asa

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

15 views

asa

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- indian standards
- etabs modelare ferm metalica
- Shear Force and Bending Moment
- Surovek Et Al. - Guidelines for the Use of Direct Second-Order Inelastic Analysis - 2007
- Examples Bending
- Course Material
- Simply Supported UDL Beam Formulas _ Bending Moment Equations
- Plate Girders
- bpMOS 2010
- Buckling Curved Panel
- Design Procedure of Beams
- Compression Members
- Cruciform Sections + NSCApril06_Tech
- 1
- Pure Bending
- On elastic–plastic buckling of cones
- Stresses to Which Ship is Subjected
- Section 2 Capacity
- Design of Pedastal
- Stress Analysis of Deformed Storage Tank Shell

You are on page 1of 20

Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

Analysis on the ultimate longitudinal strength

of a bulk carrier by using a simpli"ed method

Yuren Hu*, Ainian Zhang, Jiulong Sun

School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, 1954 Huashan Road,

Shanghai 200030, People's Republic of China

Shanghai Rules and Research Institute, China Classixcation Society, 1234 Pudong Ave., Shanghai 200135,

People's Republic of China

Received 16 May 2000; received in revised form 28 August 2000; accepted 21 September 2000

Abstract

The ultimate longitudinal strength of a typical bulk carrier is analyzed by using a simpli"ed

method. The moment}curvature curve, the ultimate bending moment and the location of the

instantaneous neutral axis at ultimate state are calculated for both hogging and sagging

conditions of the ship under vertical bending. The stress distribution over the hull cross-section

at ultimate state is also obtained. The ultimate strength of the ship hull under combined vertical

and horizontal bending moments is further investigated. An interaction curve is obtained

according to the results of a series of calculation for the hull subjected to bending conditions

with di!erent angles of curvature. It is found that the interaction curve is asymmetrical because

the hull cross-section is not symmetrical about the horizontal axis and the behavior of the

structural members under compression is di!erent from that under tension due to the non-

linearity caused by buckling. The angle of the resultant bending moment vector and that of the

curvature vector are di!erent in general cases. An interaction equation suitable for bulk carriers

is proposed based on the results of the analyzed ship. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights

reserved.

Keywords: Ultimate longitudinal strength; Bulk carrier; Simpli"ed method; Combined vertical and

horizontal bending; Interaction equation

0951-8339/01/$- see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 9 5 1 - 8 3 3 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 3 - 0

Nomenclature

a length of element, plate or sti!ener

A

EG

cross-sectional area of element i

A

b plate width

E Young's modulus

f deduction factor representing e!ect of plate buckling mode

G shear modulus

I

N"

polar moment of inertia of sti!ener cross-section about axis of rotation

I

S "

sectorial moment of inertia of sti!ener cross-section about axis of rotation

J torsional moment of inertia of sti!ener cross-section

k

P

spring sti!ness per unit length of rotational restraint provided by plate

M

N

plastic moment

M

S

ultimate longitudinal bending moment

M

W

"rst yield moment

M

7

vertical bending moment (about the Y-axis)

M

8

horizontal bending moment (about the Z-axis)

p lateral pressure

p

P

proportional limit of material

t plate thickness

t

U

web thickness of sti!ener

z

C

distance from elastic neutral axis to base line

z

S

distance from instantaneous neutral axes at ultimate state to base line

:

, :

`

parameters of interaction equation

[ plate slenderness

[

"

sectional property of sti!ener

o

N

initial de#ection of plate

c strain

c dimensionless strain with respect to yield strain of sti!ener

c

?

average strain of element

c

W

yield strain of material

c

S

average strain at ultimate state

p factor of residual tension stress block width

0 angle of curvature vector

magnitude of curvature vector

z slenderness of panel

j parameter representing lateral pressure acting on panel

parameter representing initial de#ection of panel

j

C

e!ective radius of gyration of panel cross-section

j

S

radius of gyration of panel cross-section at ultimate state

o stress

312 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

o dimensionless stress with respect to yield stress of sti!ener

oPB

?

average stress of plate with e!ects of residual stresses and initial de#ections

o

?F

average stress of hard corner element

o

?N

average stress of panel element

o

?Q

average stress of sti!ener

o

AP

buckling stress of plate

o

W

yield stress of material

o

P

residual stress

o

2AP

inelastic tripping stress of sti!ener

o

2#

elastic tripping stress of sti!ener

angle of resultant bending moment vector

1. Introduction

The longitudinal strength is the most important criteria for structural design of ship

hulls, which is generally represented by the maximum bending moment that the hull

cross-section can withstand. The linear elastic theory has been employed to predict

the longitudinal strength of the ship hull for years. According to this theory, the

maximum bending moment that the hull cross-section can withstand is equal to the

bending moment corresponding to the "rst yield, that is, the bending moment when

the maximumstress on the hull cross-section reaches the yield stress of the material. In

design practice, an allowable stress is used instead of the yield stress, which corres-

ponds to a safety factor against yielding.

However, researches in the last 20 years have revealed that the linear elastic

theory is not adequate in estimating the longitudinal strength of the ship hull. It is

necessary to take into account the following factors: (1) various possible failure

modes including buckling, (2) progressive and interactive behavior of the failure of

structural members, (3) redistribution of the loads on the hull cross-section and (4)

residual strength of structural members after buckling and even after collapse. By

considering these factors, the maximum bending moment that the hull cross-section

can withstand is designated by the ultimate longitudinal strength, which represents

the maximum load-carrying capacity of the ship hull under longitudinal bending

[1}4]. Obviously, calculation of the ultimate longitudinal strength is a non-linear

problem in which both the non-linearity of material and the non-linearity of geometry

are involved.

There are three main methods to calculate the ultimate longitudinal strength of the

ship hull, namely, the non-linear "nite element method (NFEM) [5,6], the idealized

structural unit method (ISUM) [7,8] and the simpli"ed method (SM) [9]. In addition,

the empirical equations regressed from the results of theoretical calculation or derived

theoretically under certain assumptions are also of signi"cance in practical applica-

tion [10,11]. Among these methods, the simpli"ed method based on the discrete

analytical model of the hull cross-section has proved to be a simple and e!ective

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 313

method with adequate accuracy. It has drawn wide attention in the "eld of naval

architecture.

In this paper, the ultimate longitudinal strength of a typical bulk carrier is analyzed

by using the simpli"ed method. First, vertical bending is considered. The

moment}curvature curves, the values of the ultimate longitudinal bending moments

and the locations of the instantaneous neutral axes at ultimate states are obtained for

both hogging and sagging conditions. The stress distribution over the hull cross-

section at the ultimate state is also obtained and discussed. Secondly, the ultimate

strength under combined vertical and horizontal bending moments is considered. An

interaction curve is obtained according to the results of a series of calculation for the

hull subjected to bending conditions with di!erent angles of curvature vector. The

characteristics of the interaction curve are discussed in connection with the character-

istics of the hull structure of the bulk carrier. Finally, an interaction equation suitable

for bulk carriers is proposed.

2. Features of the method

2.1. Procedure of calculation

The simpli"ed method was "rst proposed by Smith [9] in 1970 s. This method

was further developed and applied by other researchers [12}20]. The authors

recently proposed a simpli"ed method and developed a corresponding com-

puter program, UStrength [21]. The program is employed in this paper to analyze

the ultimate longitudinal strength of a bulk carrier by using the simpli"ed

method.

The hull cross-section, generally the midship cross-section, is divided into

`panel elementsa and `hard-corner elementsa, to construct an analytical model in

the simpli"ed method. Calculation of the ultimate longitudinal strength by using

the simpli"ed method follows the following procedure. Let the curvature increase

by small increments. At each curvature, calculate the strain of every element according

to the assumption of plane cross-section. Then determine the stress of the elements

from the average stress}strain relationship of the elements. Take the moment of

stress on each element about the instantaneous neutral axis. The resultant moment

of all elements is the bending moment of the cross-section at the considered curvature.

After a series of calculation at di!erent curvatures, a moment}curvature curve

can be obtained and the moment corresponding to the point on the curve with a

zero gradient is the ultimate longitudinal bending moment of the cross-section (see

Fig. 3). In the above procedure, the location of the instantaneous neutral axis should

be determined by iteration or trial-and-error according to the condition that the sum

of the stresses on all elements of the cross-section equals zero.

The accuracy of the simpli"ed method depends largely on the accuracy of the

average stress}strain relationship of the elements. The main features of the average

stress}strain curves of the panel element and the hard-corner element in the method of

the present paper are described as follows.

314 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

Fig. 1. Panel element and hard-corner element.

2.2. Behavior of panel element

A panel element is de"ned as a combination of a sti!ener and the plate attached to

it, as shown in Fig. 1(a). In this panel element model, the plates on the left and right

sides of the sti!ener are assumed to be di!erent both in geometry and in material. This

is of signi"cance in some cases, for instance, where sti!eners are unequally spaced

and/or plates with di!erent thickness or with di!erent yield stress connect.

To study the behavior of the panel element, it is necessary "rst to study the

non-linear behavior of the plate, which is represented by the average stress}strain

curve. In the present method, the average stress}strain curves proposed by the authors

[22] for rectangular long and wide plates with the e!ects of residual stresses and initial

de#ections are employed. The average stress}strain curves are generated from the

design formula proposed by Faulkner [23] after introducing an e!ective slenderness

of the plate in terms of the average strain. The e!ects of residual stresses and initial

distortions were also considered. The assumption proposed by Valsgard [24] is

adopted in generating the average stress}strain curve for wide plates.

When a panel element is under compression, there are three failure modes, namely,

(1) yield of the sti!ener; (2) elastic or inelastic #exural buckling of the sti!ener}plate

combination as a beam-column, and (3) tripping of the sti!ener about its line of

attachment to the plate. The non-linear behavior of the panel element is represented

by the load-end shortening curve expressed as follows:

o

?N

(c

?

)"

o

?Q

(c

?

)A

Q

#

`

o PB

?

(c

?

/c

W

)o

W

b

#

`

o PB

?`

(c

?

/c

W`

)o

W`

b

`

t

`

A

Q

#

`

b

#

`

b

`

t

`

(1)

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 315

where o

?Q

is the dimensionless stress of the sti!ener, which is calculated according to the

failure mode. o PB

?

is the average stress of the plate, in which the e!ects of residual stresses

and initial de#ections are taken into account. A

Q

is the cross-sectional area of the

sti!ener. b and t are width and thickness of the plate. o

W

and c

W

are the dimensionless

yield stress and yield strain of the plate with respect to the yield stress and the yield

strain of the sti!ener, respectively, i.e. o

W

"o

W

/o

W1

and c

W

"c

W

/c

W1

. Subscripts 1 and

2 denote the plates on the left and right sides of the sti!ener, respectively.

For the failure mode of beam-column type #exural buckling, the load-end shorten-

ing curve of the panel element is derived by a method similar to that proposed by

Gordo and Guedes Soares [25]. After introducing a strain-governed e!ective slender-

ness of the panel element, the load-end shortening curve is generated from the theory

of tangent modulus and the Ostenfeld}Bleich parabola [26]. The e!ect of residual

stresses is considered in generating the average stress}strain relationship of the plate

part of the element. The e!ect of residual stresses on the sti!ener is inherently included

in the Ostenfeld}Bleich parabola. However, the Ostenfeld}Bleich parabola cannot

cope with the e!ects of initial de#ections and lateral pressures. So, if there is initial

de#ection or lateral pressure, the Perry}Robertson equation is employed to derive the

load-end shortening curve of the panel element [26,27]. The load-end shortening

relationship can be expressed as

o

?1

(c

?

)"

c

?

1

2

1!j#

1#

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

1

4

1!j#

1#

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

`

!

1!j

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

, 0)c

?

)c

S

,

c

?

1

2

1!j#

1#

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

1

4

1!j#

1#

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

`

!

1!j

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

, c

?

*c

S

,

(2)

for the panel element bending towards the plate side, and

o

?1

(c

?

)"

c

?

1

2

o

WKGL

!j#

1#

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

1

4

o

WKGL

!j#

1#

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

`

!

o

WKGL

!j

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

, 0)c

?

(c

S

,

c

?

1

2

o

WKGL

!j#

1#

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

1

4

o

WKGL

!j#

1#

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

`

!

o

WKGL

!j

z`

j

C

j

S

` c

S

c

?

, c

?

*c

S

,

(3)

316 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

for the panel element bending towards the sti!ener side. In the above two equations,

and j are parameters related to the initial de#ection and the lateral pressure,

respectively [4]. z is the slenderness of the panel element, j

C

is the e!ective radius of

gyration of the panel element at given strain level. j

S

is the radius of gyration at the

ultimate state. c

S

"c

S

/c

W1

is the dimensionless average strain at the ultimate state,

o

"min(o

W

,o

W`

) is the dimensionless yield stress of the plate. Note that , j and

j

C

vary with the average strain level. The detailed derivation of Eqs. (2) and (3) can be

found in [26] and [27].

In ship hull structures, the sti!eners usually have thin-walled open cross-sections,

such as T, angle cross-sections. Due to the low torsional rigidity of the thin-walled

open cross-section, tripping is likely to occur prior to beam-column-type #exural

buckling. A method to estimate the elastic critical tripping stress with the e!ect of

lateral pressure is proposed recently by the authors [28]. Generally, the elastic critical

tripping stress is obtained by solving an eigenvalue problem. If the absolute value of

the lateral pressure is not very high, the following approximate equation can be

employed.

o

2 #

" min

K`

2

EI

S "

(m/a)`#GJ#[k

P

#2q[

"

(`m`!3)/12](a/m)`

I

N"

#k

P

f/o

AP

(a/m)`

(4)

where I

S "

and I

N "

are the sectorial and polar moments of inertia of the sti!ener

cross-section about the axis of rotation, respectively, J is the torsional moment of

inertia of the cross-section, [

"

is another sectional property whose de"nition can be

found in [28], k

P

is the spring sti!ness per unit length of the rotational restraint on the

axis of rotation provided by the plate, q is the lateral pressure, f is the deduction

factor representing the e!ect of the plate buckling mode. o

AP

is the buckling stress of

the plate.

The inelastic critical stress of tripping is obtained in a similar way to that used for

inelastic beam-column-type #exural buckling by using the tangent modulus theory,

that is

oN

2 AP

"

o

2 AP

o

W1

"1!p

P

(1!p

P

)

o

W1

o

2 #

, (5)

where p

P

is the proportional limit of the material.

The load shedding in the failure mode of sti!ener tripping is assumed to have the

following pattern:

o

?1

(c

?

)"o

2AP

c

2

c

?

"

o `

2AP

c

?

(6)

2.3. Behavior of hard-corner element

The hard-corner element is composed of several plates and possibly a sti!ener at the

corner, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Generally, it is thought that the hard-corner element can

fully withstand the load, that is to say, its load-end shortening curve is the same as the

stress}strain curve of the elastic-perfectly plastic material. However, it has been noted

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 317

Table 1

Principal dimensions of 34,000 ton bulk carrier

Length overall 200.00 m

Length between perpendiculars 191.00 m

Breadth molded 23.50 m

Depth molded 14.90 m

Draft 10.68 m

Block coe$cient 0.8619

Frame spacing 0.80 m

that though #exural buckling will not occur for the whole hard-corner element, the

plates composing the element are likely to buckle and thus cannot fully withstand

the load. For this reason, a hard-corner model is proposed by the authors to include

the e!ect of the buckling of the plates [26]. In this model, the average stress}strain

relationship of the plates is similar to that of plates in the panel element and the

average stress}strain relationship of the sti!ener is the same as that of the elastic-

perfectly plastic material. The load-end shortening curve of the hard-corner can be

expressed as

o

?F

(c

?

)"

o

?Q

(c

?

)A

Q

#

`

LN

G

o PB

?G

(c

?

/c

WG

)o

WG

b

G

t

G

A

Q

#

`

LN

G

b

G

t

G

. (7)

The main di!erence between Eqs. (1) and (7) is that o

?Q

(c

?

) in Eq. (1) is determined from

the load-end shortening relationship according to di!erent failure modes of the panel

element, while o

?Q

(c

?

) in Eq. (7) is determined from a stress}strain relationship the

same as that of the elastic-perfectly plastic material. That is to say, only one failure

mode of yielding is possible for the hard-corner element as a whole. The results from

this model have proven to be satisfactory [26].

3. Ultimate longitudinal strength of a bulk carrier

A 34000 ton bulk carrier is analyzed by using the UStrength program, which is

based on the simpli"ed method. The principal dimensions of the ship are listed in

Table 1. The midship cross-section is shown in Fig. 2. The dimensions of the

longitudinals are listed in Table 2. High-strength steel is used for structures at deck

and at upper part of the topside tank. The yield stress of HST is 315 MPa. Otherwise,

the yield stress of the material is 235 MPa.

The cross-section is divided into 98 panel elements and 34 hard-corner elements in

the calculation. The e!ects of residual stresses and initial de#ections are taken into

account. The weld residual stress is estimated by the following equation.

o

P

"

o

P

o

W

"

2pt

b!2pt

, (8)

318 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

Fig. 2. Midship cross-section of 34,000ton bulk carrier.

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 319

Table 2

Dimensions of longitudinals

Stif No. Type Dimensions (mm) Yield stress (MPa)

1 Angle bar 350;100;12/17 315

2 Angle bar 300;90;13/17 315

3 Angle bar 250;90;12/16 235

4 Angle bar 250;90;10/15 315

5 Flat bar 200;20 235

6 Flat bar 120;11 235

7 Flat bar 220;11 235

8 T bar 180;12#100;16 235

9 T bar 150;12#100;16 235

where p is the factor of residual tension stress block width. For ordinary plates in

as-weld ship structures, it is suggested by Faulkner that p"3.0}4.5 [29]. In the

calculation for the present bulk carrier, p"4.0 is chosen. The initial de#ection of

plates is estimated by the equation proposed by Faulkner [29], i.e.

o

M

N

"

o

N

t

"0.12[`

t

U

t

, t

U

)t, (9)

where [ is the slenderness of the plate and t

U

is the thickness of the sti!ener web.

First consider vertical bending of the ship hull. A series of calculation is performed

by increasing the curvature by small increments for both hogging (0"03) and sagging

(0"1803) conditions. The moment}curvature curve obtained from the calculation is

shown in Fig. 3. For comparison, the moment}curvature curve without the e!ects of

residual stresses, initial de#ections and lateral pressures is also plotted in the "gure.

The ultimate longitudinal bending moments of the ship, M

S

, under hogging and

sagging conditions can be identi"ed from the moment}curvature curve, which are

listed in Table 3 together with the curvatures corresponding to the ultimate states,

S

.

The "rst yield moment, M

W

, and the plastic moment, M

N

, are also listed in the table.

The ratios of the ultimate bending moments to the "rst yield moment and the

plastic moment are listed in the table too. The values without the e!ects of residual

stresses, initial de#ections and lateral pressures are also listed in the table. It can be

seen that the ultimate longitudinal bending moments will be over-estimated without

the e!ects of residual stresses, initial de#ections and lateral pressures. The relative

errors are 20.99% and 13.27% for hogging and sagging, respectively, for the present

ship.

Variation of the location of the instantaneous neutral axis during bending is shown

in Fig. 4. It can be seen from the "gure that when the curvature is small, The hull

bends within the elastic range and the location of the instantaneous neutral axis is

basically unchanged. The small di!erence of the location under hogging or sagging

from that of the elastic neutral axis at zero curvature is due to the e!ects of residual

stresses and initial de#ections that are taken into account in the calculation. No

320 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

Fig. 3. Moment-curvature curve of 34,000 ton bulk carrier.

residual stress and initial de#ection is considered in calculating the elastic neutral axis

at zero curvature. The distance from the elastic neutral axis to the base line is

z

C

"6.17 m. When the curvature becomes large enough to cause buckling of the

compressed structural members, the location of the instantaneous neutral axis cha-

nges. It moves towards the deck in hogging condition, while towards the bottom in

sagging condition. The distances from the instantaneous neutral axes at the ultimate

state to the base line is z

S

"8.397 m in the hogging condition and z

S

"4.454 m in the

sagging condition.

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 321

Table 3

Results of 34,000 ton bulk carrier

With e!ects of residual stresses, etc. Without e!ects of residual stresses, etc.

Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging

M

W

(;10" kNm) 2.519 2.519

M

N

(;10" kNm) 3.950 3.950

M

S

(;10" kNm) 2.780 2.778 3.169 3.361

S

(;10`) 2.83 2.95 2.28 2.34

M

S

/M

W

1.104 1.103 1.258 1.334

M

S

/M

N

0.704 0.703 0.802 0.851

Fig. 4. Location of neural axis of hull cross-section.

The stress distributions over the hull cross-section at the ultimate states in both

hogging and sagging conditions are plotted in Fig. 5. The stress unit in the "gure is

MPa. It should be noted that the stress in the "gure is the average stress of the

elements calculated by the simpli"ed method, which does not re#ect the di!erence

between the sti!ener and the plates that compose the element. It can be found in the

"gure that at the ultimate state in hogging, panels at the bottom of the hull and in the

lower part of the side shell have buckled. Stresses on these locations are approxim-

ately equal to the critical stress of the panels. While structural members on the deck, in

the topside tank and in the upper part of the side shell are still in the elastic range with

a linear stress distribution. At the ultimate state in sagging, panels on the deck, in the

topside tank and in the upper part of the side shell have buckled. Stresses on these

locations are approximately equal to the critical stress of the panels. On the other

hand, structural members at the bottom of the hull and in the lower part of the side

shell are still in the elastic range with a linear stress distribution.

322 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

Fig. 5. Stress distribution under ultimate state.

Fig. 6. Load-end shortening curves of panel elements in #exural buckling mode.

The results show that most of the panels that fail in compression are in the #exural

buckling mode. Typical load-end shortening curves of the panel elements in the

#exural buckling mode are shown in Fig. 6. A few panels fail in the tripping mode. For

example, the panel elements on the side girders at the bottom trip at the ultimate state

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 323

Fig. 7. Load-end shortening curve of panel element in tripping mode.

in hogging (see Fig. 5). Typical load-end shortening curve of the panel element in the

tripping mode is shown in Fig. 7.

4. Ultimate strength of the bulk carrier under combined vertical and horizontal bending

moments

Further consider the ultimate strength of the 34000ton bulk carrier under com-

bined vertical and horizontal bending moments. An interaction curve is obtained from

a series of calculation for the hull bending with di!erent angles of the curvature vector

from hogging of vertical bending (the angle of the curvature vector 0"03) through

horizontal bending (0"903) to sagging of vertical bending (0"1803). The interaction

curve is plotted in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the interaction curve in the "gure is

asymmetrical with the following characteristics.

(1) When the hull is under horizontal bending, that is, the angle of the curvature

vector is 0"903, the angle of the resultant bending moment vector, , is not equal

to 903 due to the e!ect of non-linearity. When 0"903, there exist both horizontal

(about the Z-axis) and vertical (about the Y-axis) bending moments on the hull

cross-section. For the present bulk carrier, when 0"903, the horizontal and

vertical bending moments are M

8F""

"3.895;10" kNm and M

7F""

"

0.195;10" kNm, respectively. The angle of the resultant bending moment is

"86.743.

(2) If the hull cross-section is subjected only to horizontal bending moment, that is,

the angle of the resultant bending moment vector is "903, then the angle of the

curvature vector is not necessarily equal to 903. The angle of the curvature vector

is 0"973 when "903 for the present ship. Thus, both horizontal and vertical

bending will occur under the action of a pure horizontal bending moment.

324 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

Fig. 8. Interaction curve for ultimate strength of 34,000ton bulk carrier under combined vertical and

horizontal bending moments.

(3) The maximum value of the horizontal bending moment occurs neither at 0"903

nor at "903. For the bulk carrier analyzed in this paper, the maximum

horizontal bending moment occurs at 0"723 and "81.443. The maximum

value of the horizontal bending moment is M

8S

"3.972;10" kNm. At the

moment the horizontal bending moment reaches its maximum, there exists

a vertical bending moment on the hull cross-section, which is

MH

7

"0.598;10" kNm for the present ship. If "903, when the vertical bending

moment is equal to zero obviously, the horizontal bending moment for the

present bulk carrier is M

8P""

"3.820;10" kNm, which is not the maximum.

(4) The interaction curve can be divided into two parts. The part on the left side of the

point MH

7

and that on the right side have di!erent shapes.

The reason for the asymmetry of the interaction curve is that the hull cross-section

of the bulk carrier is not symmetrical about the horizontal axis and the behavior of the

structural members under compression is di!erent from that under tension due to the

non-linearity caused by buckling. Therefore, the shape of the interaction curve of bulk

carriers is di!erent from that of single hull oil tankers with hull cross-sections basically

symmetrical about the horizontal axis.

A further discussion can be made on the relationship between the angle of the

curvature vector and the angle of the resultant bending moment vector. If the location

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 325

Fig. 9. Relationship between angle of bending moment and angle of curvature.

of the instantaneous neutral axis is given, then the horizontal and vertical bending

moments on the hull cross-section can be written as.

M

7

"

L

G

z

G

(!o

G

(c

G

))A

EG

,

M

8

"!

L

G

y

G

(!o

G

(c

G

))A

EG

.

(10)

The magnitude and the angle of the resultant bending moment vector are

M"(M`

7

#M`

8

, "arctan

M

8

M

7

, (11)

respectively. In the above equations, the stress o

G

is determined by the strain c

G

and the

strain is further determined by the magnitude and the angle 0 of the curvature

vector. When one or more structural members buckle under compression, the

stress}strain relationship becomes non-linear, therefore, the angle of the curvature

vector and the angle of the resultant bending moment vector are not the same in

general cases. The relationship between the angle of the curvature vector and the angle

of the resultant bending moment vector for the present bulk carrier is plotted in Fig. 9.

The ultimate strength under combined vertical and horizontal bending moments

for another 74,000 ton bulk carrier is also investigated. The resulted interaction curve

is plotted in Fig. 10, which has an asymmetrical shape similar to that of the 34,000 ton

bulk carrier. The ultimate vertical bending moments in hogging and sagging condi-

tions are M

7SFME

"5.536;10" kNm and M

7SQ?E

"3.957;10" kNm, respectively.

The horizontal and vertical bending moments at 0"903 are M

8F""

"6.561;

10" kNm and M

7F""

"0.628;10" kNm, respectively, with the angle of the result-

ant bending moment being "84.543.When the angle of the resultant bending

moment vector is "903, the angle of the curvature vector is 0"1043. The

326 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

Fig. 10. Interaction curve for ultimate strength of 74,000 ton bulk carrier under combined vertical and

horizontal bending moments.

maximum horizontal bending moment occurs at 0"723 and "79.003, with a

maximum value of M

8S

"6.742;10" kNm and a corresponding vertical bending

moment M

H

7

"1.311;10" kNm. The horizontal bending moment at "903 is

M

8F""

"6.276;10" kNm.

Mansour et al. have proposed an empirical interaction equation based on the

calculated results for one container ship, one tanker and one cruiser, which is [30]

M

7

M

7S

#0.8

M

8

M

8S

`

"1.0,

M

7

M

7S

'

M

8

M

8S

M

8

M

8S

#0.8

M

7

M

7S

`

"1.0,

M

7

M

7S

M

8

M

8S

. (12)

Another interaction equation was proposed by Gordo and Guedes Soares based on

the results for four tankers, which is [31,32]

M

7

M

7S

?

#

M

8

M

8S

?

"1.0, 1.50(:(1.66. (13)

These two equations can "t the calculated data well for oil tankers, but since they are

in symmetrical forms, they cannot re#ect the asymmetry of the interaction relation-

ship for bulk carriers. According to the results shown in Figs. 8 and 10 for the 34,000

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 327

and 74,000 ton bulk carriers considered in this paper, the following equation is

now proposed.

M

7

!M

H

7

M

7SFME

!M

H

7

M

8

M

8S

"1.0, M

7

*M

H

7

,

M

7

!M

H

7

M

7SQ?E

!M

H

7

?

`

#

M

8

M

8S

?

`

"1.0, M

7

(M

H

7

. (14)

where M

7SFME

and M

7SQ?E

are the ultimate bending moments in hogging and sagging

conditions of the vertical bending. The vertical bending moment is de"ned as positive

in hogging and negative in sagging in the above equation.

For the 34,000 ton bulk carrier, when the parameters are taken as :

"1.5 and

:

`

"1.6, the curve generated from Eq. (14) is in fairly good agreement with the data

calculated from the simpli"ed method as shown in Fig. 8. For the 74,000 ton bulk

carrier, the curve with :

"1.4 and :

`

"1.8 "ts the calculated data well as shown in

Fig. 10. More reasonable values of the parameters :

and :

`

can be obtained by

statistics of the results from a series of calculation for more bulk carriers. For the

purpose of comparison, curves from Eqs. (12) and (13) are also plotted in Figs. 8

and 10.

By employing Eq. (14), an interaction equation can be established for any bulk

carrier by calculations for hogging and sagging of vertical bending and searching for

the angle corresponding to the maximum horizontal bending moment, which is

0"723 for the bulk carriers considered in the present paper.

5. Conclusions

The simpli"ed method based on the discrete hull cross-section model is a simple

and e!ective method to estimate the ultimate longitudinal strength of ship hulls.

A 34,000 ton bulk carrier is analyzed by using a simpli"ed method in this paper. The

moment}curvature curves, the values of the ultimate longitudinal bending moments,

the locations of the instantaneous neutral axes at the ultimate states and the stress

distribution over the hull cross-section at the ultimate states are obtained for both

hogging and sagging conditions of vertical bending. The ultimate strength of the ship

under combined vertical and horizontal bending moments is also investigated. An

interaction curve is obtained according to the results of a series of calculation for the

hull subjected to bending conditions with di!erent curvature angles. It is found that

the interaction curve is asymmetrical because the hull cross-section is not symmetrical

about the horizontal axis and the behavior of the structural members under compres-

sion is di!erent from that under tension due to the non-linearity caused by buckling.

The angle of the resultant bending moment vector and that of the curvature vector are

di!erent in general cases. An interaction equation suitable for bulk carriers is pro-

posed based on the results of the analyzed 34,000 ton bulk carrier and another

74,000ton bulk carrier.

328 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their appreciation to the China Classi"cation Society

for supporting this research. However, any views in this paper are those of the authors

and do not necessarily re#ect the o$cial views of the CCS.

References

[1] International Ship and O!shore Structure Congress. Report of Committee III.1. Proceedings of 11th

ISSC. Wuxi, China, 1991.

[2] International Ship and O!shore Structure Congress. Report of Committee III.1 Ductile Collapse.

Proceedings of 12th ISSC. St. John's, Canada, 1994.

[3] International Ship and O!shore Structure Congress. Reports of Committee II.1 Quasi-Static Re-

sponse and Committee III.1 (Ultimate Strength). Proceedings of 13th ISSC. Trondheim, Norway,

1997.

[4] Hughes OF. Ship structural design: a rationally-based, computer-aided optimization approach. New

York: Wiley, 1983.

[5] Chen YK, Kutt LM, Piaszczyk CM, Bieniek BP. Ultimate strength of ship structures. Trans SNAME

1983;91:149}68.

[6] Kutt LM, Piaszczyk CM, Chen YK, Liu D. Evaluation of the longitudinal ultimate strength of

various ship hull con"gurations. Trans SNAME 1985;93:33}53.

[7] Ueda Y, Rashed SMH. The idealized structural unit method and its application to deep girder

structures. Comput Struct 1984;18(2:):227}93.

[8] Paik JK. Ultimate hull girder strength analysis using idealized structural unit method. Proceedings of

International Symposiumon Practical Design in Shipbuilding, PRADS, Newcastle, UK, Vol. II, 1992.

p. 778}791.

[9] Smith CS. In#uence of local compressive failure on ultimate longitudinal strength of ship's hull.

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding. Tokyo, 1977.

p. 73}79.

[10] Frieze PA, Lin YT. Ship longitudinal strength modelling for reliability analysis. Proceedings of the

Marine Structural Inspection, Maintenance and Monitoring Symposium, SSC/SNAME, Arlington,

VA, 1991: III.C. p. 1}20.

[11] Mansour A, Wirsching P, Luckett M, Plumpton A et al. Assessment of reliability of ship structures.

SSC-398, Ship Structure Committee, 1996.

[12] Billingsley D W. Hull girder response to extreme bending moments, Proceeding of the "fth STAR

Symposium, SNAME, Coronado, California, 1980. p. 51}63.

[13] Dow RS, Hugill RC, Clarke JD, et al. Evaluation of ultimate ship hull strength. Proceedings on

Extreme Loads Response Symposium, SNAME, 1981. p. 133}47.

[14] Adamchak JC. An approximate method for estimating the collapse of a ship's hull in preliminary

design. Proceedings of the Ship Structure Symposium, SNAME, Arlington, VA, 1984. p. 37}61.

[15] Rutherford SE, Caldwell JB. Ultimate longitudinal strength of ships: a case study. Trans SNAME,

1990;98:441}71.

[16] Frieze P A, Lin Y T. Ship longitudinal strength modelling for reliability analysis. Proceedings of the

Marine Structural Inspection, Maintenance and Monitoring Symposium, SSC/SNAME, Arlington,

VA, vol. III.C. 1991. p. 1}20.

[17] Yao T, Nikolov PI. Progressive collapse analysis of a ship's hull under longitudinal bending. J Soc

Naval Arch Japan, 1991;170:449}61.

[18] Beghin D, Jastrzebski T, Taczala M. RESULT-A computer code for evaluation of the ultimate

longitudinal strength of hull girder. Proceedings of the sixth International Symposium on Practical

Design of Ships and Mobile Units, 1995. p. II832}43.

[19] Hansen AM. Strength of midship sections. Marine Struct 1996;9:471}94.

Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330 329

[20] Gordo JM, Guedes Soares C, Faulkner D. Approximate assessment of the ultimate longitudinal

strength of the hull girder. J Ship Res 1996;40:60}9.

[21] Sun J, Hu Y. A simpli"ed method to estimate the ultimate longitudinal bending moment of ship hulls

and development of the computer code. Shipbuilding of China, 2001, to be published.

[22] Hu Y, Sun J. An approximate method to generate average stress-strain curve with the e!ect of residual

stresses for rectangular plates under uniaxial compression in ship structures. Marine Struct

1999;12(9}10:):585}603.

[23] Faulkner D. A review of e!ective plating for use in the analysis of sti!ened plating in bending and

compression. J Ship Res 1975;19:1}17.

[24] Valsgaard S. Numerical design prediction of the capacity of plates in biaxial inplane compression.

Comput Struct 1980;12:729}39.

[25] Gordo J M, Guedes Soares C. Approximate load shortening curves for sti!ened plates under uniaxial

compression. In: Faulkner, D., Cowling, M.J., Incecik, A., Das, P.K., editors. Integrity of o!shore

structures-5. EMAS, Arly, 1993. p. 189}211.

[26] Hu Y, Sun J. Simpli"ed method to estimate the ultimate longitudinal bending moment of ship hulls

and the computer program based on the simpli"ed method. Research Report, Shanghai Rules and

Research Institute, China Classi"cation Society and School of Naval Architecture and Ocean

Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, China, 1999 [in Chinese].

[27] Hu Y, Sun J. An approximate method to generate the load-end shortening curve for longitudinally

sti!ened panels in the beam-column type #exural buckling mode. First Chinese Conference on Ship

and Ocean Engineering, Shanghai, China, August 2000 [in Chinese].

[28] Hu Y, Chen B, Sun J. Tripping of thin-walled sti!eners in the axially compressed sti!ened panel with

lateral pressure. Thin-Walled Struct 2000;37(1):1}26.

[29] Faulkner D. Compression strength of welded grillages. In: Evans, J.H., editor. Ship structural design

concepts, Centreville, Maryland, USA: Cornell Maritime Press, 1975.

[30] Mansour A E, Lin Y H, Paik J K. Ultimate strength of ships under combined vertical and horizontal

moments. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and

Mobile Units, (PRADS'95), vol. II, 1995. p. 844}56.

[31] Gordo JM, Guedes Soares C. Collapse of ship hulls under combined vertical and horizontal bending

moments. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and

Mobile Units, (PRADS'95), vol. II, 1995. p. 808}19.

[32] Gordo JM, Guedes Soares C. Interaction equation for the collapse of tankers and containerships

under combined bending moments. J Ship Res 1997;41(3):230}40.

330 Y. Hu et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 311}330

- indian standardsUploaded byAishwaryaShank
- etabs modelare ferm metalicaUploaded byMariana Suciu
- Shear Force and Bending MomentUploaded bygeorgekenjiputra
- Surovek Et Al. - Guidelines for the Use of Direct Second-Order Inelastic Analysis - 2007Uploaded byJorge Choque
- Examples BendingUploaded byAlexandre Haag Leite
- Course MaterialUploaded byElizaDeVilla
- Simply Supported UDL Beam Formulas _ Bending Moment EquationsUploaded bySara Ad
- Plate GirdersUploaded bySUDHAKAR KUMAR
- bpMOS 2010Uploaded bysimalaravi
- Buckling Curved PanelUploaded bynayak1234
- Design Procedure of BeamsUploaded byavalaxcia
- Compression MembersUploaded byBilal Ahmad
- Cruciform Sections + NSCApril06_TechUploaded byIho1
- 1Uploaded byhamed
- Pure BendingUploaded byAbdul Malik Syed
- On elastic–plastic buckling of conesUploaded byDinh Cuong Tran
- Stresses to Which Ship is SubjectedUploaded byKrishna Chandra
- Section 2 CapacityUploaded byAchala Fernando
- Design of PedastalUploaded byD.V.Srinivasa Rao
- Stress Analysis of Deformed Storage Tank ShellUploaded byAlby Diantono
- Comb Foot MCNUploaded bymohanty_anantakumar6332
- s10518-018-0369-x1Uploaded byTousif Mahmood
- LongitudinalUploaded byArul JO
- 1. Gaya2 Pada Kapal-1Uploaded byahmad sukisno
- 2016-TWS-FaveroNeto-VieiraJunior-Malite-v104-p44-53Uploaded byModular Sistema Construtivo
- Bending Moment Lab (CES511)Uploaded byAlif Akhmizan
- 2105 s 22003Uploaded bysubipuru
- janamUploaded bynsk143446
- distribucionUploaded byJosé Santillán
- 3_CEN308-LimitAnalysisandRedistributionofMoments.pdfUploaded byMayur Khandelwal

- Design_of_Reinforced_Concrete_Structure_-_Volume_1_-_DR._Mashhour_A._GhoneimUploaded byYasser Abdel Azeem
- 9fcfd50b78a2169366Uploaded byAndrei Andreï
- RyanairBoardingPass LG5EUY OTP STNUploaded byAndrei Andreï
- Collins Easy Learning German GrammarUploaded byMohamed Raslan
- Reabilitare ferma metalicaUploaded byHoria Predus
- ManualUploaded byignatcristian1976

- Failure-Modes-And-Failure-Mechanisms-Of-Fiber-Reinforced-Polymer-Composite-Bridge-DecksUploaded byalemteka97
- Gas DiffusionUploaded byLindaAmharis
- Reability AssessmentUploaded byGus Mang
- Models.mbd.Helicopter SwashplateUploaded byShofiuddin
- Pedology is a ScienceUploaded byelemag
- Vfd BasicsUploaded byDinesh Kumara
- modelagemUploaded byFernanda Gomes Ferreira
- tv_19_2012_4_923_929.pdfUploaded byblackcaptain61
- Seismic Fragility Curves for a Typical Highway Bridge in CharlestUploaded byFouad Kehila
- Matrices wUploaded byNur Syahadah
- Part Analisa 3-Study dengan solidworkUploaded byAli Nur Fikri
- 2. 5160Uploaded bySowmya Koneru
- Open Loop TestUploaded byClarence Billy Bijug
- 1 6 a discoverengineering docx akeemUploaded byapi-276168925
- Management Aptitude TestUploaded byrajesh pal
- petsc.manUploaded byhummingsung
- Dot Net NotesUploaded byArpit Agarwal
- Image Registration and Data Fusion in Radiation TherapyUploaded byarakbae
- Statistic BookUploaded bykeziavalenni
- Paper Analisis Struktur Statis Tak TentuUploaded byfildzah105
- rolando final projectUploaded byapi-242856546
- Student Version Solutions 2 SEMESTER 2 1Uploaded byLovingmore Lavas
- PIH_8088PUploaded byLuis Nascimento
- Vedic Math_new.pdfUploaded byPuhhj
- OTC-13216-MS-P (1)Uploaded byRuben Ramirez
- Algebra Refresher PackUploaded byperdurabo2
- 02 - A Survey of Energy-Efficient Techniques for 5G and Challenges Ahead (3)Uploaded byGERAUD
- MQ32291.pdfUploaded byJinho Jung
- Design of Air Duct in HospitalUploaded bydattranpham
- scilab08.pdfUploaded byJared Gaspar