0
Research Papers: Structures and Safety Reliability

Ultimate Strength Characteristics of a Ship's Deck Stiffened Plate Structure in the Presence of Camber Parabolic Curvature

[+] Author and Article Information
Mohammad Reza Khedmati

Associate Professor
Faculty of Marine Technology,
Amirkabir University of Technology,
Tehran 15914,Iran
e-mail: khedmati@aut.ac.ir

Pedram Edalat

Lecturer
Petroleum University of Technology,
Mahmood Abad, Iran;
Amirkabir University of Technology,
Tehran 15914, Iran
e-mail: p_edalat@aut.ac.ir

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received August 10, 2010; final manuscript received March 11, 2013; published online May 24, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Thomas Fu.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 135(3), 031601 (May 24, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: OMAE-10-1083; doi: 10.1115/1.4023996 History: Received August 10, 2010; Revised March 11, 2013

The main target of this research is to identify the effects of camber parabolic curvature on the ultimate strength and behavior of stiffened plates under in-plane compression. A parametric model for the study of the problem is created. The model includes different parameters related to plate, stiffeners, and also parabolic camber curvature. Three distinct sensitivity cases are assumed. In each sensitivity case, many different models are analyzed and their ultimate strengths are obtained using an in-house finite element program. Ultimate strength and behavior of the models with different ratios of parabolic curvature are compared to each other and interpreted.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Curvature of ship deck plate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Extent of the models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Transverse and Longitudinal edges of the models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Finite element discretization of curved stiffened plate and incorporating parameters. (a) Initial deflection in the plate. (b) Initial deflection in the stiffener. (c) Angular distortion of the stiffener.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effect of transverse frames on the average stress-average strain relationship of the curved stiffened plate (plate: L = a = 2631.6 mm, b = 3800 mm, c = 76 mm, t = 11 mm; with five longitudinal stiffeners: 210.95 × 10 mm; and with two transverse frames: 421.9 × 10 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 0.43,αs = 0.52,βs = 20.81,d/L = 0.07

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 0.47,αs = 0.48,βs = 19.05,d/L = 0.08

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Deflection mode at the ultimate strength level for the model ID1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 0.82,αs = 0.27,βs = 10.86,d/L = 0.14

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 1.64,αs = 0.14,βs = 5.43,d/L = 0.28

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 1.27,αs = 0.19,βs = 7.69,d/L = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 2.29,αs = 0.16,βs = 9.54,d/L = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 2.72,αs = 0.23,βs = 5.32,d/L = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 1.27,αs = 0.32,βs = 31.58,d/L = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 2.29,αs = 0.27,βs = 47.46,d/L = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 1.06,αs = 0.90,βs = 296.55,d/L = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of average stress-average strain relationships for curved stiffened plate models with βP = 2.54,αs = 0.95,βs = 960.79,d/L = 0.3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Idealized distribution of welding residual stresses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

General steps in order to produce welding residual stresses inside the analyzed models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

The effect of welding residual stresses on the average stress-average strain relationship for the curved stiffened plate model with c/b = 0.05,d/L = 0.05,βP = 0.4,αs = 0.55,βs = 23.97,σY= 235 MPa, σt= 235 MPa, σc= 192.35 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

The effect of welding residual stresses on the average stress-average strain relationship for the curved stiffened plate model with c/b = 0.1,d/L = 0.3,βP = 2.29,αs = 0.27,βs = 47.45,σY= 235 MPa, σt= 235 MPa, σc= 56.7 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

The effect of welding residual stresses on the average stress-average strain relationship for the curved stiffened plate model with c/b = 0.15,d/L = 0.24,βP = 1.64,αs = 0.27,βs = 41.6,σY= 235 MPa, σt= 235 MPa, σc= 36.42 MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

The effect of different types of curvature on the average stress-average strain relationship for the curved stiffened plate model with d/L = 0.3,βP = 2.54,αs = 0.95,βs = 960.79

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In