure 6.4: )DLOXUHW\SHVLQHDFKSO\LQWKHXSSHUIDFHRIWKHODWHUDOO\ORDGHGFODPSHG

VDQGZLFK SODWH )LJXUH ZLWK IDFH SOLHV DQG FRUH RULHQWDWHG DV >@FRUH
>@ 0D[LPXPORDGFDUU\LQJFDSDFLW\RIWKHSODWHLVTR .3D
&RUH\]DQG[]VKHDUIDLOXUH
Core, isotropic
/RZHUIDFHZULQNOLQJ
Lower face
No failure
No failure
[]- shear failure
wrinkling x-dir.
\]- shear failure
wrinkling y-dir.
Figure 6.5: &RUH VKHDU IDLOXUH DQG ZULQNOLQJ LQ ORZHU IDFH RI WKH ODWHUDOO\ ORDGHG
FODPSHG VDQGZLFK SODWH )LJXUH ZLWK IDFH SOLHV DQG FRUH RULHQWDWHG DV
>@FRUH>@ 0D[LPXPORDGFDUU\LQJFDSDFLW\RIWKHSODWHLVTR
.3D
/RZHUIDFHILEUHDQGPDWUL[IDLOXUH
Ply 1, [90]
Ply 2, [0]
No failure
No failure
Matrix failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Fibre failure
Ply 3, [90]
Ply 4, [0]
No failure
No failure
Matrix failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Fibre failure
Figure 6.6: )DLOXUHW\SHVLQHDFKSO\LQWKHORZHUIDFHRIWKHODWHUDOO\ORDGHGFODPSHG

VDQGZLFK SODWH )LJXUH ZLWK IDFH SOLHV DQG FRUH RULHQWDWHG DV >@FRUH
>@ 0D[LPXPORDGFDUU\LQJFDSDFLW\RIWKHSODWHLVTR .3D
124
Thus, to improve the load capacity of the plate, the matrix failure in the plies should be
reduced and the strength of the fibres should be used more efficiently. By rotating the
middle plies (ply number 2 and 3) in each face the matrix cracking in the plies is restrained. This increases the maximum load capacity to T o = 288 .3D, i.e. an improvement of 26 % of the ultimate load capacity. The matrix failure is limited by the fibres in
the direction 45 degrees. This alteration gives a better structure, where the material is
better balanced with respect to failure capacity.
Figs. 6.7-8 show the failure scenario of each ply. The new ply orientation results in
more fibre breakage and less matrix cracking in a comparison of Figs. 6.4-6 with Figs.
6.7-8. The shear core failure and the wrinkling near the edges are almost the same for
face configuration and consequently not shown.
8SSHUIDFHILEUHDQGPDWUL[IDLOXUH
Ply 1, [0]
Ply 2, [-45]
No failure
No failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Ply 3, [+45]
No failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Ply 4, [90]
No failure
Matrix failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Fibre failure
Figure 6.7: )DLOXUHW\SHVLQHDFKSO\LQWKHXSSHUIDFHRIWKHODWHUDOO\ORDGHGFODPSHG

VDQGZLFK SODWH )LJXUH PRGLILHG E\ URWDWLQJ WKH PLGGOH SOLHV GHJUHHV )DFH
SOLHV DQG FRUH RULHQWDWHG DV >@FRUH>@ 0D[LPXP ORDGFDU
U\LQJFDSDFLW\RIWKHSODWHLVT R .3D
/RZHUIDFHILEUHDQGPDWUL[IDLOXUH
Ply 1, [90]
No failure
Ply 2, [+45]
No failure
Matrix failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Fibre failure
Ply 3, [-45]
Ply 4, [0]
No failure
No failure
Matrix failure
Matrix failure
Fibre failure
Fibre failure
Figure 6.8: )DLOXUHW\SHVLQHDFKSO\LQWKHORZHUIDFHRIWKHODWHUDOO\ORDGHGFODPSHG

VDQGZLFK SODWH )LJXUH PRGLILHG E\ URWDWLQJ WKH PLGGOH SOLHV GHJUHHV 0D[L
PXPORDGFDUU\LQJFDSDFLW\RIWKHSODWHLVT R .3D
The load deflection curve (Fig. 6.9) shows that the [0,-45,+45,90] ply orientation, results in a better tailored plate with respect to the ultimate strength than by use of
[0,90,0,90] orientation resulting in a 35 % higher total load carrying capacity of the [0,45,+45,90] plate at complete failure.
126
Ultimate load-carrying capacity of sandwich plate

Midpoint deflection Z [PP]
160
140
)DFHFRQILJXUDWLRQV
[0/90/0/90]
120
[0/-45/+45/90]
100
&ROODSVH
80
60
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Lateral load T[.3D]
Figure 6.9: /RDGGHIOHFWLRQ RI D FODPSHG V\PPHWULF VDQGZLFK SODWH ZLWK GLIIHUHQW SO\
RULHQWDWLRQLQWKHIDFHV>@DQG>@
The failure scenario together with the subsequent change of the structure based on the
failure types in each ply, as illustrated above, is a simple way to improve the design.
The study can be supplemented by more theoretical optimisation routines concerning the
number of plies, the order of the lay-up, the fibre direction, the core weight etc. More
refined optimisation tools have been investigated by numerous authors, among others
Abrate [1] and Yoshi [6].
8OWLPDWH6WUHQJWK/LQHDUDQG1RQ/LQHDU$QDO\VLV
As failure prediction requires both a strength response analysis and a failure model it
seems reasonable to study the difference in the failure prediction using linear and nonlinear plate response analysis. The following example uses the sandwich plate from
Section 6.4. Figure 6.10 shows the midpoint deflections and the ultimate failure load
calculated by the non-linear and the linear solution methods.
8OWLPDWH6WUHQJWK/LQHDUDQG1RQOLQHDU$QDO\VLV127
Ultimate failure load of sandwich plate, linear >< non-linear

Z[PP]
107 [3D]
160
Znon-lin
Zlin
lin
non-lin
&ROODSVH
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figure 6.10: 8OWLPDWHIDLOXUHORDGORDGGHIOHFWLRQ DQG ORDGVWUHVV FXUYHV IRU WKH FHQ

WUHRIWKHVDQGZLFKSODWH)LJ>@FDOFXODWHGE\XVHRIOLQHDUDQGQRQ
OLQHDUPHWKRGVFRPELQHGZLWKWKHSURJUHVVLYHGDPDJHPRGHO
For this example the linear analysis predicts failure at a much lower load compared to
the non-linear analysis. The non-linear ultimate load is approximately 2.5 times higher
than the linear calculated failure load. The damage distribution (Fig. 6.11) shows a
much higher percentage of damage in the fibres for the linear case (almost 50 % more
fibre breakage in the lower face than for the non-linear case). The linear midpoint stress
level in the lower face increases rapidly at a load level above ~100 .3D, whereas the
non-linear stress level reaches this value much later, at approximately twice the load
level of the linear case. The progressive failure depends on the stress level in the plate.
For the non-linear analysis, this is apparently lower compared to the linear analysis for a
given load, which is due to the reduced lateral deflection by application of the non-linear response analysis.
Wrinkling is introduced in the middle of the upper face due to compressive stresses according to linear analysis. In the non-linear case the compressive stress level is decreased by the membrane stresses resulting in no wrinkling.
128
% damage of constituent Damage distribution for ultimate load

50
40
1 Lower face
2 Upper face
30
Linear, T .3D
Non-linear, T .3D
20
10
0
ILEUHV
PDWUL[ FRUH
2
1
[\ [\
ZULQNOLQJ
Figure 6.11: 'DPDJH WR HDFK FRQVWLWXHQW LQ WKH VDQGZLFK SODWH OLQHDU ! QRQOLQHDU
FDOFXODWLRQPHWKRGV
The example indicates that the failure prediction is highly dependent on whether a linear
or non-linear analysis is used. If FRP plates are designed with ultimate failure as criterion, the non-linear response analysis is highly recommended.
6XPPDU\
A progressive damage model is presented (and implemented as part of the response
analysis program 3DQHO) based on the discussion in Chapter 5. The model takes into account the different failure modes of the fibres and the matrix. Local damages are introduced as local stiffness reductions according to the actual failure type.
The failure model is used in connection with the non-linear response analysis and compared to experimental data from FRP single-skin plates, Ref. [5]. The model gives good
results with the specific examples. A failure scenario of a sandwich plate is illustrated
and the results of different failure types are used to improve the actual design by rotating the fibre direction in some of the laminae.
Finally, prediction of failure and ultimate strength is discussed in the light of linear and
non-linear response analysis. The linear analysis gives much lower ultimate failure
loads, in the example 2.5 times lower than in the non-linear analysis. Hence, accurate
failure prediction of composite plates requires non-linear response analyses.
%LEOLRJUDSK\129
%LEOLRJUDSK\
[1] Abrate S. Optimal Design of Laminated Plates and Shells. &RPSRVLWH 6WUXFWXUHV.
Vol. 29, pp. 269-286, 1994.
[2] Bau-Madsen N.K., Svendsen K.H. and Kildegaard A. Large Deflections of Sandwich Plates - an Experimental Investigation. &RPSRVLWH 6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 23, pp.
47-52, 1993.
[3] Hitchings D., Robinson P. and Javidrad F. A Finite Element Model for Delamination Propagation in Composites. &RPSXWHUVDQG6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 60 (6), pp. 10931104, 1996.
[4] Point N. and Sacco E. A Delamination for Laminated Composites. ,QW -RXUQDO RI
6ROLG6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 33 (4), pp. 483-509, 1996.
[5] Shenoi R.A., Allen H.G. and Moy S.S.J. Strength and Stiffness of FRP Plates.
3URF,QVW&LYLO(QJUV6WUXFWXUDO %XLOGLQJV. May 1996.
[6] Yoshii A. Optimum Design of Advanced Sandwich Composite Using Foam Core.
$GYDQFHG&RPSRVLWH0DWHULDOV. Vol. 2 (4), pp. 289-305, 1992.
[7] Zenkert D. Strength of Sandwich Beams with Interface Debondings. &RPSRVLWH
6WUXFWXUHV. Vol. 17, pp. 331-351, 1991.
130
&KDSWHU
Analysis and Design with Panel
,QWURGXFWLRQ
In order to make efficient and correct design and analyses of FRP HSLC hull panels, a
suitable tool is needed. A number of commercial programs are capable of doing non-linear response analysis. However, the pre-processing of modelling the structure and the
following calculations are often a time-consuming process in these programs. These two
phases are drastically reduced in 3DQHO, which is a design tool for response and failure
analysis of composite sandwich and single-skin panels in HSLC hulls. It is based on the
geometrical non-linear sandwich theory (Chapter 3). The numerical formulation of the
theory is based on a combination of the central finite difference method and the Newmark method, (Chapter 4). The tool is provided with a progressive damage model
(Chapter 6), which enables the user to predict failure types and failure loads.
The program is demonstrated by analyses of hull panels from different types of HSLC,
comparing linear and non-linear methods for static and dynamic load cases. Furthermore, a design example is given, where the panel weight is improved by making use of
the advantage of doing non-linear response calculations.
7KH6WUXFWXUHRI3DQHO
3DQHO consists of a main program and 21 individual routines in addition to in- and outdata files. The structure of 3DQHOand a short description of each subroutine are given in
Table 7.1 and Fig. 7.1. The entire program is developed by the author except for subroutines nos. 20-21, which are borrowed from a collection of Fortran codes for mathematical applications.
131
&KDSWHU$QDO\VLVDQG'HVLJQZLWK3DQHO
132
Name
Description
No.
0DLQ
The source program, calling all subroutines.
$QDO\
Analytical solution (Chapter 4, Solution 1).
$QDO\
Analytical solution (Chapter 4, Solution 2).
(LJHQ
Calculates eigenfrequencies (Chapter 5).
)DLO
Predicts failure load, locations and modes.
,QSXW
Reads the data from the input file generated for the problem.
/RDG
Generates time-load history according to load type.
0DWUL[
Computes plate stiffness, initial and during failure.
0HPEUD
Calculates resultant moments, in-plane and shear forces.
2XWSXW[
Provides relevant output data, Output 1-3.
10
5LJKW
Right side of in-plane equations in Solve2, (Chapter 4).
11
6ROYH
Solves bending equations (Chapter 5).
12
6ROYH
Solves in-plane equations (Chapter 5).
13
6ROYH
Solves shear equations (Chapter 5.)
14
6WUHVV
Calculates strains and stresses from known displacements.
15
7ULDO
In-plane initial displacements, u, v, at boundaries.
16
7ULDO
Progressive in-plane displacements, u, v, at boundaries.
17
8YZUDQ
Generates displacements at boundaries.
18
:HLJKW
Calculates weight and added mass of plate.
19
'//;*
Computes the /8 factorisation of the coefficient matrix.
20
'/)6;*
Solves the system of equations given the /8 factorisation.
21
,QGDWD
File with the plate scantlings, material properties, loads etc.
22
RXWGDWD
File with the calculated response and failure data.
23
,QFOX
Defines and includes variables for all subroutines.
24
Table 7.1: /LVWRIWKHGLIIHUHQWVXEURXWLQHVDQGGDWDILOHVLQFOXGHGLQ3DQHO
7KH6WUXFWXUHRI3DQHO133
3URJUDP3DQHO
,QGDWD
,QLWLDOFDOFXODWLRQV3DUW
Main
,QSXW
0DWUL[
:HLJKW
(LJHQ
/RDG
7ULDO
2XWSXW
6WUHVV
3
$
1
(
/
2XWSXW
6ROYHU3DUW
6ROYH
,WHUDWLRQ
6ROYH
6ROYH
6WUHVV
3RVWSURFHVVLQJ3DUW
0HPEUD
8YZUDQ
$QDO\
$QDO\
7ULDO
)DLO
0DWUL[
2XWSXW
2XWGDWD
Figure 7.1: )ORZGLDJUDPRI3DQHO
134
$QDO\VLVRI([LVWLQJ'HVLJQ
For response and failure analysis of FRP panels with 3DQHO, the user must provide the
program with the appropriate data such as material properties of each ply and the core,
fibre directions, panel scantlings, boundary conditions, load conditions, number of gridpoints etc. An example of such an in-data file is given in Appendix B.
The input of data is probably the most time-consuming part of making response analysis
with 3DQHO. The actual calculations take seconds or few minutes depending on the type
of analysis, i.e. linear/non-linear and static/dynamic. The output data can be selected according to the desired information level, which can be in the range from maximum lateral deflections to the deflections, all the stress components and the failure information
in each grid-point.
5HVFXH9HVVHO/5%
An analysis of a bottom panel of the rescue boat /5% (Fig. 7.2) is demonstrated. The
design load is found from the '19 rule Eq. 2.47 with an acceleration of 5 J R given by
the authorities (classified by %9). The plate scantlings and material properties are given
in Table 7.2. The boatyard Mathis in Denmark has built this rescue vessel and they are
about to finish the last order in a series of six.
Figure 7.2: 5HVFXHYHVVHO/5%HSR[\JODVVVDQGZLFKKXOO0D[VSHHGNQRWV
$QDO\VLVRI([LVWLQJ'HVLJQ135
5HVFXH%RDW/5%
Faces: E-glass/aramid/epoxy
Inner
3.0 PP [aramid(0/90)/-45/45/0/90]
(towards the core)
Outer
3.9 PP [90/0/45/-45/aramid(0/90)/csm] (from the core)
E-glass, (woven rowing)
4 11 = 39.2 *3D
4 22 = 8.39 *3D
4 12 = 2.18 *3D
4 66 = 4.14 *3D
; = 450 03D
; = -310 03D
< = 31 03D
<= -118 03D
6 = 72 03D
Aramid, 90/0 (unidirectional)
4 11 = 76.6 *3D
4 22 = 5.55 *3D
4 12 = 1.89 *3D
4 66 = 2.30 *3D
; = 1.00 *3D
; = -235 03D
< = 12 03D
<= -53 03D
6 = 34 03D
Core 40 PP
Divinycell H 250.
6 c 4.503D
4 44 = 4 55 = 108 03D
Adhesive (epoxy) ; 03D
Dimensions
D 1.4P, E 0.8P
Design load
T 65.3D ('19 Eq. 2.47)
Vertical acc.
D 5 J , given
DGK

R
G
Table 7.2: +XOOSDQHOGDWDIRUWKHUHVFXHERDW/5%
The calculated responses and the applied loads are illustrated as functions of the time in
Fig. 7.3-5, where linear and non-linear calculations are plotted for the dynamic and the
static cases, respectively. The linear and the non-linear static cases represent the existing design rules and the non-linear analytical method 6ROXWLRQ (Chapter 3), respectively. In addition, results from non-linear dynamic calculations including the added
mass are plotted, which represent the most correct responses.
The added mass (Eq. 4.34) contributes significantly to the total mass of the plate and reduces the frequency of the system and, thus, increases the dynamic response amplification factor.
In the static calculations, where the body forces are neglected in the equilibrium equations, the load is applied successively over the entire plate. The slamming load is distributed over the entire plate with an impact duration of 0.05 seconds and a peak value
of 0.01 seconds, which is the period of a typical slamming impact.
Hence, Figures 7.3-5 show the responses calculated by use of the following three methods: the conventional linear static solution (GHVLJQ UXOH), the non-linear static solution
suggested as improvement of the existing rule (6ROXWLRQ ) and the non-linear dynamic
solution including the added mass (3DQHO). Ultimate failure loads calculated by use of
non-linear and linear methods are illustrated in Fig. 7.6, where the non-linear method
shows considerably higher ultimate loads.
136
ZE [%]
T [3D]
1,0
Relative midpoint deflection and load history
Design rule
6ROXWLRQ
0,8
Static load
3DQHO
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
Dynamic load
-0,2
-0,4
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
Time [seconds]
0,10
Figure 7.3: 0LGSRLQWGHIOHFWLRQRIDKXOOSDQHOLQWKH/5%UHVFXHERDWFDOFXODWHGE\

XVHRIGLIIHUHQWPHWKRGV
PD[ [03D]
T [.3D]
200
Maximum stresses in the inner face and load history
design rule
Solution 2
150
Panel
100
Static load
50
0
Dynamic load
-50
-100
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
Time [seconds]
Figure 7.4: '\QDPLF DQG VWDWLF UHVSRQVH DQDO\VLV RI KXOO SDQHO LQ WKH /5% UHVFXH
ERDW0LGSRLQWVWUHVVHVLQWKHLQQHUVNLQDWWKHVXUIDFH
PD[ [03D]
T [3D]
1,0
Maximum core shear stress and load history
design rule
0,8
Solution 2
0,6
Static load
Panel
0,4
0,2
0,0
Dynamic load
-0,2
-0,4
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
Time [seconds]
Figure 7.5: '\QDPLF DQG VWDWLF UHVSRQVH DQDO\VLV RI KXOO SDQHO LQ WKH /5% UHVFXH
ERDW&RUHVKHDUVWUHVVHVDWWKHPLGGOHRIHGJH
The following observations are made from Fig. 7.3 concerning the relative midpoint deflection: The deflection response behaves linearly within the design load T R equal to 65
.3D. For this design load, the relative deflection ZE equals 0.52, whereas the maximum
response is 0.99 by use of dynamic calculations applying a typical slamming load history. Hence, there is a pronounced deviation of the response calculated statically and
dynamically. This dynamic amplification factor, 1.92 in the particular case, depends on
the slamming impact period. The relative maximum deflection is below the '19 1 %
design rule for all the calculation methods.
The maximum stress behaves almost linearly for the applied maximum design load (Fig.
7.4). The dynamic response is 2.1 times the static response for the maximum midpoint
stress PD[ at the inner face of the panel, but it is still within the value imposed by the
'19 design rule of 0.3 ; DUDPLG equal to 300 03D. The maximum core shear stress PD[
equal to 0.51 03D at the middle of the longest edge is below the '19 design rule of
0.356 F equal to 1.35 03D (Fig. 7.5). No wrinkling or debonding is observed from the results of the calculations.
The results are summarised in Table 7.3 below where the maximum responses are compared to the '19 design criteria concerning laterally loaded panels. The most significant result is the dynamic amplification factor of approximately 2. The non-linear results are almost equal to the linear results due to the relatively small deflection of the
panel. The ratio between the linear method (design rule) and the non-linear dynamic
138
method (3DQHO) is given in the last column of Table 7.3 indicating the error made by a
linear static calculation for the given design.
Method
---------Criteria
ZE[%]
PD[ 0.30;
PD[ 6 F
1. Linear
static
('HVLJQUXOH)
2. Non-linear
static
(6ROXWLRQ)
3. Non-linear
dynamic
(3DQHO)
3
1
0.52
0.30
0.32
0.51
0.31
0.32
0.99
0.64
0.59
1.9
2.1
1.9
Table 7.3: 3DQHO UHVSRQVHV FRPSDUHG WR '19 FULWHULD IRU WKH /5% KXOO SDQHO VXE
MHFWHGWRDGHVLJQORDGT .3D
The /5% hull panel is conservatively dimensioned according to the above analysis.
An ultimate failure analysis with 3DQHO is given in Figure 7.6 for a static load calculation using linear and non-linear methods. The ultimate load calculated by the linear
method is 7.5 times larger than the design load and 15 times larger than the design load
using non-linear calculations. Thus, a factor of 15 is incorporated in the panel design
regarding ultimate failure.
LRB rescue boat, ultimate failure of hull panel
ZE %
&ROODSVH
&ROODSVH
Linear
Non-linear
4
3
2
1
0
960 .3D
480 .3D
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Figure 7.6: 8OWLPDWHIDLOXUHORDGRIWKH/5%KXOOSDQHODFFRUGLQJWR3DQHOXVLQJ

OLQHDUDQGQRQOLQHDUVWDWLFPHWKRGV
The failure analysis depends highly on the ultimate strength assigned to each ply (Table
7.2) and test data of the ply properties are surely an advantage. The dominating failure
modes, which causes final collapse, are fibre and matrix breakage.
0LQH+XQWHU6)
The mine hunter SF300 class is currently one of the most advanced types of vessel in the
Danish Navy. It is built upside down by applying the foam core onto a mould of temporary transverse bulkheads and lists. After manual taping of the core the outer skin is
built upon the core. When curing has been brought about the hull is turned upwards
again and the transverse bulkheads are removed and lay-up of the inner skin can take
place.
Figure 7.7:
NQRWV
'DQLVK PLQH KXQWHU 6) 3RO\HVWHUJODVVVDQGZLFK KXOO 0D[ VSHHG
A vertical design acceleration of 3 J gives a static design load T equal to 145 .3D
('19 Eq. 2.47). Data for the analysed hull bottom panel is given in Table 7.3. The results are summarised in Table 7.4 and an ultimate failure analysis is given in Fig. 7.8.
140
0LQH+XQWHU6)
Faces: E-glass/polyester
Inner
8.0 PP [csm/90/0/-45/45]
(towards the core)
Outer
9.4 PP [45/-45/0/90/csm]
(from the core)
4 11 = 39.2 *3D
4 22 = 8.39 *3D
4 12 = 2.18 *3D
4 66 = 4.14 *3D
; = 450 03D
; = -310 03D
< = 31 03D
<= -118 03D
6 = 72 03D
Core 60 PP
Divinycell H 200.
6 c 3.303D
4 44 = 4 55 = 85 03D
Dimensions
D 2.0P, E 1.6P
Design load
T 145.3D ('19 Eq. 2.47)
Vertical acc.
D 3 J , given
DGK

R
G
Table 7.3: +XOOSDQHOGDWDIRUWKHPLQHKXQWHU6)

The hull panel is assumed to be simply supported and the stresses from global bending
of the hull are neglected in order to simplify the example. Hull bending from still water
and wave loads may introduce significant stresses, which are usually included in analyses of long FRP hulls as well as shock waves from underwater explosions, which may be
the dimensioning design load for this type of vessel. However, they are omitted in this
example.
Method
---------Criteria
ZE[%]
PD[ 0.30;
PD[ 6 F
1. Linear
static
('HVLJQUXOH)
2. Non-linear
static
(6ROXWLRQ)
3. Non-linear
dynamic
(3DQHO)
3
1
1.20
0.36
1.20
1.14
0.40
1.13
1.92
0.76
1.70
1.6
2.1
1.4
Table 7.4: 3DQHO UHVSRQVHV FRPSDUHG WR '19 FULWHULD IRU WKH 6) KXOO SDQHO VXE
MHFWHGWRDGHVLJQORDGT .3D
As for the /5% rescue boat the geometrical non-linear behaviour is small for the
given design load. Nevertheless, the non-linear static response is 11 % higher than calculated by the conventional linear theory concerning the maximum stress, whereas the
dynamic stress response is 2.1 times higher. The ultimate failure load (Fig. 7.8) is 3.4
and 6.5 times higher than the design load for linear and non-linear static calculations,
respectively. Thus, the panel is designed much closer to the ultimate failure limit than
the /5% panel.
SF300 mine hunter, ultimate failure of hull panel
ZE %
&ROODSVH
&ROODSVH
Non-linear
Linear
5
4
3
2
1
490 .3D
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
950 .3D
700
800
900
1000
Lateral load T [KPa]
Figure 7.8: 8OWLPDWHIDLOXUHORDG RI WKH 6) KXOO SDQHO DFFRUGLQJ WR 3DQHO XVLQJ
5DFLQJ<DFKW,/&
The third analysis of existing HSLC hull panel design with 3DQHO uses the high performance racing yacht Okyalos as an example. It is designed according to the new ,/&
rules, which have taken over from the old IOR rules. The building of the boat is the
most advanced technique of the three vessels discussed.
Hull and deck are built in one structure around a mould of transverse bulkheads and
lists. The mould is shaped by an automatic milling machine operating from a mobile
unit attached to rails in the ceiling. The foam is applied to the mould and shaped by the
milling machine proceeding as for the 6). Then, the core is taped into the correct
thickness and the lay-up and the curing of the epoxy-impregnated aramid/glass mats are
done in vacuum at a high temperature. After curing the mould is folded together and removed from the inside hull and deck structure through the entrance to the cabin. The
hull finish is made smooth by use of adequate milling and polish tools.
142
Figure 7.9: <DFKW,/&(SR[\JODVVDUDPLGVDQGZLFKKXOO0D[VSHHGNQRWV

5DFLQJ<DFKW,/&
Faces: E-glass/aramid/epoxy
Inner
1.1 PP [csm/aramid(0/-45/45/0)]
(towards the core)
Outer
1.1 PP [aramid(90/0/45/-45)/csm] (from core and out)
4 11 = 39.2 *3D
4 22 = 8.39 *3D
4 12 = 2.18 *3D
4 66 = 4.14 *3D
; = 450 03D
; = -310 03D
< = 31 03D
<= -118 03D
6 = 72 03D
Aramid, 90/0 (unidirectional)
4 11 = 76.6 *3D
4 22 = 5.55 *3D
4 12 = 1.89 *3D
4 66 = 2.30 *3D
; = 1.40 *3D
; = -235 03D
< = 12 03D
<= -53 03D
6 = 34 03D
Core 30 PP
Divinycell H 100.
6 c 1.403D
4 44 = 4 55 = 40 03D
Dimensions
D 1.8P, E 1.2P
Design load
T 25.3D ('19 Eq. 2.47)
Vertical acc.
D 3 J , given
DGK

R
G
Table 7.5: +XOOSDQHOGDWDIRUWKHUDFLQJ\DFKW,/&
The analysis is summarised in Table 7.6. The difference between linear static and nonlinear dynamic calculations is less pronounced than in the previous analyses, since the
dynamic amplification is retained by the high membrane stresses in the faces. The stress
level calculated by use of the non-linear method is 1.9 times higher than the linearly
calculated stress level, which is due to the high membrane stresses.
Method
---------Criteria
ZE[%]
PD[ 0.30;
PD[ 6 F
1. Linear
static
('HVLJQUXOH)
2. Non-linear
static
(6ROXWLRQ)
3. Non-linear
dynamic
(3DQHO)
3
1
1.58
0.51
0.78
1.0
0.54
0.67
1.58
0.97
0.98
1.0
1.9
1.24
Table 7.6: 3DQHOUHVSRQVHFRPSDUHGWR'19FULWHULDIRUD,/&KXOOSDQHOVXEMHFWHG

WRDGHVLJQORDGT .3D
The ultimate failure load (linear method) of the panel, illustrated in Fig. 7.10, is twice
as high as the design load, while the non-linear ultimate failure load is almost 11 times
higher. This significant increase in ultimate load capacity is caused mainly by the high
strength aramid fibres in the faces providing an extra strength reserve. The dominant
non-linear failure modes are matrix and fibre breakage, whereas the linear analysis also
predicts a significant core shear failure along the edges of the panel.
ZE
ILC40 racing yacht, ultimate failure of hull panel
&ROODSVH
&ROODSVH
7
6
5
Non-linear
Linear
3
2
1
0
270 .3D
48 .3D
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figure 7.10: 8OWLPDWHIDLOXUHORDGRIWKH,/&KXOOSDQHODFFRUGLQJWR3DQHOXVLQJ

144
'HVLJQ([DPSOH
An HSLC hull panel is designed and improved with regard to weight/strength with
3DQHO in order to show the possible design advantages by use of non-linear calculations.
The example (Table 7.3) shows the relative deflection calculated by linear and non-linear calculations (row 1-4) for a given lateral pressure according to '19 (Chapter 2).
The limit design criterion for each analysis is given in the last column. These criteria are
deflections, tensile stresses, shear stresses and wrinkling/compressive stresses. The specific panel weight is the design parameter for comparison (grey column). The weight is
reduced by decreasing the face and core thickness and by changing the fibre material.
The material properties for the faces are the same as given in Table 7.2.

0HWKRG
0DWHULDO
6FDQWOLQJV
/LQHDU
1RQOLQHDU
1RQOLQHDU
1RQOLQHDU
face/core
glass/H200
glass/H200
glass/H200
aramid/H130
face/core/face
5/90/5
4/90/4
4/60/4
1.25/50/1.25
3UHVVXUH
*10 5 [Pa]
6SHFLILF
1
1
1
1
1
0.92
0.74
0.28
PDVV
ZE /LPLW

1
1
2
3.9
ZE
ZE
WHQ
\]
Table 7.7: 'HVLJQRIDVDQGZLFKSDQHOLQWKHERWWRPSDUWRIDQ+6/&KXOO
Within the 1 % rule (maximum deflection/shortest panel-span < 0.01) the non-linear
analysis does not give remarkable improvements compared to the linear analysis, hence
a simple linear approach is adequate (row 1-2).
If the 1% rule is omitted (row 3-4), a pronounced non-linear behaviour is allowed for,
which may be used as a design advantage. This is shown in row 3, where the core thickness is minimised in order to reduce the specific weight to 0.74. The 1% relative deflection is exceeded and the tensile stress becomes the limit criterion. By exchanging the
glass fibres for high-strength aramid fibres in the faces and by decreasing the face and
core thickness and the core density, the specific weight is reduced to 0.28. The limit
criterion is then the core shear stress.
The above example shows the potential of using a non-linear approach in the design of
FRP sandwich panels. This, of course, implies that the 1 % rule can be neglected in particular cases.
6XPPDU\145
6XPPDU\
The structure of the design tool 3DQHO is outlined and the use of the program is demonstrated by different examples of analyses and design. The first three examples show response and failure analyses of hull panels in different HSLCs, whereas the fourth example demonstrates a new design of an HSLC hull panel.
In the examples of the existing HSLC panel designs, static and dynamic calculations are
compared for linear and non-linear analyses. The results for the two first panels (/5%
and 6)) show that the dynamic response of the panels is noticeably increased for a
typical slamming load. Especially for the /5%, since this panel has an eigenfrequency
very close to that of the slamming load. The non-linear behaviour for these two panels is
insignificant for the given design loads.
The light- and high-strength panel of the ,/& racing yacht displays a more pronounced non-linear behaviour, since it has thin high strength faces and, consequently,
the faces behave more like membranes than the other sandwich panels. The dynamic
amplification is not obvious as it counteracts the non-linear behaviour.
The last design example demonstrates the advantage of using non-linear calculations,
which results in a significant reduction of the panel weight to 28 % of the original
weight for the same strength.
146
&KDSWHU
Discussion of the DNV Code
,QWURGXFWLRQ
Although the FRP HSLC design rules, imposed by the classification societies, have been
progressively improved over the past two to three decades, they are still in the phase of
development compared to the equivalent design rules concerning metals, which are
based on a much longer history of practice and experience. Many of the FRP rules are
limited by safety considerations from empirical experience rather than theoretical
knowledge of the structure, which often leads to unnecessarily conservative designs.
The '19 HSLC code [1], concerning structural design of composite panels, is one of
the more advanced sets of rules among the classification societies, (Chapter 2). Typical
single-skin and sandwich hull panels, designed by use of the '19code, are discussed in
the light of non-linear results calculated with 3DQHO. The rule of a maximum relative lateral deflection of 1 % is usually the limiting criterion, '19 [2], and consequently, the
use of non-linear design formulas may be of advantage.
7KH6WLIIHQHG6LQJOH6NLQ5XOH
The '19 design rules Eqs. 8.1-2, for single-skin panels concerning maximum lateral deflections and stresses are based on geometrical non-linear theory. The expression for the
relative deflection (Eq. 8.1a) is given as
W = 178E
2
( (&1 + &2 )
0.25
[PP]
(8.1a)
147
&KDSWHU'LVFXVVLRQRIWKH'19&RGH
148
Expressed by the relative lateral deflection, =ZW, we get

&1 Z 1004
.
Z
E T
Z
=
, 1
+

W
W
&2 W
&2 W (
3
(8.1b)
The rule concerning maximum stress response yields

W
=
( (&1&3 + &4 &22 / 3 )
1000E
2
max
[ 03D ]
(8.2a)
or rewritten in terms of ZW, we obtain
max
Z
+ &1&3 E 2

W
=
T 0.30 QX
2
W
Z
&2 + &1
W
&4 &22 / 3
(8.2b)
where
T
E
(
& &
& &
design pressure [.3D]

the length of the shortest side of the panel [P]
the deflection to thickness ratio, ZW
Youngs modulus [03D]
factors depending on the panel aspect ratio and its boundary conditions
factor depending on the panel aspect ratio
The rules are compared to calculations with 3DQHO (Figs 8.1-2) using an FRP single-skin
panel (3ODWH) with the following properties:
3ODWH:
Material
(-module
Poisson ratio
Thickness
Dimensions
Max loading
Max loading
CSM E-glass/polyester
( = 20 *3D
= 0.3
W
= 10 PP
D = E = 1.00P
T = 20 .3D, simply supported boundary conditions
T = 40 .3D, clamped boundary conditions
7KH6WLIIHQHG6LQJOH6NLQ5XOH149
'19 rule (Eq. 8.1b) >< 3DQHO, single-skin
ZW
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
Linear, ss
'19, ss
3DQHO, ss
0,4
3DQHO, cl
Linear, cl
'19, & = 72, cl
0,2
'19, & = 63, cl

0,0
10
15
20
25
Figure 8.1: 0LGSRLQW GHIOHFWLRQ RI 3ODWH DFFRUGLQJ WR '19 >@ DQG 3DQHO VLPSO\
VXSSRUWHGDQGFODPSHGERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQV
The results from calculations with 3DQHO and the '19 rule Eq. 8.1b (Fig. 8.1) are in
good agreement for both types of boundary conditions. In this particular case, they show
considerably geometrical non-linear behaviour of the FRP single-skin plate subjected to
high lateral loads for both boundary conditions.
For the clamped boundary conditions, the rule predicts slightly non-conservative results
compared to the results calculated with 3DQHO. It seems that & is overestimated with 15
%, i.e. 72 instead of 63 according to Fig. 8.1. The factor is plotted as a function of the
plate aspect ratios in the '19 code (Ch. 4, Sec. 6, B202, Fig. 1) and a validation of this
curve is suggested. The non-linear method allows 50 % more load than predicted by a
linear calculation for a relative deflection of 1 %.
For the plate with simply supported boundary conditions, the rule predicts very accurate
results. In the given example the lateral load is increased by 2.4 times the linear, calculated load for a relative deflection of 1 %.
Thus, design advantages are obtained by use of non-linear solution methods provided by
the '19 code. Similar HSLC codes, Bureau Veritas, Lloyds and ABS, use linear expressions for the deflection response, and in general, the maximum deflection criterion of
ZW < 1 or ZE < 0.01 becomes the limiting criterion.
Fig. 8.2 compares the maximum stresses in the centre of the plate. The rule (Eq. 8.2b)
shows good agreement with the non-linear calculations with 3DQHO in the simply sup-
&KDSWHU'LVFXVVLRQRIWKH'19&RGH
150
ported case. For the clamped plate the stress level is overestimated by the rule, and it
seems that the & factor is wrong (0.31 instead of 0.13 for aspect ratio equal to unity).
The factor is plotted as function of plate aspect ratio in the '19 code (Ch. 4, Sec. 6,
B202, Fig. 2) and a validation (correction) of this curve can be obtained by use of the
analytical non-linear method described in Chapter 3.
'19 rule (Eq. 8.2b) >< 3DQHO, single-skin
PD[
Linear, ss
3DQHO, ss
'19, ss
50
Linear, cl
3DQHO, cl
'19, &= 0.31, cl
40
30
'19, & = 0.13, cl
20
ZW QRQOLQHDU
VVFO
10
0
10
15
20
25
Figure 8.2: 0LGSRLQWVWUHVVHVRI3ODWHDFFRUGLQJWR'19>@DQG3DQHOVLPSO\VXS

SRUWHGDQGFODPSHGERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQV
At the maximum load level, where ZW according to the non-linear calculations, the
rule predicts a maximum stress level which is 35 % and 15 % lower than predicted by
linear calculations for simply supported and clamped boundary conditions, respectively.
It seems appropriate to ask for an explanation of the reason for the maximum deflection
criterion and to allow for exceptions in particular cases. Since the code has implemented
the non-linear response formulas for stresses and deflections, it offers already an accurate method for response prediction for larger ZW ratios.
7KH6DQGZLFK5XOH151
7KH6DQGZLFK5XOH
The '19 design rule concerning FRP sandwich plates is based on linear theory. Figs.
8.3-4 compare the rule with non-linear calculations (3DQHO) using a typical sandwich
plate from a high-speed hull (3ODWH). The '19 formulas are given below for maximum
stress as:
Q =
160TE 2
& 1 &1
:
[ 03D ]
(8.3)
where
T
E
:
&1
&1
&
design pressure [.3D]

length of shortest side of the panel [P]
section modulus of the panel per unit width [PP 2 ]
& & for stresses parallel to the longest edge, and
& & for stresses parallel to the shortest edge
factor depending on the boundary conditions
and the maximum deflection as

10 6 TE 4
Z=
(&6 &8 + &7 ) [PP]
'2
(8.4)
where
D2
C6
C7
C8
flexural rigidity of the sandwich panel per unit width [1PP]

nominal ratio between bending and shear stiffness
factor depending on the panel aspect ratio and its boundary conditions
Calculations are performed by use of a sandwich plate (3ODWH) with the properties:
3ODWH
Skin as for 3ODWH
Material core
Divinycell H-160
*-module core * = 66 03D
Core thickness G = 60 PP
Skin thickness W
= 3 PP
Dimensions
D
E= 2.00 P
Max loading
T = 300 .3D, simply supported boundary conditions
Max loading
T = 400 .3D, clamped boundary conditions
&KDSWHU'LVFXVVLRQRIWKH'19+6/&&RGH
152
'19 rule (Eq. 8.4) >< 3DQHO Sandwich
ZE[%]
1,6
'19, ss
3DQHO, ss
1,2
'19, cl
3DQHO, cl
0,8
0,4
0,0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Lateral load T[.3D]
Figure 8.3: 0LGSRLQW GHIOHFWLRQ RI 3ODWH DFFRUGLQJ WR '19 >@ DQG 3DQHO VLPSO\
VXSSRUWHGDQGFODPSHGERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQV
[03D]
PD[
'19 rule (Eq. 8.3) >< 3DQHO, sandwich
120
80
Panel, lower face, ss
Panel, upper face, ss
Panel, lower face, cl
Panel, upper face, cl
DNV, cl
DNV, ss
40
0
-40
-80
-120
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 8.4: 0LGSRLQWVWUHVVHVLQXSSHUDQGORZHUVNLQVVLPSO\VXSSRUWHGDQG VWUHVVHV

DWWKHPLGGOHRIWKHHGJHFODPSHGRI3ODWHDFFRUGLQJWR'19>@DQG3DQHO
7KH6DQGZLFK5XOH153
The plate deflection (Fig. 8.3) behaves linearly within the relative maximum allowed
lateral deflection ZE equal to 1 % and the rule (Eq. 8.4) seems reasonable.
The stress level in the centre of the plate responds non-linearly according to the Fig. 8.4.
For the simply supported panel, the maximum stress (in the middle of the lower face)
calculated according to Eq. 8.3 is 9 % lower than calculated by 3DQHO. For the clamped
panel, the maximum stresses (at the middle of the edge in the upper face) are almost
identical for both methods.
As the stress values in upper and lower skins differ significantly, anti-symmetric plate
designs will be of great advantage. This will imply a distinction between upper and
lower skins in the rule. This may be done by use of the analytical non-linear method described in Chapter 3. However, within the 1 % rule the present linear rule gives reasonable results concerning maximum stresses in the faces.
If the 1 % rule is exceeded, which seems reasonable to permit in particular cases, nonlinear calculation methods for maximum deflection and stresses in the faces are essential.
6XPPDU\
The single-skin FRP deflection rule (Eq. 8.1b) gives good results for small and large deflections. Eq. 8.2 concerning stresses is not correct for the clamped boundary condition
case using the current & and & values, which need to be validated. This may be done
by application of the method outlined in Chapter 3. It is not clear why the maximum lateral deflection rule is necessary for the single-skin plate, since the rules concerning
stresses and deflections are based on non-linear theory and predict the responses well.
The '19 HSLC rule concerning sandwich needs to be reconsidered, if the relative
maximum deflection of 1 % has to be exceeded. Within small deflections there is a significant difference in the stress levels of the upper and lower faces. It is suggested that
the expressions for the maximum deflections and stresses (Eqs. 8.3-4) should be supplemented with a non-linear part. The analytical method, 6ROXWLRQ , (Chapter 3) would be
suitable for this purpose, as it combines linear and non-linear expressions. Thus, the
original rule can be kept and the non-linear part may act as a supplement to the rule used
for special occasions to be specified by the rule.
154
&KDSWHU'LVFXVVLRQRIWKH'19+6/&&RGH
%LEOLRJUDSK\
[1] DNV. High Speed and Light Craft. Classification Rules for High Speed Light
Craft. Det Norske Veritas Research AS, Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Hvik, Norway,
1991.
[2] DNV. Examination of Criteria for Panel Deflection in DNVs Rules for High
Speed and Light Craft. Technical Report No. 96-2014. Det Norske Veritas Research AS, Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Hvik, Norway, May, 1996.
Conclusion
The objective of this study is to develop a suitable tool for the design of composite hull
panels in high-speed light craft (HSLC). These panels are made of fibre-reinforce plastics (FRP), which are manufactured into either stiffened skin panels or sandwich panels.
The latter are manufactured by use of light core materials with faces of FRP skins.
In order to achieve this objective the following key subjects are investigated and captured: Behaviour of orthotropic materials, failure and fracture mechanisms, loading and
response characteristics. Furthermore, existing rules and criteria are examined in order
to improve the present rules and to develop new and more rational methods for the design and analysis of FRP panels.
The results of the investigation are formulated in the design program 3DQHO and in two
simple analytical solution methods, 6ROXWLRQ and 6ROXWLRQ. It is common to the above
methods that they are based on geometrical non-linear orthotropic sandwich plate theory. This is due to the FRP panels in HSLC being characterised by large panel sizes and
high lateral loads from the vertical decelerations of the vessel hitting the water surface.
Although the theory behind the analytical solutions has been known for years, 6ROXWLRQ
represents a new way to calculate non-linear responses for sandwich plates in a very
simple way. In addition, the solution is suitable for use with existing linear design rules,
as it is divided into a linear part and a non-linear part. Both of the analytical solutions
show good agreement with numerical calculations and experiments. The solutions omit
the dynamic terms in the equilibrium equations, which is important when slamming
loads are dealt with. However, this is captured in the numerically formulated solution
method, 3DQHO.
3DQHO is based on the finite difference method and Newmarks method. The advantages
of 3DQHO compared to existing commercial non-linear dynamic finite-element programs,
such as Ansys, are a significantly lower CPU-time and a short pre-processing phase.
However, for a more detailed level of response information. Of course Ansys is a more
general program than 3DQHO, able to treat a variety of panel shapes and boundary
conditions.
A progressive damage model is developed and implemented in 3DQHO by application of
existing failure criteria for FRP laminates and foam cores. Non-linear damage analyses
155
156
&RQFOXVLRQ
with 3DQHO show notably higher ultimate loads than obtained by use of linear damage
analysis. This circumstance is the most significant result in the non-linear analysis approach.
Dynamic response calculations, with existing HSLC hull panels subjected to typical
slamming loads, show that there is a significant increase in responses compared to the
responses obtained by use of static calculations, where the panels are subjected to constant uniform loads.
The design advantages by application of non-linear methods are demonstrated by a conventionally designed sandwich panel. This simplified example illustrates the possibilities of improvements of the present design methods.
Further research on the subject is suggested below:
Introduction of curved panels.

Large stiffened panel fields.
Panels with combined loading.
Probabilistic calibration of design codes.
7KRVHZKRIDOOLQORYHZLWKVFLHQFHZLWKRXWSUDFWLVH
DUHOLNHDVDLORUZKRVWHHUVDVKLSZLWKRQO\KHOPDQG
FRPSDVVDQGZKRQHYHUFDQEHFHUWDLQZKLWKHUKHLVJRLQJ
')LQH
$SSHQGL[$
This Appendix shows the derivation of the non-linear analytical solutions performed in
Chapter 3. The reader who needs an analytical tool ready for implementation in design
rules as a simple computer program may find it relevant.
$,QWHJUDOVDQG3DUDPHWHUV
In the following, detailed derivations of the terms in the strain energy expression are
presented for both the simply supported and clamped cases. The general expression for
the strain energy in the plate is shown below, where the higher-order terms in the strain
functions are retained.
4
2
X 2
Y
1
1 Z
X Z
1 Z
8 = $11 + $11 + $11
+ $22 + $22
2 $ [
4 [
[ [
4 \
\
2
X
Z Z
Y Z
X Y
Y
+ $22
+ $66 + $66 + $66
+ 2 $66
[
\ \
\ [
\
[ \
2
Z Z X Y
X Y 1
X Z
Z Z
+ 2 $66
+ + 2 $12
+ $12 + $12

[ \
[ \ \ [
[ \ 2
[ \
2
2 ZE
Y Z
+ $12
%11
\ [
[ 2
2
2 ZE X
2 ZE Z
Z
%22
2 %11

[
\ 2 \
[ 2 [
2
2 ZE Y
X Y 2 ZE
2 ZE Z Z
X 2 ZE
2 %22
4 % 66
+
4 % 66
2 %12
[\ [ \
[ \ 2
\ 2 \
\ [ [ \
2
2
2
2 ZE
2 ZE
Y 2 ZE
Z ZE
%
'
'
2 %12
+
+
12
11
22
[ \ 2
\ [ 2
\ 2
[ 2
2 ZE
Z V
2 ZE 2 ZE
Z V
+ 4 '66
+ 2 '12
+ $55
2
2 + $44
[
\
[
\
[ \
2
157
G$
(A. 1)
$SSHQGL[$
158
$6LPSO\6XSSRUWHG&DVH
By inserting the deflection functions (Eq. 3.25b) in the energy expression Eq. A.1 and
integrating over the plate area D E, we obtain thirty-two terms X L , forming the total
strain energy 8 = X L , as shown below (subscripts VV and FO refer to the simply supported and clamped cases, respectively):
X1VV =
1
1
2
2
2
$11 4 2 X cos 2 2[ sin 2 \G[G\ = $11 2 DEX = X1VV X
$
2
2
X2VV =
1
1
9
4
4
4
$11 4 Z cos4 [ sin 4 \G[G\ =
$11 4 DEZ = X2 VV Z
$
2
4
512
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
X3 = $11 2 XZ cos 2[ cos [ sin \G[G\ = $11
DXZ = X3 VV XZ
$
2
3
VV
X4VV =
1
1
2
2
2
$22 4 2 Y cos 2 2 \ sin 2 [G[G\ = $22 2 DEY = X4 VV Y
2 $
2
X5VV =
1
1
9
4
4
4
$22 4 Z cos 4 [ sin 4 \G[G\ =
$22 4 DEZ = X5VV Z
2 $4
512
X6VV =
1
1
2
2
2
$22 2 2 YZ cos 2 \ cos 2 [ sin 3 [G[G\ = $22 3 EXZ = X6 VV YZ
2 $
3
X7VV =
1
1
2
2
2
$66 2 X sin 2 2[ cos 2 \G[G\ = $66 2 DEX = X7 VV X
2 $
8
X8VV =
1
1
2
2
2
$66 2 Y sin 2 2 \ cos 2 [G[G\ = $66 2 DEY = X8 VV Y
2 $
8
X9VV =
1
1
4
4
4
$66 2 2 Z sin 2 \ cos 2 \ sin 2 [ cos 2 [G[G\ =
$66 2 2 DEZ = X9 VV Z
2 $
128
1
16
$ XY = X10 VV XY
2 $66 XY sin 2 \ cos \ sin 2[ cos [G[G\ =
2 $
9 66
1
1
2
2
2
X11VV = 2 $66 XZ sin 2[ cos [ sin [ cos 2 \ sin \G[G\ = $66DXZ = X11VV XZ
2 $
6
1
1
2
2
2
X12VV = 2 $66 YZ sin 2\ cos \ sin \ cos2 [ sin [G[G\ = $66EYZ = X12 VV YZ
$
2
6
1
16
X13VV = 8 $12 XY cos 2 \ sin \ cos 2[ sin [G[G\ =
$12 XY = X13 VV XY
$
2
9
X10VV =
X14VV =
1
1
1
4
4
4
$12 2 2 Z sin 2 \ cos 2 \ sin 2 [ cos 2 [G[G\ =
$12 2 2 DEZ = X14 VV Z
2 $2
256
$,QWHJUDOVDQG3DUDPHWHUV159
1
1
2
2
2
2 $12 2 XZ cos 2[ sin 2 [ cos 2 \ sin \G[G\ = $12DXZ = X15 VV XZ
$
2
6
1
1
2
2
2
X16VV = 2 $12 2 YZ cos 2 \ sin 2 \ cos 2 [ sin [G[G\ = $12EYZ = X16 VV YZ
$
2
6
X15VV =
If symmetry is assumed in order to reduce the final algebraic expression for the deflection functions, the stretching/bending-stiffness terms % LM in the energy expressions X
X , become zero. It is no problem to take these terms into account. However, when this
is done the final analytical expressions become too large for practical use, except in
computer programs based on these types of analytical solutions. Thus
VV
X28
=
1
1
2
2
2
'11 4 Z E sin 2 [ sin 2 \G[G\ = '11 4 DEZ E = X28 VV Z E
$
2
8
VV
=
X29
1
1
2
2
2
'22 4 Z E sin 2 [ sin 2 \G[G\ = '22 4 DEZ E = X29 VV Z E
$
2
8
VV
=
X30
1
1
2
2
2
4 '66 2 2 Z E cos2 [ cos 2 \G[G\ = '66 2 2 DEZ E = X30 VV Z E
$
2
2
VV
=
X31
1
1
2
2
2
2 '12 2 2 Z E sin 2 [ sin 2 \G[G\ = '12 2 2 DEZ E = X31VV Z E
$
2
4
VV
X32
=
1
1
2
2
2
$44 2 Z V sin 2 [ cos 2 \G[G\ = $44 2 DEZ V = X32 VV Z V
$
2
8
VV
=
X33
1
1
2
2
2
$55 2 Z V sin 2 \ cos 2 [G[G\ = $55 2 DEZ V = X33VV Z V
2 $
8
1 = 4(X2 + X5 + X9 + X14) ,
VV
2 = 2(X3 + X11 + X15)
VV
3 = 2(X6 + X12 + X16) ,

4 = 2(X28 + X29 + X30 + X31)
4TDE
VV
5 = 2 , 6 = 2(X32 + X33) , 12 = 4 6
4 + 6
VV
2
, 2 = X10 + X13 , 3 = 2X1 + 2X7
2
4 = 3 , 5 = X10 + X13 , 6 = 2X4 + 2X8

2
VV
(A. 2)
1 =
(A. 3)
$SSHQGL[$
160
D 2 = 4 10 , D 3 = 5 10 , 7 = 4 6
8 = 11 + 2 11 7 + 11 72 , 9 = 12 + 2 12 7 + 12 72
(A. 4)
10 = 1 + 31 7 + 31 + 1 + 2 8 + 3 9 + 2 7 8 + 3 7 9
2
7
11 =
6 1 4 2
,
5 2 6 3
12 =
3
7
4 3 5 1
5 2 6 3
(A. 5)
2
'11 6
2
= 4 6
=
4DE 4 + 6 4DE V '11 + E 6
1
'22 = . , '12 = '22 , '66 =
'22 , 6 = $44 = $55
2
(A. 6)
1
1
1 1 2 2
1
4 = '11 2 DE 4 + 4 + 4
+ 2 2 2
.
.
8
2 .
1
6 = 6 2 DE( 2 + 2 )
8
16
E =
1
1 1 2 2
1
2 4 + 4 + 4
+ 2 2 2
.
.
2 .
16
V = 2 2
( + 2 )
(A. 7)
51VV = 12VV
'11
$&ODPSHG&DVH
Using the same procedure as for the simply supported plate, by combination of Eq. A.1
and Eq. 3.29, we obtain the following energy terms which form the strain energy of the
clamped plate.
X1FO =
1
1
2
2
2
$11 4 2 X cos2 2[ sin 2 \G[G\ = $11 2 DEX = X1FO X
2 $
2
X2FO =
1
1
105
4
4
4
16 $11 4 Z cos4 [ sin 4 [ sin 8 \G[G\ =
$11 4 DEZ = X2 FO Z
2 $4
8192
$,QWHJUDOVDQG3DUDPHWHUV161
1
2
2
2
$11 8 3 XZ cos 2[ sin 2 [ cos2 [ sin 5 \G[G\ = 0 XZ = X3FO XZ
$
2
1
1
2
2
2
X4FO = $22 4 2 Y cos 2 2\ sin 2 [G[G\ = $22 2 DEY = X4 FO Y
$
2
2
X3FO =
X5FO =
1
1
105
4
4
4
16 $22 4 Z cos8 [ cos 4 \ sin 4 \G[G\ =
$22 4 DEZ = X5FO Z
$
2
4
8192
1
2
2
2
$22 8 2 YZ cos 2 \ sin 2 \ cos2 \ sin 5 [G[G\ = 0 XZ = X6 FO XZ
$
2
1
1
2
2
2
X7FO = $66 2 X sin 2 2[ cos 2 \G[G\ = $66 2 DEX = X7 FO X
2 $
8
X6FO =
X8FO =
1
1
2
2
2
$66 2 Y sin 2 2\ cos 2 [G[G\ = $66 2 DEY = X8 FO Y
2 $
8
2
1
4
4
4
5
X9 = 16 $66 2 2 Z sin 6 \ cos2 \ sin 6 [ cos2 [G[G\ = 8
$66 2 2 DEZ = X9 FO Z
128
2 $
FO
1
16
$ XY = X10 FO XY
2 $66 XY sin 2 \ cos \ sin 2[ cos [G[G\ =
2 $
9 66
1
2
2
2
2
X11FO = 4 $66 XZ sin 2[ sin 3 [ cos[ cos2 \ sin 3 \G[G\ =
$66DXZ = X11FO XZ
2 $
15
X10FO =
X12FO =
1
2
2
2
2
$66EYZ = X12 FO YZ
4 $66 YZ sin 2\ cos \ sin 3 \ cos 2 [ sin 3 [G[G\ =
$
2
15
X13FO =
1
16
$12 XY = X13FO XY
8 $12 XY cos 2\ sin \ cos 2[ sin [G[G\ =
$
2
9
X14FO =
1
4
4
4
5
$12 2 2 DEZ = X14 FO Z
8 $12 2 2 Z sin 6 \ cos2 \ sin 6 [ cos2 [G[G\ = 4
128
2 $
X15FO =
1
4
2
2
2
8 $12 2 XZ cos 2[ sin 4 [ cos2 \ sin 3 \G[G\ = $12DXZ = X15FO XZ
$
2
15
X16FO =
1
4
2
2
2
8 $12 2 YZ cos 2 \ sin 4 \ cos 2 [ sin 3 [G[G\ = $12EYZ = X16 FO YZ
$
2
15
FO
X28
=
1
3
2
2
2
4 '11 4 Z E sin 4 [ cos 2 2[G[G\ = '11 4 DEZ E = X28 FO Z E
$
2
8
FO
X29
=
1
3
2
2
2
4 '22 4 Z E sin 4 [ sin 2 2 \G[G\ = '22 4 DEZ E = X29 FO Z E
$
2
8
$SSHQGL[$
162
FO
=
X30
1
1
2
2
2
64 '66 2 2 Z E cos 2 [ cos 2 \ sin 2 [ sin 2 \G[G\ = '66 2 2 DEZ E = X30 FO Z E
$
2
2
FO
=
X31
1
1
2
2
2
8 '12 2 2 Z E sin 2 [ sin 2 \ cos 2[ cos 2 \G[G\ = '12 2 2 DEZ E = X31FO Z E
$
2
4
FO
=
X32
1
3
2
2
2
4 $44 2 Z V sin 2 [ cos 2 \ sin 4 \G[G\ =
$44 2 DEZ V = X32 FO Z V
$
2
32
FO
=
X33
1
3
2
2
2
4 $55 2 Z V sin 2 \ cos 2 [ sin 4 [G[G\ =
$55 2 DEZ V = X33FO Z V
$
2
32
$SSHQGL[%
For response and failure analysis with the program 3DQHO the user has to fill in a data
file with the appropriate information. An example of such an in-data file concerning
analysis of a sandwich panel in the hull of the rescue vessel LRB12 (chapter 7) is given
below. The actual input are written in regular style and the comments in bold.
5HVFXH%RDW/5%
)DFHV
E-glass/aramid/epoxy
Inner
3.0 PP [aramid(0/90)/-45/45/0/90]
Outer
3.9 PP [90/0/45/-45/aramid(0/90)/csm]
(JODVVZRYHQURZLQJ
4 11 = 39.2 *3D
4 22 = 8.39 *3D
4 66 = 4.14 *3D
; = 450 03D
< = 31 03D
<=118 03D
$UDPLGXQLGLUHFWLRQDO
4 11 = 76.6 *3D
4 22 = 5.55 *3D
4 66 = 2.30 *3D
; = 1.00 *3D
< = 12 03D
<=53 03D
&RUHPPDivinycell H 250.
6 c 4.503D
4 44 = 4 55 = 108 03D
$GKHVLYHHSR[\
; 03D
Dimensions
D 1.4P, E 0.8P
Design load
T 65.3D ('19 Eq. 2.47)
Vertical acc.
D 5 J , given
(towards the core)

(from the core)
4 12 = 2.18 *3D
; = 310 03D
6 = 72 03D
4 12 = 1.89 *3D
; = 235 03D
6 = 34 03D
DGK

R
G
Table B.1: +XOOSDQHOGDWDIRUWKHUHVFXHERDW/5%

163
164
%,QGDWDILOH
6DQGZLFKSDQHO+(JODVVDUDPLGHSR[\

7\SHRIDQDO\VLV
G\Q
'\QDPLF 6WDWLF
1

7\SHRIFDOFXODWLRQVOLQHDU QRQOLQHDU
2

7\SHRISDQHO
W\SH
6LQJOHVNLQ WKLFNF 6DQGZLFK
2

%RXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQV
EF
&ODPSHG 6LPSOHVXSSRUWHG
2

7ULDOYDOXHVXRRQHGJH[
0.000d0

7ULDOYDOXHVYRRQHGJH\
0.000d0

3ODWHOHQJWK
OHQJWK
OHQJWKEUHDGWK JULG[JULG\
1.40d0

3ODWHEUHDGWK
EUHDGWK

0.80d0

$GGHGPDVV QRWKLQJVLGHRUVLGHV
0

GHQVLW\RIZDWHU
1025.d0

)DFHORZHUWKLFNQHVVWKLFN
WKLFNI

0.0030000

)DFHXSSHUWKLFNQHVVWKLFN
WKLFNI

0.0039000

FRUHWKLFNQHVVWKLFN
WKLFNF

0.04000

1XPEHURIODPLQDHLQORZHUIDFH
5

1XPEHURIODPLQDHLQXSSHUIDFH
$SSHQGL[%
,QGDWD)LOH165
5

FRUHGHQVLW\
UKRF

250.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

ODPLQDGHQVLW\
UKRI

1500.0d0

6WLIIQHVVWHQVRU4IRIORZHUODPLQD
3.91700000E10 2.18000000E09 0.d0
2.18000000E09 8.39800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
4.14000000E09

3.91700000E10 2.18000000E09 0.d0
2.18000000E09 8.39800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
4.14000000E09

3.91700000E10 2.18000000E09 0.d0
2.18000000E09 8.39800000E09 0.d0
166
0.d0
0.d0
4.14000000E09

7.66400000E10 1.89000000E09 0.d0
1.89000000E09 5.55800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
2.30000000E09

7.66400000E10 1.89000000E09 0.d0
1.89000000E09 5.55800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
2.30000000E09

6WLIIQHVVWHQVRU4IRIXSSHUODPLQD
3.91700000E10 2.18000000E09 0.d0
2.18000000E09 8.39800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
4.14000000E09

7.66400000E10 1.89000000E09 0.d0
1.89000000E09 5.55800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
2.30000000E09

7.66400000E10 1.89000000E09 0.d0
1.89000000E09 5.55800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
2.30000000E09

3.91700000E10 2.18000000E09 0.d0
2.18000000E09 8.39800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
4.14000000E09

3.91700000E10 2.18000000E09 0.d0
2.18000000E09 8.39800000E09 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
4.14000000E09

6WLIIQHVVWHQVRU4FRIFRUH
2.00000000E08 6.00000000E07 0.d0
6.00000000E07 2.00000000E08 0.d0
0.d0
0.d0
7.70000000E07

6WLIIQHVVWHQVRU4EDUFRIFRUHN
1.08000000E08 0.d0
0.d0
1.08000000E08

8OWLPDWHVWUHQJWKRIORZHUODPLQD
4.500E8 -3.10E8 3.10E07 -1.18E08 7.20E07
$SSHQGL[%
,QGDWD)LOH167

4.500E8 -3.10E8 3.10E07 -1.18E08 7.20E07

4.500E8 -3.10E8 3.10E07 -1.18E08 7.20E07

8OWLPDWHVWUHQJWKRIORZHUODPLQDDUDPLGHSR[\
1.000E9 -2.35E8 1.20E07 -0.53E08 3.40E07

8OWLPDWHVWUHQJWKRIORZHUODPLQDDUDPLGHSR[\
1.000E9 -2.35E8 1.20E07 -0.53E08 3.40E07

8OWLPDWHVWUHQJWKRIXSSHUODPLQD
4.500E8 -3.10E8 3.10E07 -1.18E08 7.20E07

1.000E9 -2.35E8 1.20E07 -0.53E08 3.40E07

1.000E9 -2.35E8 1.20E07 -0.53E08 3.40E07

4.500E8 -3.10E8 3.10E07 -1.18E08 7.20E07

4.500E8 -3.10E8 3.10E07 -1.18E08 7.20E07

8OWLPDWHVWUHQJWKRIFRUH
4.5E06

8OWLPDWHVWUHQJWKRIDGKHVLYH
5.0E05

'LVWDQFHW]DFFRUGLQJWRFRQILJXUDWLRQORZHUODPLQDWH
-0.00150000

-0.00090000

0.00000000

+0.00090000

+0.00120000
168

+0.00150000

'LVWDQFHW]DFFRUGLQJWRFRQILJXUDWLRQXSSHUODPLQDWH
-0.00195000

-0.00100000

-0.00070000

-0.00040000

0.00060000

0.00195000

)LEUHRULHQWDWLRQWHWDRIORZHUODPLQDWH
-45.d0

45.d0

90.d0

0.d0

90.d0

)LEUHRULHQWDWLRQWHWDRIXSSHUODPLQDWH
90.d0

0.d0

90.d0

45.d0
$SSHQGL[%
,QGDWD)LOH169

-45.d0

0D[LPXPVODPPLQJORDG
1200000.d0

3HULRGRIVODPPLQJORDG
0.010d0

'DPSLQJFRHIILFLHQWDOID
0.0d0

'DPSLQJFRHIILFLHQWEHWD
0.0d0

$SSHQGL[%
170
ILQH
Ph.d. Theses
Department of Naval Architecture and Oshore Engineering, DTU
1961
Strm-Tejsen, J.: \Damage Stability Calculations on the Computer
1963
Silovic, V.: \A Five Hole Spherical Pilot Tube for three Dimensional
Wake Measurements".
1964
Chomchuenchit, V.: \Determination of the Weight Distribution of
1965
1965
Chislett, M.S.: \A Planar Motion Mechanism".

Nicordhanon, P.: \A Phase Changer in the HyA Planar Motion Mecha-
1966
DASK".
Ship Models".
nism and Calculation of Phase Angle".
Jensen, B.: \Anvendelse af statistiske metoder til kontrol af forskellige
eksisterende tilnrmelsesformler og udarbejdelse af nye til bestemmelse

af skibes tonnage og stabilitet".
1968
Aage, C.: \Eksperimentel og beregningsmssig bestemmelse af vind-
1972
Prytz, K.: \Datamatorienterede studier af planende bades fremdrivningsforhold".
1977
1977
1978
Hee, J.M.: \Store sideportes ind ydelse pa langskibs styrke".

Madsen, N.F.: \Vibrations in Ships".
Andersen, P.: \Blgeinducerede bevgelser og belastninger for skib pa
1978
1978
Romeling, J.U.: \Buling af afstivede pladepaneler".

Srensen, H.H.: \Sammenkobling af rotations-symmetriske og generelle
krfter pa skibe".
lgt vand".
tre-dimensionale konstruktioner i elementmetode-beregninger".
1980
Fabian, O.: \Elastic-Plastic Collapse of Long Tubes under Combined
1980
1981
Petersen, M.J.: \Ship Collisions".

Gong, J.: \A Rational Approach to Automatic Design of Ship Sec-
1982
Nielsen, K.: \Blgeenergimaskiner".
Bending and Pressure Load".
tions".
1984
1984
1985
Rishj Nielsen, N.J.: \Structural Optimization of Ship Structures".

Liebst, J.: \Torsion of Container Ships".
Gjerse-Fog, N.: \Mathematical Denition of Ship Hull Surfaces using
1985
1986
1986
1987
Jensen, P.S.: \Stationre skibsblger".

Nedergaard, H.: \Collapse of Oshore Platforms".
Junqui, Y.: \3-D Analysis of Pipelines during Laying".
Holt-Madsen, A.: \A Quadratic Theory for the Fatigue Life Estima-
B-splines".
tion of Oshore Structures".
1989
Vogt Andersen, S.: \Numerical Treatment of the Design-Analysis

Problem of Ship Propellers using Vortex Latttice Methods".
1989
1990
1990
Rasmussen, J.: \Structural Design of Sandwich Structures".

Baatrup, J.: \Structural Analysis of Marine Structures".
Wedel-Heinen, J.: \Vibration Analysis of Imperfect Elements in Ma-
rine Structures".
1991
Almlund, J.: \Life Cycle Model for Oshore Installations for Use in
Prospect Evaluation".
1991
1992
1992
Back-Pedersen, A.: \Analysis of Slender Marine Structures".

Bendiksen, E.: \Hull Girder Collapse".
Buus Petersen, J.: \Non-Linear Strip Theories for Ship Response in
1992
1993
1994
Schalck, S.: \Ship Design Using B-spline Patches".

Kierkegaard, H.: \Ship Collisions with Icebergs".
Pedersen, B.: \A Free-Surface Analysis of a Two-Dimensional Moving
1994
1994
Friis Hansen, P.: \Reliability Analysis of a Midship Section".

Michelsen, J.: \A Free-Form Geometric Modelling Approach with Ship
1995
Waves".
Surface-Piercing Body".
Design Applications".
Melchior Hansen, A.: \Reliability Methods for the Longitu-dinal

Strength of Ships".
1995
1995
1997
1997
Branner, K.: \Capacity and Lifetime of Foam Core Sandwich Struc-
tures".
Schack, C.: \Skrogudvikling af hurtiggaende frger med henblik pa
sdygtighed og lav modstand".

Cerup Simonsen, B.: \Mechanics of Ship Grounding".
Riber, H.J.: \Response Analysis of Dynamically Loaded Composite
Panels".

And Offshore Engineering
Building 101E
Dk-2800 Lyngby
Denmark
Phone +45 4525 1360
Telefax +45 4588 4325
Email
ish@ish.dtu.dk
Internet http://www.ish.dtu.dk
ISBN 87-89502-36-1

Riber PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Riber PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Technical University of Denmark

Hans Jrgen Riber

Hans Jrgen Riber

Copyright 1997 Hans Jrgen Riber

Organisation of the Thesis ................................................................................. 4

Structural Design ............................................................................................... 8

Single-Skin Hull Design......................................................................... 9

Sandwich Hull Design.......................................................................... 13

Design Loads ................................................................................................... 17

Local Loads ......................................................................................... 20

Slamming Loads .................................................................................. 20

Assumptions and Configurations ......................................................... 34

Strain Displacement Relations ............................................................. 36

Equilibrium Equations ......................................................................... 39

Analytical Solutions ........................................................................................ 41

A Complete Analytical Solution, 6ROXWLRQ......................................... 42

A Combined Analytical Solution, 6ROXWLRQ........................................ 45

Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 56

Integration Scheme in Time and Space ............................................................ 62

Central Finite Differences.................................................................... 63

Newmarks Method ............................................................................. 64

Numerical Formulation of Equilibrium Equations ................................ 65

Boundary Conditions ........................................................................... 70

Solution Procedure .......................................................................................... 71

Iteration Loops and Time Steps............................................................ 71

Eigenfrequency and Added Mass ......................................................... 73

Formulation of Coefficient Matrix ....................................................... 75

Verification of the Method .............................................................................. 81

Static Response ................................................................................... 81

Dynamic Response .............................................................................. 88

Face Fracture ....................................................................................... 95

General Buckling ................................................................................. 96

Lamina Failure Analysis .................................................................................. 98

Principal Strains and Stresses............................................................. 100

Lamina Failure Modes and Criteria .................................................... 101

Laminate Failure Analysis ............................................................................. 108

Laminate Failure Model ..................................................................... 108

Core Failure Analysis .................................................................................... 109

Core Shear Failure ............................................................................. 110

Debonding of Core and Face .............................................................. 111

Shear Crimping .................................................................................. 112

Core Indentation ................................................................................ 112

Summary ....................................................................................................... 112

Introduction ................................................................................................... 115

Plate Stiffness Reduction Model .................................................................... 116

Comparison of Damage Model and Experiments ............................................ 118

Failure Scenario Example .............................................................................. 121

Ultimate Strength, Linear and Non-Linear Analysis ....................................... 126

Summary ....................................................................................................... 128

The Structure of 3DQHO................................................................................... 131

Analysis of Existing Design........................................................................... 134

Rescue Vessel LRB ........................................................................... 134

Mine Hunter SF300 ........................................................................... 139

Racing Yacht ILC40 .......................................................................... 141

Design Example ............................................................................................ 144

Summary ....................................................................................................... 145

The Stiffened Single Skin Rule...................................................................... 147

The Sandwich Rule ....................................................................................... 151

Summary ....................................................................................................... 153

Bibliography ................................................................................................. 154

Figure 1.1: 5HVFXHERDWPDGHRIHSR[\JODVVVDQGZLFKSDQHOV

Figure 1.2: 6DLOLQJERDWPDGHRIHSR[\FDUERQJODVVSDQHOV

A Complete Analytical Solution, 6ROXWLRQ......................................... 42

A Combined Analytical Solution, 6ROXWLRQ........................................ 45

Figure 1.1: 5HVFXHERDWPDGHRIHSR[\JODVVVDQGZLFKSDQHOV

Figure 1.2: 6DLOLQJERDWPDGHRIHSR[\FDUERQJODVVSDQHOV

Figure 2.1: 6LQJOHVNLQFRQFHSWZLWKORQJLWXGLQDODQGWUDQVYHUVHIRDPFRUHVWLIIHQHUV

Relative deflection ZW

Figure 2.4: 6WUHVVUHVSRQVHDFFRUGLQJWR%XUHDX9HULWDVDQG'HW1RUVNH9HULWDV

Figure 2.5: 5HODWLYH ODWHUDOGHIOHFWLRQDFFRUGLQJWR%XUHDX9HULWDVDQG'HW1RUVNH9HULWDV

Figure 2.6: 6FKHPDWLFGUDZLQJRIDVDQGZLFKVWUXFWXUH

Figure 2.7: %HQGLQJVWLIIQHVVWRZHLJKWUDWLRVIRUVDQGZLFKDQGVLQJOHVNLQFURVVVHFWLRQV

Figure 2.9b: *OREDOORDGVLQGXFHGLQWKHKXOOEHDPE\ZDYHVDQGVODPPLQJ

Figure 2.10: %HDPPRGHOIRUDSSUR[LPDWHJOREDOEHQGLQJPRPHQWVLQVKLSKXOO

+RJJLQJ0RPHQW0 KRJ (still water + wave)

6DJJLQJ0RPHQW0 VDJ (still water + wave)

Figure 2.11: 7\SLFDOPHDVXUHGWLPHKLVWRU\RIVODPPLQJSUHVVXUH5LEHU>@

, 08 0P9 (2. 20)

Figure 2.12: :HGJHVKDSHGERG\VWULNLQJWKHZDWHUVXUIDFH

H 0.21P tan17 = 0.31 1015NJP .

Figure 2.13: 3UHVVXUHYDULDWLRQDORQJDERWWRP5LEHU>@

Table 2.1: *HQHUDOJXLGDQFHIRUVHOHFWLRQRIYHUWLFDODFFHOHUDWLRQVIRUVWUXFWXUDOGHVLJQ

is the waterline breadth at / .

Sample frequency IUHTXHQFH of +]

Figure 2.14: 6ODPPLQJLPSDFWRQDKXOOSDQHO5LEHU>@

Table 2.2: 6ODPPLQJSUHVVXUHRQERWWRPRIKXOOSDQHORIDVDLOLQJERDW

Figure 3.3: 7UDQVYHUVHVKHDUERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQIRUVDQGZLFKSODWHV

Figure 3.4: 6LJQFRQYHQWLRQIRUWKHSODWH