Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SSC-382
REEXAMINATION OF DESIGN
CRITERIA FOR STIFFENED
PLATE PANELS
-.. -...,
,.,,,,,.
-. !,.,*,
%..,,
-.-,.,.,.
g
m
Dr.Donald
Uu
SeniorVice President
American Bureauof Shipping
Mr. EdwardComstmk
Director,Navat Architecture
Group (SEA 03H)
Naval Sea Systems Command
CONTMXING
CDR Stephen E. Sharpe, USCG
U.S. Coast Guard
OFFICFR TECHNICAI
suBcofvMmF
SJ+IP STRUCTURF
The SHIP STRUCTURE SUBCOMMllTEE acts for the Ship StructureCommittason technicalmatters by providingWchniml
coordinationfor determinatingthe oatsand objectivesof the programand by avaluatingand interpretingthe resultsin terms of
structuraldesign,construction,an%operation.
MARITIME ADMINITRATION
u.
Mr. FrederickSeibold
RichardP. Voelker
Mr. Chao H. Lin
Dr. Walter M. Maclearr
CAPT G. D. Marah
CAPT W. E. Colburn,Jr.
Mr. RubinScheinberg
Mr. H. Paul Cojeen
NW
Mr.
S. COAST GUARD
D~/
ANADA CENTR::EF&~;:E
ENERGY TECH
Dr. William R. Tyson
RALS AND
D STEEL INSTI
STUDFNT MFMRFR
Mr. Trevor Butler
Memorial Universityof Newfoundland
/d.
..!
:.
L-.
SSC-364
SSC-365
SSC-366
SSC-367
SSC-368
SSC-369
SSC-370
SSC-371
SSC-372
SSC-373
SSC-374
SSC-375
SSC-377
SSC-378
SSC-379
SSC-380
SSC-381
1994
i.
Member Agencies;
Amerkan Bureau of Shipping
Derknce R&earch Establishment Atlantic
Maritime Administration
Mihta Sealhl Command
Naval Sea x ystems Command
Transport Canada
United States Coast Guard
Executive
Director
ShipStructure
Committ~
Ship
Structure
Committee
An Interagency
Advisory
Committee
OF DESIGN
Ph:(20~267-0003
Fax:
(202)
267-4677
SSC-382
SR-1350
24, 1995
March
REEXAMINATION
CRITERIA
FOR STIFFENED
PLATE
PANELS
The
emphasis
on
recent
reducing
vessel
weight
in
the
generation
of ships has lead to increased
usage of high strength
steels to allow for thinner sca~tlings.
These designs
provided
panels
of equivalent
overall
s@eng.th
but with
less
inherent
rigidity.
This, in turn, has resulted in unanticipated
failures
at the intersections
of t~ansverse
and longitudinal
stiffeners
with
the plating.
These
failures
demonstrated
the need
to
rethink
some of the assumptions
currently
used in the design
process.
This project
analyzed
the total stresses
at the panel
to
stiffening
system
int~rface.
After
using
conventional
design
procedures
for a panel
section,
finite
element
models
of the
panel were subjected
to various
anticipated
panel loads and the
resulting
stresses
were analyzed.
The report concludes
with a
discussion
of the effect of the less stiff panel structures
on
failures and adjustments
which should be considered
in the design
procedures.
Recommendations
for future research are given.
C. CARD
i
,\+
..4!.
,,,,,
-:
R*port
7ochnical
1.
R.port
2.
?40.
Gowmrnmmt Accession
Tjtl.
3.
Rocipi,nts
Catalog
Peg*
No.
PB95-:L8818L
SSC--382
4.
No.
Documentation
~nd Subtitlm
I 5.
R*oort
Dat~
b.POrfarmin~
~
Plate Panels
8.
7.
Authot/~)
P~rforming
OrSmization
N-o
Md Address
Designers& Planners,Inc.
2120 WashingtonBlvd.,Suite200
Arlington,VA 22204
12.
SpamWing
Aqanqh.nocmd
P-tfarminu
Organization
R*part
No.
SR-1350
10.
11.
Csntrmct or
Grent
M=.
DTCG23-92-R-EO1O3O
13.Typoef Rmpart and Potiod Covorad
Address
FINAL
Ship StructureCommittee
U.S. Coast Guard
2100SecondStreet,S.W.
Washington,D.C. 20593
1S.Suppl*m*ntary ~o~a~
Ab8twct
17.
)(,Y
18.
Wards
FiniteElements,StiffenedPlates,
Stiffeners,Grillage,DesignCriteria,
Shear Stress,NormalStress,Hull
Structure
Oi*tribtiOn
St0tm9nt
Availablefrom:
NationalTechnicalInformationService
Springfield,VA 22161
I
19.
SOCurity Classic.
(of thi8r*p0rt)
Unclassified
Form DOT
F1700.7
X.
So~rity
Clossif.
lJ.2
Unclassified
(8-72)
R-production
of complttodpog~
22.
(ofthispoqo)
authorized
,/ .,.,..:.,1
!
L-.
Prier
$27.00
$12.50
.,.
Papsr
.~C~O
ANsr R:=D:
Naflonsl
lnstHulrJ
ofSfandards
sndTwhnolcgy
Approximate
Cohversiom
fmm Met
Approximate
Conversions
toMetric
Measures
Symbol
Multipiy by
To Find
Symbol
LENGTH
in inches
2,5 centimeters cm
ft feet
centirnetem
30
cm
yd
yards
0.9 meters
m
mi
miles
1.6 kilometers km
AREA
in2
square
inches
6,5 square
centimeters
cm 2
ft2 square
feet
0.09 square
metem
m2
@2
square
yards
0.8 square
metem
m2
mi 2 square
miles
2,6 square
kilometem
km z
acres
0.4 hectares
ha
MASS (weight)
Oz
ounces
28
lb pounds
0.45 E&s
:g
short
tons
0.9 metricfon
t
(2000
lb)
VOLUME
t.sp teaspoons
5
milliliters mL
Tbsp tablespoons 15
milliliters mL
in3
cubic
inches
milliliters mL
16
ounces
30
floz fluid
milIilitem mL
cups
c
0,24 lire~
L
pt pints
0,47 litem
L
qt quarts
0,95 liters
L
gal gallons
3,8 liters
L
ft3
~~ 3
F
{
cubic
feet
cubic
yards
0.03 cubic
meters
0.76 cubic
me~ers
LENGTH
mm millimeter 0.04 inch
cm centimeters 0.4 inch
3.3 feet
m
meters
1.1 yard
m
meters
km kilometers 0.6 mile
AREA
cmz square
cendrnetem
0.16
1.2
square
meters
~z
sq~ kilometem~)
ha
hectares
(10,000m2)
rn2
/:,
squa
squa
squa
acre
MASS (weig
- 0.035Ounc
2.2 poun
1J
shor
tg
t
E&s
metric
ton
(1,000
kg)
mL
milliliters
ITIL
milliliters
0.06 cubi
L
L
L
liters
Iiters
liters
cubic meters
pint
1.06 quar
gall
0.26
cubi
35
m3
VOLUME
0.03 fluiO
rn3
cubic
meters
degrees
~3
rn3
TEMPERATURE {exact)
32, degrees C
subtract
Fahrenheit
multiply
by5/9 Celsius
2.1
1.3
cubi
TEMPERATURE
multiply
by 9/5,d
add32
F
Celsius
degrees
-40
-20
I
II
F
40
32
water kezes
20
I
37
60
I
80 98.6
body tempe
Table
1.0
of Contents
INTRODUCTION.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
l.l
1.2
1.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Background
Objective.
Approach
2.0
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.0
Introduction
Determination
Modeling of
Modeling
of
Modeling of
Modeling of
RESULTS
. . . . . . . . . 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of Mesh Size
. . . . . . . .
Longitudinal
and Transverses
.
Plating using Plate Elements
.
Plating using Brick Elements
.
Plating with Initial Deformations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.12
. 12
. 14
. 19
. 22
. 22
. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
4.1
Comparison
4.2
4.3
4.4
of Stresses
using
Plate
Elements
5.0
6.0
REFERENCES.
APPENDIX1
. . .
27
. . . 78
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
. . . . . . . . . . , . . . .
. . . . . . . .84
l~:.,
.,-
List
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
of Tables
DIMENSIONS
AND SCANTLINGS
OF 0SS GRILLAGE
. . .
DIMENSIONS
AND SCANTLINGS
OF HSS GRILLAGE
OPTIMUM MESH SIZE DETERMINATIoN
USING PLATE ELEMENTS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMPARISON
OF STIFFENER MODELS USING PLATES
ANDOFFSETBEAMS
, . . , . . , . - , .
SECTIONAL PROPERTIES
OF LONGITUDINAL
A;D
TWWSVERSES
(0SS)
. . . . . . . . . .
SECTIONAL PROPERTIES
OF LONGITUDINALS
fiD TRANSVERSES
(HSS)
. . . , . . . . . . . . . . .
MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT
AND STRESSES OF 0SS
MODELS
(USING PLATE ELEMENTS)
. . . . . . . . .
MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT
AND STRESSES OF HSS
MODELS
(USING PLATE ELEMENTS)
. . . . . . . .
MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT
AND STRESS&
OF 0SS MODELS
(USING BRICK ELEMENTS )....
. . . . . . . . .
M.AXIMUM DISPLACEMENT
AND STRESSES OF HSS MODELS
USING BRICK ELEMENTS).
. . . . . . . . . . . .
MAXIMUM STRESSES IN MODEL 3 WITH INITIAL
DEFofiTIofi
(OSSAND
HAS)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EFFECT OF VARYING ELEMENT SIZE ON THE RESULTS &
BRICK MODEL 3 (0SS MATERIAL)
. . . . . . . . .
ii
. . . 10
11
. . .15
18
20
. . .21
. . . 28
. . . 28
...44
. ..45
-
74
. . . 76
List
3.1
3.2
3*3
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4*5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4*9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
of Figures
iii
..-.
---
..,,.
.
. .
. .
J#Lor
or .Verrlcal
Shear Stress, ~= for HSS Model 1
(Brick Elements). . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ...54
4.23 Plot of Von Mises Stress for 0SS Model 2
4..AL
(Brick
4.24
Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .55
Normal Stress, ufl for 0SS Model 2
(Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .~~
Plot of Vertical Shear Stress, ~YZfor
0SS Model 2 (Brick Element%)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Plot of Vertical Shear Stress, ~= for
0SS Model 2 (Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Plot of Von Mises Stress for HSS Model 2
(Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a*.5g
Plot
Of
Normal Stress, aYY for HSS Model 2
(Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .60
Plot of Vertical Shear Stress, rYZfor
HSS Model 2 (Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Plot of Vertical Shear Stress, r= for
HSS Model 2 (Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Plot of Von Mises Stress for 0SS Model 3
(Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...63
plot of Normal Stress, aYY for 0SS Model 3
(Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . , . . . - . . . -64
Plot of Vertical Shear Stress, rYZ for
0SS Model 3 (Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Plot of Vertical Shear Stress, ~XZfor
0SS Model 3 (Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Plot of Von Mises Stress for HSS Model 3
(Brick Elements ).......
. . . . . . . . . ...67
Plot of Normal Stress, UYY for HSS Model 3
(Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
plot Of vertiCal
Shear Stress, 7YZ for HSS Model .3 . . (Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
.69
Plot of Vertical Shear Stress, ~XZfor HSS Model 3
(Brick Elements)
. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .70
Comparison
of Stresses in 0SS Brick Model with
OSSplatemodel
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Comparison
of Stresses in HSS Brick Model with
HSSplatemodel
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
plot Of Vertical Shear Stress, 7Y1 in Brick Mode~
- .
ofSinglePanel
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Plot of Vertical
Shear Stress, ~xzin Brick Model
ofSinglePanel
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Plot
Of
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4*33
4*34
4.35
4.36
4.37
4.38
4.39
4.40
5.1
5.2
>
iv
Nomenclature
b=
the ship
H=
K=
E=
...
0..
~yz
(X,Y)
vertical
L = Length of Beam, m
s = stiffener spacing, m
d. = web depth, mm
t. = web thickness, nun
br = flange width, mm
tf = flange thickness, mm
p
vi
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Due to the emphasis on increasing ship lengths and reducing
structural weight to increase cargo capacity, there has been
an increase in the use of high strength steels on commercial
vessels, especially tankers.
high
strength
steel have
experienced damage
to
their
side
even
though
the materials
increases
strength
is
greater,
its
its
flexibility.
The
result
of
this
The
stiffened
plate
watertightness
and
panel,
which
contribute
to
is
a
intended
major
to
provide
portion
of hull
girder longitudinal and transverse strength, must be designed
to withstand
primary
stresses due
to hull
girder bending,
cotiination
and
tertiary
stresses
due to ~
bending of the plate panel itself from local lateral loads.
Cunrent design criteria for plate panels of grillage structure
are based upon a strength of materials approach using either
linear
plate
comparing
(yielding
or
beam
calculated
or
theory.
Acceptance
stresses with
buckling) .
For
is based upon
allowable stress levels \--high
strength
steel,
certification bodies
have
levels
allowed higher
for both
primary
and
secondary
accounted
for
in
the
selection
of
the
plate
panel
Based
upon
this,
it
is assumed
that
the
damage
found
in
In practice,
or
fatigue failure is
induce
fatigue
avoided
through
limiting
the
allowable
stress
levels.
The
design
of
plates based upon first principals approach does not take into
consideration the stresses induced by the flexibility of its
supporting structure.
1.2
The
Objective
objective
effects
of
of
this
task
vertical .shear
was
to
(normal
evaluate
to
the
the
combined
plate
panel),
In order
to
Approach
characteristics
of
the
supporting
members. of
first
principals
based
approach.
Grillage
scantlings designed were then analyzed using FEM techniques to
Six
grillage
designs
were
developed,
three
Strength Steel and three of High Strength Steel.
represent the bottom
structure between
of
Ordinary
The designs
transverse bulkheads
panel
The
aspect
ratios were kept constant, and the breadth of the grillage was
varied to modify the stiffness characteristics.
the
stress
components
and
variation
of
to
stress
the
optimum
mesh
size
was determined.
Second, a
using plate
model
using
plate
Plate
Models
used
as
the
base
model
for
comparison.
Plate
Model
with
initial
deflection
quantify the membrane effect.
used
to
2.0
DESIGN OF STIFFENED-P~TE
STRUCTURE
[1,2,3] were
used to calculate the scantlings for six (6) stiffened panel
structures. These stiffened panels are comprised of 3 0SS and
3 HSS systems. The overall length, A,
maintained at 15.24 m
b
<
t
panel
thi~kne5s
was
The
values
takes
deformation of the structure.
into
account
the
acceptable
C ValUeS have been established
a.
Topside Plating
b.
c.
For these studies, C was taken as 350 for 0SS plating and 400
for HSS plating which corresponds to topside structure where
the
minimum
amount
of
deformation
(0.6250) and
over
non-deflecting
supports,
1.
Calculate plating
thickness,
t,
2.
yay
3.
the plate) .
4.
to
the
stiffener
5.
and shear
forces.
6.
7.
Check plating
8.
Check
plating
for
buckling
9.
Check
composite
platetee
under
inplane
beam
for
yielding
in
The
results
of
the
design
above
procedures
have
been
sununarized in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 for 0SS and HSS grillage
designs respectively.
the first column of tables 2.1 and 2.2 are listed below:
dimension
of
the
stiffened
of
the
stiffened
panel
in
long
the
direction
B
dimension
panel
in
short
the
direction
ral
P
t
plate thickness
IL
moment
of
inertia
of
the
stiffened
plate
in
the
the
stiffened
plate
in
the
longitudinal direction
IT
moment
of
inertia
of
transverse direction
iL
moment
of
inertia
of
the
stiffened
plate
per
longitudinal
iT
(A/B)(iT/iL)A0.25 =
Virtual
Aspect
Ratio.
(Measure
of
gross panel,
of
ratio
in
of
the
stiffness
one
direction
to
the other
direction. If the panel is supported by mutually perpendicular
intersecting beams, whose stiffnesses are different, then the
ratio of the gross panel stiffness would have to be modified
to account for the stiffness provided by the moment of inertia
of those beams.
(A/B)(i~/i~)025,
assuming that the Youngs
the English
TABLE
Model No.
A (m)
2.1 -
DIMENS1ONS
AND
SCBJJTLINGS
OF 0SS GRILLAGE
15.24
2
15.24
3
15.24
(m)
10.06
6.40
2.74
(m)
3.05
3.05
3.05
(m)
0.91
0.91
0.91
t (mm)
15.88
15.88
15.88
WT 205x140x23
WT 205x140x23
WT 205x140x23
914x457x15.9/28.6 T
W-T 690x250x123.5
W-T 41OX18OX53
0.107
0.107
0.107
6984.36
6984.36
6984.36
717,041.14
255,524.21
48,157.93
14.06
14.06
14.06
149.68
100.65
39.87
76.36
76.36
76.36
iT=IT/a (cm4/cm)
2,352.53
838.36
157.97
AlB
1.52
2.38
5.56
(A/B) (iT/iL)*l/4
3.57
4.33
6.66
Size
Long1
Trans
P
IL
Size
(N/mm:)
(cm4)
IT (cm4)
ASL
(CI112)
AST
(cm:)
10
TABLE
Model No.
A (m)
2.2 -
DIMENS1ONS
AND
SCANTLINGS
OF HSS GRILLAGE
1
15.24
2
15.24
3
15.24
(m)
10.06
6.40
2.74
a (m)
3.05
3.05
3.05
b (m)
0.91
0.91
0.91
t (mm)
14.3
14.3
14.3
Long1 Size
WT 180x130x19.5
WT 180x130x19.5
Trans Size
W-T 920x305x167.5
W-T 61OX23OX1O1
WT 41OX175X38
P (N/mm2)
0.107
0.107
0.107
IL (cmq)
4,578.55
4,578.55
4,578.55
IT (cm4)
444,701.66
156,461.39
34,630.45
WT 180x130x19.
ASL
(cmz)
11.48
11.48
11.48
AST
(cmz)
144.58
80.77
30.19
iL=IL/b(cm4/cm)
49.98
49.98
49.98
iT=IT/a(cm4/cm)
1,458.94
513.41
113.56
A/B
1.52
2.38
5.56
(A/B) (iT/iL)Al/4
3.52
4.26
6.82
11
3.1 Introduction
This section discusses the finite element analysis of the
stiffenedplate structures designed in section 2.O. The P.C.
based finite element software ALGOR was used to analyze the
plate and brick models using linear elastic theory. The VAX
based NASTRAN software was used to analyze the brick model
with an initial deformation. All analyses in this study were
originally performed using english units.
presented
designed
in
section
models
were
2.o,
Additional
developed
to; determine
are predicated
analysis.
For
by
the mesh
size
adopted
in
the
accurate
would
yield
results
.
12
within
established
limits
of
accuracy without
results
available
obtained
theoretical
various
using
results.
For
mesh
single
sizes
to
unstiffened
stiffened-plate
structures
under
normal
pressure
loads
Hence,
the
Performing
a convergence study on a
advantages.
of
a panel
single panel
has
uniform pressure
could
be
compared
two
panel
of
unsupported
plating
to
with
Second, using
for
the
mesh
size
The single panel chosen for the mesh size determination was
the unsupported span of plating, 3.05m x 0.91m (10x3), from
the stiffened-plate structure designed in section 2.0.
The
plating thickness used was as determined in section 2.0 for
0SS steel panels, which is 15.88mm (0.625).
configuration,
five models
using plate
were
elements
For
152.4mm (6),
76.2mm
(3),
38.lmm
(1.5),
and
19.05mm
(0.75).
with
theoretical
results
given
in
in
Table
3.1 which
also
The
, were
Reference
[4]
contains
the
in-plane
For
In Figure 3.1,
As expected,
For
element
sizes
less
than
152.4mm
(6),
increases.
While model
5, with
a mesh
size
of
(3).
than model
3 having
a mesh
size of
and Transverses.
Full
cross
plate
3dimensional models
elements
longitudinal
to
of
model
plating
as
the
stiffened panels
stiffenedplate
well
using
as
the
As mentioned in
structure,
checked
the
explicitly
TABLE 3.1.
ELEMENTs
OPTIMUM
Model
MESH
152.4
x
152.4
304.8
DETERMINATION
T
3
SIZE
USING
Zlas
PLATE
;mall
)efl
76.2
38.1
x
38.1
x
76.2
19.05
x
19.05
Displ. (mm)
(% Diff)
2.04 2.59
-20.82 0.45
T= (N/rtun2
)
(% Diff)
51
-58.13
97
-19.86
(% Diff)
L19
-33.17
149
-16.40
XY(N/mtn2)
!8
Jw
(Nhm2
)
=---l=
2.59
0.45
.57
118
-2.41
21
175
-1.68
78
m (N/mmA2)
I 164
L49
lax. prin.
N/m2)
I 171
L75
119
.75
ime (rein)
emery (Mb)
I
sxx
Sn
.19
0.23
0.42
1.51
0.024
0.095
1.001
11.03
117.28
8.8
1,3
=
=
to
Elasti~
Small
.>
15
10
I
0
Displacement
-lo
X
/
w
a
w \
\*
./
-50
-60
MODELS
FIGURE
3.1
16
the
longitudinal
using
beam
and
transverse
elements.
Since
stiffeners
FEM
grids
were
combine
and weak
Venants
axes
torsional
obtained by
of bending
constant
treating
the
(J).
(IY and
1.) and
The
properties
longitudinal
and
the
St.
were
transverses
as
To
validate
the
use
of
offset
discrete
plate
beams
stiffeners,
to
two
represent
finite
the
element
in
the
other
offset
beam
(50 x 21),
elements,
the
webs
of
the
longitudinal
For the
discrete
were
two
In both models,
and transverses
the plating
was
Due to symmetry
..
TABLE
3.2.
BEAMs .
COMPARISON
OF
STIFFENER
STIFFENERS
AS PLATES
Displacement(mm)
aXX (N/rm2)
mw
v.mises
STIFFENERS
AS BEAMS
9.99
2.69
140.53
139.85
-0.48
171.87
1.51
54.28
(N/nun2)
169.31
21
Memory
25
v.mises
%
DIFFERENCE
9.73
Time (rein)
~xY
190.34
(N/rtun2)
Gy (N/mm2)
USING
MODEL
u xx
MODELS
(Mb)
Normal
Stress
in
-76.00
x direction
von mises
Stress
Note : % Differences
are with respect
stiffeners
are modeled using plates.
18
to the
model
in which
the
while
the
differences
in
the
displacements
and
stresses
between the two models are less than 3%, the saving in time
and storage (memory) is as high as 75%.
3.4
Six
stiffened-plate
structures,. three
made
of
ordinary
designed
in
section
2.0.
To
study
plate
panels
of
stiffened-plate
the
(HSS)
effect
of
and transverses) on
structure,
linear
model
the
longitudinal
plating
and
offset
beams
to
represent
the
area
properties
(0.625)
for
the
The
longitudinal
and
3.4.
For all
six models,
Youngs modulus,
E,
of
as material
load of
the plane of
Due
to
was
modeled.
These
stiffenedplate
models
TABLE 3.3.
MODEL
AND TRANSVERSES
(0SS)
MODEL
LONGL .
Tv
A (cm2)
29.006
271.270
29.006
157.322
29.006
6?.058
AY (cmz)
14.090
145.161
14.090
100.322
14.090
39.864
A= (cmz)
14.916
126.109
14.916
57.000
14.916
27.193
Iy(cm4)
258.65
22,787.01
258.65
3,310.95
258.65
775.23
IZ(cm4)
1,136.35
233,612.22
1,136.35
80,869.90
1,136.35
12,041.53
8.70
473.71
8.70
180.10
8.70
36.42
14.983
66.309
14.983
46.772
14.983
28.699
J(cm4)
Y.a (cm)
==
= Total Area
20
TABLE 3.4.
MODEL
MODEL
PJiD TRANSVERSES
MODEL
(HSS)
LONGL .
Wsv
c=
24.387
214.445
24,387
129.387
24,387
48.761
AY (cm2)
11.452
145.671
11.452
81.458
11.452
30.187
A= (ClT12)
12.935
68.774
12.935
47.929
12.935
18.574
Iy(cm4)
185.76
5,622.25
185.76
2,255.60
185.76
510.76
Iz(cm4)
718.50
192,408,89
718.50
52,509.55
718.50
8,499.36
6.66
259.02
6.66
128.45
6.66
13.19
13.246
59.731
13.246
41.849
13.246
27.607
(CiT12)
J(cm4)
.
Yna (cm)
= Total Area
21
side.
fixed representing
longitudinal
boundary
girder.
conditions
On
the
are
other
two
applied.
edges,
and
symmetry
schematic
of
the
3.3,
shows
of
in section 2.0.
The other
the
(50 X
five models
are
3.5
stiffenedplate
element
models
were
brick
developed
elements
elements
the thickness
was
used
used were
15.88mm
section,
offset
longitudinal
area
the
the plating.
the
elements
model.
beams
for
the
the
One
thickness,
was
the
The thicknesses
were
properties
substituting
plate
As
in
used
the
to
stiffeners.
stiffeners,
(3)
layer of
therefore
same
as the
of the plating
finite
elastic
through
of the brick
of the plating.
for
by
to model
thickness
(0.563)
linear
structure,
and 14.29mm
previous
sub
represent
the
The sectional
material
properties,
It has
been
observed
that
in
stiffenedplate
structures,
22
m
m
23
\\
./ ./ /
\/,
1,
,.
E&l
..
w
w
I&l
m
.
m
u
x
L
24
stiffeners
Plating
to
bounded
deformation.
of
the
plating,
by
the
As mentioned
initial
deformation
in
[4] depending
present
in
the
plating
effect
the
from pulling
in,
which,
flat, produces
component of membrane
and
This membrane
is perfectly
on the amount
the normal
study
membrane
with
two
such
deflecting
finite
effects
supports
element
elements
were
to
and
To
structure
transverses),
of
For both,
used
stiffenedplate
(longitudinal
models
on
of
model
the
brick
plating
and as before
offset beam elements were used to represent the stiffeners.
The
initial
plating
deformation
between
the
in the unsupported
stiffeners
was
defined
span
by
of
the
a double
(949
A(x,y)
= t S~n
where :
-,
A(Y.,
Y)=
Initial
deformation
a,b
of plating
Using this expression the maximum deflection always occurs at
the middle of the panel.
25
The same
26
.
.
4.1 and
results of
the
analysis
The
and
takes into
account
all
the
normal
stress
In the tables,
(with
of models
is
the
1, 2,
same
and
as
an
3. This
longitudinal
Stress
TABLE 4.1. MAxIMUM DISPL&CEMENT AND STRESSES AT THE BOTTOM SURFACE OF 0SS MODELS
(USING PLATE ELEMENTS; t = 15.88 mm;aY =.235 N/nrn7)
MODEL
(15.24x1O.O6)
MODEL
(15.24x6.40)
MODEL
3
(15.24x2.74)
S.P.
(3.05X0.91)
Disp. (nun)
(cm, cm)
14.45
(457,503)
10.42
(457,320)
7.44
(457,137)
2.59
(152,46)
(N/mm2 )
157.28
151.97
151.94
108.57
axx
(cm,cm)
Gyy
(N/mm2)
(cm,cm)
Txy (N/rnrn2)
[cm,cm)
~.mises (Nhid)
( cm,cm)
(0,137)
(0,137)
241,70
(610,137)
209.13
(610,0.0)
(518,0.0)
60.99
195,92
(457,0.0)
53.26
(587,107)
(587,99)
230.64
37.54
(587,99)
189.87
(610,0,0)
(610,0.0)
184.05
(457,0.0)
an
(N/mmz)
(cm, cm)
TXY (N/mmz)
(cm,cm)
V.mises
(N/mm2)
(cm,cm)
MODEL 2
(15.24x6.40)
SURFACE
MODEL
3
(15.24x2.74)
(0,46)
163.76
(122,0.0)
22.48
(23,15)
145.55
(122,0.0)
OF H5S MODELS
S.P.
(3.05X0.91)
18.68
(457,503)
14.46
(457,320)
10.32
(457,137)
3.55
(152,46)
192.31
(0,137)
187.65
188.01
134.03
281.23
(610,0.0)
(0,137)
(0,46)
258.09
(516,0.0)
241.85
[457,0.0)
202.18
(122,0.0)
67.07
46.51
27.76
73.54
(587,107)
,
250.50
(610,0.0)
(610,137)
(587,99)
232.66
(610,0.0)
28
(587,99)
227,43
(457,0.0)
(23,15)
179.70
(122,0.0)
l-i
.
29
psi
N\mm2
3120!5.6 257
i!
flE_t2.9 144
Y5WI.312 31
-11792. -81
-2E1W. -194
id
FIGURE 4.2
.,
psi
N/nun2
36Y-IEI.E251
?1291.1
16233.7
9175.11
IIEI
u
u
x-l
z
FIGURE 4.3
1; VON-MISES
STRESS
188
126
63
1
psi
N/mm2
YuEE16.7 282
2?01EI.? 152
23
3299.60
-15919. -107
-39257. -236
h?
\
/
J
z
..
FIGURE 4.4
HSS
PLATE MODEL
1; ayy
STRESS
EC
E+
CQ
xi
IA
(n
33
X
FIGURE
4.6
2; ayy
STRESS
ma
E! ml---da
r-ml-!
C.lt-ii-1
(n
35
.
psi
N/mm2
258
133
-?
-119
-245
x-l
z
FIGURE
4.8
2; av~r STRESS
ml
$?
M
E-+
El
u-l
t-l
37
m
.
38
.
VI
39
psi
N/rrun2
35(11E.H 242
llml .1
.:
-1016.5
:;;y~y.
-1;;
.
117
-256
.F-
FIGURE 4.12 HSS PLATE MODEL 3; Oyy STRESS (VIEW FROM THE BOTTOM)
patterns
of
the
other
are
not
occur
at
the
two
fixed
edges
along
and
the plate.
The
the
two
fixed edges are those which are closer to the right and top
In each of the figures, the
distribution
has
been
represented
by
five
ranges,
due
to
the
difference
in plate
thicknesses
and
Figures
4.13 and
4.14 provide
stress
components.
The
a direct
maximum
comparison
values
of
four
vonmises,
are plotted
with
values
of
these
stresses
for
the
aspect
ratio,
the
percentage
the
stress
, in-plane
respect
of
to
the
For comparison,
single
panel
model
in
the
4.2
Tables
4.3
and
4.4 provide
maximum
values
of
the
normal
..-
Plot
of a ~ vs. Vi fiual
Aspect Ratio
Plot
Stiffened Plate
160,00
140.00
R
~ 120.00
WVS.Vhiud
of
.@wt
Ratio
250.00
Stiffen-d PMa
45%
4Q%
w%
48%
~
P
200.00
m%
2100.00
x
x
IJ 80.00
R~n,,*pa:,
a
E
0
60.00
II
I 50.00
100,00
40,0+1
50.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
3
PM
of Von Miw
w.
viItUA
5
A6perzt
%jjm
{A/B)~T/i~)-o.25
Virtual
AnPert Rntio
250,00
~
Am
,,%
150.00
:::
,#
267.
:
;
8
2
Stiffaned Plate
200.00
100.00
sn,le
Pmld
Stiffenad Piala
50,00
171%
k
40.00
137%
67%
30.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
3
FIGURE
4.13
COMPARISON
OF STRESSES
42
IN 0SS PLATE
MODEL
WITH
SINGLE
PANEL
mm
rlotof
W,
k3ti0
VktssdAsped
Plotof
Stiffened
200.00
160.00
160.00
43%
140.00
40%
39%
E
z .200.00
28%
Single Panel
20%
100.00
Stiffened Plate
G
CE 250.00
40%
a 20.00
b
300.00
w vs.
Plate
150.00
Single Panel
60.00
100.00
60.00
40,00
50.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
3
I
hl
of Vm Mists
Ratio
FW
300.00
250.00
>ti
~
~
100.00
y 70.00
E
E 60.00
s
- 50.00
2?%
150.00
Plata
29%
200.00
kpsd
Rotio
moo
Stiffened
Single Panel
142%
40.00
m%
30.00
Stiffened plate
165%
20.00
50.00
a
Single Panal
10.00
0.00
0.00
3
,,
FIGURE
4.14
COMPARIS1ON
OF STRESSES
43
WITH SINGLE
PANEL
Disp. (mm)
(cm,cm,cm)
(N/mm2)
(cm,crn,cm)
ax.
UW (N/mm2)
(Cm,cm,cm)
(N/nun2)
(cm,cm,cm)
G.,
MODEL 1
(15.24x1 O.O6)
MODEL 2
(15.24x6.40)
MODEL
3
(15.24x2.74)
14.12
(457,503,0.000)
10.14
(457,320,0.000)
7.27
(457,137,0.000)
140.44
130.32
130.15
(0,457,0.000)
(0,274,0.000)
255.51
(610,0,0.000)
204.55
(610,0,0.000)
(610,137,0.000)
164.11
(457,0,0.000)
87.45
68.94
39.26
(610,0,1.588)
(610,0>1.588)
(610.0.1.588)
(cm,cm,cm)
63.03
(594,99,1.588)
54.50
(594,99,1.588)
36,70
(587,99,1.588)
(N/nun2)
(cm,cm.cm)
29.31
(610,0,0.000)
23.59
(610.0.0.000)
15.71
[67n.n.n.nnn\
16.58
(0,457,0.000)
14.96
(0,274.0.000)
13.11
(cm,cm,crn)
(N/rrunz)
(cm,cm,cm)
202.55
(610,8,0.000)
162.47
(610,8,0.000)
Txy
(N/rmn2)
q,
T..
v.mises
(N/rtun2)
(o.91.
n.noo)
153.86
(457,0,1.588)
MODEL
1
(15.24x1 O.O6)
Disp. (mm)
(cm,crn,cm)
6..
(N/mm2)
(cm,cm,cm)
aw (N/mm2)
(cm,cm,cm)
u=. (N/mm2)
(cm,cm,cm)
Txy
(N/rrun2)
(cm,cm,cm)
Ty.
(N/mm2)
(cm,cm,cm)
T.,
(N/mm2)
(cm,cm,cm)
v.mises
(N/mm2)
(cm,cm,crn)
1
18.20
(457,503,0.000)
MODEL 2
(15.24x6.40)
14.02
(457,320,0.000)
167.47
159.07
(0,457,0.000)
(0,274,0.000)
MODEL
3
(15.24x2.74)
10.02
(457,137,0.000)
159.81
(61O,137,O.OOO)
279.77
253.56
202.67
(610,0,0.000)
(610,0,0.000)
(457,0,0.000)
100.04
(610,0,1.430)
86.80
(610,0,1.430)
46.34
(610,0,1.430)
74.99
(594,99,1.430)
67.98
(594,99,1,430)
44.98
(587,99,1.430)
25.48
26.16
18.04
(610,0,0.000)
(610,0,0.000)
(610,0,0.000)
17.20
(0,457.0.000)
15.76
(0.274.0.000)
13.73
(n.Ql.t--nnll)
228.49
203,92
(610,8,0.000)
(610,8,0.000)
190.14
(457,0.0,1.430)
stress TXY, and VonMises stress for the 0SS and HSS models
respectively.
criteria
and
takes
into
account
all
the
The
failure
normal
stress
and
each quantity.
of the normal
stresses
are
given
in parenthesis
below
As before,
and von
mises occur at the two fixed edges and along the intersection
of the plate with the stiffeners.
those which
paper respectively.
In each of
the
divided
figures, the
into
total
stress
of
in-plane
respect to the
l-- I
UI
z
Oi
E+
C/A
Ulo
Om
47
X
FIGURE
4.16
1; Oyy
STRESS
UI
m
m
49
FIGURE
4.18
1; ~~z STRESS
psi
N/mm2
m
.
x-l
z
FIGURE
4.19
HSS BRICK
BOTTOM)
MODEL
1;
VON-MISES
STRESS
(VIEW
FROM
THE
u-l
t-
x-l
z
FIGURE 4.20 HSS BRICK MODEL 1; Oyy STRESS (VIEW FROM THE BOTTOM)
psi
E
w
3000
1ml
o
-15111
-mm
FIGURE
4.21
1; T~z STRESS
N/mmz
21
10
0
-lo
-21
54
w
x
b
(n
55
X
FIGURE 4.24 0SS BRICK MODEL 2; Gyy STRESS (VIEW FROM THE BOTTOM)
,,
v-l
to
,.
H
m
M
I-J
m
UI
57
m
m
w
c-i
.
w
58
O!-lcqrf)q+
Ou-)om
CNrlrl
000
Umun
urnmmn
m-rrm
rLlllJ-rLo
1
.-
rL-d
.
59
psi
36776.0
?(3102.9
37?9.91
-13293.
-29916.
N/nun2
254
139
24
-91
-206
Y-J
z
FIGURE
4.28
2; ayy
STRESS
Li
>
61
z-
P-1
E5
w
62
psi
Z9Y9EI.
(1
lEIWI.5
- IW13.D
[:~lsz
I
z
3; VON-MISES
STRESS
(VIEW FROM
THE
N/rcun2
169
127
86
45
3
psi
NIITII-112
178
1?536.9
--199.33
86
-6
-97
-21911. -189
.
FIGURE
4.32
3; Oyy
STRESS
1+1 1%~
mm
I-ro
g
H
E+
L)
u-l
WI
m
m
.
65
Ou-)omo
t+
1+
Lc
H
E=
E
n
E
x
v
66
w
m
H
l-l
67
psi
J
FIGURE
4,36
3; ayy
STRESS
N/mrnz
m
psi
ml
N/ mrn2
10
150
-150
-5
-Isll(l
-lo
Y
.
FIGURE
4.37
3; TYZ STRESS
1- 1
Plot of
160.00
Fj
140.00
x
:
xx
vs. wtuaf
-14%
Aspect Rotio
Plate Model
/
u
Plot of
wvs. vii
Aspsct Ratio
300.00
.14%
E
~ .120.00
g
\Bnck
~o~e,
RJ
100.00
*,,.%
80.00
60,00
1tw.oo
40.00
50.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Virtual A,pect
6.00
7.00
vs. Virtuiil
Aspect
Ratio
250.00
Virtuat
Aspsct
Ratio
70.00
R
~
20000
+..
50.00
z -i
e:
b.
\
:
.s
z
c
100.00
-16%
~;
~-
.2%
Brick Model
20.00
50.00
10.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00
FIGURE
4.39
COMPARIS1ON
4.00
5.00
6.00
OF STRESSES
. .
IN 0SS BRICK
71
MODEL
WITH
0SS
7.00
0.25
PLATE
MODEL
Plot of
c xx vs.
Virtua[
Aspect
RiItio
Plot of
w.
Virtual
A~pect
Ratio
Plate Model
200.00
M
100.00
1:
160.00
%%
.m
-15%
Plata Element
250.00
E
E
~
b.
140.00
% 20.00
D
300.s30
0
Brick Model
-2
-16%
200.00
R
100.00
Brick
Element
150.00
80.00
60.00
100.00
40.00
50.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
4.00
Virlual
Plot
5.00
Aspect
of Vou Miees
6.00
250,00
200.00
vs.
Virtual
Aspect Ralio
Plot
*\
m
Brick Model
7.00
Shear
vs.
l%tu~l
Aspect
Ratio
-3%
40.00
Brick
30.00
100.00
[ adel
20.00
50,00
10.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
4.00
Vlrlual
FIGURE
5.00
Aspect
4.40
Rallo (AIBJ(lT/iL)
COMPARISION
6.00
3.00
?.00
O.25
4,00
Virtual
OF STRESSES
, s
of [n-ptane
6.00
Ratio IAIB](ITIIL}-0.26
Ei!iil*!
~>
.,.%
.
5.00
Aspect
Plate Mndel
/-
.9
150,00
.:
z
c
4.00
Virtual
~
g
3.00
Ratio lA11311iTlit.1-0.25
300.00
~
7.00
5.00
Aspect
6.00
Ratio [AIBlilTliL1-0.25
7.00
For comparison,
elements are
shown .
4.3
Comparison of Stresses with Initial Deflection in the
Plating
Results
of
the
finite
element
analyses
of
the
third model,
model without any initial deflection and having the same mesh
size was also analysed for both the 0SS and HSS materials.
Results of which are also presented in the Table 4.5. In the
table, the location of these maximum stress values are presented
in parenthesis.
4.4
Discussion of Results
Figures 4.13 and 4.14, that the plate bending, shear stresses
and deflections are much higher in a grillage panel than in a
single plate panel.
73
(tJNDEFORMED)
(cm,cm,cm)
(N/mm2)
(cm,cm,cm)
azz (N/rmn2)
(cm,cmrcm)
Txy
(N/IDIIL2
(cm,cm,cm)
2
T..
HS S
(DEFORMED)
(UNDEFORMED)
(DEFORMED)
155.83
181.89
(0,91,0.000)
(N/mm
(cm,cm,cm)
vm (N/mmL)
(cm,cm,cm)
191.75
(0,91,0.000)
185.75
196.65
(457,0,0.000)
(610,0,0.000)
45.22
56.15
(610,0,0.000)
(610,0,0.000)
37.40
(N/mm2)
(cm,cm,cm)
Tyz
HSS
148.04
~xx(N/mm2)
aW
0ss
0ss
41.34
(587,103,1.588)
(591,95,1.466)
39.44
47.20
(610,0,0.000)
(610,0,0.000)
34.41
39.16
(0,91,0.000)
(0,91,0.000)
173.13
(457,0,1.588)
216.09
(610,91,0.0)
74
(457,0,1.430)
(610,91,0.0)
(A/B)(i~/i~)l4,
decreases.
ratios the significant bending stress is 17% and 19% higher than
the
single
plate
respectively.
panel
for
the
0ss
and
HSS
gillages
stress is greater than the yield stress for the 0SS system and
is
approaching
the
yield
stress
for
the
HSS
system
as
the
Hence, it is
structure
selection process.
should
be
accounted
for
in
the
plate
(UW and
about
16%
and
the
shear
stresses
are
about
2%.
This
discrepancy can be attributed to the mesh size chosen for brick
models.
two models
square.
had mesh
These
sizes of
the
critical
locations are
75
at
the
intersection
of
the
TABLE
EFFECT OF VARYING
4.6.
ELEMENT
SIZE ON THE
RESULTS
OF BRICK
MODEL
(0SS MATERIAL)
Model
Element Size
(mm x mm)
Displ. (mm)
(% Diff)
7.06
-3.24
7.09
-2.78
7.11
-2.61
7.3(
u..(N/mm2)
(% Diff)
130.15
-14.34
142.38
-6.29
148.63
-2.18
151.94
aW(N/mm2)
(% Diff)
164.11
-16.24
178.39
-8.95
185.77
-5.18
195.92
~xY(N/mm2)
(% Diff)
36.70
-2.24
37.30
-0.64
37.72
0.46
37.54
vm (N/rmnz)
(% Diff)
153.86
-16.40
166.55
-9.51
173.10
-5.95
184.0:
time (rein)
0.225
0.422
memory
(Mb)
0.024
~,,
Hn
~xY
v.mises
=
%
0.095
nxx
Note
PLATE
MODEL
1.51
1.001
are
with
76
respect
to
plate
model .
selecting
the
required
plating
thicknesses
for
ship
The
results
of
FEM
analyses with
initial
deflection
in
the
plating, using brick elements, are shown in Table 4.5 for both
the 0SS and HSS material systems. It is observed that the plate
bending stresses in the x-x direction are only 5% higher than
comparable
stresses
of
the
FEM
analysis
with
no
initial
deflections,
plate
analysis
of
of
the
plate
order
bending
of
one
stresses
thickness,
in
the
77
CONCLUSIONS
5.0
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE
WORKS
panel.
deflection
Overall grillage
of
longitudinal)
the
due
behavior
supporting
to
an
is
structure
applied
defined
as
the
(transverses
and
loading.
This
deflection
are not
In
typical
recognized
grillage
structures
practice.
The
designed
results
of
to
current
these
finite
As
induced
evident
from
in
plating
the
Figure
of
4.13
a
and
Figure
stiffened
4.14,
panel
stresses
due
to
the
deflection of the stiffeners are significantly higher than those
where the stiffeners are assumed to be fairly rigid and hence
unyielding.
The
differences
are
as
high
as
50%.
The
normal
stresses q..,,and aw
with
the
vertical
shear
stresses, r,~~and TYZ show that the vertical shear stresses are
about 10% of the normal stresses and hence would not play a
.>
78
,.] ~
.,,.
...
3.
Figures
5.1
and
5.2
show
the
vertical
shear
stress
3.05m x 0.91m
(10x3) fully fixed on all sides and under normal pressure load
of 0.107 N/mm~ (15.56 psi).
4.
flexibility of the
transverses)
since
they
do
not
restrain
the
edges
of
the
unsupported panel.
1.
Figures
4.13 and
performed
on
models
of
79
aspect
ratios
less
than
3.5
to
2.
The design
number
of
of
stiffenedplate panel
factors
including
is
influenced
loading,
the
the
by
overall
Interaction of
all these factors result in complex stress patterns for which
there are no closedform solutions.
should be performed
develop
calculate
methods
to
stresses
in
terms
of
these
variables.
3.
Methods
the
stiffeners
and
the
orthotropic
stiffeners
of
the
4.
finite
element
of
panel
stress
above.
The
material
non-linearity.
grillages
should be gathered
analysis
should
methods
of grillage
Existing
test
be persued
structure
to aid in
methods
described
calculation
account
should
for
data
geometrical
of
and
structural
and reevaluated.
,.,
80
Rs
Wldw
on
l-l
a
w
81
>
m
.
In
82
>-,,
!-
6.0
REFERENCES
1.
Navy
Ships
of the United
NAVSEA
2.
Sea Systems
Command,
States
S9AA0-AA-SPN-010/Gen.
Naval
Ship
fear Naval
Engineering
Surface
~iGeneral ,Specifications
Navy,
Department
Spec.
NAVSEA
of the Navy,
(1992 Edition) .
Center,
Ships,
fOr
Structural
Design
O9OO-LP-O97-4O1O
Manual
(Dec.
1976) .
3.
Naval
Ship
Systems
Command,
Design
Data
Book
- Design
4.
09020LP-006-000
Hughes,
O.F.,
(Feb. 1983).
Ship
Structural
83
APPENDIX
Following
design
calculations
the
0SS
15.24m X 2.74m.
of
The formulae and criterion used are those
same
to
procedure
[3].
is
or t20.608
The
nearest
Given:
L=
Length of beam,
2.74 m (9.0)
(15.56 psi)
dW =
Web thickness,
tw =
Flange width,
b~
397 mm (15.63)
9.65 mm (0.38)
= 180.0 mm (7.07)
Flange thickness t~ =
Yield stress, q =
16.0 mm (0.63)
235 N/mm2 (34,000 psi)
Allowable stress,_u~ =
Proportional Limit,_aP1=
Youngs Modulus,
Poissons ratio,
0.3
85
.
.
tw
f*
v
1
bf
1w
Post-buckling
approach: b, =
60t =
60x15.88 =
953 mm
(37.5)
The
effective width
of plating
is the
lesser
of
the
Area
10,878
3,831
2,880
17,589
= 17,589
Y
7.94
214.38
420.88
mm?
86
A.y
86,371
842727
1,212,134
2,141,232
A. y-
685,788
180,663,982
510,163,126
691,512,896
Io-o
228,596
50,316,673
61,440
50,606,709
n.y
Yp
Yf=
= 2,141,232
~.~/~
mm3
2,141,232/17,589
= 121.74
tP+d.+t~-yP=15.88+397+16-121.74 = 307.14 mm
IX-X =~.y2
=165.4
mm
BM= =
WL:/lz
fBMP= Bm/SMP
= 102,087,719/3,954,707
= 25.8 N/~z
fBEP= BMs/SMP
= 204,175,438/3,954,707
= 51.6 N/inmz
c< 1.4
F= =GY(l.235 - 0.168C);
1.4
< C<
4.8
F. =GY(9.87/C2);
88
1.25
~ > 1.25
F. = 235[
2.25/6.47
-1.25/6.47z
N/~:
= 74.71
Z2E -
12(1-f12)(a/t)z
where, K=
[ 1 + (a/b)* ]2 .
Now
[ 1 + (913/3050)z ]Z = 1-2-
a/t =
Fc,=l. ogo
913/15.88
Z:(206850)
57.49.
Therefore,
12(1-O.3~) (57.49)2
89
=61.6N/mm~
Maximum
Tripping
L~
Length,
T=
w++(s~(wg
d=dw+t~
=397+16=413
mm
(1.283)(180)
L
l+.333(2.2944)(0.603
l)-(O.
128)(0.
O387)2(88O.2l)];
/[
880.21
= 6027.42
Local Buckling
mm ;
L~2 L ; 6027.4
of Flange
and Web
dw/t. =
397/9.65
41.14<
29.()
64.0
O.K.
O.K.
Strength Assessment
,.
Tension:
Stiffener Flange; f,.~/a~= 65.1/195 = 0.33< 1.0 O.K.
Plate
Compression:
. .
Ultimate Strength
f .Mp5 (0.8)
25.8<
(F)g
0.8(74.7)(235)/(235)
90
or
25.8s
O.K.
59.76
fBMP~
25.8s
Stiffener;
Fc.
67.9
O.K.
fBESs_~b
130.3S 195
O.K.
the
scantlings
required
for
the
longitudinal
stiffeners.
Given:
Length of beam,
L=
3.05 m (10.0)
Spacing of beam, s =
914.4 mm (3.0)
Uniform Pressure,p = 0.107 N/mm: (15.56 psi)
Thickness of Plate, t = 15.88 ~
(0+625)
d.=
Web thickness,
tw =
Flange width,
mm (7.5)
190.5
7.0 mm (0.275)
Flange thickness t~ =
Yield
stress,
q =
11.2 mm (0.44)
Allowable stress,_ak,=
Proportional Limit,_nPl=
Youngs Modulus,
195
N/mm:
(28,000
psi)
E = 206,850 N/rcun
(30 x 10 psi)
,,
91
Section
Properties
of Combined
be
Plate-Beam Section:
/1
dw
1---
tw
f=
LJ
bq
approach: b. =
effective width
of
60t =
60x15.88, =
953 mm
the
of
(36)
plating
is
lesser
the
Area
12,109
1,334
1,574
15, 017
Y
7.94
111.13
211.98
EA = 15,017
~A.y
= 578,050
ml-f
rnm3
92
A.y
96,146
148,247
:~1
333,64,
578,050
-,--
A.y
763,399
16,474,689
I 7n
I Iu,
77CI
ILU,VLLL71
R7.
QG&7nfl,
- ! ---1
Ioo
;4
254,45.
4.
1 .,032,754
]
16,449
4,303,657
Yp =~.Y/ZA
= 578,050/15,017 = 38.49 mm
of
Inertia,
l~A = Ix-x
CORR
= 92,270,357
mm4
70,021,212
22,249,145
Flange,sMf= INA/yf
= 70,021,212/179.09
Modulus,
= 390,983 mm3
Shear Area,
ASH =
(tP+d.+tf)t.
68.3
mm
BM, = wL-/12
(97.8)
(3050):/12
93
75,813,824
Nmm
fBM,= BMm/SMP
= 37,906,912/1,819,205
= 20.84 N/mmz
fBE,
BMs/SMP
= 75,813.824/1,819,205
= 41.67 N/~~
Fc aY(l.235 - 0.168C);
F.
=uy(9.87/cz);
4.8
94
Therefore, F= = (1.235-O.168X1.51)235
= 230.6 N/mmz
Ultimate Strength of Plating; F.
235[
=
2.25/1.94
194.5
1.25/1.962]
N/mmz
Fc== K
12(1-p2)(a/t)
where, K = [ 1 + (a/b)2 ]Z .
Since a =
a/b ~
K=
3050
mm
3050/914
then
4.0.
FP = F=,
Now
FCR=4
Since
225.7
F.,<GFI,
a/t =
914/15.88
#(206850)
57.56.
Therefore,
./=225.7N/mm:
12(1-0.3) (57.56)
>
176,
therefore
95
235
F,Ri
z
1+0.1824
=196.2N/Id
235
()225.7
d = d.+tt =
190.5
11.2
201.7
rrun
206850/235
880.21
(1.283)(140.3)
L,:
1
1+.333(1.44)
(0.623)
-(0.128)
(0.0@(880.21)]i
J-[
880.21
=
5479.33
m;
LT2 L ;
5479.3
>
3050
O.K.
O.K.
dW/tw =
O.K.
190.5/7.0
27.21S
64.0
Srength Assessment
Tension:
Stiffener Flange; f,~~/a~= 96.95/195 = 0.50S 1.0 O.K.
Plate
f~~p/_u~
=
41.67/195
0.21S
1.0
O.K.
96
.
.,
Compression:
Ultimate Strength of Panel; f,Mp5 (O.8)(G#
Oy
20.84S
0.8(194.5) (235)/(235)
or 20.84s
Buckling
Strength
of Panel;
O.K.
f~~PS FCC
20.84<
Stiffener; fH~sS_a~
193.91< 195
147.6
196.2
O.K.
O.K.
97
Maritime Administtio
Tom Ingram
Stephen Yang
Alasdair Stirling
Thomas Hu
Key Chang
U.S.Coast Guard
Hsien Y. Jan
MARTECH Inc.
William Siekierka
Robert Sielski
Alexander Stavovy
Steve Sharpe