vf

© All Rights Reserved

15 vues

vf

© All Rights Reserved

- CMH-17_Vol6_RevG
- Buckling of Prestressed Steel Girders
- Byfield, Mike - Structural design from first principles (2018, CRC Press).pdf
- 2009_manual_c7
- Wonderful Paper
- i-paper-15
- Beams - AISC Summary
- ss
- LAB 5 Buckling and Structural Stability Under Compression
- Genie User Manual Volume 4 App C1 API WSD
- is.7906.1.1997
- SFD-AISC-360-05
- c2220 PDF Toc
- Is 801 Code of Practice for Use of Cold-Formed Light Gauge .183135618
- Microsoft Word - 1.Docx-Combination
- AS_NZS4600_draft.pdf
- OTC-10711-MS
- 142907027 Gantry Crane Xls
- tv_22_2015_1_183_189
- Calculation for IPE360

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 30

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

and overall buckling of stiened panels

O.F. Hughes , B. Ghosh, Y. Chen

Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

Received 12 May 2003; received in revised form 31 October 2003; accepted 5 January 2004

Abstract

In this paper, improved expressions for elastic local plate buckling and overall panel

buckling of uniaxially compressed T-stiened panels are developed and validated with 55

ABAQUS eigenvalue buckling analyses of a wide range of typical panel geometries. These

two expressions are equated to derive a new expression for the rigidity ratio (EIx/Db)CO that

uniquely identies crossover panelsthose for which local and overall buckling stresses

are the same. The new expression for (EIx/Db)CO is also validated using the 55 FE models.

Earlier work by Chen (Ultimate strength analysis of stiened panels using a beam-column

method. PhD Dissertation, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2003) had produced a new stepby-step beam-column method for predicting stiener-induced compressive collapse of stiened

panels. An alternative approach is to use orthotropic plate theory. As part of the validation

of the new beam-column method, ABAQUS elasto-plastic Riks ultimate strength analyses

were made for 107 stiened panelsthe 55 crossover panels and 52 others. The beamcolumn and orthotropic approaches were also used. A surprising result was that the orthotropic

approach has a large error for crossover panels whereas the beam-column method does

not. Some possible reasons for this are suggested.

# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Plate buckling; Panel buckling; Interactive buckling; Panel ultimate strength

E-mail address: hugheso@vt.edu (O.F. Hughes).

0263-8231/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tws.2004.01.003

828

Nomenclature

Geometric properties

a

length of one-bay, spacing between two adjacent transverse frames

Af

sectional area of stiener ange

Ap

sectional area of plate in between adjacent stieners (=bt)

As

sectional area of a single longitudinal stiener

AT

sectional area of a single longitudinal stiener plus eective plating

Aw

sectional area of stiener web

b

spacing between two adjacent longitudinal stieners

B

breadth of stiened panel

bf

breadth of stiener ange

hw

height of stiener web

Ix, Iy moment of inertia of a single stiener with attached plating

ns

number of longitudinal stieners in a stiened panel

t

thickness of plate

tf

thickness of stiener ange

tw

thickness of stiener web

u1

axial shortening of bay

w0

maximum initial deection of a longitudinal stiener (=0.0025a)

P

panel aspect ratio (=a/B)

p

b

plate slenderness parameter ( b=t rY =E )

c

ratio of exural rigidity of platestiener combination to exural

rigidity of plating ( EIx =Db)

p

k

slenderness ratio of stiener with attached plating ( a=pq rY =E )

q

radius

of gyration of longitudinal stiener with attached plating

p

( Ix =AT )

Material properties and strength parameters

D

exural rigidity of isotropic plate ( Et3 =121 m2 )

Dx

exural rigidity of orthotropic plate in x-direction ( EIx =b)

Dy

bending rigidity of orthotropic plate in y-direction ( EIy =a)

E

Youngs modulus

G

shear modulus ( E=21 m)

H

torsional rigidity of orthotropic plate ( 1=6Gt3 GJx =b)

Jx

torsional rigidity of a longitudinal stiener for continuous stiening

( 1=6hw t3w bf t3f )

P0

virtual aspect ratio of orthotropic plate ( a=BDy =Dx 1=4 )

f

ratio of torsional rigidity of stiener and bending rigidity of attached

plating ( GJx =Db)

p

g

torsional stiness parameter of orthotropic plate ( H= Dx Dy )

m

Poissons ratio

rE

Euler column buckling stress

rlocal

rov,panel

rx

rY

829

elastic overall panel buckling stress

applied longitudinal compressive stress

yield stress

1. Introduction

In ships, a common portion of structure is a multi-bay longitudinally stiened

panel supported by transverse cross-frames. If there are two cross-frames, it is a

three-bay panel as shown in Fig. 1. The cross-section of a single platestiener

combination is shown in Fig. 2.

Based on Paik and Thayamballi [13], the buckling modes of a stiened panel can

be articially subdivided into the following categories:

.

.

.

.

.

Mode

Mode

Mode

Mode

Mode

II: buckling due to predominantly transverse compression

III: beam-column buckling of the stieners

IV: local buckling of the stiener web

V: exuraltorsional buckling or tripping of the stieners

These modes are neither mutually exclusive nor independent. However, having

stieners with good proportions can prevent the last two buckling modes cited

above. Some local bending of the stiener web could still interact with the other

modes in otherwise practical panel dimensions. For a stiened panel subjected to

830

uniaxial compression only, overall buckling and local plate buckling are usually

two distinct modes. However, there are specic geometric dimensions when these

two modes occur together and interact very closely. Fig. 3 shows a simplied

design space with only two design variables, plate thickness and height of the stiener web. The axis normal to the page is the weight of the stiened panel, and the

contours are those of constant weight per unit width. The gure shows the constraints against local plate buckling and overall panel buckling, and it is evident

that the optimum design would be at the junction of these two constraints.

Such an optimum panel would have the highest bifurcation buckling stress in its

class of panels of equal weight per unit width [18]. It is useful to have a structural

831

parameter by which one can determine which mode of buckling would occur rst

in a given panel. Bleich [1] introduced the following exural rigidity ratio which is

commonly used for this purpose:

c

EIx

Db

Cox and Riddell [5] used the strain energy method to nd a closed form solution

for the crossover value cCO, which is the value of c at which the elastic local and

overall buckling stresses are equal. This crossover value is an important threshold

value because it is the minimum size of stieners necessary to prevent overall

buckling from occurring before local buckling of the plating between the stieners.

Their analysis was for panels with one, two or three longitudinal stieners but

could be extended to four, ve or more stieners. In their analysis, they ignored the

torsional stiness of the stieners due to complications introduced in interpreting

the results. Based on Timoshenkos system of equations to determine the critical

compressive force of a longitudinally stiened panel, Klitchie [9] arrived at a general solution for cCO which is valid for any number of stieners. Klitchie also did

not take into account the eects of torsional rigidity of the stieners.

Tvergaard and Needleman [19] used a combined Raleigh Ritz-nite element

method to study the bifurcation behavior and initial post-bifurcation behavior of

perfect panels compressed into the plastic range. Their studies revealed considerable imperfection sensitivity both for panels that bifurcate in the plastic range and

for panels with a yield stress a little above the elastic bifurcation stress. Guedes

Soares and Gordo [7] identied this imperfection sensitivity with steep load

shedding characteristics of the panel causing a violent collapse. Recently, Grondin

et al. [15] investigated the stability of steel plates stiened with T-stieners subjected to uniaxial compression using a single-stiener half-bay nite element model.

They did a parametric study with an extensive range of dimensionless parameters

and identied simultaneous buckling in some of their panels. They found these

panels suered an abrupt drop in load carrying capacity in the post-buckling range

and attributed this to interaction buckling referring to this behavior as the

interaction failure mode.

This paper has ve parts. The rst two parts (Sections 3 and 4) develop

improved expressions for the elastic bifurcation buckling stress of one-bay stiened

panels under uniaxial compression for local and overall buckling. For local or

plate buckling, it presents an improved expression for the decrease in rotational

restraint of the plating by the stieners due to bending of the stiener web. For

overall buckling, it considers a modied Euler buckling formula derived by

Timoshenko [16] that allows for the added deection of an ideal column due to

transverse shear. For columns of ordinary cross-section, the eect is negligible, but

the paper shows that for typical stiened panels, the eect is signicant.

The third part (Sections 5 and 6) examines crossover panelsi.e. panels whose

proportions are such that the elastic local and overall bifurcation buckling stresses

are equal. Bifurcation theory predicts that crossover panels have a steep post-buckling load shedding curve. By equating the improved expressions for local and

832

overall buckling, the paper obtains an improved expression for the rigidity ratio cCO

that uniquely identies a crossover panel. The accuracy of these three new expressions is demonstrated by performing a ne mesh ABAQUS elastic eigenvalue

analysis of 55 one-bay panels that cover a wide range of typical panel geometries.

For each panel, the stiener web height was adjusted iteratively until the local and

overall buckling modes coincided. The mean value of the local buckling stress normalized by the ABAQUS eigenvalue is 0.965 with a COV of 6%. The mean value

of the overall buckling stress normalized by the ABAQUS result is 1.007 with a

COV of 4.2%. The new crossover expression normalized by the ABAQUS crossover value has a mean of 0.956 associated with a COV of 7.3%, whereas the customary expression due to Klitchie [9] normalized by ABAQUS has a mean error

of 0.739 with a large scatter (COV 14:8%).

The fourth part (Sections 710) presents the results of elasto-plastic nite

element (ABAQUS) ultimate strength analysis of 55 crossover panels (but now

three bays in length) and the predictions of two classes of closed form methods for

predicting panel ultimate strength. The rst class of methods is based on elastic

large deection orthotropic plate theory, saying that collapse occurs at rst yield.

This part of the paper shows that such methods cannot handle stiener-induced

failure of crossover panels. Two possible reasons are that orthotropic theory (1)

does not allow for two simultaneous and dierent buckling modes and (2) does not

consider the stiener web height, but only an equivalent thickness. For the 55

panels, two representative orthotropic methods normalized by the ABAQUS

ultimate strength have means of 1.274 and 1.455 with COV being around 24%.

Recently, Chen [4] presented a contrasting (almost opposite) approach, based on

an improved step-by-step beam-column method. The paper shows that this method

is unaected by crossover proportions and gives good results for stiener-induced

failure: for the 55 panels, the beam-column prediction normalized by ABAQUS is

1.028 with a low scatter (COV 2:9%).

Because of the variety in panel geometry, there is a corresponding variety in the

pattern of plasticity at collapse. Based on these patterns, the panels were classied

into four groups in the fth part of the paper. The occurrence of plasticity converts

the sudden elastic bifurcation into a smooth soft-peaked loaddeection curve, and

in all but nine of the 55 panels, it prevented a steep post-buckling loaddeection

curve. The authors were unable to nd any common and unique property among

the nine that could explain this. However, the crossover formula remains useful

because it provides a rough estimate of the minimum size of stiener needed to

prevent overall buckling from preceding plate buckling.

For eigenvalue buckling analysis, it was found that a one-bay panel with appropriate boundary conditions that simulate the support of the bay at transverse

frames gave the same results as a three-bay panel. So, for this part of the analyses,

a series of one-bay panels with three or ve equally spaced longitudinal T-stieners

833

Fig. 4. The stiened panel is discretized into sucient number of elements to allow

for free development of the buckling modes. The use of four-node shell elements

S4 allows for nite rotations and membrane strains.

2.1. Material properties

Material: steel

Youngs modulus: 205,800 N/mm2

Poissons ratio: 0.3

Yield stress: 352.8 MPa.

2.2. Boundary conditions

Let u, v, and w be the translations along x-, y- and z-axes, respectively of Fig. 4.

. the mid-node of both longitudinal (unloaded) plate edges have u constrained to

be zero and the mid-node of both the loaded plate edges have v constrained to

be zero, to prevent rigid body motion.

. the longitudinal (unloaded) edges are simply supported.

. the transverse (loaded) edges are simply supported. In addition, they have rotational restraint about the z-axis. The web nodes are constrained to have equal v

displacement which prevents sideways bending of the web at the frames. These

together simulate the support of the panel at transverse frames or bulkheads.

With other dimensions unchanged, the web height of the stieners was carefully

adjusted to get a crossover value of local and overall buckling stresses (typically

within 1% or 2%, maximum 5%). Fig. 5 shows the local plate buckling mode of the

crossover panel shown in Figs. 4, and Fig. 6 shows the overall buckling mode of

834

the same panel. This adjustment procedure was performed to get 55 crossover

panels covering a wide range of practical panel dimensions used in ship design. The

rst 25 panels were three-stiener models and the other 30 panels were ve-stiener

models.

For the panels with ve stieners (and some of the three stiener ones indicated

with an in Table 1(a)), it was found that the plate buckled at the longitudinal

edges only with a low stress value, while the rest of the panel remained unbuckled.

This is because the two edge subpanels are weaker than the others. In reality, the

longitudinal edges would have other longitudinal structure that would provide

some rotational restraint to the plating. To simulate this eect and prevent edge

buckling, additional stieners were modeled along the longitudinal edges of

the panel which resulted in realistic uniform local plate buckling in between the

stieners.

835

Table 1

Geometric properties of crossover panels with three stieners and ve stieners

t

hw

tw

bf

tf

a/b

As/Ap

P50

1800

900

P51

1800

900

P52

1800

900

P53

1800

900

P54

1800

900

P55

1800

900

P56

1800

900

P58

1800

900

P59

1800

900

P60

2640

900

P61

2640

900

P62

2640

900

P63

2640

900

P64

2640

900

P65

2640

900

P67

2640

900

P68

2640

900

P69

3600

900

P70

3600

900

P71

3600

900

P72

3600

900

P73

3600

900

P74

3600

900

P76

3600

900

P77

3600

900

21

21

21

16

16

16

16

10

10

21

21

21

16

16

16

10

10

21

21

21

16

16

16

10

10

50

84

50

36

56

81

31

28

41

80

123

75

58

84

53

45

62

112

166

106

83

120

76

65

86

20

12

10

20

12

5

10

12

5

20

12

10

20

12

10

12

5

20

12

10

20

12

10

12

5

200

100

200

200

100

60

200

100

60

200

100

200

200

100

200

100

60

200

100

200

200

100

200

100

60

30

15

30

30

15

10

30

15

10

30

15

30

30

15

30

15

10

30

15

30

30

15

30

15

10

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.93

2.93

2.93

2.93

2.93

2.93

2.93

2.93

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

0.37

0.13

0.34

0.47

0.15

0.07

0.44

0.20

0.09

0.40

0.16

0.36

0.50

0.17

0.45

0.23

0.10

0.44

0.18

0.37

0.53

0.20

0.47

0.25

0.11

1.77

1.77

1.77

2.33

2.33

2.33

2.33

3.73

3.73

1.77

1.77

1.77

2.33

2.33

2.33

3.73

3.73

1.77

1.77

1.77

2.33

2.33

2.33

3.73

3.73

(b) Five

P78

P79

P80

P81

P82

P83

P84

P85

P86

P87

P88

P89

P90

P91

P92

P93

P94

P95

P96

P97

21

21

21

21

16

16

16

10

10

10

21

21

21

21

16

16

16

10

10

10

84

116

93

77

60

82

54

31

45

56

126

168

136

116

93

120

82

52

68

84

20

12

10

10

20

12

10

20

12

5

20

12

10

10

20

12

10

20

12

5

200

100

160

200

200

100

200

200

100

60

200

100

160

200

200

100

200

200

100

60

30

15

20

30

30

15

30

30

15

10

30

15

20

30

30

15

30

30

15

10

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

4.40

4.40

4.40

4.40

4.40

4.40

4.40

4.40

4.40

4.40

0.61

0.23

0.33

0.54

0.75

0.26

0.68

1.10

0.34

0.15

0.68

0.28

0.36

0.57

0.82

0.31

0.71

1.17

0.39

0.17

(continued on

Panel

no.

stieners

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

1800

2640

2640

2640

2640

2640

2640

2640

2640

2640

2640

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

1.18

1.18

1.18

1.18

1.55

1.55

1.55

2.48

2.48

2.48

1.18

1.18

1.18

1.18

1.55

1.55

1.55

2.48

2.48

2.48

next page)

836

Table 1 (continued )

Panel

no.

hw

tw

bf

tf

a/b

As/Ap

P98

P99

P100

P101

P102

P103

P104

P105

P106

P107

3600

3600

3600

3600

3600

3600

3600

3600

3600

3600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

600

21

21

21

21

16

16

16

16

10

10

174

223

185

159

131

164

133

115

76

95

20

12

10

10

20

12

10

10

20

12

200

100

160

200

200

100

160

200

200

100

30

15

20

30

30

15

20

30

30

15

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

0.75

0.33

0.40

0.60

0.90

0.36

0.47

0.74

1.25

0.44

1.18

1.18

1.18

1.18

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.55

2.48

2.48

2.3. Scantlings

Table 1(a),(b) lists the scantlings of the crossover panels with three stieners and

ve stieners, respectively. In this study, the range of panels is grouped in terms of

b. All the panels are within practical proportions from a design point of view. As

shown in Fig. 1, the width B is 3600 mm for all panels.

Since this study is part of ongoing research at Virginia Tech on ultimate strength

of stiened panels, the data presented in this paper are a subset of a larger database of 107 panels presented in Table 1.1 of Chen [4]. To maintain consistency

between this paper and Chen [4], the panel numbers in the rst column of Table 1

(and subsequent tables of data corresponding to a panel from these tables) are kept

the same. The panels are numbered as P50P107, excluding P57, P66 and P75

which were not crossover panels.

The equation for buckling of a simply supported bare plate was derived by

Bryan [2]. In terms of a buckling coecient k, Bryans equation is:

rlocal

p2 D

k

b2 t

The expression for the buckling coecient k depends on the type of boundary

support, and for long simply supported plates, it is usually assumed that k 4. In

our one-bay panels under consideration, the bare plating in between the stieners is

simply supported on the loaded edges and is elastically restrained by the stieners

along the longitudinal edges. Paik and Thayamballi [11] obtained an exact solution

for the elastic buckling coecient that allows for the rotational restraint given to

the plating by the stieners. They also presented a set of more convenient and su-

837

8

3

2

>

< 4 0:396f 1:974f 3:565f

0:881

k 6:951

>

f 0:4

:

7:025

for 0 f < 2

for 2 f < 20

for f 20

torsional stiness Jx of the stiener.

Eq. (2) is based on the assumption that the stieners remain straight until the

plating in between them buckled. But if the stiener web is slender (either tall or

thin), then there will be bending of the stiener web and the stieners will not

provide the full theoretical rotational restraint along their line of attachment. We

propose a correction factor Cr for web bending as follows:

fCr Cr f

where

Cr

1

3

t

d

1 3:6

tw b

This expression is adapted from Sharp [14]. The factor 3.6 in the denominator is

the value that gave the best agreement with the ABAQUS eigenvalue solutions for

the 55 crossover panels.

We now have an expression for local plate buckling which allows not only for

rotational restraint by the stieners but also for possible web bending in the stieners:

rlocal

p2 D

kCr

b2 t

where

kCr

8

3

2

>

>

< 4 0:396fCr 1:974fCr 3:565fCr

0:881

6:951

>

f

>

Cr 0:4

:

7:025

for 2 fCr < 20

for fCr 20

In Table 2, the ABAQUS eigenvalues corresponding to local and overall buckling modes are recorded as one critical buckling stress value under the column

rbkl,FEA. The local buckling stress calculated using Eq. (5) is normalized by

rbkl,FEA and the mean for the 55 panels presented in this paper is 0.965 with a

COV of 6%. This veries the accuracy of Eqs. (4)(6).

838

Table 2

Comparison of elastic buckling stresses

Panel no.

rbkl,FEA

rlocal

rlocal/rbld,FEA

rov,panel

rov,panel/rbld,FEA

P50

P51

P52

P53

P54

P55

P56

P58

P59

P60

P61

P62

P63

P64

P65

P67

P68

P69

P70

P71

P72

P73

P74

P76

P77

P78

P79

P80

P81

P82

P83

P84

P85

P86

P87

P88

P89

P90

P91

P92

P93

P94

P95

P96

P97

P98

P99

P100

P101

494

428

445

367

257

239

276

109

96

502

432

442

365

262

308

112

97

501

432

440

369

266

299

115

97

1248

1012

1005

1017

813

653

666

359

308

229

1229

1001

989

1000

804

641

642

358

311

230

1197

984

975

988

511

410

446

350

245

235

319

111

93

506

409

438

350

245

309

112

93

502

409

432

349

244

301

112

93

1187

922

930

990

818

555

715

351

266

210

1167

921

926

972

815

553

689

352

267

209

1149

920

923

960

1.035

0.957

1.002

0.954

0.954

0.985

1.155

1.019

0.973

1.009

0.947

0.992

0.958

0.934

1.005

0.997

0.960

1.002

0.946

0.982

0.947

0.919

1.008

0.977

0.958

0.951

0.911

0.926

0.974

1.006

0.850

0.979

1.074

0.863

0.917

0.949

0.920

0.937

0.972

1.014

0.863

1.074

0.982

0.859

0.910

0.960

0.935

0.947

0.972

545

451

468

392

275

228

293

125

99

534

440

446

365

264

304

121

97

507

433

440

345

277

293

121

98

1281

1035

1015

983

843

668

658

367

316

229

1213

1011

984

989

798

636

631

348

295

228

1155

970

959

963

1.104

1.054

1.051

1.067

1.069

0.953

1.063

1.145

1.031

1.064

1.018

1.008

1.001

1.008

0.986

1.081

1.003

1.011

1.002

1.000

0.935

1.043

0.980

1.055

1.010

1.026

1.023

1.010

0.967

1.037

1.024

1.023

0.988

1.025

0.998

0.987

1.010

0.995

0.989

0.992

0.992

0.983

0.972

0.947

0.993

0.965

0.986

0.983

0.975

839

Table 2 (continued )

Panel no.

P102

P103

P104

P105

P106

P107

rbkl,FEA

791

631

617

627

356

308

rlocal

rlocal/rbld,FEA

813

552

567

667

352

268

1.027

0.875

0.920

1.063

0.988

0.871

Mean

COV

0.965

0.060

rov,panel

762

624

609

613

332

286

rov,panel/rbld,FEA

0.963

0.989

0.986

0.977

0.933

0.928

1.007

0.042

The Euler buckling stress for a column is:

p2 E

rE 2

a

q

the slope. The resulting shear strain causes an additional deection, and the eect

is to reduce the overall (Euler) buckling stress by the factor Aw G=Aw G AT rE .

For an ordinary column, the eect is negligible but for a stiener-column, the web

area Aw is a small fraction of the total area AT and the factor can be signicant. In

this study, it ranged between 0.71 for panel P52 and 0.98 for panel P76. Therefore,

the corrected overall buckling stress for a stiener-column is given by:

Aw G

rov;sc rE

8

Aw G AT rE

A stiened panel will undergo overall buckling if the stieners are relatively

small. From small deection orthotropic theory, the elastic overall buckling stress is:

rov;orth

p2 Dx

korth

a2 t

korth 1 2gP20 P40

10

p

where P0 a=BDy =Dx 1=4 is the panel virtual aspect ratio, and g H= Dx Dy

p

H= Dx D is the orthotropic torsional stiness parameter.

If P0 is small, the stieners become independent and the stiener-column buckling

Eq. (8) would give good results. There are several ways in which P0 can be small:

. short or wide bay (small a/B)

. heavy stieners (large Dx)

840

. very close spacing of stieners (large Dx/D)

For cases when P0 is not small, we convert the stiener-column buckling Eq. (8)

into a panel buckling equation by applying the orthotropic buckling coecient

korth given by Eq. (10). That is

Aw G

rov;panel rov;sc korth rE

11

1 2gP20 P40

Aw G AT rE

In Eq. (11), rE is the Euler column buckling stress, the term in parenthesis

accounts for the transverse shear force, and the term in braces accounts for the

panel geometric properties. In Table 2, the overall panel buckling stress calculated

using Eq. (11) is normalized by rbkl,FEA and the mean for the 55 panels is 1.007

with a COV of 4.2% which veries the accuracy of this analytical expression.

5. The crossover parameter cCO

5.1. Klitchie equation for cCO

By transformation of a system of equations established by Timoshenko [16] to

determine the critical compressive load of a longitudinally stiened panel, Klitchie [9]

derived an expression for cCO assuming the plating in between the stieners to

have buckled in one half-sine wave in the transverse direction and ignoring the

rotational restraint given by the stieners. His expression is:

4ak

2 AS

k

cCO;K ns 1

12

pBC

Bt

where

k2 4

a 2

b

and

p

p

k1

k1

p

p

sin

sinh

1

1

a=b

a=b

p

p

C p

p

k1

k1

p

p

k1

k1

p cos

cosh

cos

p cos

ns 1

a=b

ns 1

a=b

5.2. Improved equation for cCO

Since a crossover panel undergoes simultaneous local and overall buckling, we

can obtain an expression for cCO by equating Eqs. (5) and (11):

p2 D

Aw G

k

r

1 2gP20 P40

13

Cr

E

2

b t

Aw G AT rE

2

cCO;new

EIx a2 AT 6

3 6

Db

bt 4

841

7

k

7

Cr

5

Aw G

2

4

1 2gP0 P0

Aw G AT rE

14

6. Crossover parameter comparisons

In Table 3, we present the crossover value of cCO obtained from the eigenvalue

results for the 55 crossover panels under the column cCO,FEA. Compared to it are

the predictions using Eqs. (12) and (14). The Klitchie expression normalized by

cCO,FEA has a mean of 0.739 with a high scatter (COV 14:8%) and the normalized new expression has a mean of 0.956 associated with a COV of 7.3%.

7. FE model for ultimate strength analysis

For inelastic analysis, the panels being modeled should be appropriate to capture

all the mechanisms that lead to collapse of the structure. Subjected to longitudinal

compression, an interframe bay would deect in an upward or downward half-sine

wave (which are the plate-induced and stiener-induced modes, respectively), while

the next bay would deect in the opposite sense. Chen [4] demonstrated using 107

FE models that a multi-bay structure with unbiased (equal upward and downward)

initial eccentricities is weaker in the stiener-induced buckling mode and that

failure of this bay would lead to the collapse of the structure. In other words, if the

initial eccentricity is the same in the upward and downward directions, collapse of

a multi-bay panel is always caused by a stiener-induced failure. Therefore, a onebay model as used by Grondin et al. [15] and some other researchers which could

undergo either plate-induced or stiener-induced collapse depending on the initial

eccentricity could be misleading, and drawing conclusions for a multi-bay structure

would be inappropriate. Moreover, the boundary conditions at a transverse frame

are intermediate between simply supported and clamped, and cannot be accurately

modeled as a simply supported loaded edge. Therefore, for inelastic analysis a

three-bay model is most appropriate, which can be represented as a symmetric

1 1/2 bay model as shown in Fig. 1. Also, due to inclusion of the inelastic properties

which involve complex collapse mechanisms, it was found that edge stiening of the

panels was not necessary.

In our ABAQUS models, four-node S4 shell elements were used and a ne mesh

generated to adequately represent the deformations and stress gradients. Uniaxial

compressive load was applied to the right hand side of the model only as concentrated nodal forces using the CLOAD option. The loads were applied in two

portionsone portion as a dead load in a previous step, and a live load in the

current RIKS step. The material properties are the same as in the eigenvalue analyses, and an idealized elastic-perfectly plastic stressstrain curve is adopted.

842

Table 3

Comparison of crossover parameter cCO

Panel no.

cCO,FEA

cCO,K

cCO,K/cCO,FEA cCO,new

cCO,new/cCO,FEA

P50

P51

P52

P53

P54

P55

P56

P58

P59

P60

P61

P62

P63

P64

P65

P67

P68

P69

P70

P71

P72

P73

P74

P76

P77

P78

P79

P80

P81

P82

P83

P84

P85

P86

P87

P88

P89

P90

P91

P92

P93

P94

P95

P96

P97

P98

P99

P100

P101

35.12

22.47

34.57

44.60

23.03

18.14

36.92

26.97

19.50

69.83

45.92

61.74

85.10

46.88

73.60

56.01

40.62

120.85

83.65

106.72

147.74

92.23

125.70

105.18

75.71

100.22

58.32

68.53

85.73

116.54

63.34

98.64

144.46

77.64

48.66

195.96

121.14

133.62

165.09

231.35

129.47

184.73

291.22

157.36

103.97

347.81

218.23

236.74

283.85

22.58

18.78

22.15

24.12

19.07

17.77

23.66

19.92

18.08

48.15

39.73

46.61

51.43

40.31

49.92

42.12

37.79

90.15

74.07

86.16

96.29

75.31

92.29

78.46

69.57

58.57

44.89

48.43

55.97

63.63

45.94

61.15

76.35

48.87

41.91

129.65

98.89

105.31

121.29

140.69

101.00

132.30

168.15

107.17

90.45

250.55

189.93

199.92

228.95

0.643

0.836

0.641

0.541

0.828

0.979

0.641

0.738

0.927

0.690

0.865

0.755

0.604

0.860

0.678

0.752

0.930

0.746

0.886

0.807

0.652

0.817

0.734

0.746

0.919

0.584

0.770

0.707

0.653

0.546

0.725

0.528

0.620

0.629

0.861

0.662

0.816

0.788

0.735

0.608

0.780

0.716

0.577

0.681

0.870

0.720

0.870

0.844

0.807

0.926

0.897

0.935

0.879

0.884

1.038

1.118

0.885

0.941

0.943

0.925

0.980

0.954

0.923

1.022

0.920

0.956

0.991

0.941

0.980

1.013

0.876

1.032

0.925

0.948

0.910

0.874

0.895

1.011

0.965

0.815

0.953

1.118

0.834

0.914

0.957

0.901

0.931

0.979

1.024

0.862

1.112

1.011

0.903

0.913

0.995

0.944

0.959

0.997

32.50

20.15

32.31

39.19

20.35

18.83

41.28

23.88

18.35

65.82

42.49

60.50

81.17

43.26

75.23

51.56

38.84

119.72

78.75

104.54

149.64

80.82

129.70

97.27

71.76

91.24

50.98

61.31

86.65

112.44

51.61

110.25

137.69

64.72

44.45

187.52

109.18

124.40

161.64

236.96

111.55

205.39

294.29

142.09

94.97

345.91

206.07

226.97

282.90

843

Table 3 (continued )

Panel no.

cCO,FEA

cCO,K

cCO,K/cCO,FEA cCO,new

cCO,new/cCO,FEA

P102

P103

P104

P105

P106

P107

415.25

241.07

262.01

321.76

524.44

291.10

271.50

194.22

210.15

249.45

322.68

205.56

0.654

0.806

0.802

0.775

0.615

0.706

1.072

0.879

0.927

1.100

1.062

0.937

Mean

COV

0.739

0.148

445.03

211.87

242.87

353.95

556.80

272.79

0.956

0.073

7.1. Imperfections

The imperfection pattern is obtained from an overall buckling mode shape of an

eigenvalue buckling analysis. The selected mode shape has an upward half wave

deection in the full bay and a downward deection in the half bay, which is

shown in Fig. 7. The scaling factor for the initial imperfection of the stieners is

w0 0:0025a, where a is the length of one-bay. Since there will always be some

local subpanel deection (more or less, depending on the size of stiener and the

size of subpanel) in an overall buckling mode shape, the initial deection of plating

is automatically included once the scaling factor is applied.

7.2. Boundary conditions

Let a 0 on T[x, y, z] denote translation constraints and on R[x, y, z] denote

rotational constraints about the x-, y- and z-coordinates in Fig. 7. Let a 1

denote no constraint.

844

. the mid-width node in each of the two transverse edges has T [1, 0, 1] to prevent

rigid body motion in the y-direction.

. the longitudinal edges are simply supported with T [1, 1, 0] and R[1, 0, 0], with

all the nodes along each edge having equal y-displacement.

. the transverse edge on the left hand side, which is the midlength of the mid-bay

of the full three-bay model, has symmetric boundary conditions. This is simulated with T [0, 1, 1] and R[1, 0, 1].

. the transverse edge on the right hand side, which is the loaded edge, is simply

supported with T [1, 1, 0] and R[0, 1, 0]. Only the plate nodes have equal

x-displacements.

. the transverse cross-frame is not modeled, but is simulated with T [1, 1, 0].

8. Orthotropic plate theory for ultimate strength prediction

8.1. Orthotropic plate methodouter surface stress

The governing dierential equations for large deection orthotropic plate theory

are the equilibrium equation and the compatibility equation [17]. Considering idealized initial imperfections, boundary conditions and load application, Paik and

Thayamballi [13] solved the governing dierential equations. The amplitude of the

added lateral deection function was rst solved for. With increase in the lateral

deection of the orthotropic plate, there is local yield due to combined membrane

and bending stress. Collapse is assumed to occur when the Hencky-von Mises

stress on the outer surface of the orthotropic plate rorth,surface reaches rY.

8.2. Orthotropic plate methodmembrane stress

Solving the governing dierential equations for large deection orthotropic plate

theory, Paik and Thayamballi [13] obtained the membrane stress distribution at

midthickness of the orthotropic plate under predominantly longitudinal compressive loads. They found that collapse of the panel may not always be associated with

rst yield on the outer surface of the orthotropic plate. As long as it is possible to

redistribute the applied loads to the straight plate boundaries by membrane action,

collapse does not occur. Collapse occurs when the most stressed boundary locations yield. The corresponding value of the applied load is designated rorth,mem.

The above theory has been implemented in the computer program ULSAP (ultimate strength analysis of panels) [12] which has been used to calculate the stresses

tabulated under rorth,surface and rorth,mem in Table 4. ULSAP however is not restricted to orthotropic theory and provides independent ultimate strength algorithms

for all ve of the failure modes listed in Introduction.

9. Beam-column method for ultimate strength prediction

Newmarks method [10] and the numerical step-by-step procedure [3] have been

used to predict the ultimate strength of a pinnedpinned beam column when the

845

Table 4

Comparison of ultimate strength results

Panel

no.

P50

P51

P52

P53

P54

P55

P56

P58

P59

P60

P61

P62

P63

P64

P65

P67

P68

P69

P70

P71

P72

P73

P74

P76

P77

P78

P79

P80

P81

P82

P83

P84

P85

P86

P87

P88

P89

P90

P91

P92

P93

P94

P95

P96

P97

P98

P99

0.737

0.838

0.736

0.889

1.095

1.190

0.967

1.656

1.853

0.776

0.869

0.812

0.953

1.137

1.010

1.702

1.893

0.814

0.889

0.847

0.998

1.120

1.060

1.712

1.902

0.473

0.542

0.520

0.500

0.600

0.691

0.640

0.946

1.030

1.203

0.506

0.563

0.553

0.534

0.637

0.722

0.691

0.993

1.079

1.220

0.530

0.583

rult,

rorth,

FEA/rY

surface/rY mem/rY

/rY

/rFEA

/rFEA

rFEA

mode

0.78

0.68

0.75

0.64

0.50

0.40

0.58

0.30

0.25

0.77

0.68

0.72

0.64

0.52

0.59

0.33

0.28

0.78

0.70

0.74

0.66

0.57

0.62

0.36

0.32

0.96

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.90

0.82

0.88

0.67

0.57

0.43

0.95

0.93

0.92

0.92

0.89

0.81

0.84

0.67

0.56

0.45

0.94

0.91

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.76

0.69

0.81

0.53

0.46

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.80

0.86

0.59

0.52

0.90

0.91

0.90

0.90

0.88

0.89

0.69

0.63

0.82

0.87

0.86

0.83

0.83

0.88

0.83

0.82

0.84

0.73

0.86

0.91

0.90

0.87

0.87

0.91

0.88

0.86

0.88

0.79

0.89

0.93

0.81

0.68

0.79

0.68

0.50

0.42

0.61

0.31

0.25

0.80

0.68

0.76

0.68

0.52

0.64

0.33

0.27

0.81

0.71

0.78

0.70

0.57

0.66

0.37

0.32

0.96

0.98

0.96

0.95

0.91

0.83

0.88

0.69

0.55

0.42

0.97

0.97

0.95

0.96

0.90

0.82

0.88

0.69

0.55

0.44

0.99

0.99

rorth,

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.99

0.90

1.00

0.63

0.54

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.62

0.53

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.67

0.56

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.89

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.94

1.00

1.00

1.066

1.216

1.114

1.293

1.504

1.710

1.417

1.737

1.802

1.130

1.290

1.204

1.353

1.550

1.449

1.796

1.874

1.165

1.297

1.221

1.367

1.537

1.450

1.913

1.944

0.853

0.927

0.916

0.881

0.919

1.064

0.950

1.224

1.464

1.696

0.912

0.978

0.971

0.944

0.980

1.128

1.041

1.280

1.554

1.743

0.949

1.020

1.288

1.470

1.340

1.558

1.978

2.234

1.738

2.071

2.130

1.293

1.474

1.380

1.557

1.919

1.684

1.911

1.898

1.290

1.422

1.350

1.520

1.749

1.623

1.874

1.725

1.046

1.067

1.069

1.068

1.109

1.213

1.139

1.488

1.739

2.081

1.058

1.080

1.083

1.081

1.125

1.239

1.187

1.484

1.771

2.061

1.068

1.100

1.049

C1a1

1.007

C3b1

1.056

C1a1

1.058

B1a1

1.002

C1b1

1.047

C1b1

1.062

C1a1

1.014

C2b2

0.986

C1c1

1.039

C3a1

1.007

C3b1

1.043

C1a1

1.062

C1a1

1.008

C3b1

1.075

B1a1

1.017

C2b2

0.991

C1b1

1.051

C3a3

1.010

C3b1

1.056

C3a1

1.066

C3a3

1.006

C3b1

1.075

C3a1

1.020

C2a1

0.986

C1b2

1.000

C4a4

1.042

C4a4

1.028

C4a4

1.017

C3a4

1.010

C1a4

1.006

C3a1

1.006

C1a1

1.029

B1a1

0.958

B1a1

0.981

C1a1

1.024

C1a4

1.046

C4a4

1.026

C4a4

1.043

C3a4

1.016

C1a4

1.010

C3a3

1.042

C1a1

1.017

B1a3

0.983

B1a1

0.974

C3b1

1.052

C1a4

1.091

C3a3

(continued on next page)

846

Table 4 (continued )

Panel

no.

rorth,

rorth,

rult,

FEA/rY surface/rY mem/rY

rFEA

mode

/rY

/rFEA

/rFEA

P100

P101

P102

P103

P104

P105

P106

P107

0.574

0.561

0.662

0.736

0.734

0.722

1.028

1.103

0.91

0.92

0.88

0.81

0.82

0.83

0.66

0.59

0.97

0.99

0.92

0.83

0.86

0.89

0.69

0.57

1.008

0.985

1.019

1.146

1.129

1.085

1.338

1.554

1.094

1.092

1.138

1.228

1.220

1.199

1.505

1.700

1.062

1.077

1.045

1.022

1.046

1.064

1.031

0.976

Mean

COV

1.274

0.241

1.455

0.238

1.028

0.029

0.92

0.90

0.90

0.93

0.93

0.90

0.89

0.91

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

C4a4

C3a3

C1a3

C3a3

C3a3

C1a1

B1a3

C3a3

axial compressive load is increased in steps. Chen [4] developed a modied step-bystep procedure for a three-span simply supported beam column (Fig. 8). In order

to apply the beam-column method to a stiened panel, it is necessary to account

for local plate buckling, which is usually done by means of an eective breadth

be [6,8]. Section 4.8.1 of Paik and Thayamballi [13] gives an analytical solution for

be using large deection orthotropic plate theory and taking into account the eect

of initial plate imperfection, wopl, which for average welding is given by

wopl 0:1b2 t

15

curve tting the nite element values of ultimate strength for 107 stiened panels.

The resulting expression for the factor R is:

R 1:0 2:7585kP20 1:8566k2 P40

16

For panels with very small stieners, hw =tw < 2:5, it was found that the depth of

yield in the stiener web could not be accurately ascertained. For such small stif-

847

feners, the panel strength will be slightly higher than the bare plate ultimate

strength. Therefore, for hw =tw < 2:5, ULTBEAM uses the following formula to

predict the ultimate strength:

hw =tw 2

rULTBEAM rbare pl rULTBEAM hw =tw 2:5 rbare pl

17

2:5

This procedure has been implemented in the computer program ULTBEAM.

For the crossover panels in this study, the ultimate strength is also calculated using

ULTBEAM and the results are tabulated under rULTBEAM in Table 4.

Table 5 summarizes the results of Table 4 giving statistical comparisons of the

ultimate strength predictions of orthotropic theory based on outer surface stress,

that based on membrane stress and the beam-column method (as implemented in

ULTBEAM) compared to the nite element results (ABAQUS).

The correlation of the three methods with the FE solutions is plotted in Fig. 9.

The orthotropic outer surface stress based results are optimistic for most cases. The

orthotropic membrane stress approach gives a collapse stress value that is nearly

equal to the material yield stress. This method is too optimistic and therefore not

recommended particularly for crossover panels. We now consider what might be

the reasons for the above errors in the orthotropic-based methods.

10.1. Orthotropic plate methodouter surface stress

Firstly, of its very nature, orthotropic plate theory is elastic, and does not consider the growth and spread of plasticity. Secondly, orthotropic plate theory is

based on a regular buckled pattern of m

n half waves. If the stieners are small,

it will correctly predict overall buckling, with m and n being small. If the stieners

are large, it will correctly predict local plate buckling, with m being roughly

B=ns 1, where ns is the number of stieners. But in a crossover panel, these

two buckling modes are occurring together and orthotropic plate theory does not

allow for two simultaneous elastic buckling modes. Fig. 10 shows the normalized

ultimate strength value from FEA and the orthotropic strength based on surface

stress plotted against k, which is the slenderness ratio of the stiener with attached

Table 5

Comparison of ultimate strength predictions by dierent methods with FEA

Method

Mean

COV (%)

Orthotropic membrane stress

Beam-column method for stiened

panels (ULTBEAM)

1.274

1.455

1.028

24.1

23.8

2.9

848

plating. As expected, the FEA ultimate strength decreases sharply with k, whereas

the orthotropic surface stress based results remain nearly unchanged.

In Fig. 10, Panel nos. P58, P59, P67, P68, P76 and P77 have been excluded. For

these panels, the plate slenderness parameter b is 3.73, as seen in Table 1(a). This is

unusually slender and permits the stieners to behave independently, which by

itself is sucient reason for the orthotropic plate approach to have less accuracy.

Fig. 11 follows from Fig. 10 and plots the percentage error in the orthotropic

surface stress results compared to FEA against k. Whereas one would expect that

the accuracy of orthotropic plate theory would improve as the stiener size decreases (larger k), but here it is the opposite. Again, this may be because orthotropic

plate theory does not allow for two simultaneous elastic buckling modes.

10.2. Orthotropic plate methodmembrane stress

The membrane stress based prediction is also orthotropic in nature. Orthotropic

plate theory cannot distinguish between plate-induced and stiener-induced failure.

Because of the specied initial imperfection (Fig. 7), all the panels in this study

underwent stiener-induced failure in which bending stress in the stiener is a key

849

Fig. 10. Ultimate strength using FEA and orthotropic surface stress for crossover panels.

the inverse of the section modulus Z Ix =zflange , where zange is the distance from

the neutral axis for longitudinal bending to the stiener ange. So the large overestimate of ultimate strength in using the membrane approach could be due to

neglecting the bending stress. To investigate this, Fig. 12 plots the percentage error

in the orthotropic membrane stress based results for all crossover panels excluding

the six panels with b 3:73 versus the ratio b2t/Z. A pronounced correlation is

observed from the gure.

11. Collapse mechanisms and post-collapse for crossover panels

11.1. Collapse modes

In his masters thesis [6], Ghosh presents color plots of the von Mises stress distribution at midthickness, of which Figs. 1316 are a gray-scale version. Ghoshs

thesis can be downloaded from the following address: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/

theses/available/etd-04212003-100603/.

850

Fig. 11. Percentage error in orthotropic surface stress method relative to FEA.

In the last column of Table 4 labeled collapse mode, the collapse mechanisms

at the ultimate load carrying capacity of each panel are identied from these plots

using the following nomenclature:

A: Stieners elastic in middle bay

B: Web partially plastic in middle bay

C: Approximate plastic hinge in middle bay

1: Plate

2: Plate

3: Plate

4: Plate

corners yielded in middle bay

mid-longitudinal edges yielded in middle bay

gross yield in middle bay

b: Web partially plastic in end bay

c: Approximate plastic hinge in end bay

851

Fig. 12. Percentage error in orthotropic membrane stress method relative to FEA.

1:

2:

3:

4:

Plate

Plate

Plate

Plate

corners yielded in end bay

mid-longitudinal edges yielded in end bay

gross yield in end bay

As observed in Table 4, the collapse mechanisms are complex and varied. However, they are not unusual and are similar to those observed in non-crossover

panels, as presented by Chen [4]. In Table 6, we present a broader classication of

the 14 dierent collapse mechanisms occurring in the 55 crossover panels in four

groups.

From Table 6, we see that 18 panels in Group I reaches their ultimate load with

yield in the stieners only, while the plate midthickness in both middle and end

bays is still elastic. This further illustrates that the orthotropic membrane stress

852

853

854

Table 6

Collapse mechanisms in crossover panels

Group I

C1a1 (9)

C1c1 (1)

B1a1 (5)

C1b1 (3)

Group II

C1a3 (1)

B1a3 (2)

C1a4 (4)

18

Group III

C2a1 (1)

C3a1 (4)

C3b1 (6)

Group IV

C2b2 (3)

C3b3 (8)

C3a4 (2)

C4a4 (6)

11

19

prediction of ultimate strength can be optimistic. Note that while the pattern and

extent of plasticity in the plating varies widely, stiener yield through web is a

common factor in all 55 cases. For the stieners in the middle bay, the yield zone

reached the full depth of the web (approximate plastic hinge; rst letter C) in 48

cases, and in the other seven cases, the yield zone extended some distance into the

web. The consistent presence of stiener web yield and the inconsistent presence

of plate yield suggest that for stiener-induced failure stiener web yield

(say through 2/3 of the web height to be conservative) is a better criterion for

panel collapse than the initial yield of plating criteria that is used by the

orthotropic-based methods.

Fig. 1316 show the von Mises stress distribution at midthickness at the

maximum load carrying capacity of one panel from each group.

11.2. Stressaxial deection curves for crossover panels

As part of the RIKS analysis using ABAQUS, the axial deformation or end

shortening of the panel u1 was measured at a loaded edge plate node at every load

increment. The normalized stressend shortening curve was then drawn for every

panel. In Fig. 17, we present the curves for the four panels which are a good representation of what we have seen for all the crossover panels in this study.

All the crossover panels in this study collapsed due to a stiener-induced failure

of the middle bay. The rst loss of stiness as shown in Fig. 17 is caused by progressive yield through the stiener web at the most stressed location which is at the

midlength of the middle bay. Collapse occurs with the formation of an approximate plastic hinge at that location, the depth of yield depending on the stiener

proportions, with or without yield in the plate in one or more bays. Yield locations

in the plate were either at the midlength of the longitudinal edges or the four cor-

855

ners of the bay. In some panels yielding in the stieners caused by shear was

observed in the end bay. Although this facilitated overall panel collapse, it is not

considered to be a major cause.

The post-collapse behavior is associated with gradual spread of plasticity in the

panel, and to obtain equilibrium ABAQUS reduced the applied load in subsequent

increments. As shown in Fig. 17, three out of the four panels have a stable postcollapse behavior. This was seen in 46 out of the 55 panels. The remaining nine

panels (P52, P56, P62, P63, P69, P71, P104, P105, and P106) suered from a steep

drop in load carrying capacity similar to P52 shown in the gure.

12. Conclusions

In this study, 55 stiened panels with proportions suitable for use in ship design

which had simultaneous local and overall elastic buckling stresses were modeled

and analyzed using the nite element software, ABAQUS. Modied expressions

for elastic local plate buckling and overall panel buckling expressions were derived

856

for prediction of crossover proportions was derived and compared to the bifurcation results. Inelastic RIKS analysis for ultimate collapse stress and post-collapse

behavior using ABAQUS was carried out on these panels. Ultimate stress was also

calculated using orthotropic-based methods and a modied beam-column method

for stiened panels and compared to the FE results. It was found that for panels

having crossover proportions, orthotropic-based methods are unsatisfactory and

the beam-column method is most suitable for ultimate stress prediction. Collapse

patterns were studied and classied from von Mises stress distribution at collapse

and were not found to be unusual. Loaddeection diagrams showed stable inelastic post-collapse behavior for most panels and an abrupt drop in load carrying

capacity in only nine of the 55.

References

[1] Bleich F. Buckling strength of metal structures. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1952.

[2] Bryan GH. On the stability of a plane plate under thrusts in its own plane with applications on the

buckling of the sides of a ship. Proc London Math Soc 1891;22:54.

[3] Chen WF, Lui EM. Structural stability, theory and implementation. NY: Elsevier; 1987.

[4] Chen Y. Ultimate strength analysis of stiened panels using a beam-column method. PhD Dissertation, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, Blacksburg, VA, 2003.

[5] Cox HL, Riddell JR. Buckling of a longitudinally stiened at panel. Aeronaut Q 1949;1:22544.

[6] Ghosh, B. Consequences of simultaneous local and overall buckling in stiened panels. Masters

Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2003.

[7] Guedes Soares C, Gordo JM. Design methods for stiened plates under predominantly uniaxial

compression. Mar Struct 1997;10:46597.

[8] Hughes OF. Ship structural design, a rationally-based, computer-aided optimization approach. Soc

Naval Arch Mar Eng, Jersey City, NJ; 1988.

[9] Klitchie JM. On the stability of plates reinforced by longitudinal ribs. J Appl Mech

1951;18(4):3646.

[10] Newmark NM. Numerical procedure for computing deections, moments and buckling loads.

Trans ASCE 1943;108:1161.

[11] Paik JK, Thayamballi AK. Buckling strength of steel plating with elastically restraining edges.

Thin-Walled Struct 2000;37:2755.

[12] Paik JK. ULSAP users manual. Proteus Engineering, MD, 2001.

[13] Paik JK, Thayamballi AK. Ultimate limit state design of steel plated structures. John Wiley &

Sons; 2003.

[14] Sharp ML. Longitudinal stieners for compression members. ASCE J Struct Div 1966;92(ST5).

[15] Sheikh IA, Grondin GY, Elwi AE. Stiened steel plates under uniaxial compression. J Constr Steel

Res 2002;58:106180.

[16] Timoshenko S. Theory of elastic stability. NY: McGraw Hill; 1936.

[17] Troitsky MS. Stiened panels: bending, stability and vibrations. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1976.

[18] Tvergaard V. Inuence of post-buckling behavior on optimum design of stiened panels. Int J

Solids Struct 1973;9:1519.

[19] Tvergaard V, Needleman A. Buckling of eccentrically stiened elasticplastic panels on two simple

supports or multiply supported. Int J Solids Struct 1975;11:64763.

- CMH-17_Vol6_RevGTransféré parOlli1974
- Buckling of Prestressed Steel GirdersTransféré parHazem Sameeh
- Byfield, Mike - Structural design from first principles (2018, CRC Press).pdfTransféré parCharles Ajayi
- 2009_manual_c7Transféré parWaheed Helmy Habib
- Wonderful PaperTransféré parKaran Doshi
- i-paper-15Transféré parcjcute91
- Beams - AISC SummaryTransféré parHarold Conley Macchiavello
- ssTransféré parThulasi Raman Kowsigan
- LAB 5 Buckling and Structural Stability Under CompressionTransféré parYousif Said
- Genie User Manual Volume 4 App C1 API WSDTransféré par1thenry1
- is.7906.1.1997Transféré parparagbhole
- SFD-AISC-360-05Transféré parAnacarina Mago
- c2220 PDF TocTransféré parHooo12345
- Is 801 Code of Practice for Use of Cold-Formed Light Gauge .183135618Transféré paramithcivil
- Microsoft Word - 1.Docx-CombinationTransféré parRamachandranAiswarya
- AS_NZS4600_draft.pdfTransféré parahmetmufithuseyin
- OTC-10711-MSTransféré parAnonymous pNgdUM2x8
- 142907027 Gantry Crane XlsTransféré parWaheed Ahmad
- tv_22_2015_1_183_189Transféré parAndras Zaj
- Calculation for IPE360Transféré parHaymanAHMED
- C. Graciano; A. Ayestarán -- Steel Plate Girder Webs Under Combined Patch Loading, Bending and SheTransféré parAsdrubal Ayestarán
- R.D. Jury & W.Y. Kam ColumnsTransféré parRazosFyfe
- Compressivebehaviourofhighstrengthsteelcross SectionsTransféré parYadava Jaffa
- WS8_Nov_2007Transféré parReno Rindyantono
- Chen2011.pdfTransféré parIvanSmith
- Water Tank 6Transféré parJay Shah
- bk-solu72Transféré parDipak Borsaikia
- Journal of Constructional Steel Research Volume 10 issue none 1988 [doi 10.1016_0143-974x(88)90034-x] Egor P. Popov; Michael D. Engelhardt -- Seismic eccentrically braced frames.pdfTransféré parrizky tri amalia
- 10.1016@j.jcsr.2019.05.041Transféré parFarel Abdia Harfy
- 1. Design of the Dome Shell Roof for Smithfield Poultry Market Iicep.1965.9567Transféré parKarim Al-Jawhari

- Chap16Transféré parsarumani
- UC rangeTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- Sacinp.wht BH2 JKT InplaceR2Transféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- jcninp_load.WHT-BH2.txtTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- Final Eurodyn02Transféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- Damping DynaTransféré parsbhari
- saclstTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- contohTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- Ngopi FEA ajah.pdfTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- vttTransféré parAniruddha Kulkarni
- Exam_specifications_PE_Civil_Structural_Apr_2008_with_1104_design_standards.pdfTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- Essential Ansys.pdfTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- ansysTransféré parsathiya81
- mathcadTransféré parHorn Sophannarith
- SUCCESSFUL INSTALLATION OF.docxTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- Ansys HFSS TutorialTransféré parsinhco1
- Limit LoadTransféré par001tab
- ANSYS Example BeamBendTransféré parhaitham08
- Ansys Asas BrochureTransféré parTomás Campoverde
- ANSYS Computer RequirementsTransféré parSandeep Reddy
- Welding ResultsTransféré parSandeep Kadam
- mklTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- kjlTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- ANTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- 31Transféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- 2_08-nonlin.pptTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- pipTransféré parAbraham Imam Muttaqin

- MSM-63Transféré partechneo
- Diseño Sísmico de Muros de Contención en VoladizoTransféré parAlex Henrry Palomino Encinas
- Shrinkage, Cracking and Deflection-The Serviceability of Concrete 1Transféré parRajat Mangal
- Visco ElasticityTransféré parivam_2004
- Zetasizer Nano User Manual English MAN0485!1!1Transféré parNamal Wanninayake
- Teknik Reaksi Kimia IITransféré parDizikri Nasution
- Liquid Phase ReactorTransféré parkrishy19s
- Special Metals Product Handbook.[Smallpdf.com]Transféré parMuzammilumar
- Bernoulli's Principle Disputation.Transféré parPiac Wonkit
- Report MetallographyTransféré parOsama Bin Anwar
- Viscous Dampers for High-Rise Buildings - 11-0060 (1)Transféré parAshik Rehmath Parambil
- Ph Meter Pce-phd 1Transféré parAlexidos
- Crystallinity in Polymers-1Transféré paranbuchelvan
- Dyuthi-T0574 (2)Transféré parNeeraj K Pushkaran
- Tugas SeismologyTransféré parRahman Wahyu Nurmajid
- Antifoaming Agents Performance Evaluation...7Transféré pardhavalesh
- J.comp.Elec TunnellingTransféré parsou0310men
- survailantTransféré parDennis Garrett
- Síntesis, Propiedades Reológicas y Efecto Magnetoviscoso de Fe2O3-Ferrofluidos ParafinicosTransféré parJuan David Benitez Monroy
- PHY_BK_ANS_2Transféré parDavis Ng
- 3. 12-16.pdfTransféré parhachan
- Analysis-of-machine-tool-chatter-1.pdfTransféré parAhmed Abd EL Aziz
- MOPP026Transféré parParticle Beam Physics Lab
- Calculate Earthquake Forces on Buildings and StructuresTransféré parpallavi gupta
- numerical modelling of rotary dryerTransféré parAmp Aunyamone
- Tensile TestTransféré pardwimukh360
- Dynamics 1Transféré parorendus
- Column Buckling (Sheet)Transféré parAhmed Nabil
- Failure of Concrete Structures PDFTransféré parLennene
- SABP-G-006.PDFTransféré parAnoop Sp

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.