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

Bushnell, D., 1985, Computerized Buckling Analysis of Shells, Martinus Nijhoff, The Netherlands.
Das, P. K., Thavalingam, A., and Bai, Y., 2003, “Buckling and Ultimate Strength Criteria of Stiffened Shells Under Combined Loading for Reliability Analysis,” Thin-Walled Struct., 41, pp. 69–88. [CrossRef]
Mazaheri, M. J., 2005, “Elastic Buckling Analysis of Circular Stiffened Shells,” MS.c. thesis, Faculty of Marine Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Khedmati, M. R., Mazaheri, M. J., and Karimi, A. R., 2006, “Parametric Instability Analysis of Stringer Stiffened Circular Cylindrical Shells Under Axial Compression and External Hydrostatic Pressure,” Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Structures Technology, Canary Islands, Spain.
Jiang, J., and Olson, M. D., 1994, “Nonlinear Analysis of Orthogonally Stiffened Cylindrical Shells by a Super Element Approach,” Finite Elem. Anal. Design, 18, pp. 99–110. [CrossRef]
Mao, R., and Lu, G., 2001, “Plastic Buckling of Circular Cylindrical Shells Under Combined In-Plane Loads,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 38, pp. 741–757. [CrossRef]
Pinna, R., and Ronalds, B. F., 2003, “Buckling and Postbuckling of Cylindrical Shells With One End Pinned and the Other End Free,” Thin-Walled Struct., 41, pp. 507–527. [CrossRef]
Shanmugam, N. E., Mahendrakumar, M., and Thevendran, V., 2003, “Ultimate Load Behaviour of Horizontally Curved Plate Girders,” J. Constr. Steel Res., 59, pp. 509–529. [CrossRef]
Aghajari, S., Abedi, K., and Showkati, H., 2006, “Buckling and Post-Buckling Behavior of Thin-Walled Cylindrical Steel Shells With Varying Thickness Subjected to Uniform External Pressure,” Thin-Walled Struct., 44, pp. 904–909. [CrossRef]
Edalat, P., 2008, “Finite Element Study of the Effects of Longitudinal/Transverse Curvature on the Buckling/Ultimate Strength and Behavior of Deck Structure,” MS.c. thesis, Faculty of Marine Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
ULSAS, 2008, “An In-House Finite Element Computer Code for Non-Linear Analysis of Structures,” Hiroshima and Osaka Universities, Japan.
Jensen, J. J., 1997, “Report of Committee III. 1, Ultimate Strength,” Proceedings of the 13th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 233–283.
Yao, T., 2000, “Report of Committee VI. 2, Ultimate Hull Girder Strength,” Proceedings of the 14th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Nagasaki, Japan, pp. 321–391.
Toi, Y., Yuge, K., Nagayama, T., and Obata, K., 1988, “Numerical and Experimental Studies on the Crashworthiness of Structural Members,” Naval Arch. Ocean Eng., 26, pp. 91–101.
Yamada, Y., 1980, Plasticity and Visco-Elasticity, Baifukan, Tokyo, pp. 44–51.
Kanok-Nukulchai, W., 1979, “A Simple and Efficient Finite Element for General Shell Analysis,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 14, pp. 179–200. [CrossRef]
Flanagon, D. P., and Belytschko, A., 1981, “A Uniform Strain Hexahedron and Quadrilateral With Orthogonal Hourglass Control,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 17, pp. 679–706. [CrossRef]
Khedmati, M. R., 2000, “Ultimate Strength of Ship Structural Members and Systems Considering Local Pressure Loads,” Ph.D. thesis in Structural Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Yao, T., Nikolov, P. I., and Miyagawa, Y., 1992, “Influence of Welding Imperfections on Stiffness of Rectangular Plates under Thrust,” Proceedings of the IUTAM Symposium on Mechanical Effects of Welding, K.Karlsson, L. E.Lindgren, and M.Jonsson, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 261–268.

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