The purpose of this chapter is to present the fundamentals of direct ship structure analysis based on mechanics and strength of materials. Such analysis allows a rationally based design that is practical, ef\ufb01cient, and versatile, and that has already been implemented in a computer program, tested, and proven.
associated. Sometimes they are used indifferently one for the other even if there are some important differences be- tween performing a design and completing an analysis.
structure. Analysis requires information on loads and needs an initial structural scantling design. Output of the structural analysis is the structural response de\ufb01ned in terms of stresses, de\ufb02ections and strength. Then, the estimated response is compared to the design criteria. Results of this comparison as well as the objective functions (weight, cost, etc.) will show if updated (improved) scantlings are required.
lect the initial structural scantlings and to update these scant- lings from the early design stage (bidding) to the detailed design stage (construction). To perform analysis, initial de- sign is needed and analysis is required to design. This ex- plains why design and analysis are intimately linked, but are absolutely different. Of course design also relates to topology and layout de\ufb01nition.
The organization and framework of this chapter are based on the previous edition of the Ship Design and Construction (1) and on the Chapter IV of Principles of Naval Architec-
shear lag, etc. that are still valid in 2002 are partly duplicated from these 2 books. Other major references used to write this chapter are Ship Structural Design (3) also published by SNAME and the DNV 99-0394 Technical Report (4).
The present chapter is intimately linked with Chapter 11 \u2013 Parametric Design, Chapter 17 \u2013 Structural Arrange- ment and Component Design and with Chapter 19 \u2013 Reli- ability-Based Structural Design. References to these chapters will be made in order to avoid duplications. In ad- dition, as Chapter 8 deals with classi\ufb01cation societies, the present chapter will focus mainly on the direct analysis methods available to perform a rationally based structural design, even if mention is made to standard formulations from Rules to quantify design loads.
In the following sections of this chapter, steps of a global analysis are presented. Section 18.3 concerns the loads that are necessary to perform a structure analysis. Then, Sections 18.4, 18.5 and 18.6 concern, respectively, the stresses and de\ufb02ections (basic ship responses), the limit states, and the fail- ures modes and associated structural capacity. A review of the availableNumerical Analysis for Structural Design is per- formed in Section 18.7. Finally Design Criteria (Section 18.8) and Design Procedures (Section 18.9) are discussed.
But, even with the development of numerical techniques, design still remains based on the designer\u2019s experience and on previous designs. There are many designs that satisfy the strength criteria, but there is only one that is the optimum solution (least cost, weight, etc.).
\u2022 compromise between accuracy and the available time to perform the design. This is particularly challenging at the preliminary design stage. A 3D Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis would be welcome but the time is not available. For that reason, rule-based design or simpli\ufb01ed numerical analysis has to be performed.
\u2022 to limit uncertainty and reduce conservatism in design, it is important that the design methods are accurate. On the other hand, simplicity is necessary to make repeated de- sign analyses ef\ufb01cient. The results from complex analy- ses should be veri\ufb01ed by simpli\ufb01ed methods to avoid errors and misinterpretation of results (checks and balances).
\u2022 compromise between weight and cost or compromise between least construction cost, and global owner live cycle cost (including operational cost, maintenance, etc.), and
In the past, ship structural design has been largely empir- ical, based on accumulated experience and ship perform- ance, and expressed in the form of structural design codes or rules published by the various ship classi\ufb01cation soci- eties. These rules concern the loads, the strength and the design criteria and provide simpli\ufb01ed and easy-to-use for- mulas for the structural dimensions, or \u201cscantlings\u201d of a ship. This approach saves time in the design of\ufb01ce and, since the ship must obtain the approval of a classi\ufb01cation society, it also saves time in the approval process.
There are several disadvantages to a completely \u201crulebook\u201d approach to design. First, the modes of structural failure are numerous, complex, and interdependent. With such simpli\ufb01ed formulas the margin against failure remains un- known; thus one cannot distinguish between structural ad- equacy and over-adequacy. Second, and most important, these formulas involve a number of simplifying assump- tions and can be used only within certain limits. Outside of this range they may be inaccurate.
Even if direct calculation has always been performed, design based on direct analysis only became popular when numerical analysis methods became available and were cer- ti\ufb01ed. Direct analysis has become the standard procedure in aerospace, civil engineering and partly in offshore in- dustries. In ship design, classi\ufb01cation societies preferred to offer updated rules resulting from numerical analysis cali- bration. For the designer, even if the rules were continuously changing, the design remainedrule-based. There really were two different methodologies.
Hopefully, in 2002 this is no longer true. The advantages of direct analysis are so obvious that classi\ufb01cation societies include, usually as an alternative, a direct analysis procedure (numerical packages based on the \ufb01nite element method, see Table 18.VIII, Subsection 18.104.22.168). In addition, for new vessel types or non-standard dimension, such direct proce- dure is the only way to assess the structural safety. There- fore it seems that the two schools have started a long merging procedure. Classi\ufb01cation societies are now encouraging and contributing greatly to the development of direct analysis and rationally based methods. Ships are very complex struc- tures compared with other types of structures. They are sub- ject to a very wide range of loads in the harsh environment of the sea. Progress in technologies related to ship design and construction is being made daily, at an unprecedented pace. A notable example is the fact that the efforts of a ma- jority of specialists together with rapid advances in com- puter and software technology have now made it possible to analyze complex ship structures in a practical manner using structural analysis techniques centering on FEM analysis. The majority of ship designers strive to develop rational and optimal designs based on direct strength analysis methods using the latest technologies in order to realize the shipowner\u2019s requirements in the best possible way.
When carrying out direct strength analysis in order to verify the equivalence of structural strength with rule re- quirements, it is necessary for the classi\ufb01cation society to clarify the strength that a hull structure should have with respect to each of the various steps taken in the analysis process, from load estimation through to strength evalua- tion. In addition, in order to make this a practical and ef- fective method of analysis, it is necessary to give careful consideration to more rational and accurate methods of di- rect strength analysis.
Based on recognition of this need, extensive research has been conducted and a careful examination made, re- garding the strength evaluation of hull structures. The re- sults of this work have been presented in papers and reports regarding direct strength evaluation of hull structures (4,5).
Note that a rationally based design procedure requires that all design decisions (objectives, criteria, priorities, con- straints\u2026) must be made before the design starts. This is a major dif\ufb01culty of this approach.
General guidance on the modeling necessary for the struc- tural analysis is that the structural model shall provide re- sults suitable for performing buckling, yield, fatigue and
Now bringing you back...
Does that email address look wrong? Try again with a different email.