How Strong Is Your Ship

NOT FOR REPRODUCTION
From the Technical Editor

Underwater archaeology conjures up romantic images of lost civilizations and shipwrecks. The most famous lost civilization is Atlantis, but my fascination as a boy was with the lost city of Dunwich, in Suffolk, England. Nowadays it is a small collection of fishermens huts on a windswept beach and some tumble down stone walls on top of a low sandy cliff. But in the Middle Ages, it was a thriving port, exporting wool and importing timber and wine. It was a gateway to the fertile lands and the prosperous people of East Anglia. Aggressive currents and storms caused the silting of the harbour and the erosion of the beaches, leaving the economy crippled and the people struggling to survive against the sea and eventually losing. Surveying shipwrecks is another form of underwater archaeology. Shipwrecks have been described as time capsules which give insights into the way people lived and worked. Shipwrecks provide very human stories of tragedy and grief, which are personalized even to people not directly involved because of the name of the ship. For example, Vasa, Mary Rose, Titanic and Edmund Fitzgerald all bring to mind specific events at a point in history. Underwater archaeology is much more dependent on technology than land based archaeology because of the remoteness of the sites and the hostile environment. Even in shallow water, divers must use scuba gear to access the dig. Deep ocean sites such as the wreck of the Titanic need highly sophisticated ocean technologies to locate and survey the wreck. This includes accurate positioning and charting, side scan sonar to identify anomalies on the sea bed, and remotely operated vehicles to survey the site and take pictures so that the findings can be interpreted. It also takes enthusiastic and well prepared people who are determined to see the job through to the end. The same underwater technology can also be used to investigate modern accidents. We continue to lose ships in accidents, and names such as Herald of Free Enterprise, Estonia and Ocean Ranger bring to mind violent losses in recent years. Enquiries into each accident were held to determine its cause and how similar accidents might be prevented in the future. In all cases, ocean technology was used to gain insight into the causes of the flooding or structural failure. Lost cities and lost ships are examples of how human activity and the oceans are intertwined. In each case we hoped that we could overcome the powers of the sea but in each case we were wrong. The technical paper in this issue sheds some light on how ships react to their environment, and hopefully this understanding will slow the number of ships disappearing and becoming a source of study for future archaeologists. Whether it is trying to understand an ancient civilization or investigating a recent marine accident, underwater technology can help us hear the stories of how events came to pass. With more sophisticated technology we can fill in some important gaps in the narrative, and help to understand our relationship with the ocean over the centuries past, so that we can learn for the future. David Molyneux Technical Editor
Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2008
Wrecks, Treasure, Antiquity, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2008 47
How strong is your ship really?

Das, Grenier and Kennedy describe the complex relationship between fatigue and mechanical strength of ship hull steel.
Who should read this paper? This paper addresses an important issue with regard to how the strength of structural steel used in marine structures is currently obtained. Results of this research effort indicate that the interaction between fatigue damage and mechanical properties of structural steel used in a ship hull is important and should be considered for future design of all such marine structures. Anyone with an interest in the integrity of the hull of their ship (i.e. all real mariners) will be intrigued by the work described herein. Why is it important? The majority of ships and other such marine structures are built of structural steel. Current design procedures do not consider the interaction between fatigue damage and the mechanical properties of the structural steel. This study shows that the strength of structural steel reduces significantly due to fatigue damage and hence, the interaction between fatigue damage and mechanical properties of structural steel is an important consideration for safer design of ships and other marine structures. To the best of the authors knowledge, this study is the first of its kind. The results have significant potential for improving the strength and integrity of future ships and other marine structures. However, additional studies on other structures and steels will be required before the results may be applied commercially. About the authors Sreekanta Das is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Windsor. His areas of expertise are low-cycle-fatigue behaviour of metal and marine structures, and experimental and finite element analysis of metals and metal structures. Daniel Grenier is currently a doctoral student at the University of Western Ontario. His area of expertise is low-cycle-fatigue behaviour of metal. John Kennedy is an Emeritus and Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Windsor. His area of expertise is structural engineering.
DAS
GRENIER
KENNEDY
48 THE JOURNAL OF OCEAN TECHNOLOGY Reviews & Papers

EFFECT OF LOW-CYCLE-FATIGUE DAMAGE ON STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY OF STRUCTURAL STEEL
D. Grenier1, S. Das2 (corresponding author), and J. Kennedy3 1, 2, 3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Windsor, Canada ABSTRACT
A ship hull structure is made of stiffened steel plates. The steel plates are stiffened with steel beams and girders. The connections between the various structural components are made using a welding process which introduces residual stresses and strains. The static residual stresses alone may cause material yielding in tension in the plate near the welded connections. A ship in service experiences continuous fatigue load cycles in addition to static residual and other locked-in stresses. Thus, fatigue damage builds up over the service life of a ship. Currently, a ship hull is designed for fatigue and strength. However, the strength design is undertaken assuming the ship hull material is virgin. Therefore, no interaction between fatigue damage and strength for material is considered. In reality, a ship in service for a considerable period of time will have accumulated damage due to fatigue load cycles and this may interact with the mechanical properties such as strength and ductility of ship hulls steel. Thus, an interaction between fatigue damage and the mechanical properties of structural steel need to be considered for safer designs of ship hulls. Since the residual stress alone can cause yielding of steel at the plate-frame welded connections, the cyclic loads during its service are expected to produce low-cycle-fatigue load cycles locally at and near these connections. This study was, therefore, undertaken to understand the effect of low-cycle-fatigue damage on the mechanical properties such as strength and ductility of structural steel.
KEY WORDS Ship hull; Residual stress and strain; Low-cycle-fatigue; Fatigue damage; Structural steel; Mechanical properties; Material strength; Material ductility INTRODUCTION a mean-minus-two-standard-deviation curve to all S-N curves be applied to limit the probability of fatigue failure Several studies were undertaken to evaluate the integrity of aged ship structures considering fatigue (primarily, high-cycle-fatigue) as one failure criterion and strength (yield and buckling strength) as the other failure criterion. Current design standards and codes usually require that to 2.4% [for example, DNV, 2002]. These design standards and codes also require ensuring ship hull structures strength so that a ship hull does not fail due to applications of extreme loads caused by slamming or by collisions or by grounding. However, the strength design

method recommended is based on the Ultimate Limit State that relates to the materials yield strength and the strength design is carried out assuming the ship hull material is virgin and will remain so during its entire design life. Thus, no attempts have yet been made to consider accumulation of fatigue damage on the materials behaviour. Researchers have expressed concerns regarding the damage caused by fatigue loads and its influence on the ultimate load carrying capacity and ductility for aged ship structures [Dexter and Pilarski, 2002; Gu and Moan, 2002; Huther et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2005; and Wang et al., 2006]. 1998; Dexter and Mahmoud, 2004; and James et al., 2006]. A ship in service experiences continuous cyclic loads due to wave pressures and ship motion in addition to static residual stresses and other static locked-in stresses. Thus, fatigue damage accumulates over the service life of the ship. Since the residual stress alone can cause yielding of steel in the welded connections, cyclic loads while in service is expected to impose lowcycle-fatigue (LCF) load histories in the plate at and near those welded connections [Wang et al., 2006]. Accumulation of damage is expected to be much higher and occur at a faster rate when the components of the ship hull are subjected to LCF load cycles. In reality, a ship hull structure experiences both fatigue load cycles and extreme loads during its service. A ship hull structure is made of steel plates stiffened by a steel frame (beams and girders). The connections between various structural components (beams, girders, plates, etc.) are made by using a welding process. The welding process creates localized residual stresses and strains. The residual stress alone can cause tension yielding of the steel plate near the welded connections [Osgood, 1954; Kondo and Ostapenko, 1964; Faulkner, 1975; Wikander et al., 1994; Gao et al., 1998; Hu and Jiang, Thus, an interaction between LCF damage and various mechanical properties of structural steel, such as remaining strength and ductility, need to be considered for safer designs of ship hull structure. This is especially true if the safety of an aged ship hull is to be ensured for extreme load conditions. Therefore, this study was undertaken to investigate the influence of LCF damage on the material behaviour, especially the strength and ductility of structural steel. A series of material tests were undertaken in this study.
Table 1: Test matrix.
Specimen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
*Specimen 8 failed after 180,000 fatigue cycles
Test Type Pull Fatigue-Pull Fatigue-Pull Fatigue-Pull Fatigue-Pull Fatigue-Pull Fatigue-Pull Fatigue
Strain Range N/A 0 - 0.003 0 - 0.003 0 - 0.003 0 - 0.003 0 - 0.003 0 - 0.003 0 - 0.003
Fatigue Cycles 0 5,000 20,000 45,000 90,000 135,000 165,000 180,000*
Specimen Name F000P F005P F020P F045P F090P F135P F165P F180F

TEST PROCEDURE as recommended by ASTM E606. The following number (045 ) indicates that the specimen experienced 45,000 The following sections discuss the test matrix, material properties, test setup, and test method used in this study. strain-controlled LCF load cycles. The last letter indicates how the specimen was finally loaded to its failure. The last letter P indicates that the specimen failed due to Material and Test Matrix Two different material specimens, as recommended by ASTM A370 [ASTM, 2006a] and ASTM E606 [ASTM, 2006b], were used in this study. ASTM A370 provides the specifications and guidelines for determining quasistatic mechanical properties of materials based on simple quasi-static tensile tests. ASTM E606 provides the specifications and guidelines for strain-controlled fatigue tests for determining LCF life. In this study, the test procedures followed the recommendations of these two ASTM standards. application of quasi-static tensile deformation (Pull test). An F instead of a P at the end indicates the failure occurred due to application of fatigue load cycles only and therefore no quasi-static pull test was undertaken on this specimen. The first specimen (F000P) was subjected to a quasi-static tensile deformation only in accordance with ASTM A370. The objective of this test was to determine quasi-static material behaviour such as strength and ductility of virgin steel. The last specimen (F180F ) was subjected to LCF load cycles only in accordance with ASTM E606 and thus no quasi-static tensile load or deformation was applied. The objective of The test matrix used in this study is shown in Table 1. The specimens are identified by their unique names. As an example, specimen 4 is named as F045P, where the first letter (F ) indicates that it was a fatigue type specimen
Figure 1: Fatigue and tension test type specimens.
this test was to determine the low-cycle-fatigue (LCF) life of the material. The remaining specimens (specimens 2 through 7) were first subjected to various predetermined LCF strain cycles followed by a quasi-static tensile

shown in Table 2. The shape and dimensions of the fatigue specimen were in accordance with the ASTM E606 specifications and the specimen is shown in Figure
Extensometer
1. Flat shoulders were used to facilitate the grip by the flat jaws. The shape of the tensile test specimen is also shown in this figure. The dimensions for the tensile test
Modular Hydraulic Grips
specimens were in accordance with the ASTM A370 specifications.
Specimen
Test Setup
Jaws
The tests were conducted in a fatigue testing machine. The machine is operated by a hydraulic power unit and controlled by an automatic computer control and data acquisition system. The specimens were aligned and
Figure 2: Test setup.
levelled carefully to minimize eccentricity upon loading. deformation until they ruptured. Thus, these specimens (specimens 2 through 7) were first subjected to LCF strain cycles in accordance with ASTM E606 and then followed by a quasi-static tensile deformation unit rupture in accordance with ASTM A370. The objective of these tests was to introduce various levels of LCF damage in the material before undertaking a quasi-static tensile test. The load and strain data for all the specimens were acquired through a data acquisition system. Test Method Quasi-static tension tests were first conducted on both fatigue and tensile type tests specimens (Figure 1) to ensure the validity of obtaining quasi-static mechanical properties of the material using a fatigue type specimen. Thus, specimens of both types were tested and the test All specimens were prepared from a 25.4 mm (1 in) diameter carbon steel round bar using a suitable lathe to ensure no initial strain occurred while preparing the specimens. The chemical properties of the material are data for both strain and loads were acquired. Figure 3 shows the nominal stress-strain curves obtained from both tests: (i ) using a tensile type test specimen as specified in ASTM A370 and (ii ) using a fatigue type Suitable hydraulic pressure was applied on all jaws ensuring that the specimens did not slip over the course of the tests. Figure 2 shows the laboratory test setup.
Yield Strength (MPa) 546
Ultimate Strength (MPa) 589
Chemical Composition (%) C Mn P S 0.191 0.805 0.022 0.038
Table 2: Mechanical and chemical properties.

specimen as specified in ASTM E606. The nominal quasistatic tensile stress-strain behaviours obtained from these two specimens look very similar and thus it was concluded that a quasi-static tension test on a fatigue type specimen with dimensions in accordance with ASTM E606 specifications can be used to determine the quasistatic tensile mechanical properties of the material. plates at the welded connections can vary between 300 micro strains in tension and 2500 micro strains in compression in a single load cycle. Thus, a strain range of 3000 micro strain (0.3% strain) with minimum and maximum values of strains varying from zero micro strain (0.0% strain) and 3000 micro strain (0.3% strain) were chosen in this study (Table 1).
It is often assumed that the steel plate at and near the welded connection yields in tension due to residual stresses that develop from the welding process. The stress-strain behaviour of the steel used in this study shows that the point of first yield or lower yield point (first non-linearity in stress-strain curve) occurred at 2500 micro strain (0.25% strain). Sea trial test data measured from slamming events indicate that the strain value in the
Specimen 1 (F000P) was tested in accordance with ASTM A370 specification to determine the quasi-static mechanical properties of the virgin material. Specimen 8 (F180F ) was then tested in accordance with ASTM E606 specification to determine the low-cycle-fatigue (LCF) life of the material when subjected to a strain range of 0.0% to 0.3%. At various predetermined fatigue cycle counts within the fatigue life of the material, six other specimens
700 600 500
Stress (MPa)
400 300 200 100 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 ASTM A370 Specimen ASTM E606 Specimen
Strain
Figure 3: Nominal stress-strain relationships.

(specimens 2 through 7 in Table 1) were tested using ASTM E606 specification before failing (rupturing) the specimen in quasi-static tension in accordance with ASTM A370. As an example, Specimen F005P was subjected to 5,000 fatigue cycles using the same strain range in accordance with ASTM E606. This specimen was then subjected to a quasi-static tension test according to ASTM A370 to determine the effect of LCF damage on its mechanical properties such as quasi-static stress-strain behaviour, remaining quasi-static strength, and remaining quasi-static ductility. Figure 5 marks the yield and ultimate (tensile) strength on the nominal quasi-static stress-strain plots for the same three specimens (F000P, F005P, and F135P ). The yield strength was determined by the conventional 0.2% strain offset method as shown in this figure. The ultimate TEST RESULTS strength was determined by identifying the maximum stress point in the same stress-strain plot. This figure The following sub-sections describe various results obtained from the tests. shows that the yield strength of the specimens decreased with the increased fatigue damage accumulation (fatigue strain cycles). The reduction in yield strength with the Nominal Stress-Strain Behaviour Nominal quasi-static tension test data for all specimens were plotted to evaluate the effect of various levels of LCF damage on the mechanical properties of the steel used in this study. The yield strength, ultimate strength, and ductility of the specimens were compared to identify the effects of the fatigue damage on various mechanical properties of the material. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the change in the quasi-static nominal tensile stress-strain relationship obtained from three specimens (F000P, F005P, and F135P ) with various levels of LCF damage. Stress-strain plots of three specimens are only shown for clarity. It can be seen from Figure 5 that the accumulation of fatigue damage introduces an early non-linearity in its usual linear stress-strain behaviour at a much lower stress value (approximately at 130-250 MPa). This indicates that a decrease in the stiffness of the material Stress Hysteresis Figure 6 shows the stress hysteresis for specimen F180F. The maximum and minimum stress values at every 10,000 cycles were used to plot the stress hysteresis. This figure shows that the mean stress relaxation occurred as the stress hysteresis progressed. It is observed that the rate of relaxation is exponential and it is relatively high within the first 20,000 cycles. The mean stress relaxation continued to occur as the level of fatigue damage increased. However, the mean stress relaxation increase in fatigue damage is due to the aforementioned early non-linearity in stress-strain behaviour. However, the fatigue damage did not appear to have much effect on the ultimate strength. It is observed that the ultimate strength occurred at higher strain level as more fatigue damage was introduced. occurs as LCF damage is induced. The initiation of the early non-linearity occurs sooner as higher fatigue damage accumulates. This raises a question on how the modulus of elasticity of structural steel is currently determined from virgin steel specimens and used for design of ship hull structure.

700 600 500
Stress (MPa)
400 300 200 100 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 F000P F005P F135P
Strain
Figure 4: Effect of fatigue damage on stress-strain relationship.
700 600 500
Stress (MPa)
Yield Stress
Ultimate Stress
400
400
300 200 100 0 0 0.015 0.03

200 0 0
F000P
Early non-linearity
0.002 0.004
F005P F135P E (0.2% Offset) 0.045 0.06
Strain
Figure 5: Influence of fatigue damage on yield and ultimate stresses.

500
Mean Stress
400 300
Stress (MPa)
200 100 0 -100 -200 0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Number of Cycle
Figure 6: Cycle-dependant response with mean stress curve.
500 400 300
1 5,000 50,000 150,000 170,000
Stress (MPa)
200 100 0 -100 -200 0 0.001 0.002 0.003

180,000
Strain
Figure 7: Stress-strain hysteresis loop.
F

and also the stress range decreased significantly and at a much faster rate towards the last 20,000 to 30,000 cycles; that is, after approximately 85-90% of its fatigue life was exhausted. At this point, it is expected that fatigue damage accumulation was much higher and may be due to formation of larger cracks, thus causing a rapid decrease in material strength. Energy is absorbed by the material as fatigue damage accumulates. By measuring the area of the loaddeformation hysteresis loops, the absorbed energy for Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loop Figure 7 shows the progression of the stress-strain hysteresis loops. The number shown beside the loop represents the actual fatigue cycle count for that particular loop. It can be seen that as the fatigue cycles progressed the material exhibited continuous cyclic stress softening. The stress softening is more prominent on the tension side and occurred until failure. It is observed that each cycle was calculated. In this study, the deformation was measured using an extensometer with a 50.8 mm (2 in) gauge length. The energy absorption for every load cycle is shown in Figure 8. This figure also shows the influence of fatigue damage on the yield and ultimate (tensile) strength. The figure indicates that the energy absorption per cycle increased as more fatigue damage accumulated and thus the strength decreased. the stress limit in tension near the end of its fatigue life (beyond 150,000 cycles) decreased at an increasing rate. This may be due to the formation of larger cracks as discussed in the previous section.
Figure 8: Influence of fatigue damage on strength and energy absorption.
700 600 500
Stress (MPa)
400 2 300 200 100 0 0 50000 100000 150000 Energy per cycle Yield Stress Ultimate Stress 1
0 200000
Number of Cycles
Ductility (J)

Fatigue-Strength Interaction Figure 8 shows the interaction between the accumulation of fatigue damage and strength of steel. Table 3 summarizes this interaction. Columns 5 and 7 of Table 3 show the remaining strength of the specimens after various levels of LCF damage were induced. It can be seen that the fatigue damage after only 20,000 cycles (after about 11% of its fatigue life) caused the yield strength to decrease by more than 12% and the ultimate strength to decrease by about 3% (Columns 6 and 8 of Table 3). Beyond this, the strength appeared to stay relatively constant until the material was subjected to LCF damage at close to 85-90% of its fatigue life. The sudden drop in strength near the end of the fatigue life may be due to the formation of larger cracks at this stage. the yield strength is currently determined from virgin steel specimens and incorporated in the ultimate limit state design method. The next part of the strength curves between 20,000 cycles and 150,000 cycles, the yield and ultimate strength stayed relatively constant. The final part shows a rapid decrease in the strength occurring after approximately 150,000 cycles. Therefore, the fatigue-strength interaction indicates that after about 8590% of the materials fatigue life has been exhausted, rupture may occur quickly without much warning. It should be noted that current design standards and codes do not recognize the interaction between the LCF damage and the strength even though researchers expressed concerns about damage that can occur at the welded connections due to LCF loading. Thus, it may be desirable to consider the effect of LCF damage on the Three distinct segments exist in the strength curves of Figure 8. The early part of the materials fatigue life (approximately until 20,000 cycles) lead to a rapid decrease of about 12-13% in yield strength and about 3% in ultimate strength. This raises a concern on how Fatigue-Ductility Interaction Figure 9 shows the interaction between the accumulation of LCF damage and the remaining ductility. The ductility strength of ship hull material.
Table 3: Influence of LCF damage on the strength.
Specimen
Fatigue Parameters Fatigue Strain cycles Range
Pull Test
Strength Parameters Yield Level Ultimate Level Strength Strength Strength Strength (MPa) Reduction (MPa) Reduction (%) (%) 546 521 480 478 469 478 361 0 0 4.6 12.1 12.5 14.1 12.5 33.8 100 595 584 577 576 569 578 468 0 0 1.8 3.0 3.2 4.4 2.9 21.3 100
F000P F005P F020P F045P F090P F135P F165P F180F
0 5,000 20,000 45,000 90,000 135,000 165,000 180,000
N/A 0 0.003 0 0.003 0 0.003 0 0.003 0 0.003 0 0.003 0 0.003
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

800
600
Ductility (J)
400
200
0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Number of Cycles
Figure 9: Influence of fatigue damage on material ductility.
was determined by calculating the area under the loaddeformation curve obtained from quasi-static tension tests and expressed in Joules. It can be observed that the effect of LCF damage after 5,000 cycles (after about 3% of LCF) caused the ductility to decrease slightly (by about 5%). Beyond this point, the ductility appeared to remain relatively constant. The sudden drop in ductility near the end of the fatigue life seems to be due to formation of larger cracks at that stage. Therefore, the fatigue-ductility interaction behaviour indicates that the ductility of structural steel used in this study decreases rapidly when the fatigue life is approached (beyond 85-90% of LCF life). Hence, the drop in ductility of structural steel used in this study may not be a matter of concern until about 8590% of the LCF life is exhausted.
CONCLUSIONS
This study was undertaken to understand the effect of accumulation of LCF damage on quasi-static material behaviours of structural steel plate near the welded connections. Based on this study, the following conclusions are made and the conclusions are limited to the type of structural steel and strain values used in this study.
1. LCF damage introduces an early non-linearity in the materials behaviour at a much lower stress value (approximately 130-250 MPa). Therefore, the stiffness of material reduces as more fatigue damage is introduced.

2. This study shows that a rapid decrease of about 1213% in yield strength and about 3% in ultimate strength occurs at a very early stage of fatigue damage accumulation. This raises a concern on how the yield strength is currently determined from virgin steel specimens and incorporated in the current design method. The interaction between the damage caused by LCF load cycles and the material strength is important and needs to be considered in the design practices. Structure Committee Report No. 435, Ship Structures Committee, Washington, DC.) 3. The drop in ductility of structural steel due to accumulation of fatigue damage may not be a matter of concern until about 85-90% of LCF life is exhausted. However, soon after a rupture may occur in the steel without much warning if it is subjected to further LCF load cycles. Dexter, R.J. and Pilarski, P.J. [2002]. Crack propagation in welded stiffened panels. Journal of Constructional Steel, Vol 58, pp 1081-1102. Faulkner, D. [1975]. A review of effective plating for use in the analysis of stiffened plating in bending and compression. Journal of Ship Research, Vol 19, No 1, pp 1-17. The authors acknowledge the financial support received from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). diffraction in HSLA-100 steel weldments. (Fifth REFERENCES International Conference on Residual Stresses, Linkping, Sweden, pp 320-325.) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) [2006a]. A 370-05: Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing of steel products. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) [2006b]. E 606-04: Standard practice for straincontrolled fatigue testing. Annual Book of ASTM Gu, X.K. and Moan, T. [2002]. Long term fatigue damage of ship structure under nonlinear wave loads. Marine Technology, Vol 39, No 2, pp 95-114. Hu, S.Z. and Jiang, L. [1998]. A finite element simulation of the test procedure of stiffened panels. Marine Structures, No 11, pp 75-99. Huther, M., Parmentier, G., and Mahrault, S. [2004]. Gao, H., Guo, H., Blackburn, J.M., and Hendricks, R.W. [1998]. Determination of residual stress by x-Ray DNV-RP-C102: structural design of offshore ships. Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway. Dexter, R.J. and Mahmoud, H.N. [2004]. Predicting stable fatigue crack propagation in stiffened panels. (Ship Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) [2002]. Recommended practice
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Knowledge limits in cumulative fatigue assessment of marine structures. Seatech - Fatigue of Marine Structures, Brest, France. James, M.N., Webster, P.J., Hughes, D.J., Chenb, Z., Ratel, N., Ting, S.P., Bruno, G., and Steuwer, A. [2006]. Correlating weld process conditions, residual strain and stress, microstructure and mechanical properties for high strength steel the role of neutron diffraction strain scanning. Materials Science and Engineering, Vol 427, pp 1626. Kim, K.S., Kim, B.O., Kim, Y.K., Lee, C.H., and Lee, S.W. [2005]. A study on the low cycle fatigue behaviour of the steel for shipbuilding industry. Key Engineering Materials, Vols 297-300, pp 10-15. Kondo, J. and Ostapenko, A. [1964]. Tests on longitudinally stiffened plate panels with fixed ends effect of lateral loading. (Report No 248.12, Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.) Osgood, W.R. [1954]. Residual stresses in metals and metal construction. Prepared for the Ship Structure Committee. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp. Wang, X., Kang, J., Kim, Y., and Wirsching, P.H. [2006]. Low cycle fatigue analysis of marine structures. (25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Hamburg, Germany.) Wikander, L., Karlsson, L., Nsstrm, M., and Webster, P. [1994]. Finite element simulation and measurement of welding residual stresses. Modeling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, Vol 2, pp 845-864.

How Strong Is Your Ship

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

How Strong Is Your Ship

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NOT FOR REPRODUCTION

NOT FOR REPRODUCTION

From the Technical Editor

Copyright Journal of Ocean Technology 2008

Wrecks, Treasure, Antiquity, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2008 47

NOT FOR REPRODUCTION