0 Up votes0 Down votes

108 views81 pagesThe design of submarines for deep sea exploration has many challenges.
The greatest challenge is its buckling strength against the crushing pressures
of the ocean depth. The problem lies in the fact that there are no theoretical
solutions for such complex geometry. To further complicate the problem,
the out-of-roundness of the cylindrical hull due to manufacturing tolerances
as well as material nonlinearity must also be considered. To overcome
these issues, Finite Element Analysis will be used to determine the crushing
depth of a given submarine design once its buckling strength has been
found.

Aug 31, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

The design of submarines for deep sea exploration has many challenges.
The greatest challenge is its buckling strength against the crushing pressures
of the ocean depth. The problem lies in the fact that there are no theoretical
solutions for such complex geometry. To further complicate the problem,
the out-of-roundness of the cylindrical hull due to manufacturing tolerances
as well as material nonlinearity must also be considered. To overcome
these issues, Finite Element Analysis will be used to determine the crushing
depth of a given submarine design once its buckling strength has been
found.

© All Rights Reserved

108 views

The design of submarines for deep sea exploration has many challenges.
The greatest challenge is its buckling strength against the crushing pressures
of the ocean depth. The problem lies in the fact that there are no theoretical
solutions for such complex geometry. To further complicate the problem,
the out-of-roundness of the cylindrical hull due to manufacturing tolerances
as well as material nonlinearity must also be considered. To overcome
these issues, Finite Element Analysis will be used to determine the crushing
depth of a given submarine design once its buckling strength has been
found.

© All Rights Reserved

- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The Law of Explosive Growth: Lesson 20 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- The Wright Brothers
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Black Swan
- Prince Caspian
- The Art of Thinking Clearly
- A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science Even If You Flunked Algebra
- The Last Battle
- The 6th Extinction
- HBR's 10 Must Reads on Strategy (including featured article "What Is Strategy?" by Michael E. Porter)

You are on page 1of 81

Hull Imperfections

by

Harvey C. Lee

A Seminar Submitted to the Graduate

Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved:

_________________________________________

Dr. Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Seminar Adviser

Hartford, Connecticut

April, 2007

Copyright 2007

by

Harvey C. Lee

All Rights Reserved

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. v

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF EQUATIONS ...................................................................................................vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS ......................................................................................................viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT...................................................................................................ix

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... x

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1

1.2

PURPOSE .......................................................................................................... 3

1.3

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 4

1.4

3. EIGENVALUE BUCKLING ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN CYLINDRICAL

SECTION..................................................................................................................... 8

4. NONLINEAR LARGE DISPLACEMENT STATIC BUCKLING ANALYSIS OF

THE MAIN CYLINDRICAL SECTION WITH HULL OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS .. 11

5. BUCKLING ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMARINE................................................... 15

6. PLASTICITY EFFECTS ........................................................................................... 24

7. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 31

7.1

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 32

8. REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 33

9. APPENDIX A MATERIAL PROPERTIES........................................................... 34

10. APPENDIX B MAIN CYLINDRICAL SECTION ANSYS MACRO.................. 36

11. APPENDIX C SUBMARINE ANSYS MACRO................................................... 40

12. APPENDIX D MAIN CYLINDRICAL SECTION EIGENVALUE BUCKLING

RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 50

iii

RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 53

14. APPENDIX F SUBMARINE EIGENVALUE BUCKLING RESULTS............... 55

15. APPENDIX G - SUBMARINE NONLINEAR BUCKLING RESULTS................. 58

16. APPENDIX H - SUBMARINE NONLINEAR BUCKLING RESULTS WITH

PLASTICITY............................................................................................................. 66

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Main Cylindrical Section Eigenvalue Buckling Results.................................... 9

Table 2 Nonlinear Buckling results of the main cylindrical section............................. 12

Table 3 Eigenvalue Buckling results of the submarine................................................. 16

Table 4 Nonlinear Buckling results of the submarine................................................... 19

Table 5 Submarine depth capability vs. hull out-of-roundness .................................... 22

Table 6 Submarine buckling results.............................................................................. 26

Table 7 Submarine depth capability vs. hull out-of-roundness with plasticity............. 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Submarine Design Configuration and Dimensions .......................................... 7

Figure 2 FEA model of the main cylindrical section with boundary conditions ............ 9

Figure 3 Convergence of main cylindrical section Eigenvalue Buckling results ......... 10

Figure 4 Buckled mode shape of 2 nodal diameters of the main cylindrical section ... 10

Figure 5 Definition of out-of-roundness ....................................................................... 11

Figure 6 Nonlinear Buckling of the main cylindrical section with 4 OOR................. 12

Figure 7 Southwell Plot of the main cylindrical section with 4 OOR......................... 13

Figure 8 Comparison of ANSYS and Southwell method in determining the critical

buckling pressure of the main cylindrical section as a function of OOR ................ 14

Figure 9 FEA model of the submarine with boundary conditions................................ 15

Figure 10 Convergence of submarine Eigenvalue Buckling results ............................. 16

Figure 11 Submarine buckled mode shape of 2 nodal diameters ................................. 17

Figure 12 Buckled mode shape of main cylindrical section with internal stiffeners .... 18

Figure 13 Main cylindrical section OOR of 4 with eccentricities shown ................... 18

Figure 14 Nonlinear Buckling of the submarine with 1 OOR .................................... 19

Figure 15 Southwell Plot of the submarine with 1 OOR ............................................ 20

Figure 16 Comparison of ANSYS and Southwell method in determining the critical

buckling pressure of the submarine as a function of OOR ...................................... 21

Figure 17 Graph of Bernoullis equation plotting ocean pressure against depth.......... 22

Figure 18 Submarine depth capability vs. hull out-of-roundness ................................. 23

Figure 19 Hull stresses for 4 OOR .............................................................................. 24

Figure 20 Internal stiffener stresses in the main cylindrical section for 4 OOR ......... 24

Figure 21 Bilinear True Stress-Strain Curve for AISI 4340 Steel ................................ 25

Figure 22 Multilinear Isotropic Hardening curve for AISI 4340 Steel......................... 26

Figure 23 Submarine buckling strength as a function of out-of-roundness .................. 27

Figure 24 Buckled mode shape for 4 OOR with elastic-plastic material.................... 27

Figure 25 Hull stresses for 4 OOR with elastic-plastic material................................. 28

Figure 26 Equivalent plastic strain of the internal stiffeners for 4 OOR .................... 29

Figure 27 Submarine depth capability vs. hull out-of-roundness (Final Summary)..... 30

vi

LIST OF EQUATIONS

Equation 1 Bernoulli's Equation ..................................................................................... 6

Equation 2 Flugge's Theoretical Buckling Solution for a Simply Supported Cylinder

Under Uniform External Pressure.............................................................................. 8

Equation 3 Relation between Critical Buckling Pressure and Ocean Depth ................ 21

Equation 4 Relation between True Strain and Engineering Strain ............................... 25

Equation 5 Relation between True Stress and Engineering Stress ............................... 25

vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

FEA

Pcrit

DOF

Esize

OOR

Out-of-Roundness (in.)

BF

R2

True

Eng

True

Eng

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

To my loving wife Jennifer, whose very patience and

unwavering support, has encouraged me to bring this paper to its

final completion.

ix

ABSTRACT

The design of submarines for deep sea exploration has many challenges.

The greatest challenge is its buckling strength against the crushing pressures

of the ocean depth. The problem lies in the fact that there are no theoretical

solutions for such complex geometry. To further complicate the problem,

the out-of-roundness of the cylindrical hull due to manufacturing tolerances

as well as material nonlinearity must also be considered. To overcome

these issues, Finite Element Analysis will be used to determine the crushing

depth of a given submarine design once its buckling strength has been

found.

1. Introduction

Although there is much literature dealing with the stability of circular cylindrical

shells under uniform external pressure, only a few are devoted to numerical methods of

analysis with consideration to geometric imperfections and material nonlinearity. Of the

few are Forasassi and Franos [7] test and modeling report, in which they found the

length, thickness-to-diameter ratio, modulus and yield stress of the material, and initial

imperfections in the form of ovalization to be major factors that affected the collapse

pressure of pipes. These factors, as well as the end constraints, are key determinants in

the collapse pattern, or buckled mode shape, which are in the form of nodal diameters or

lobes.

The difficulty faced by the structural analyst is determining the critical buckling

pressure of the real cylindrical structure of concern. These structures are typically

complex whereby there are no derived theoretical solutions, such as the case with our

deep sea exploration submarine.

approximated to a more simplistic geometry, the theoretical solution can still be quite

complex. This is evident in Flugges [9] derivation for a simply supported cylinder

under uniform external pressure as shown in Eqn 2.

To overcome these challenges require the use of numerical methods or Finite

Element analysis.

Eigenvalue Buckling analysis. This method, as defined by Brown [3], predicts the

theoretical buckling strength of an ideal linear elastic structure. As an example, the

Eigenvalue Buckling solution of an Euler column would match the classical Euler

solution. Although it is relatively simple to execute, its limitations restrict it from

modeling the true nature of real structures, which have geometric imperfections and

material nonlinearity amongst other non-ideal characteristics. It is anticonservative, but

does provide a good start for preliminary assessments.

In order to model the behavior of real structures, a more advanced and

computationally intensive method is required, which is the Nonlinear Large

Displacement Static Buckling analysis. This approach seeks the load level at which the

The equilibrium

equation can be rewritten in the form {U} = {F}/[K], where [K] is the global stiffness

matrix, {U} is the displacement vector and {F} is the load vector. The Nonlinear

method requires an iterative process to solve for {U} since information about [K] and

{F} are not known. Instability occurs within this iterative process when [K] approaches

zero. In ANSYS, the Finite Element Analysis software used in this study, the instability

manifests itself as an unconverged solution, indicating that the cylindrical structure can

no longer carry any more external pressure load because buckling has occurred. In

general practice, the solution previous to the last unconverged solution is the buckling

strength.

This paper, however, will use the Southwell method in determining this limit.

Kos [6] NASA report describes how the Southwell plot is generated as well as its

limitations. He states:

Southwell method.

determined from the inverse slope of the plot. The Southwell method has

been successful in predicting the classical buckling of simple structures

such as columns and plates. For complex structures exhibiting complex

buckling behavior (for example, local instabilities and plasticity effect),

the Southwell plot may not be a straight line, and therefore no discernable

slope may be obtained for accurately determining the buckling loads.

Therefore, the Southwell method will be applied only to the Nonlinear Buckling analysis

with full elasticity and the study will show whether it is reliable or not in determining

the buckling strength of the submarine.

It is possible that a cylindrical structure under uniform external pressure

experience inelastic buckling. This occurs when the hoop stress exceeds the yield

strength before the critical buckling pressure is reached. Beyond the yield point, the

materials stiffness, or modulus of elasticity, reduces significantly and thus the buckling

strength. Therefore, it is important that plasticity is considered in the analysis of our

2

Static Buckling analysis with elastic-plastic material properties.

The problem with deep sea exploration is designing a submarine with a

sufficiently high buckling strength in order to withstand the crushing pressures of the

ocean depth. However, determining its buckling strength is far from trivial. As a result,

Finite Element Analysis will be required since there are no theoretical solutions to such

complex geometry and its inherent imperfections due to manufacturing limitations.

Many methods are utilized in industry and information to its validation is usually

proprietary. This paper provides general methods to this endeavor and will show the

advantages and disadvantages of each.

No amount of analysis or sophistication thereof should ever replace testing.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to perform non-destructive testing to determine the

submarines buckling strength since it is a catastrophic failure mode. Smaller scale

models would have to be devised that can be readily sacrificed without substantial

impact to cost.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this study is several folds, all related to determining the critical

buckling pressure, or buckling strength, of the submarine using Finite Element Analysis

(FEA). First, is to understand the effects of mesh density on the accuracy of the

solution. Second, is to understand the relationship, differences and advantages and

disadvantages between an Eigenvalue Buckling analysis and a Nonlinear Large

Displacement Static Buckling analysis. Lastly is to understand the effects of plasticity if

the stresses in the hull and internal stiffeners exceed the yield strength of the material.

1.3 Methodology

The commercial code ANSYS will be used to conduct all Finite Element analyses.

All Finite Element models will be generated with Shell 181 elements. This element is

based on the Reissner/Mindlin thick shell theory which includes bending, membrane and

transverse shear effects.

The first stage is to calibrate the analysis by modeling just the main cylindrical

section of the submarine without internal stiffeners and simply supporting it at its ends.

An Eigenvalue Buckling analysis will then be conducted with several iterations of mesh

refinement until the solution converges to the theoretical critical buckling pressure to

within 5% error. As it was previously stated, this type of analysis predicts the theoretical

buckling strength of an ideal linear elastic structure.

The second stage is to take the model with the mesh density that converged to the

theoretical critical buckling pressure and conduct a Nonlinear Large Displacement Static

Buckling analysis with several iterations of various prescribed out-of-roundness or

ovalization. A perfect hull would be perfectly cylindrical. But in reality it will be

imperfect, having a certain amount of out-of-roundness governed by manufacturing

tolerances and capability. The Southwell method will be used to determine the critical

buckling pressure from the Nonlinear analysis.

The third stage is to apply the methods from Stages 1 and 2 to the submarine.

Once the critical buckling pressures have been found based on the various prescribed

out-of-roundness of the hull, the crushing depth capability of the submarine will then be

calculated as a function of hull out-of-roundness. It is predicted that as the prescribed

hull out-of-roundness increases, the buckling strength decreases.

The fourth and final stage is to analyze the hull and internal stiffener stresses at the

critical buckling pressure to determine if they have exceeded the yield strength of the

material. (To be technically accurate, the stresses should be compared against the

proportional limit of the material since the onset of plasticity occurs from this point.

However, for the purposes of this study and because most material data does not list the

proportional limit, the yield strength will be used instead.) If not, then the analysis is

complete. If so, then the method in Stage 2 will be re-executed but with elastic-plastic

material properties.

Its is expected that as the mesh density of the Finite Element model increases, the

buckling solution will converge to the exact solution or to a value within 5% error. It is

also expected that the Eigenvalue Buckling solution will produce the highest value since

it assumes an ideal geometry of the submarine with no imperfections. This will be a

solid baseline and reference point with which to compare the Nonlinear results to, which

takes into account the imperfections or out-of-roundness in our particular case. It is

anticipated that the buckling strength of the submarine behaves adversely as the out-ofroundness increases. Furthermore, with plasticity considered, it should be no surprise

that the stiffness of the material drops considerably beyond the yield point, thus leading

to an even further reduction in buckling strength. The solutions from the Eigenvalue, the

Nonlinear Elastic and the Nonlinear Elastic-Plastic will be compared and the effects on

the ocean depth capability of the submarine will be shown.

2. Submarine Design

Our deep sea exploration submarine was designed with the intent to have a

maximum crew capacity of 12 and a depth capability of 4 to 5 miles. The general layout

would be similar to a military submarine but on a much smaller scale. To support the

crew and all the necessary controls and instrumentation, the mean hull diameter was set

at 12 ft.

The main cylindrical section was divided into the fwd, mid and rear

compartments which are the control room, the research and analysis room and the engine

room, respectively.

Sonars and fwd ballast tanks are situated in the nose of the

submarine whereas the propulsion system and aft ballast tanks are mounted inside the

conical tail section. Two vertical and two horizontal fins that are welded onto the tail

provide stability and maneuverability. The fwd and aft bulkheads separate the nose and

tail section from the main compartments. Internals stiffeners welded onto the hull

provide additional strength for the submarine.

A very strong material is required if our submarine is to withstand the crushing

pressures of the ocean floor. As a result, AISI 4340 Steel, oil quenched at 845C and

tempered at 425C, was selected.

properties were conservatively used for additional safety margin.

With the general layout defined and material selected, some preliminary analyses

were required in order to size the hull thickness as well as the internal stiffeners. A

finite element model was created and an Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis was conducted

to determine the critical buckling pressure (Pcrit). The critical buckling pressure was then

used to back calculate the depth capability using Bernoullis equation.

P = Po + gh

Equation 1 Bernoullis Equation

where

Po = Atmospheric Pressure

= Density of Seawater

g = Gravitational Acceleration

h = Ocean Depth

Several iterations were performed until reasonable sizes for the hull and internal

stiffeners were determined such that the 4 to 5 mile depth capability of the submarine

can be achieved. (A thickness of 1 ft. was prescribed for the bulkheads and remained

constant through each iteration) The final dimensions of our deep sea exploration

submarine structure as a finite element model is shown in Figure 1 below. Preliminary

analysis shows that its buckling strength is 11,219 psi, yielding a maximum ocean depth

capability of 4.9 miles.

Section

The first stage was to calibrate the analysis by modeling just the main cylindrical

section of the submarine without internal stiffeners and simply supporting it at its ends.

Flugge [9] derives the theoretical solution for such a cylinder (Eqn 2).

Pcrit

Et

r (1 - 2)

(1 - 2 )4 + k [(2+ m2) - 2 (6 + 34 m 2 + (4 - )2 m4 + m ) + 2 (2 - ) 2 m 2 + m4 ]

m2(2 + m2) 2- m2(32+ m2)

Cylinder Under Uniform External Pressure

where

E = Modulus of Elasticity

r = Mean hull radius

t = Hull thickness

= Poissons ratio

m = Nodal diameters

2

r & k= t

=

12 r 2

l

With the dimensions and material properties of our submarine section, the minimum

critical buckling pressure or buckling strength was calculated to be 4,097 psi with a 2

nodal diameter mode shape (m = 2).

The FEA model, shown in Figure 2, was set up in the global cylindrical

coordinate system and an external reference pressure of 12,000 psi was applied. An

Eigenvalue Buckling analysis was then conducted with several iterations of mesh

refinement until the solution converged to the theoretical solution with an error of

0.09%. The results are shown in Table 1 and Figure 3 plots the convergence to the exact

solution. Also, the buckled mode shape was found to be 2 nodal diameters (Figure 4),

confirming Flugges theoretical equation. As a result, the FEA model of the main

cylindrical section of our submarine has been calibrated.

Esize

6

5

4

3

2

1

DOF

336

480

720

1248

2280

8880

Pcrit (psi)

5,442

5,356

4,555

4,319

4,211

4,093

Flugge (psi)

4,097

4,097

4,097

4,097

4,097

4,097

Error

32.82%

30.73%

11.17%

5.41%

2.78%

0.09%

Isometric View

Side View

Front View

Figure 2 FEA model of the main cylindrical section with boundary conditions

6,000

5,000

Pcrit (psi)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

DOF

results

section

10

the Main Cylindrical Section with Hull Out-of-Roundness

The next step was to take the main cylindrical section, with the mesh density that

converged to the theoretical solution, and conduct a Nonlinear Large Displacement

Static Buckling analysis with several iterations of various prescribed out-of-roundness or

ovalization in our particular case. Out-of-roundness (OOR) is best defined by the

following figure.

e

An out-of-roundness of 1, 2, 3 and 4 were considered for all nonlinear

analyses conducted throughout this report. This geometric imperfection was created by

using the eigenvectors or nodal displacements, from the previously run Eigenvalue

Buckling analysis, with a scale factor to update the nodal coordinates of the Nonlinear

model. As an example, if we were to run an analysis with an OOR of 3, the updated

nodal coordinates in our Nonlinear model would have the same contour plot as that

shown in Figure 4, except that the displacement scale range of 1 ft. to 1 ft. would run

from 0.125 ft. to 0.125 ft. instead. Here, the scale factor would be the eccentricity (e),

having the value of (3/12)/2 or 0.125. Another advantage in using this method is that

there is consistency in the OOR angle, which is desirable. The OOR angle is defined as

the maximum or minimum eccentricity circumferential location with respect to the

horizontal or vertical axis. For our case, the OOR angle is 45 degrees.

11

The main cylindrical section FEA model that converged to the theoretical

solution had a uniform mesh density based on an element size of 1 (See Table 1). The

boundary conditions of simply supported ends and a reference pressure of 12,000 psi

were maintained. A Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling analysis was then

conducted for all four prescribed out-of-roundness using very small incremental load

steps. The results are shown in the table below and compared against the Eigenvalue

solution, which assumes perfect geometry with zero out-of-roundness.

OOR (in.)

0

1

2

3

4

ANSYS (psi)

4,093

3,591

3,324

3,117

2,898

Southwell (psi)

4,093

4,000

3,894

3,711

3,619

Eigenvalue

The last converged solution in ANSYS represents the critical buckling pressure,

which signifies that the hoop stiffness of the cylinder approaches zero and can no longer

carry any more load. Figure 6 below shows the final buckled shape for the 4 out-ofroundness condition. To reiterate, these displacement scales are in feet.

12

Southwell plots were generated for each OOR case using the peak nodal

deflection (In Figure 6, the peak nodal deflection would be 0.657806 ft.). This is

possible because the load and deflection history in the Nonlinear analysis were recorded.

Figure 7 below shows the Southwell plot for the 4 out-of-roundness condition. A linear

trendline, shown in red, was fitted through the points and its equation and R2 value

given.

In the Southwell method, the inverse slope of this trendline is the critical

Southwell Plot

OOR = 4"

3.00E-04

y = 0.0002763x + 0.0000447

2

R = 0.9989078

2.50E-04

2.00E-04

1.50E-04

1.00E-04

5.00E-05

0.00E+00

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Deflection (in.)

It was interesting to observe that for each and every one of the cases analyzed,

the Southwell method consistently calculated the critical buckling pressure much greater

than that of ANSYS. Figure 8 shows this comparison. Also, the trend appears to show

that the differences widen as the out-of-roundness increases. Nevertheless, the overall

results are in agreement to what was expected, which is the fact that hull imperfections

reduce the buckling capability of the pressure vessel. In the case of the highest out-ofroundness analyzed, the buckling strength was knocked down by 11.7% (Southwell) and

by as much as 29.3% (ANSYS) with respect to the theoretical solution. It must be

reclarified that in Figure 8, which is a graphical plot of Table 2, the critical buckling

pressure for the out-of-roundness of 0 is based on the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis.

13

4500

Critical

Buckling Pressure (psi)

4000

ANSYS

Southwell

3500

3000

2500

0

OOR (in.)

critical buckling pressure of the main cylindrical section as a function of OOR

14

With the main cylindrical section FEA model calibrated and the effects of out-ofroundness known, the buckling analysis of our deep exploration submarine can begin.

First, an Eigenvalue Buckling analysis was conducted with several iterations of

mesh refinement until the solution converged to within an error of 5% with respect to the

final iteration. Figure 9 shows the FEA model of the submarine with a reference

hydrostatic pressure of 12,000 psi applied and the center node of the aft bulkhead

grounded to prevent rigid body motion.

All DOF = 0

Each iteration generated the buckling factor (BF) and when multiplied by the

reference hydrostatic pressure, the critical buckling pressure (Pcrit) was determined.

The submarine FEA model converged to a critical buckling pressure of 11,219 psi. Its

uniform mesh density is based on an element size of 1, generating a DOF (degree of

15

freedom) of 28,200. The results are shown in Table 3. Figure 10 plots the convergence

of the solution and Figure 11 shows the final buckled mode shape of 2 nodal diameters.

Esize

6

5

4

3

2

1

DOF

1,032

2,760

3,000

3,384

7,512

28,200

Pcrit (psi)

23,855

12,924

12,905

12,508

11,678

11,219

Error

112.62%

15.19%

15.02%

11.48%

4.09%

0.00%

30000

Pcrit (psi)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

0

10000

20000

30000

DOF

The next step was to perform the Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling

analysis using the converged FEA model of the submarine. The method used to create

the geometric imperfection of the hull is similar to what was done for the main

cylindrical section as described in Chapter 4, but with internal stiffeners. Therefore, the

16

main cylindrical section of the submarine with internal stiffeners was isolated,

everything else being deleted, and an Eigenvalue Buckling analysis was conducted.

Again, the ends were simply supported and a reference pressure of 12,000 psi was

applied. Figure 12 shows the buckled mode shape.

The nonlinear models nodal coordinates were updated using the nodal

displacements from the buckling analysis with a scale factor applied. This simulated the

desired preconditioned out-of-roundness effect. Different scale factors were used for the

1, 2, 3 and 4 out-of-roundness conditions analyzed. Figure 13 shows a scale factor

of (4/12)/2 or 0.166667 used to preset the main cylindrical section with an OOR of 4.

Eccentricities (e) are also shown. The OOR angle of 45 degrees was consistent with the

buckled mode shape of the full submarine (See Figure 11), which is desirable.

17

stiffeners

- 0.166667

+ 0.166667

+ 0.166667

- 0.166667

18

for all four out-of-roundness conditions using very small incremental load steps. The

results are shown in Table 4 below and compared against the Eigenvalue solution, which

assumes perfect geometry with zero out-of-roundness.

OOR (in.)

0

1

2

3

4

ANSYS (psi)

11,219

9,796

8,450

7,950

6,950

Southwell (psi)

11,219

10,132

10,111

10,417

10,537

Eigenvalue

The last converged solution in ANSYS represents the critical buckling pressure,

which signifies that the hoop stiffness of the submarine approaches zero and can no

longer carry any more load. Figure 14 below shows the final buckled mode shape for

the 1 out-of-roundness condition.

19

Southwell plots were generated for each OOR case using the peak nodal

deflection. This is possible because the load and deflection history in the Nonlinear

analysis were recorded. Figure 15 shows the Southwell plot for the 1 out-of-roundness

Southwell Plot

OOR = 1"

3.00E-05

y = 0.0000987x + 0.0000012

R2 = 0.9972790

2.50E-05

2.00E-05

1.50E-05

1.00E-05

5.00E-06

0.00E+00

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Deflection (in.)

condition.

A linear trendline, shown in red, was fitted through the points and its

equation and R2 value given. In the Southwell method, the inverse slope of this trendline

is the critical buckling pressure. For an OOR of 1, the critical buckling pressure was

calculated to be 10,132 psi.

The buckling strength of the submarine calculated from the Southwell plots for

each case (See Table 4) was found to be inconsistent and erroneous. The trend shows

that as the out-of-roundness increases from 2 to 4 the buckling strength becomes

relatively level with a slight increase, which of course is not possible. Figure 16 shows

the trend against that of ANSYS. Because the Southwell method was found to be

inaccurate and thus unreliable in this particular study, the buckling strength determined

by ANSYS was used from this point forward. It must be reclarified that in Figure 16,

20

which is a graphical plot of Table 4, the critical buckling pressure for the out-ofroundness of 0 is based on the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis.

12000

Pcritical (psi)

10000

8000

ANSYS

6000

Southwell

4000

2000

0

0

OOR (in.)

critical buckling pressure of the submarine as a function of OOR

With Pcrit found, the ocean depth capability of the submarine can be calculated

using Bernoullis equation (Eqn 1). Figure 17 is a graph of this equation where the

ocean pressure is plotted against depth. From this graph, the relationship between

critical buckling pressure and ocean depth capability was created and is shown in Eqn 3.

Equation 3 Relation between Critical Buckling Pressure and Ocean Depth

From this equation the ocean depth capability of our deep sea exploration submarine was

then calculated as a function of out-of-roundness. The results are shown in Table 5 and

Figure 18.

21

25000

22905

20616

20000

Pressure (psi)

18327

16038

15000

13749

11460

10000

9171

6882

5000

4593

2304

14.7

0

10

11

Depth (mi)

OOR (in.)

0

1

2

3

4

ANSYS

Pcrit (psi)

11,219

9,796

8,450

7,950

6,950

Depth Capability

4.9

4.3

3.7

3.5

3.0

22

miles

miles

miles

miles

miles

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

0

23

6. Plasticity Effects

The Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling analysis that was performed in

the previous chapter assumed perfectly elastic material behavior. Unfortunately, what

was found was that the stresses in the hull and internal stiffeners exceeded the materials

yield strength of 214 ksi (See Figures 19 & 20), rendering the submarines buckling

for 4 OOR

24

analysis was re-executed using elastic-plastic material properties. These properties were

simulated by generating a bilinear true stress-strain curve (Figure 21) based on the

materials yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, elastic modulus and percent

elongation at break, which was assumed as the strain at ultimate. Furthermore, because

these properties are from the engineering stress-strain curve, corrections were made to

create the true stress-strain curve. The relation between engineering and true stress and

strain is given by the following:

True = ln (1 + Eng)

Equation 4 Relation between True Strain and Engineering Strain

Equation 5 Relation between True Stress and Engineering Stress

300000

Stress (psi)

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Strain (in./in.)

Figure 21 Bilinear True Stress-Strain Curve for AISI 4340 Steel

25

To analyze for plasticity in ANSYS, the multilinear isotropic hardening (MISO) rule was

used (Figure 22). Brown [3] recommends this option for proportional loading and large

strain applications of metal plasticity.

The results from the Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling analysis with

elastic-plastic material properties for the four out-of-roundness conditions are shown in

Table 6 below and its graph in Figure 23.

OOR (in.)

Elastic (psi) Elastic-Plastic (psi)

0

11,219

11,219

1

9,796

8,262

2

8,450

7,166

3

7,950

6,330

4

6,950

5,724

Table 6 Submarine buckling results

26

Eigenvalue

12000

Pcritical (psi)

10000

8000

ANSYS - Elastic

ANSYS - Elastic-Plastic

6000

4000

2000

0

0

OOR (in.)

27

From Table 6 and Figure 23, it can be clearly seen how plasticity effects reduce

the submarines buckling strength even further, due primarily to the tangent modulus

once the yield strain has been exceeded. Furthermore, when plasticity is considered, the

stresses yield off and redistribute over a larger area of the submarine. Figure 24 shows

the buckled mode shape and Figure 25 shows the dramatic difference in stress compared

to that in Figure 19. Both figures are for an out-of-roundness of 4.

The majority of the backing strength against buckling is attributed to the internal

stiffeners in the main cylindrical section. Once they yield, their hoop stiffness that

provides ring stability begins to decline. Figure 26 shows how the high plastic strains

due to bending are concentrated at four local regions in the internal stiffeners. This is

caused by the 2 nodal diameter buckled mode shape.

28

The ocean depth capability of the submarine, with plasticity considered, was recalculated

using Equation 3. The final results are shown in Table 7 and Figure 27 comparing the

Eigenvalue, Nonlinear Elastic and Nonlinear Elastic-Plastic solutions. It must be

reclarified that in Figure 27, which is a graphical plot of Table 6, the critical buckling

pressure for the out-of-roundness of 0 is based on the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis.

ANSYS - Elastic-Plastic

OOR (in.)

Pcrit (psi)

0

11,219

1

8,262

2

7,166

3

6,330

4

5,724

Depth Capabilty

4.9

3.6

3.1

2.8

2.5

miles

miles

miles

miles

miles

29

6.0

5.0

4.0

ANSYS - Elastic

ANSYS - Elastic-Plastic

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

0

30

7. Conclusions

The buckling analysis results of our deep sea exploration submarine were overall

what was expected. First, it was clearly seen that by increasing the Finite Element mesh

density the buckling solution from the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis monotonically

converged to the exact solution, as in the case of the main cylindrical section study. This

approach defined the calibration of the model and was then applied to the more complex

submarine model, where a theoretical or exact solution does not exist. The buckling

solution of the submarine through mesh refinement showed the same behavior,

converging to a value within 5% error, which is acceptable by industry standards.

From the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis it was shown that an ideal geometry of

the submarine with no imperfections resulted in the highest buckling strength of 11,219

psi. Using Bernoullis equation, this translated to a crushing depth capability of 4.9

miles into the ocean. However, once imperfections were introduced via hull out-ofroundness, in our particular case ovalization, the depth capabilities were dramatically

different. In order to model this imperfection, a Nonlinear Large Displacement Static

Buckling analysis was required.

ideal buckling strength, reducing it by approximately 13%, 25%, 29% and 38%,

respectively. This translated to a depth capability of 4.3, 3.7, 3.5 and 3.0 miles.

Although the original intent was to use the Southwell method in determining the

buckling strength of the submarine from the Nonlinear analysis, the results proved to be

inconsistent and erroneous. It was found that as the out-of-roundness increased from 2

to 4, the results became relatively level with a slight increase, which of course is not

possible. However, in the case of the main cylindrical section Nonlinear analysis, the

Southwell method was consistent and the trend was in alignment to what was expected,

even though the results were higher than that of ANSYSs last converged buckling

solutions. Therefore, it was concluded that for complex geometries, as in the case of our

submarine, the Southwell method was not valid. As a result, the last converged buckling

solution in ANSYS was used instead to determine the buckling strength.

31

Finally, it was found that the stresses in the hull and internal stiffeners exceeded

the yield strength of the material for each out-of-round condition analyzed. Therefore,

the Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling analyses had to be rerun, but with

elastic-plastic material properties in order to capture a better representation of its true

behavior. Indeed, what was found was that plasticity effects reduced the submarines

buckling strength even further, due primarily to the tangent modulus once the yield

strain had been exceeded. With respect to the ideal buckling strength of the submarine,

with plasticity considered, the actual reductions were approximately 26%, 36%, 44%

and 49% for the out-of-roundness of 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, as compared to the

previous Nonlinear fully elastic results. These reductions translate to a more accurate

depth capability of 3.6, 3.1, 2.8 and 2.5 miles for our deep sea exploration submarine.

In conclusion, although the design intent of our deep sea exploration submarine

was to have a depth capability in the order of 4 to 5 miles, manufacturing limitations

leading to hull imperfections, in conjunction with real material behavior, proves more

challenging in achieving this endeavor.

7.1 Recommendations

Although this study provides a relatively reasonable method in analyzing the

buckling strength of a deep sea exploration submarine given the timeframe allowed,

further improvements can be made. For example, it was assumed that if the Finite

Element model from the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis converged with a particular mesh

density, it was also valid for the Nonlinear analysis. This may or may not be the case

and it is recommended that a convergence study be executed for the Nonlinear analysis

as well. Mesh refinement can be confined to the areas of concern (ie: main cylindrical

section and internal stiffeners) so that computational time can be reduced. Also, within

this convergence study, it is recommended that the mesh density be examined to

determine whether it is sufficient in capturing the actual stresses and strains since they

have a direct effect on the results of the Nonlinear analysis with plasticity. The Finite

Element model in this study was relatively coarse since displacements were of primary

concern and stresses and strains were of secondary interest.

32

8. References

[1] Warren C. Young and Richard Budynas, Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain,

7th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002.

[2] R. Cook, D. Malkus, M. Plesha and R. Witt, Concepts and Applications of Finite

Element Analysis, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.

[3] K. Brown, Advanced ANSYS Topics, V5.5, CAEA, Inc., 1998.

[4] H. Schmidt, Stability of Steel Shell Structures General Report, Journal of

Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 159 181.

[5] F.B. Sealy, J.O. Smith, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, 2nd Edition, Wiley &

Sons, 1952.

[6] W. L. Ko, Accuracies of Southwell and Force/Stiffness Methods in the Prediction

of Buckling Strength of Hypersonic Aircraft Wing Tubular Panels, NASA Technical

Memorandum 88295, Nov 1987.

[7]

Engineering, Vol. 18, Issue 1-2, Sept Oct 2006.

[8]

[9] W. Flugge, Stresses in Shells, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1960.

33

AISI 4340 Steel, oil quenched 845C, 425C

(800F) temper, tested at 25C (77F)

KeyWords:

alloy steels, UNS G43400, AMS 5331, AMS 6359, AMS 6414, AMS 6415, ASTM A322, ASTM A331, ASTM A505, ASTM A519, ASTM A547,

ASTM A646, MIL SPEC MIL-S-16974, B.S. 817 M 40 (UK), SAE J404, SAE J412, SAE J770, DIN 1.6565, JIS SNCM 8, IS 1570

40Ni2Cr1Mo28, IS 1570 40NiCr1Mo15

SubCat: Low Alloy Steel, AISI 4000 Series Steel,

Medium Carbon Steel, Metal, Ferrous Metal

Component

Carbon, C

Chromium, Cr

Iron, Fe

Manganese, Mn

Molybdenum, Mo

Nickel, Ni

Phosphorous, P

Sulfur, S

Silicon, Si

Properties

Physical

Value

Min

0.37

0.7

Max

0.43

0.9

0.2

0.3

96

0.7

1.83

0.035

0.04

0.23

Metric

Value

English

Value

Min

Max

Density, g/cc

7.85

0.284

--

--

Mechanical

Tensile Strength, Ultimate, MPa

Tensile Strength, Yield, MPa

Elongation at Break, %

Reduction of Area, %

Modulus of Elasticity, GPa

Bulk Modulus, GPa

Poissons Ratio

Machinability, %

1595

1475

12

46

212

140

0.3

50

231

214

12

46

30700

20300

0.3

50

---------

---------

81.5

11800

--

--

2.48E-05

5.52E-05

7.97E-05

2.98E-05

-----

-----

-----

12.7

12.3

13.7

12.6

13.7

13.9

14.5

0.475

44.5

----------

----------

----------

Electrical

Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cm

Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm

Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm

Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm

Thermal

CTE, linear 20C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 20C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 250C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 250C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C

Specific Heat Capacity, J/g-C

Thermal Conductivity, W/m-K

34

Comment

Calculated

annealed and cold drawn. Based on 100%

machinability for AISI 1212 steel.

Estimated from elastic modulus

specimen oil hardened, 600C (1110F) temper

specimen oil hardened, 600C (1110F) temper

1.88% Ni, normalized, tempered

1.88% Ni, normalized and tempered

1.90% Ni, quenched, tempered

specimen oil hardened, 600C (1110F) temper

Typical 4000 series steel

Typical steel

(800F) temper, tested at -195C

KeyWords:

alloy steels, UNS G43400, AMS 5331, AMS 6359, AMS 6414, AMS 6415, ASTM A322, ASTM A331, ASTM A505, ASTM A519, ASTM A547,

ASTM A646, MIL SPEC MIL-S-16974, B.S. 817 M 40 (UK), SAE J404, SAE J412, SAE J770, DIN 1.6565, JIS SNCM 8, IS 1570

40Ni2Cr1Mo28, IS 1570 40NiCr1Mo15

SubCat: Low Alloy Steel, AISI 4000 Series Steel,

Medium Carbon Steel, Metal, Ferrous Metal

Component

Carbon, C

Chromium, Cr

Iron, Fe

Manganese, Mn

Molybdenum, Mo

Nickel, Ni

Phosphorous, P

Sulfur, S

Silicon, Si

Value

Properties

Physical

Density, g/cc

Metric

Value

7.85

English

Value

0.284

Min

--

1985

1840

4

11

213

140

0.3

50

288

267

4

11

30900

20300

0.3

50

---------

---------

82

11900

--

--

2.48E-05

2.98E-05

5.52E-05

7.97E-05

2.48E-05

2.98E-05

5.52E-05

7.97E-05

-----

-----

-------

-------

Mechanical

Tensile Strength, Ultimate, MPa

Tensile Strength, Yield, MPa

Elongation at Break, %

Reduction of Area, %

Modulus of Elasticity, GPa

Bulk Modulus, GPa

Poissons Ratio

Machinability, %

Shear Modulus, GPa

Electrical

Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cm

Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm

Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm

Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm

Thermal

CTE, linear 20C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 250C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C

CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C

Specific Heat Capacity, J/g-C

Thermal Conductivity, W/m-K

Min

0.37

0.7

Max

0.43

0.9

0.2

0.3

96

0.7

1.83

0.035

0.04

0.23

10.4

12.6

13.7

13.9

0.475

44.5

35

Max

Comment

-- density is in lb/in^3 for english units

Calculated

annealed and cold drawn. Based on 100%

machinability for AISI 1212 steel.

Estimated from elastic modulus

1.88% Ni, normalized, tempered

1.88% Ni, normalized and tempered

1.90% Ni, quenched, tempered

Typical 4000 series steel

Typical steel

!This macro recreates the main cylindrical section without stiffeners

!and runs an Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis with an element size of 1 for

!the first 7 modes

!

!Author: Harvey C. Lee

!Date created: March 17, 2007

!

!Directions: Create this macro and call it

!create_cylinder&run_eigenbuckling.mac. Then launch ANSYS and in the

!command prompt, type create_cylinder&run_eigenbuckling

!

/COM,ANSYS RELEASE 10.0A1 UP20060105

12:46:41

03/14/2007

!*

!*

/NOPR

/PMETH,OFF,0

KEYW,PR_SET,1

KEYW,PR_STRUC,1

KEYW,PR_THERM,0

KEYW,PR_FLUID,0

KEYW,PR_MULTI,0

/GO

!*

/COM,

/COM,Preferences for GUI filtering have been set to display:

/COM, Structural

!*

/PREP7

!*

ET,1,SHELL181

!*

KEYOPT,1,1,0

KEYOPT,1,3,2

KEYOPT,1,8,0

KEYOPT,1,9,0

KEYOPT,1,10,0

!*

R,1,4/12, , , , , ,

RMORE, , , , , , ,

!*

MPREAD,'matprop','mp',' '

csys,0

K,1,0,0,0,

K,2,0,0,12,

K,3,0,0,24,

K,4,0,0,36,

K,5,0,6,0,

kplot

LSTR,

1,

2

LSTR,

2,

3

LSTR,

3,

4

!

36

FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,2,5

FLST,8,2,3

FITEM,8,1

FITEM,8,2

LROTAT,P51X, , , , , ,P51X,

!

FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,2

FITEM,2,4

FITEM,2,-7

ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,

!

FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,8

FITEM,2,11

FITEM,2,13

FITEM,2,15

ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,

!

FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,16

FITEM,2,19

FITEM,2,21

FITEM,2,23

ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,

!

/REPLOT

!

/SOLU

FLST,2,8,4,ORDE,6

FITEM,2,4

FITEM,2,-7

FITEM,2,24

FITEM,2,27

FITEM,2,29

FITEM,2,31

!*

/GO

DL,P51X, ,UX,0

FLST,2,8,4,ORDE,6

FITEM,2,4

FITEM,2,-7

FITEM,2,24

FITEM,2,27

FITEM,2,29

FITEM,2,31

!*

/GO

DL,P51X, ,UY,0

FLST,2,2,3,ORDE,2

FITEM,2,6

FITEM,2,8

!*

/GO

DK,P51X, ,0, ,1,UZ, , , , ,

!

,360,4,

37

FLST,2,2,3,ORDE,2

FITEM,2,18

FITEM,2,20

!*

/GO

DK,P51X, ,0, ,1,UZ, , , , , ,

!

/VIEW,1,,,-1

/ANG,1

/REP,FAST

/prep7

/TITLE,Cylindrical Hull Section (Esize = 1)

!*

TYPE,

1

MAT,

1

REAL,

1

ESYS,

0

!

esize,1

!*

amesh,all

csys,1

nrotat,all

sfe,all,2,pres,,12000,,,

/SOLU

SBCTRAN

!

/DIST, 1,

27.1280083138

/FOC,

1, -4.93790132953

,

4.04348334897

/VIEW, 1, -0.446499709800

, 0.488816565998

/ANG,

1, 0.415875984041

/DIST,1,0.924021086472,1

!

/PSF,PRES,NORM,2,0,1

/PBF,TEMP, ,1

/PIC,DEFA, ,1

/PSYMB,CS,0

/PSYMB,NDIR,0

/PSYMB,ESYS,0

/PSYMB,LDIV,0

/PSYMB,LDIR,0

/PSYMB,ADIR,0

/PSYMB,ECON,0

/PSYMB,XNODE,0

/PSYMB,DOT,1

/PSYMB,PCONV,

/PSYMB,LAYR,0

/PSYMB,FBCS,0

!*

/PBC,ALL,,1

/PBC,NFOR,,0

/PBC,NMOM,,0

/PBC,RFOR,,0

/PBC,RMOM,,0

/PBC,PATH,,0

!*

38

,

16.2225589785

, -0.749464057814

/AUTO,1

/REP,FAST

!

eplot

/replot

FINISH

! Run the Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis for the first 7 modes

/SOL

!*

allsel

ANTYPE,0

pstres,on

solve

!*

FINISH

/SOLUTION

ANTYPE,1

BUCOPT,LANB,7,0,0

MXPAND,7,0,100000,1,0.001,

solve

FINISH

/POST1

allsel

eplot

SET,FIRST

rsys,1

/contour,0,12

plnsol,u,x,0,1

/ANG,1

/REP,FAST

/DIST,1,1.37174211248,1

/STAT,GLOBAL

FINISH

39

!This macro recreates the submarine and runs an Eigenvalue Buckling

!Analysis with an element size of 1 for the first 7 modes of which the

!2nd mode (2ND) is of interest

!

!Author: Harvey C. Lee

!Date created: March 17, 2007

!

!Directions: Create this macro and call it

!create_sub&run_eigenbuckling.mac. Then launch ANSYS and in the command

!prompt, type create_sub&run_eigenbuckling

!

/COM,ANSYS RELEASE 10.0A1 UP20060105

12:46:41

03/14/2007

!*

!*

/NOPR

/PMETH,OFF,0

KEYW,PR_SET,1

KEYW,PR_STRUC,1

KEYW,PR_THERM,0

KEYW,PR_FLUID,0

KEYW,PR_MULTI,0

/GO

!*

/COM,

/COM,Preferences for GUI filtering have been set to display:

/COM, Structural

!*

/PREP7

!*

ET,1,SHELL181

!*

KEYOPT,1,1,0

KEYOPT,1,3,2

KEYOPT,1,8,0

KEYOPT,1,9,0

KEYOPT,1,10,0

!*

R,1,4/12, , , , , ,

R,2,6/12, , , , , ,

R,3,1, , , , , ,

RMORE, , , , , , ,

!*

MPREAD,'matprop','mp',' '

csys,0

K,1,0,0,0,

K,2,0,0,12,

K,3,0,0,24,

K,4,0,0,36,

K,5,0,6,0,

kplot

LSTR,

1,

2

LSTR,

2,

3

40

LSTR,

3,

4

!

FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,2,5

FLST,8,2,3

FITEM,8,1

FITEM,8,2

LROTAT,P51X, , , , , ,P51X,

!

FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,2

FITEM,2,4

FITEM,2,-7

ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,

!

FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,8

FITEM,2,11

FITEM,2,13

FITEM,2,15

ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,

!

FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,16

FITEM,2,19

FITEM,2,21

FITEM,2,23

ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,

!

/VIEW,1,,,-1

/ANG,1

/REP,FAST

/replot

!

!

!

/PREP7

csys,1

LSTR,

5,

1

LSTR,

1,

7

LSTR,

1,

8

LSTR,

1,

6

LSTR,

17,

4

LSTR,

4,

19

LSTR,

4,

20

LSTR,

4,

18

!

FLST,3,2,3,ORDE,2

FITEM,3,9

FITEM,3,13

KGEN,2,P51X, , ,-1, , , ,0

LSTR,

9,

21

LSTR,

13,

22

!

ADRAG,

40, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

42, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

45, , , , , ,

,360,4,

8

11

13

41

ADRAG,

48, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

41, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

54, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

57, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

60, , , , , ,

!

FLST,2,3,4

FITEM,2,32

FITEM,2,7

FITEM,2,34

AL,P51X

FLST,2,3,4

FITEM,2,34

FITEM,2,6

FITEM,2,33

AL,P51X

FLST,2,3,4

FITEM,2,33

FITEM,2,5

FITEM,2,35

AL,P51X

FLST,2,3,4

FITEM,2,35

FITEM,2,4

FITEM,2,32

AL,P51X

FLST,2,3,4

FITEM,2,36

FITEM,2,31

FITEM,2,38

AL,P51X

FLST,2,3,4

FITEM,2,38

FITEM,2,29

FITEM,2,37

AL,P51X

FLST,2,3,4

FITEM,2,37

FITEM,2,27

FITEM,2,39

AL,P51X

FLST,2,3,4

FITEM,2,39

FITEM,2,24

FITEM,2,36

AL,P51X

aplot

!

FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,3,4

KGEN,2,P51X, , , , ,8, ,1

kplott,,,,,,,,,1

FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,3,39

KGEN,2,P51X, , , , ,8, ,1

kplott,,,,,,,,,1

15

16

19

21

23

42

LSTR,

4,

LSTR,

39,

/replot

lplot

!

FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,3,40

KGEN,2,P51X, , ,2,

FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,3,40

!

LSTR,

40,

FLST,2,1,4,ORDE,1

FITEM,2,68

FLST,8,2,3

FITEM,8,39

FITEM,8,40

AROTAT,P51X, , , ,

!

FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,3,39

KGEN,2,P51X, , ,4,

FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,2,45

FLST,8,2,3

FITEM,8,4

FITEM,8,39

LROTAT,P51X, , , ,

!

LSTR,

17,

LSTR,

46,

LSTR,

20,

LSTR,

45,

LSTR,

19,

LSTR,

48,

LSTR,

18,

LSTR,

47,

/replot

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,31

FITEM,2,82

FITEM,2,76

FITEM,2,80

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,81

FITEM,2,76

FITEM,2,83

FITEM,2,72

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,24

FITEM,2,80

FITEM,2,77

FITEM,2,86

AL,P51X

39

40

, , ,1

41

, ,P51X, ,360,4,

, , ,1

, ,P51X, ,360,4,

46

42

45

41

48

44

47

43

43

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,77

FITEM,2,81

FITEM,2,73

FITEM,2,87

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,82

FITEM,2,29

FITEM,2,84

FITEM,2,79

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,79

FITEM,2,85

FITEM,2,75

FITEM,2,83

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,86

FITEM,2,27

FITEM,2,84

FITEM,2,78

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,87

FITEM,2,78

FITEM,2,85

FITEM,2,74

AL,P51X

!

FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,3,46

KGEN,2,P51X, , ,-1, , , ,1

LSTR,

46,

49

ADRAG,

88, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

89, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

92, , , , , ,

ADRAG,

95, , , , , ,

!

FLST,3,4,3,ORDE,2

FITEM,3,41

FITEM,3,-44

KGEN,2,P51X, , ,6, , , ,1

kplott,,,,,,,,,1

!

FLST,3,4,3,ORDE,2

FITEM,3,58

FITEM,3,-61

KGEN,2,P51X, , , , ,-3, ,1

LSTR,

59,

63

LSTR,

58,

62

LSTR,

61,

65

LSTR,

60,

64

lplot

LSTR,

42,

59

77

78

79

76

44

LSTR,

41,

58

LSTR,

44,

61

LSTR,

43,

60

LSTR,

63,

46

LSTR,

62,

45

LSTR,

65,

48

LSTR,

64,

47

NUMMRG,KP,.001,.001, ,LOW

/replot

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,105

FITEM,2,101

FITEM,2,109

FITEM,2,81

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,106

FITEM,2,102

FITEM,2,110

FITEM,2,83

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,107

FITEM,2,103

FITEM,2,111

FITEM,2,85

AL,P51X

FLST,2,4,4

FITEM,2,108

FITEM,2,104

FITEM,2,112

FITEM,2,87

AL,P51X

aplot

!

FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,3,1

KGEN,2,P51X, , , , ,-9, ,1

kplott,,,,,,,,,1

LSTR,

1,

23

!

csys,0

! Create Nose

K,next,0,5.963,-1

K,next,0,5.850,-2

K,next,0,5.657,-3

K,next,0,5.375,-4

K,next,0,4.989,-5

K,next,0,4.472,-6

K,next,0,3.771,-7

K,next,0,3.317,-7.5

K,next,0,2.749,-8

K,next,0,2.398,-8.25

K,next,0,1.972,-8.5

K,next,0,1.404,-8.75

K,next,0,1.258,-8.8

45

K,next,0,1.091,-8.85

K,next,0,0.892,-8.9

K,next,0,0.632,-8.95

K,next,0,0.000,-9

!

FLST,3,18,3

FITEM,3,5

FITEM,3,25

FITEM,3,27

FITEM,3,29

FITEM,3,30

FITEM,3,31

FITEM,3,33

FITEM,3,35

FITEM,3,37

FITEM,3,38

FITEM,3,50

FITEM,3,52

FITEM,3,54

FITEM,3,56

FITEM,3,57

FITEM,3,66

FITEM,3,67

FITEM,3,68

BSPLIN, ,P51X

/replot

!

FLST,2,1,4,ORDE,1

FITEM,2,46

FLST,8,2,3

FITEM,8,1

FITEM,8,23

AROTAT,P51X, , , , , ,P51X, ,360,4,

!

NUMMRG,KP,0.001,0.001, ,LOW

lplott

!

FLST,5,28,5,ORDE,6

FITEM,5,1

FITEM,5,-12

FITEM,5,33

FITEM,5,-40

FITEM,5,45

FITEM,5,-52

ASEL,R, , ,P51X

lsla

ksll

!

cm,externalshell.a,area

! Define area attributes

FLST,5,8,5,ORDE,2

FITEM,5,21

FITEM,5,-28

CM,_Y,AREA

ASEL, , , ,P51X

CM,_Y1,AREA

46

CMSEL,S,_Y

!*

CMSEL,S,_Y1

AATT,

1,

3,

1,

CMSEL,S,_Y

CMDELE,_Y

CMDELE,_Y1

!* Define area attributes

FLST,5,16,5,ORDE,6

FITEM,5,13

FITEM,5,-20

FITEM,5,29

FITEM,5,-32

FITEM,5,41

FITEM,5,-44

CM,_Y,AREA

ASEL, , , ,P51X

CM,_Y1,AREA

CMSEL,S,_Y

!*

CMSEL,S,_Y1

AATT,

1,

2,

1,

CMSEL,S,_Y

CMDELE,_Y

CMDELE,_Y1

! Define area attributes

cmsel,s,externalshell.a

lsla

ksll

aplot

FLST,5,28,5,ORDE,6

FITEM,5,1

FITEM,5,-12

FITEM,5,33

FITEM,5,-40

FITEM,5,45

FITEM,5,-52

CM,_Y,AREA

ASEL, , , ,P51X

CM,_Y1,AREA

CMSEL,S,_Y

!*

CMSEL,S,_Y1

AATT,

1,

1,

1,

CMSEL,S,_Y

CMDELE,_Y

CMDELE,_Y1

! Create mesh

allsel,all

ESIZE,1

MSHKEY,1

amesh,all

!* Reverse area normals

asel,s,,,21

asel,a,,,25

asel,a,,,29

0,

0,

0,

47

asel,a,,,30

asel,a,,,31

asel,a,,,32

asel,a,,,39

asel,a,,,40

asel,a,,,47

asel,a,,,48

lsla

ksll

esla

nsle

AREVERSE,all

!

FINISH

/SOL

FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1

FITEM,2,40

!*

/GO

DK,P51X, ,0, ,1,ALL, , , , , ,

FINISH

/PREP7

allsel

csys,1

nrotat,all

!

FLST,5,28,5,ORDE,6

FITEM,5,1

FITEM,5,-12

FITEM,5,29

FITEM,5,-40

FITEM,5,49

FITEM,5,-52

ASEL,R, , ,P51X

esla

nsle

eplot

!

cm,externalshell.e,elements

!

sfe,all,2,pres,,12000,,,

!

FINISH

! Run the Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis for the first 7 modes

/SOL

!*

allsel

ANTYPE,0

pstres,on

solve

!*

FINISH

/SOLUTION

ANTYPE,1

BUCOPT,LANB,7,0,0

MXPAND,7,0,100000,1,0.001,

48

solve

FINISH

/POST1

allsel

eplot

SET,FIRST

SET,NEXT

rsys,1

/contour,0,12

plnsol,u,x,0,1

/ANG,1

/REP,FAST

/DIST,1,1.37174211248,1

/DIST, 1,

27.1280083138

/FOC,

1, -4.93790132953

/VIEW, 1, -0.446499709800

/ANG,

1, 0.415875984041

/DIST,1,0.924021086472,1

/REP,FAST

/STAT,GLOBAL

FINISH

,

,

4.04348334897

0.488816565998

49

,

16.2225589785

, -0.749464057814

Buckling Results

50

51

52

Buckling Results

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Southwell Plot

OOR = 1"

3.00E-05

2.50E-05

y = 0.0000987x + 0.0000012

R2 = 0.9972790

2.00E-05

1.50E-05

1.00E-05

5.00E-06

0.00E+00

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Deflection (in.)

Southwell Plot

OOR = 2"

3.00E-05

2.50E-05

y = 0.0000989x + 0.0000046

R2 = 0.9978519

2.00E-05

1.50E-05

1.00E-05

5.00E-06

0.00E+00

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Deflection (in.)

64

0.2

0.25

Southwell Plot

OOR = 3"

3.50E-05

y = 0.0000960x + 0.0000081

R2 = 0.9992345

3.00E-05

2.50E-05

2.00E-05

1.50E-05

1.00E-05

5.00E-06

0.00E+00

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Deflection (in.)

Southwell Plot

OOR = 4"

4.00E-05

3.50E-05

y = 0.0000949x + 0.0000116

R2 = 0.9996126

3.00E-05

2.50E-05

2.00E-05

1.50E-05

1.00E-05

5.00E-06

0.00E+00

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Deflection (in.)

65

0.2

0.25

Plasticity

66

67

68

69

70

71

- Submarine Dynamic ModelingUploaded bykooec
- Submarine Air Purification and Monitoring NATOUploaded byagmibrahim5055
- Submarine Material.pptUploaded byCandra Aditya Wiguna
- Submarine Power and Propulsion BMT Defence 2008Uploaded byÁlvaro Conti Filho
- the theory of submarine designUploaded byEhsan Amiri
- Alloy Steel vs Titanium Submarine HullUploaded byKelvin Tyh
- Impacts of Electric Propulsion Systems on Submarine DesignUploaded byGermán Cristian Camacho Silva
- The SubmarineUploaded byFluffy Fluff
- Introduction to Submarine DesignUploaded byArjun S Rana
- Usn - The Submarine Search & Rescue ManualUploaded byChris Fox
- History_of_Submarine_Composites.pdfUploaded byHamed Memarian
- Navy Submarine EM/TEMPEST Falsification FacilityUploaded byMossad News
- Introduction to Submarine Design Concept 0807Uploaded byIswahyudi Aprilyastono
- Fluid Mechanics: Submarine DesignUploaded byArjun S Rana
- Environment in SubmarineUploaded byMukesh Padwal
- Submarine Maintenance Datarc mUploaded byΡαφαηλ Καμ.
- Wind Tunnel Analysis of SubmarineUploaded byRanjeet Singh
- Submarine Propulsion SystemsUploaded byhellboy
- Naval Arch Aspect of Submarine DesignUploaded byDaeng Opie
- Submarine DesignUploaded byEhsan Amiri
- sumarine design-Ulrich gablerUploaded byEhsan Amiri
- Submarine DesignUploaded byEhsan Amiri
- Submersible vehicle system designUploaded byEhsan Amiri
- weight analysis of diesel submarineUploaded byEhsan Amiri
- Submarine DesignUploaded byfelix_omar_r
- Large SubUploaded byChris Cuddeback
- Efficient Propulsion for Underwater VehiclesUploaded byMichael Mays
- Concepts-in-Submarine-design.pdfUploaded bymudassarhussain
- Submarine HydrodynmaicsUploaded bytheyagarajan
- Vol09_Pt04_Issue_01_Submarine_Hydrodynamics,_Manoeuvring_and_Control.pdfUploaded byShyamshesha Giri

- Build a Generator From a Lawn Edger MotorUploaded bybear_76
- 2 SolidWorks BasicsUploaded byJhon Don
- 1-CourseintroUploaded byJhon Don
- Calculation of Overspeed Trip Mechanism Linkage ForcesUploaded byJhon Don
- Ractangular Ground Water TankUploaded byIrshad Khan
- Rectangular ground water tank.xlsxUploaded byJhon Don
- Civil Seminar InfoUploaded byNagesh Bhargav
- Dynamics of Asymmetric Rotors using Solid ModelsUploaded byJhon Don
- Implementation of Robust Design in ANSYSUploaded byJhon Don
- Experimental Stress Analysis- Photo Elastic- Strain Measurement- Britlle Coating- Hani Aziz AmeenUploaded byHani Aziz Ameen
- 4[1]Uploaded byRajendra Praharaj
- 2012 Influence of Blank Holding Force on the Forming Limits of DP590 SteelUploaded byJhon Don
- Motion Analysis SW0809NXUploaded byJhon Don
- Toy TreasuresUploaded byJhon Don
- An Inverse Analysis of the Erichsen Test Applied for the Automatic Identification of Sheet Materials BehaviorUploaded byJhon Don
- can crusherUploaded byJhon Don
- Motion Simulation and Analysis Tutorial Motion Simulation and AnalysisUploaded byJhon Don
- Call for Papers 2011 OverseasUploaded byJhon Don
- 4D9_handout2Uploaded byraghutejaswi
- HardnessTestUploaded byJhon Don
- Engineering GraphicsUploaded byFranCanav
- Ansys Best PracticesUploaded byJhon Don
- Concrete Silo DesignUploaded bySnehendu Biswas
- Powder MechanicsUploaded byJhon Don
- 3-d Finite Element Modelling of Granular Flow in SilosUploaded byJhon Don
- DiagramsUploaded bylucadeldiablo
- On a Diagonal Crack Numerical Model of Rc Beam With No Shear ReinforcementUploaded byJhon Don

- EOTA Technical Report TR045Uploaded byAmir Yasso
- BES 2012 e-proceeding.pdfUploaded byKS Lee
- FKMUploaded bygpskainth
- CSWIP 3.1Uploaded byTN KL
- crd_c572Uploaded byKoray Ozdemir
- atv-dvwk_m_127_e_pt2Uploaded byMehmet Emre Bastopcu
- LAB 6 LRUploaded byAlimin Anni
- Mechanical PropUploaded bymannu057
- NUS Composite Beam IIUploaded bybsitler
- ASTM A21.pdfUploaded byPablo Sebastian
- Polimeros para peliculas plásticasUploaded bypipers10
- Ada 307539Uploaded byPappuRamaSubramaniam
- A1000.PDFUploaded byManeesh Bangale
- A387 A387M-99.PDFUploaded byKarl Wallace
- Mechanical Properties of MetalsUploaded bySorabh Jain
- ASTM B398-02Uploaded byPedro M Lo
- 4 Strengths of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Made Using Field-Demolished Concrete as AggregateUploaded byget
- Ductile Iron Pipe ManufacturingUploaded byRasool Khan
- THE NATURE OF BLUE BRITTLENESS OF STEELUploaded byAgustin Jose Marcuzzi
- ETBX Stress-Life Fatigue Analysis ModuleUploaded byArdiyan Arezel Ardhy
- A254A254M-12 Standard Specification for Copper-Brazed Steel TubingUploaded byChutha
- CE6315-Strength of Materials LabUploaded bykattabomman
- Kamil Kaloush.pdfUploaded byMauricio
- Lab ReportUploaded byHenrique Prado
- ASTM's standards for Tensile polymer testingUploaded byKhaqan Amin
- Final ReportUploaded byI Nyoman Merdana
- D1593-99Uploaded byHarleyBenavidesHenriquez
- Copper for Busbars All SectionsUploaded bysusanto_andri_2005
- shn (1).pdfUploaded byPriyanka Dhurvey Singh
- Heavy Weight DrillpipeUploaded byadamadamO

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.