Quality of parameter simplification for comparison of a Finite Element

with Timoshenko’s theory for a composed panel with uniform load

Ortega Alvaro, Ortega Andres, Santos Daniela, Zambrano Paul, Nevarez Alex.

alvjorte@espol.edu.ec
anddorte@espol.edu.ec
pauszamb@espol.edu.ec
aanevare@espol.edu.ec

ABSTRACT but joined to more rigid structural elements like

The hull of a vessel is a composite plate which
supports pressure of wind and sea water. In
order to avoid plate bottom buckling, many steel
plate shear walls are heavily stiffened to
increase the rigidity of the structure. The aim of
this project is to analyze the steel plate
supporting a uniform pressure corresponding to
sea water height of 5 [m]. The analysis has been
carried out by using the Timoshenko´s method
and finite element analysis software ANSYS.
The theoretical values of bending of rectangular
plate by moment distributed along the edge was
comparing with ANSYS results of plate along 4
directions, one along X axis and 3 in Y axis. We
compared bending moments in X and Y and
deflections in the Z direction, the results showed
differences between both methods around 1% to
35%, considering all variables, having the best
approximations in the center of each panel and
the larger errors on the edges, this since the
elements tend to twist and deflect. Then
according to the process, the assumption of the
model with clamped edges gives acceptable
results for the values of bending moments but
not for the deflections.
I. INTRODUCTION
As the ship hull, deck, bulkheads and double
bottoms are composed generally speaking by
steel panels with reinforcements, it is important
to notice that all of them are under a type of
load. And if this one is lateral (perpendicular to
the plate) the composed panel does not deflect
equally along its span, due to the presence of
stiffeners and girders. So, to know exactly the
deflections and stresses the developed theory in
this course is not good enough but at least is an
approximation. How good is that approximation
is the main goal of this report; the Finite
element results will be compared with
Timoshenko’s results for plates. The main
assumption for the theory is that all the edges of
the plate are clamped, when the reality shows
off a different view: the edges are not clamped,
stiffeners, girders, or bulkheads.
II. THEORETICAL INTRODUCTION
The simplest case for analysis of plate bending
is where all borders are simply supported,
however in reality this is not quite true for the
most structures in Naval Engineering, because
the elements are joined by bolts or welded, so to
speak the clamped (built-in) edges of a plate is
more precise assumption. But mathematically is
very hard to develop a series expansion for the
deflection and bending moments due to
boundary conditions that must be satisfied, but
to develop an expansion from the equation
which satisfies the conditions, is not worth the
time used in.
Timoshenko developed a procedure to solve this
long problem, which takes a different approach
for the boundary conditions on the clamped
edges. Starting from simply supported edges,
opposite concentrated moments along the edges
are applied and increasing until reach the same
effect as if the plate were clamped. Then with
those values, the author gets a constant value
depending on the position of the measure of
bending moment or deflection, all values which
are summarized in (Timoshenko’s results in
appendix). It is important to notice the origin
and the direction of the axis used by
Timoshenko (fig. 1).
First we need to consider the restrictions
imposed by the Boundary Conditions:
Figure 1 Plates with
all clamped edges
∂w a b −σ top −σ bott
=0 ; at x=± ∧ y=± σ=
∂n 2 2 2
eq. 1 eq. 6

This condition implies that the slope in neither x And to compare with Timoshenko’s we need
nor y-axis won’t change, along the edges. The the maximum bending moments, using the
moments distributed along the complete plate maximum stress given by the FE analysis and
will generate deflection and not at the edges: the following relation:

b ∂ w ∂ w1 ∂ w 2 σ x max t 2
y=± ;
2 ∂y
+ +
∂y ∂y ( =0 ) M x=
6
eq. 2 eq. 7

a ∂ w ∂ w 1 ∂ w2 Finally with the results of this equation from

x=± ;
2 ∂x
+ +
∂ x ∂x( =0 ) FE, a comparison is made with Timoshenko’s.

eq. 3
III. METHODOLOGY
Where: w1, w2 = displacement [L] a) Process to reach the objective

∂w - Solve the mathematical equations to obtain the

=¿ slope [1]
∂x
Static Equilibrium considering a beam segment,
which is simply supported at both ends, to
which a force is applied in middle span, we can
estimate its deflection using the following
equation where the reactions at the ends are not
considered. From series expansion and
assuming symmetrical distribution, we obtain:
properties of interest (maximum shear stress,
deflection).
- Set up the initial conditions before the Finite
Element simulation.
- From F.E. results, obtain values of interest and
compare them with Timoshenko’s theory.
- Analyze the difference between results of F.E.
method and Timoshenko’s theory.
b) Experimental procedure

- Set the initial conditions: pressure, boundary

∞
4 q a2 1 αi Ei α i conditions
8ia for a simply Fm supported
1
4
( 2
π i cosh α i
−tanh α i −
i
tanh
) (
α i + 2
−
cosh αorigin πb
of
∑
coordinates ) m
on
3
the 2
a i
corner2 2
of
plate, and
=0
the plate.
i m =1 , 3 ,5 ,…

- In the F.E. model set b102 m

2
+ 2 (
points along x
)
direction and 52 points in Y direction to obtain a
eq. 4
good approximation in the results.
This can be used for obtaining the maximum - Obtain normal stresses and deflections at
displacement, which will occur at the center of different X and Y positions on the plate, where
the plate: the maximum value can be selected.
∞ m−1
a2 2 α m tanh- αRead
m a4
the data ofqbending moment, deflection
x= y =0 ; w1= 2 ∑ E m (−1 ) and
=−0.0014
normal stresses. Then use Timoshenko’s
2 π D m =1 , 3 ,5 ,… 2
m cosh α m D
results to compare with the results of F.E.
eq. 5
c) Calculations
Finally, these results lead to Timoshenko’s
Deflection:
table, in appendix.

In a more summarized way, for practical use

employing the FE results on the plate:
Load:
 Bending Moment:
Normal Stress:
IV. RESULTS
a) Summary of data
We are going to present the obtained values:
- Coordinated system of reference.
- Plate deflection along X axis.
- Plate deflection at 3 different cuts in Y
axis.
- Bending moment relation between F.E.
and Timoshenko’s theory.
- Deflection relationship between F.E.
and Timoshenko´s theory.
- Process to estimate Timoshenko´s
results.
b) Analysis of results
Figure 2 Origin of coordinate system F.E.
Figure 3 Plate deflection X-direction
Figure 4 Plate deflections Y-direction
With a simple process in the F.E. model, we
obtained the deflections in the 3 different cuts of
interest along the Y axis located between the
stiffeners, the curves show the values of the
deflections that will later be corrected for a
better comparison with the result of
Timoshenko, as can be seen without correction,
the difference and apparent error is very high.
Figure 5 Plate bending moment X-direction
Comparing the results of bending moment in X
axis with Timoshenko, we obtained a difference
from 5% to 26%, the picture only shows half of
the plate by the symmetry. Also, the divisions in
X represent the stiffeners. As can be seen the
approximation is better in the center of each
panel and Timoshenko is slightly larger on the
edges.
In fig. 6 for the Y-bending moment at 3 cuts
where the girder is in the center, the result is
also shown using the Timoshenko method.
These values have a different a range from 8%
to 26% respect to Timoshenko, having the best
approximation in the center of each panel and a
higher percentage of error respect to the edges,
this because Timoshenko solves the problem
linearly.
Figure 6 Plate bending moments Y-direction
 This figure is an example and shows the
deflection results in Y-axis between stiffeners 2
and 3. The blue curve shows the Ansys results
and the orange one shows the same value with a
correction factor, assuming the section of the
panel have all edges clamped. This in order to
better compare with Timoshenko.
Since the longitudinal reinforcements do not
exert the same function of moments distributed
along panels edges, because the finite elements
(ANSYS) show us how the stiffeners and
girders also deflect. Our recommendation is
changing the thickness in place of
reinforcements to have a better approximation
throughout the entire plate and do the Theory of
Plates analysis even if that could change the
rigidity of the plate.
A combination of assumptions clamped and
simply supported could be analyzed for the
analysis of the independent panels, this could
improve the results in the deflections, this one
by action of the force tend to rotate and deflect.

Figure 7 Corrected deflection X-direction

VII. APENDIXES

Figure 8 Corrected deflections Y-direction

These deflections in Y have a range from 1.28%

to 35% respect to Timoshenko in the center and
edges respectively. But in the rest of the curve
the difference is highly notorious because the
Timoshenko’s assumptions.

V. CONCLUSIONS

The results show a difference of %1 to 35%

between the results by FE in Ansys and
Timoshenko, remembering that only gives
solutions at the edges and center of the plate.

Based on the results and graphs we can say that

VIII. REFERENCES
assuming the clamped edges for the model has
acceptable results for the values of the bending Timoshenko, S.; Woinoski-Krieger, S.; (1987).
moments in X and Y axis, Timoshenko has a Theory of Plates and Shells. McGraw-
good approximation in the center, and the edges Hill, Ch. 6.44. Rectangular Plates with
are larger than the results in F.E., we can All Edges Built In.
consider this difference in the edges with a
safety factor, can be used as a quick estimate.
but we cannot say the same for the deflections,
Marín, J. (2018). Notas de Clase “Estructuras
the graphs show a very notable difference in the
center of the plate. Navales I”. Escuela Superior
Politécnica del Litoral, Ecuador.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS