البحث السابع

applied
sciences
Article
Dynamic Behavior of Steel and Composite Ferry
Subjected to Transverse Eccentric Moving Load Using
Finite Element Analysis
Mohamed N. Lotfy 1 , Yasser A. Khalifa 1 , Abdelrahim K. Dessouki 2 and Elsayed Fathallah 1,3, *
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Military Technical College, Cairo 11865, Egypt;
mohamed_nabil@mtc.edu.eg (M.N.L.); khalifa_yasser@mtc.edu.eg (Y.A.K.)
2 Structural Engineering Department, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11517, Egypt;
abdelrahim_dessouki@eng.asu.edu.eg
3 Ships and Submarines Engineering Department, Military Technical College, Cairo 11835, Egypt
* Correspondence: saidhabib2000@mtc.edu.eg

Received: 18 July 2020; Accepted: 31 July 2020; Published: 3 August 2020
Abstract: The most important problems confronted by designers of floating structures are minimizing
weight and increasing payload to get proper resistance to the applied loads. In the present study,
the structural performance of a ferry is analyzed using both metallic and composite materials
as a result of the dynamic load of the Military Load Capacity (MLC) 70 (tank load). The model
is composed of sixteen floating pontoons. Finite element simulation and dynamic analysis were
performed using ANSYS software (analysis system software), considering a moving MLC70 (tank
load). Both concentric and eccentric cases of loading are considered. Draft, deformation, and stresses
are obtained and investigated. For the steel ferry, the von-Mises stresses are investigated, while
for the composite ferry, the maximum principal stresses are investigated. Furthermore, buckling
analysis is performed on the composite ferry and the buckling load factor is determined. The results
of the dynamic analysis illustrated that the transverse eccentricity of the moving tank MLC70 must
not exceed 0.5 m for a steel ferry while it may reach up to 1.5 m for the composite ferry. This research
can also be a useful tool in the design of floating composite and steel ferries.
Keywords: pontoon; simulation; carbon fibers; ferry; steel; moving loads; eccentric
1. Introduction
The evolutionary demand of floating bridges and ferries are increasing continuously either for
civilian purposes or military ones, as floating bridges are established over obstacles in a very short
time. The history of floating bridges can be dated back to 2000 BC [1]. There are many main systems
for floating bridges, depending on the environmental conditions such as wave velocity and shore bed
conditions [2]. Moreover, there are many reasons making it obligatory to use floating bridges and
ferries in war and peace times. As a result of the necessary need for floating pontoons, many researchers
have studied floating pontoons. Sun et al. [3] investigated the dynamic response of floating bridge
consisting of multi-modules. The motion, bending moment, and mooring force of the floating bridge
model were discussed. Shahrabi and Bargi [4] developed a procedure to analyze the motions of floating
piers comprised of several pontoons. These pontoons are modelled as rigid bodies and connected to
each other by flexible and rigid connectors. Zhang et al. [5] studied the dynamic responses of two
analytical models of floating bridges, continuous-pontoon floating bridge and a discrete-pontoon
floating bridge subjected to moving loads for different water depths, and concluded that water depth
has a minor effect on the dynamic responses of floating bridges. Furthermore, Hirono et al. [6] proposed
a measurement system to determine the vertical displacement of a floating bridge. Other researchers
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367; doi:10.3390/app10155367 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 2 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23
preferred developing
get symmetric a finiteconsidering
simulations, element model the to get symmetric
pontoons as a beam simulations,
rested onconsidering the pontoons
elastic foundations and
as a beam rested
subjected to theon elastic loads
applied foundations and subjected
[7]. Ibrahim et al. [8] to the applied
studied theloads [7]. Ibrahim
influence et al. bridges
of floating [8] studiedon
the influence
velocity of floating
distribution. bridges on Fu
Additionally, velocity
and Cui distribution.
[9] numericallyAdditionally,
studied Fu theand Cui [9] numerically
hydro-elastic responses
studied the hydro-elastic
of connected pontoons under responses of connected
dynamic pontoons
and static cases under dynamic
of loading andand static cases
introduced a of loading
numerical
and introduced a numerical method for analysis of a ribbon floating
method for analysis of a ribbon floating bridge. Khalifa [10] studied the performance of floating bridge. Khalifa [10] studied
the performance
bridges of floating bridges
under longitudinal under longitudinal
and transverse eccentricand transverse
static eccentric
loads using finitestatic loads using
element finite
modelling.
element modelling.
Raftoyiannis Raftoyiannis
et al. [11] studied the et al.dynamic
[11] studied the dynamic
response of floatingresponse
bridges of floating
under the bridges
actionunder
of a
the actionload
moving of aatmoving
constant load at constant
velocity velocity and
and introduced anintroduced
equation that an equation
represented thattherepresented the effect
effect of damping.
of damping.
Wang and JanWang and Jan [12] the
[12] investigated investigated the dynamic
dynamic response response
of floating of floating
bridge subjected bridge subjected
to moving to
load.
moving
From theload. From
results, thethe results,
vertical the vertical
deflection deflection
in the in theisentire
entire bridge shown bridge
to beiscaused
shownbytorotation
be caused by
at the
rotation at the hinge
hinge position. Also, position.
Jun et al. Also, Jun et al. [13]
[13] investigated investigated
a discrete pontoona discrete
floating pontoon
bridgefloating bridge
under moving
under
loads. moving
Nguyen loads. Nguyen
et al. [14] et al. [14]
introduced introducedmethod
a numerical a numerical methodhydro-elastic
to compute to compute hydro-elastic
responses of
responses
pontoon-type of pontoon-type floating
floating structures structures
under moving under
loadsmoving
and waves loadsaction.
and waves Dai etaction.
al. [15]Dai et al. [15]a
presented
presented
numerical astudy numerical study ofbridge
of a floating a floatingwithbridge
a totalwithlength a total
of 4.6length of 4.6 km to
km subjected subjected
wave loads to wave
and
loads and supported
supported by 35 along
by 35 pontoons pontoons along
its full its full
length. length.
Kvåle et al.Kvåle et al. [16]
[16] studied thestudied the hydrodynamic
hydrodynamic modelling
of pontoonofbridges.
modelling pontoonThe modelThe
bridges. relies
modelon the finite
relies element
on the finite method
element and method linearized potential
and linearized theory.
potential
Taetragool
theory. et al. [17]
Taetragool et al.investigated the optimal
[17] investigated the optimal stacking
stackingsequence
sequence of of
plies
pliesinina alaminated
laminated plate
plate to
maximize the first failure load using Tsai-Wu Tsai-Wu failure
failure criterion
criterion [18,19].
[18,19]. The
The safety
safety and crossing speed
two main
are two main features
features judging
judging the
the success
success or or failure
failure of of the
the pontoon
pontoon bridges
bridges [20].[20]. Safety
Safety insurance
insurance is
not easy during loading of the ferries by the tanks, as many accidents accidents occuroccur due due toto the
the eccentricity.
eccentricity.
Figure 11 illustrates
Figure illustrates some
some accidents
accidents duedue to to the
the transverse
transverse eccentricity
eccentricity of of tank
tankloads.
loads.
Figure
Figure 1. Accidents due
1. Accidents due to
to tank
tank loads
loads eccentricity.
eccentricity.
The
The development
development of of floating
floating bridges
bridges requires
requires the
the usage
usage of of new
new materials
materials instead
instead of of traditional
traditional
steel
steel as the steel ferry has many limitations because of steel properties (relative low strength and
as the steel ferry has many limitations because of steel properties (relative low strength and
large
large density
density inin compare
compare to to carbon
carbon fibers).
fibers). The
The low
low density
density andand excellent
excellent mechanical
mechanical behavior
behavior ofof
composites
composites (reinforced
(reinforced fiber
fiber polymers
polymers suchsuch asas carbon
carbon fibers)
fibers) make
make them them candidates
candidates to to replace
replace metals
metals
for
for many
many applications
applications [19,21–25].
[19,21–25]. Simulating
Simulating composite
composite materials
materials is is one
one of of the
the most
most important
important topics
topics
to
to discuss, as it requires studying the failure criteria, buckling, and principal stresses. Composite
discuss, as it requires studying the failure criteria, buckling, and principal stresses. Composite
materials
materials showed
showed better
better results
results than
than traditional
traditional materials
materials (structural
(structural steel)
steel) in
in many
many structures
structures such
such
as submarines hulls, ships, and floating bridges. Helal and Fathallah [23] optimized
as submarines hulls, ships, and floating bridges. Helal and Fathallah [23] optimized an intersecting an intersecting
composite
composite and and steel
steel elliptical
elliptical pressure
pressure hull
hull for
for maximizing
maximizing buckling
buckling pressure
pressure and
and for
for minimizing
minimizing
weight. Mahdi et al. [26] investigated a stiffened plate structure of a ship
weight. Mahdi et al. [26] investigated a stiffened plate structure of a ship subjected to trucksubjected to truck wheels and
wheels
calculated the plastic load carrying capacity. Abozaid et al. [27] investigated
and calculated the plastic load carrying capacity. Abozaid et al. [27] investigated numerically thenumerically the structural
performance of pontoons
structural performance made of made
of pontoons hybridofcomposites (carbon (carbon
hybrid composites fibers and glass
fibers andfibers) and filled
glass fibers) and
the voids between internal stiffeners with foam, which affects the reduction
filled the voids between internal stiffeners with foam, which affects the reduction of web buckling of web buckling and
weight. Siwowski
and weight. Siwowskiand Rajchel [28] studied
and Rajchel the performance
[28] studied the performanceof a hybrid fiber reinforced
of a hybrid polymer
fiber reinforced (FRP)
polymer
girder in a concrete bridge for evaluating the strength, stiffness, and the global
(FRP) girder in a concrete bridge for evaluating the strength, stiffness, and the global safety of the safety of the girder.
Botros
girder. etBotros
al. [29]et used composite
al. [29] pontoons pontoons
used composite as piers foras floating
piers forbridges
floating and off-shore
bridges andstructures.
off-shore
structures. Błażejewski et al. [30] designed and fabricated a hybrid aluminum-composite pontoon
bridge (from glass fibers) and concluded the importance of composite materials in floating bridges.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 3 of 23
Appl. In
Sci.this
2020,study,
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
a floating ferry is simulated to accommodate the dynamic load of a moving 3tank of 23
with Military Load Capacity 70 ton (MLC70). The ferry is simulated from two different materials:
Bła In this
żejewski
structural study,
et
steel al.
and [30]acomposite
floating
designed ferry
andisfabricated
materials simulated
(carbon a to accommodate
hybrid
fibers). the
aluminum-composite
The study dynamic
aims to avoidload
pontoonof abridge
potential moving tank
(from
accidents
with
glass
by Military
fibers)
determining andLoad and Capacity
concluded the70
improving ton maximum
importance
the (MLC70). The
of composite ferrymaterials
allowable istransverse
simulated from two
in floating different
bridges.
eccentricity for MLC70. materials:
The
structural steel
In this study,
concentric and composite
a floating ferry
and transverse materials
eccentric (carbon
is simulated
dynamic fibers).
to accommodate The
loads are studiedstudy aims
the dynamic to avoid potential
load of The
for MLC70. a moving accidents
tank
structural
by determining
with Military of
performance Load and
the improving
Capacity
ferry 70 ton
is analyzed the(MLC70).
maximum
for bothThe allowable transversesteel
ferry is(structural
materials simulated eccentricity
from two carbon
and for MLC70.
different materials:
fibers), The
and
concentric
structural
comparisons and
steel are transverse
andperformed
composite betweeneccentric the
materials dynamic
(carbontwo fibers). loads
materials Theare
study
used: studied
aims
the tofor
avoid
structural MLC70.
potential
steel and The structural
accidents
the carbon by
performance
determining of the
and improving
fibers. Additionally, ferry is analyzed
the maximum
the improvement for both
allowableand
in response materials
transverse (structural
structural eccentricity
performancesteel and
for MLC70.carbon fibers),
The concentric
of the composite and
ferry
andcomparisons
transverse are performed
eccentric dynamic between
loads arethe two
studied materials
for MLC70. used:
The
is illustrated. The simulation of the studied ferry is performed as a transient dynamic analysis by the structural
structural steel
performance andof the
the carbon
ferry is
fibers.
analyzed
using ANSYS Additionally,
for both the improvement in response and structural performance
materials (structural steel and carbon fibers), and comparisons are performed between
software. of the composite ferry
theis illustrated.
two materials Theused: simulation of the studied
the structural steel and ferry theiscarbon
performedfibers. as Additionally,
a transient dynamic analysis by
the improvement
2.using
in Finite ANSYS
response Element
and software.
Modelingperformance
structural of the Steel Ferry of the composite ferry is illustrated. The simulation of
the studied ferry is performed as a transient dynamic analysis by using ANSYS software.
This Element
2. Finite study is Modeling
based on of thethe stability of the floating structure theories under the overturning
Steel Ferry
moment
2. resultingModeling
Finite Element from the eccentricity
of the Steelof applied loads. It is well known that the floating structure
Ferry
has aThis totalstudy
weight is based
equal on to thethe stability
buoyancyofforces the floating
resultingstructure
from the theories under the
submerged volumeoverturning
of this
momentThis resulting
study is from
based the
on eccentricity
the stability ofofapplied
the loads.
floating It is well
structure
structure. When a floating structure is given a slight angular displacement or an eccentric additional known
theories that the
under floating
the structure
overturning
has a ittotal
moment
mass, weight
resulting
starts to from equal
oscillate to
aboutthe buoyancy
the eccentricity of applied
a point forces
called theresulting
loads. from
It is well
meta-center the submerged
known
point, that
whichthe is volume
floating
defined of the
structure
as this
hasstructure.
a total When
weight a floating
equal to structure
the buoyancy is given
forces a slight
resulting angular
from displacement
the
intersecting point of the normal axis of the floating structure and the line of action of the buoyancy submerged or an
volume eccentric
of this additional
structure.
mass,[31–33].
When
force aitfloating
startsThe to oscillateisof
structure
stability about
given a slight
point angular
the floating called the
structures meta-center
displacement
depends uponorpoint,
an which is
theeccentric
location ofdefined
additional
the center as the
mass, of
intersecting
itgravity,
starts to point
oscillate of the
about normal
a point axis
called of the floating
meta-center structure
point, and
the center of buoyancy, and the meta-center. These factors determine whether the floatingwhichthe line
is of action
defined as of
the the buoyancy
intersecting
forceof[31–33].
point
structure theisnormal The axis
stable, stability
of theof
neutral, the
orfloating floating
unstable structure structures
Figure and thedepends
line of the
2 illustrates upon
actionferryofthe
the location
underbuoyancy of force
stability theconditions
center
[31–33]. of
Thegravity,
withoutstabilitythe ofcenter of buoyancy,
the floating
eccentricity. structures and depends
the meta-center.
upon the These factors
location of thedetermine
center ofwhether
gravity,the thefloating
center
ofstructure
buoyancy, is and
stable, the neutral,
meta-center.or unstable Figuredetermine
These factors 2 illustrates the ferry
whether under stability
the floating structureconditions
is stable,
withoutoreccentricity.
neutral, unstable Figure 2 illustrates the ferry under stability conditions without eccentricity.
Y X W
Water Go 1.50
X BW
o
Water
0.587 m Go 1.50
level Bo
9.90 m
0.587 m
level 9.90 m
Figure 2. The loaded ferry under stability condition.
Figure 2. The loaded ferry under stability condition.
Figure 2.
(GO) represents the original The loaded
center ferry under
of gravity of thestability
ferry, condition.
and (BO) represents the center of
buoyancy force. The the
(GO ) represents transverse
originaleccentricity of the of
center of gravity mass
the (tank) over(B
ferry, and the
O ) floating
representsstructure (ferry)
the center of
results
buoyancy(Gin
O) represents the original center of gravity of the ferry, and (BO) represents the center of
an additional
force. overturning
The transverse moment;
eccentricity Figure
of the mass3(tank)
illustrates
over the transverse eccentricity
floating structure (ferry)effect of
results
buoyancy
the tank. force. The transverse eccentricity of the mass (tank) over the floating structure
in an additional overturning moment; Figure 3 illustrates the transverse eccentricity effect of the tank. (ferry)
results in an additional overturning moment; Figure 3 illustrates the transverse eccentricity effect of
the tank.
Y
M
Y Δ
X M
WaterX Δ θ a
W
S
θ
Go Ba
Water W
S Gob B Δ
o
b Δ
Figure 3. The
Figure 3. The loaded
loaded ferry
ferry under
under stability
stability condition o transverse
condition (with
(with transverse eccentricity).
eccentricity).
Figure 3. The loaded ferry under stability condition (with transverse eccentricity).
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 4 of 23
(M) is the
(M) theadditional
additionalmoment
momentdue duetotoeccentric
eccentricload (overturning
load (overturning moment)
moment) and and
equals (M =(𝑀
equals ∆F=×∆FS),
where (M)
∆ F is the additional
denote the moment
generated forcedue
fromto eccentric
the load (overturning
additional submerged moment)
volume of and equals
ferry and (S)(𝑀 = ∆F
denote
×S), where ∆ F denote the generated force from the additional submerged volume of ferry and (S)
×S),
the wherearm
length ∆ F denote the generated forceThefromincrease
the additional submerged volume of ferry and (S)
denote the lengthofarm theofcoupled moment.
the coupled moment. The increase in inthe
theeccentricity
eccentricityresults
resultsin
in an increase
an increase
denote
in the the length arm of the coupled moment. The increase in the eccentricity results in an increase
in the stability
stabilityangle
angle(θ), which
(θ), whichcauses the additional
causes moment
the additional (M) to(M)
moment increase. The additional
to increase. moment
The additional
in makes
(M) the stability
the anglestructure
floating (θ), which tilt causes
around the
the additional moment
longitudinal axis of (M)
the to increase. The additional
structure.
moment (M) makes the floating structure tilt around the longitudinal axis of the structure.
moment (M) makes the floating structure tilt around the longitudinal axis of the structure.
3. Model Definition
3. Model Definition
3. Model Definition
3.1. Geometry and Material
The ferry considered in this study is composed of sixteen connected pontoons, as shown in Figure 4.
The ferry considered in this study is composed of sixteen connected pontoons, as shown in
Each pontoon
The ferry hasconsidered
a length of in 5.25 m, study
this width is of composed
2.4 m, and aofheight
sixteen of 1.5 m connected
connected by both
pontoons, asthe upperin
shown
Figure 4. Each pontoon has a length of 5.25 m, width of 2.4 m, and a height of 1.5 m connected by
Figure
and lower 4. connection
Each pontoon has aThe
systems. length of 5.25 between
connection m, widtheveryof 2.4twom,pontoons
and a height
is 0.1of
m 1.5 m and
wide, connected by
the ferry
both the upper and lower connection systems. The connection between every two pontoons is 0.1 m
both
has the upper
a total lengthand lower
of 21.3 connection
m and systems.
a total width Them.connection between every two pontoons is 0.1 m
of 9.9
wide, and the ferry has a total length of 21.3 m and a total width of 9.9 m.
wide, and the ferry has a total length of 21.3 m and a total width of 9.9 m.
Figure
Figure 4.
4. The
The configuration
configuration of
of the
the ferry
ferry composed
composed of
of 16
16 pontoons.
pontoons.
Figure 4. The configuration of the ferry composed of 16 pontoons.
The
The pontoon
pontoon is composed
composed of longitudinal,
longitudinal, transverse,
transverse, and vertical internal structural elements
elements
The pontoon is composed of longitudinal, transverse, and vertical internal structural elements
using
using different
differentcross
crosssections;
sections;three
threedifferent equal
different equalangles (angle
angles 80 ×
(angle 808,×angle 90 × 90
8, angle 9, and
× 9,angle 120 ×
and angle
using different cross sections; three different equal angles (angle 80 × 8, angle 90 × 9, and angle 120 ×
12),
120 ×in12),
addition to twotomain
in addition diaphragms
two main usingusing
diaphragms 2 different I-beam
2 different sections
I-beam (IPE(IPE
sections 160 160
andand
IPEIPE
180), as
180),
12), in addition to two main diaphragms using 2 different I-beam sections (IPE 160 and IPE 180), as
shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure5. 5.
The angles
The and
angles anddiaphragms
diaphragmsare aremodelled
modelledusing
usingbeam
beamelements,
elements,while
whilethe
the deck
deck
shown in Figure 5. The angles and diaphragms are modelled using beam elements, while the deck
sheet, roundside
sheet, round sidesheets,
sheets,
andand
lowerlower
sheetsheet are modelled
are modelled using
using shell shell with
elements elements withthicknesses
different different
sheet, round side sheets, and lower sheet are modelled using shell elements with different
thicknesses (theisdeck
(the deck sheet sheet
six mm, is the
and six mm,
otherand theare
sheets other
foursheets
mm). are
Thefour mm).used
material Thefor
material used for
the metallic the
ferry is
thicknesses (the deck sheet is six mm, and the other sheets are four mm). The material used for the
metallic ferrythe
steel 37 with is steel 37 with
following the following
properties shown properties
in Table 1.shown
[34]. in Table 1. [34].
metallic ferry is steel 37 with the following properties shown in Table 1. [34].
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. The isometric

Figure isometricsections
sectionsofofone
onepontoon. (a)(a)
pontoon. Internal stiffeners
Internal configuration,
stiffeners (b) Outer
configuration, shell plates.
(b) Outer shell
Figure 5. The isometric sections of one pontoon. (a) Internal stiffeners configuration, (b) Outer shell
plates.
plates.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 5 of 23
Table 1. The properties of structural steel.

Properties Value
Table 1.Density
The properties of structural77 kN/m3
steel.
Tensile yield strength 2.5 × 10 8 (Pa)
Properties Value
Compressive yield strength 8 (Pa)
2.5 ×7710kN/𝑚 3
Density
Tensile yield strength
Tensile ultimate strength 3.62.5 × 10
× 10
8 (Pa)
8 (Pa)
Compressive yield strength 2.5 × 108 (Pa)
Tensile ultimate strength 3.6 × 108 (Pa)
3.2. Loads
3.2. Loads
The ferry is analyzed using transient dynamic analysis under the effect of moving tank (MLC70).
The load
The of tankistracks
ferry is simulated
analyzed on the deck
using transient of the analysis
dynamic ferry, where thethe
under dimensions
effect of of each tank
moving tanktrack
are considered
(MLC70). 0.5 m
The load of width and 4.5
tank tracks m lengthon
is simulated Figure 6 illustrates
the deck thewhere
of the ferry, dimensions of the military
the dimensions of eachload
capacity tank
tank track areofconsidered
MLC70. 0.5 m width and 4.5 m length Figure 6 illustrates the dimensions of the
military load capacity tank of MLC70.
(a (b
) )
Figure 6.
Figure 6. The
Thetank
tankdimensions.
dimensions.(a)(a)
Side view
Side of of
view MLC70, (b) (b)
MLC70, Elevation of MLC70.
Elevation of MLC70.
Four cases
Four cases of
of loading
loadingareareconsidered
considered in this study:
in this in theinfirst
study: the case,
first the load
case, theis load
centered (no
is centered
eccentricity), while in the other three cases, the load is transversely eccentric from the center
(no eccentricity), while in the other three cases, the load is transversely eccentric from the center with with
valuesof
values of 0.5
0.5 m,
m, 1.0
1.0 m,
m, and
and 1.5
1.5m,
m,as asillustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure 7. 7.
The eccentricity values are assumed according
The eccentricity values are assumed according to the to the width of the
width of tank tracktrack
the tank (0.5 m) to m)
(0.5 cover a
to cover
wide range of transverse eccentricity with the whole possible cases of loading (the whole load of the
a wide range of transverse eccentricity with the whole possible cases of loading (the whole load of
tank is at the inner two pontoons; the whole load of the tank is at the inner two pontoon but
the tank is at the inner two pontoons; the whole load of the tank is at the inner two pontoon but
eccentric; the whole load of the tank is over the separation between pontoons, i.e., the tank track acts
eccentric; the whole load of the tank is over the separation between pontoons, i.e., the tank track
on the edges of two adjacent pontoons; and the final case of loading is when the tank track acts on
acts on the edges of two adjacent pontoons; and the final case of loading is when the tank track acts
the edge pontoon). The behavior of the ferry can be divided into intervals from [0–0.5 m], from [0.5–
on theand
1 m], edge pontoon).
from [1–1.5 m].The behavior of the ferry can be divided into intervals from [0–0.5 m], from
[0.5–1 m], and from [1–1.5 m].
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 6 of 23
Case (1) Case (2)
Case (3) Case (4)
Figure
Figure 7. 7.
TheThe four
four cases
cases of loading.
of loading. CaseCase (1) centered
(1) centered load load (no eccentricity);
(no eccentricity); Case
Case (2) (2) transversely
transversely eccentric
eccentric from the center (0.5 m); Case (3) transversely eccentric from the center (1 m); Case
from the center (0.5 m); Case (3) transversely eccentric from the center (1 m); Case (4) transversely (4)
eccentric
transversely eccentric
from the center (1.5 m). from the center (1.5 m).
The
The dynamicload
dynamic loadofofthe
thetank
tankapplied
appliedas
as aa moving
moving pressure
pressure calculated
calculatedasasfollows:
follows:
𝑊
𝑃= W (1)
P = 2(𝐵𝑇 ∗ 𝐿 𝑇 ) (1)
2(BT ∗ LT )
where (𝑃) denotes the applied pressure over the route of the tank, (W) denotes the weight of the tank
and equals
where (623 kN),
(P) denotes (𝐵𝑇 ) denotes
the applied the width
pressure of the
over the tankoftrack
route and equals
the tank, 0.5 m, and
(W) denotes the (𝐿 𝑇 ) is the
weight oflength
the tank
of the tank track which equals 4.5 m. The speed of the tank ranges from 6 to 10 km/hr for
and equals (623 kN), (BT ) denotes the width of the tank track and equals 0.5 m, and (LT ) is the length crossing the
of floating
the tankbridges, so theequals
track which tank is4.5
assumed
m. Thetospeed
enter of
thethe
ferry
tankwith a speed
ranges from of68.1
to km/hr.
10 km/hr Theforperiodic
crossing
thetime of thebridges,
floating movingso tank
the(𝑇) is defined
tank as follows:
is assumed to enter the ferry with a speed of 8.1 km/hr. The periodic
time of the moving tank (T ) is defined as follows: LT
𝑇= (2)
𝑉
LT
where (𝑉) denotes the tank speed. By substituting T = in Equation (5) 𝑇 = 2 (sec.), the tank crosses the(2)
V
ferry in 12 s to reach the end of the ferry.
where (V) denotes the tank speed. By substituting in Equation (5) T = 2 (s), the tank crosses the ferry
in 3.3.
12 sBoundary Conditions
to reach the end of the ferry.
Following Archimedes law, the weight of the floating ferry equals the weight of displaced
3.3. Boundary Conditions
water by the submerged volume [35,36]. The simulation of water as a support is simulated as elastic
supports withArchimedes
Following correspondinglaw,computed
the weight stiffness acting on
of the floating the equals
ferry lower sheet of the of
the weight ferry, while water
displaced the
byhome shore effect
the submerged is simulated
volume [35,36].asThe
a single hingedof
simulation support at athe
water as mid-span
support of the lower
is simulated shore side
as elastic of
supports
thecorresponding
with ferry. computed stiffness acting on the lower sheet of the ferry, while the home shore
effect is simulated as a single hinged support at the mid-span of the lower shore side of the ferry.
3.4. Elastic Support Stiffness

Computing the stiffness for the elastic support varies according to the outer shape of the submerged
structure, the stiffness of the floating structure, and its mass while the ferry is loaded in water:
WF = Ww (3)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 7 of 23
where WF denotes the weight of the ferry and Ww denotes the weight of the displaced water. The own
weight of the simulated ferry (WF ) is calculated using ANSYS software, while Ww equals the following:
Ww = B × L × Ds × w (4)
where B denotes the ferry breadth without connections and equals 9.6 m, L denotes the ferry length
without connections and equals 21 m, Ds denotes the submerged depth of the ferry in water, and w is
the density of water with value equals (9.81 kN/m3 ). By substituting in Equation (7), Ds is obtained.
The stiffness (k) is calculated as follows:
Ww = k × B × L × Ds (5)
By substituting in Equation (8), we obtain the following:
k= w (6)
The value of the elastic support stiffness is found to be equal 9.81 kN/m3 for the considered model.
Generally, calculating the stiffness value for any floating structure is obtained by plotting three graphs
as discussed by Khalifa [10] in order to achieve the exact draft (submerged depth). As affecting load
dynamically moves along the ferry, the general equation of motion introduced by Chopra [37] governs
the model computations as follows:
.. .
F(t) = m u(t) + c u(t) + k u(t) (7)
..
where F(t) denotes the dynamic force at time t, (m) denotes the mass of the structure, u(t) denotes
.
the acceleration of the structure at time t, (c) denotes the damping coefficient, u(t) denotes the velocity
of the structure at time t, (k) denotes the stiffness of the structure, and u(t) denotes the displacement of
the structure at time t.
3.5. Convergence Study

In order to get the most proper meshing size according to the results and elapsed time during
analysis processing, five element sizes are used, 0.15 m, 0.2 m, 0.28 m, 0.35 m, and 0.4 m, to illustrate
the best result of the convergence study [38]. The corresponding numbers of elements are 52,236,
50,711, 17,904, 15,046, and 14,988, respectively. The results of these five models illustrate the accuracy
of the analysis. Figure 8 illustrates the maximum total deformation results with every meshing size for
the first case of loading.
The results illustrate that the difference between results is not magnificent. In our case, the difference
between the minimum result from the coarse meshing and the maximum result from the fine meshing
is 1.14%, which is not effective in comparison with the elapsed time in analysis. The difference
between the analysis time between the fine meshing and coarse meshing is about 300%. The difference
in the elapsed time between the 0.15 m meshing size and the 0.2 m meshing size is about 200%.
These results are candidate the meshing sizing of 0.2 m for elements to be the most proper element size.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 8 of 23
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2020,
2020,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 88of
of23
23
1.20
1.20
1.15
1.15
Maximum deformation (m)
deformation (m)
1.10
1.10
Maximum
1.05
1.05
1.00
1.00
0.10
0.10 0.15
0.15 0.20
0.20 0.25
0.25 0.30
0.30 0.35
0.35 0.40
0.40 0.45
0.45
Maximum meshing
Maximum meshing size
size (m)
(m)
Figure 8. Maximum total deformations with mesh sizing.

Figure8.8.Maximum
Figure Maximumtotal
totaldeformations
deformationswith
withmesh
meshsizing.
sizing.
4. Validation
4.4.Validation
Validation
A verification analysis is performed to assess the accuracy of the analysis model. A numerical
model Ais
A verification
verification analysis
performedanalysis
for a steelisis performed
performed
ferry underto to assess
itsassess the accuracy
the
own weight accuracy of the
of
considering thegravity
analysisacceleration;
analysis model. A
model. A numerical
numerical
then, its
model
model is
is performed
performed for
for aa steel
steel ferry
ferry under
under its
its own
own weight
weight considering
considering
result is compared with the reading measured at the field. The actual draft measured in the gravity
gravity acceleration;
acceleration; then,
then, its
its
field
result
result is
is compared
compared with
with the
the reading
reading measured
measured at
at the
the field.
field. The
The actual
actual
is found to be 26.8 cm, as shown in Figure 9. The draft value can also be verified mathematically, draft
draft measured
measured in
in the
the field
field isis
foundto
found
where tobe
the be 26.8cm,
26.8
weight cm, asshown
of as
the shown inFigure
in
ferry equals Figure 9.9.The
562.5 The draft
kN;draft value
thenvalue canalso
can
substitutingalsoinbe
be verifiedmathematically,
verified
Equation mathematically,
(7), where
where
the corresponding
the
the weight
weight of
of the
the ferry
ferry equals
equals 562.5
562.5 kN;
kN; then
then substituting
substituting in
in Equation
Equation
draft equals 26.6 cm. The maximum draft result from the numerical analysis is obtained as shown (7),
(7), the
the corresponding
corresponding draft
draft
equals
equals 26.6
26.6 cm.
cm. The
The maximum
maximum draft
draft result
result from
from the
the numerical
numerical analysis
analysis
in Figure 10 and equals 26.6 cm. The numerical and the field result are found to be in good agreement is
is obtained
obtained as
as shown
shown in
in
Figure
Figure
with 10and
10
a ratio and equals26.6
equals
percentage 26.6 cm.The
cm.
of 99.3%. Thenumerical
numericaland andthe thefield
fieldresult
resultarearefound
foundto tobe
beiningood
goodagreement
agreement
withaaratio
with ratiopercentage
percentageof of99.3%.
99.3%.
Figure9.
Figure
Figure 9.9.The
Thedraft
The draftof
draft ofthe
of theferry
the ferryunder
ferry underits
under itsown
its ownweight
own weightmeasured
weight measuredat
measured atthe
at thefield.
the field.
field.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 9 of 23
Figure
Figure 10. The numerical
10. The numerical draft
draft of
of aa steel
steel ferry
ferry under
under its
its own
own weight.
weight.
5. Composite Ferry
5. Composite Ferry
The weight of ferries is the most critical factor; therefore, the designers strive for selecting
The weightand
a high-strength of low-density
ferries is thematerial.
most critical factor;the
Decreasing therefore,
weight ofthe
thedesigners strive
ferry allows for selecting
increasing a
the pay
high-strength and low-density material. Decreasing the weight of the ferry allows increasing
load. Using composite materials is one of the most effective solutions available [36,39]. The mechanical the pay
load. Using composite materials is one of the most effective solutions available [36,39]. The
properties of composite materials are very high compared with structural steel, which helps to reduce
mechanical properties of composite materials are very high compared with structural steel, which
the weight of the used elements and sections. In this model, the material is proposed to be one of
helps to reduce the weight of the used elements and sections. In this model, the material is proposed
the modern widely used composite materials. Epoxy carbons woven and unidirectional are used as
to be one of the modern widely used composite materials. Epoxy carbons woven and unidirectional
materials for the composite ferry model. All beam elements used in steel ferry model were implemented
are used as materials for the composite ferry model. All beam elements used in steel ferry model
in composite model using the same cross-sectional area and were constructed from epoxy carbons
were implemented in composite model using the same cross-sectional area and were constructed
woven. The thickness of the upper deck of the composite ferry differs from the steel ferry. The thickness
from epoxy carbons woven. The thickness of the upper deck of the composite ferry differs from the
of the upper deck in the composite ferry equals 10 mm, while the thicknesses of the other shells are
steel ferry. The thickness of the upper deck in the composite ferry equals 10 mm, while the
the same as the steel ferry (4 mm). The materials properties and parameters are illustrated in Table 2.
thicknesses of the other shells are the same as the steel ferry (4 mm). The materials properties and
Avoidance of structural failure is a principal goal of all structural designers. Simulation of the composite
parameters are illustrated in Table 2. Avoidance of structural failure is a principal goal of all
ferry takes into consideration both material and buckling failure. In this study, the mechanical model
structural designers. Simulation of the composite ferry takes into consideration both material and
is used to simulate the composite model as a worksheet and to lay up layers. The same geometry as
buckling failure. In this study, the mechanical model is used to simulate the composite model as a
the steel ferry is used. To simulate the layered section; it is obligatory to have 3 coordinate systems to
worksheet and to lay up layers. The same geometry as the steel ferry is used. To simulate the layered
adjust the direction of laying up the layers, as the layered sections are arranged in the +Z direction.
section; it is obligatory to have 3 coordinate systems to adjust the direction of laying up the layers, as
The coordinate systems are assigned to the shells to make every shell in XY plane normal in the +Z
the layered sections are arranged in the +Z direction. The coordinate systems are assigned to the
direction. The first layer is on the top. Subsequent layers are added to the bottom, increasing in the +Z
shells to make every shell in XY plane normal in the +Z direction. The first layer is on the top.
normal direction. The shell consists of a total of 5 layers with stacking sequence [(0/45)/90] S but with
Subsequent layers are added to the bottom, increasing in the +Z normal direction. The shell consists
a different layer thickness for every shell. For the upper shell deck, every layer has a thickness of 2 mm
of a total of 5 layers with stacking sequence [(0/45)/ 90] but with a different layer thickness for
to get a total thickness of 10 mm, while for the other shells,𝑺 every layer has a thickness of 0.8 mm to
every shell. For the upper shell deck, every layer has a thickness of 2 mm to get a total thickness of 10
get a total thickness of 4 mm. Unidirectional carbon is used for shell elements, and woven carbon is
mm, while for the other shells, every layer has a thickness of 0.8 mm to get a total thickness of 4 mm.
used for the beam elements (internal stiffeners). The orientation of the composite laminate for the shell
Unidirectional carbon is used for shell elements, and woven carbon is used for the beam elements
elements is illustrated in Figure 11. Every layer is placed and oriented according to its local coordinate
(internal stiffeners). The orientation of the composite laminate for the shell elements is illustrated in
system considering the layup of the layers in the +Z direction (normal to every shell). The orientation
Figure 11. Every layer is placed and oriented according to its local coordinate system considering the
of every layer is defined according to the local coordinate system of every shell, and the angles of
layup of the layers in the +Z direction (normal to every shell). The orientation of every layer is
orientation are measured from + X direction for every shell.
defined according to the local coordinate system of every shell, and the angles of orientation are
measured from + X direction for every shell.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 10 of 23
Table 2. The material properties and strength parameters of epoxy carbon unidirectional (UD) and
woven (230 GPa).
Epoxy Carbon UD (230 GPa) Epoxy Carbon Woven

Density 14.62 (kN/m3 ) 14.23 (kN/m3 )
Tensile strength in X direction 2231 (MPa) 513 (MPa)
Tensile strength in Y direction 29 (MPa) 513 (MPa)
Tensile strength in Z direction 29 (MPa) 50 (MPa)
Compressive strength in X direction −1082 (MPa) −437 (MPa)
Compressive strength in Y direction −100 (MPa) −437 (MPa)
Compressive strength in Z direction −100 (MPa) −150 (MPa)
Shear modulus XY 4700 (MPa) 17,500 (MPa)
Shear modulus YZ 3100 (MPa) 2700 (MPa)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10,Shear
x FORmodulus XZ
PEER REVIEW 4700 (MPa) -(MPa) 10 of 23
Figure 11.
Figure Thelaminate
11. The laminateconfiguration
configurationfor
forlower
lower and
and side
side shells.
shells.
Figure 12 illustrates the 11.

Figure local
Theand globalconfiguration
laminate coordinate systems
for lower for
andthe
sidedifferent
shells. used shells.
Figure 12 illustrates the local and global coordinate systems for the different used shells.
The load is the dynamic load of the tank (MLC70) similar to the steel ferry.
Figure 12 illustrates the local and global coordinate systems for the different used shells.
Figure 12. Coordinate systems.
Figure 12. Coordinate systems.

Figure 12. systems.
5.1. Practical Validation for CFRP
Table 2. The material properties and strength parameters of epoxy carbon unidirectional (UD) and
A composite
woven plate of dimensions (20 × 25 cm) with a thickness of 1 mm is manufactured in the lab
(230 GPa).
Table 2. The material
to compare the real practicalproperties
resultsand strength
to the parameters
numerical offrom
results epoxyANSYS.
carbon unidirectional (UD) and
The plate is manufactured
woven (230 GPa). Epoxy Carbon UD (230 GPa) Epoxy Carbon Woven
Density 14.62 (kN/𝑚3 ) 14.23 (kN/𝑚3 )
Epoxy Carbon UD (230 GPa) Epoxy Carbon Woven
Tensile strength in X direction 2231 (MPa) 3 513 (MPa)
Density 14.62 (kN/𝑚 ) 14.23 (kN/𝑚3 )
Tensile strength in Y direction 29 (MPa) 513 (MPa)
Tensile strength in X direction 2231 (MPa) 513 (MPa)
Tensile strength in Z direction 29 (MPa) 50 (MPa)
Tensile strength
Compressive in in
strength Y direction
X direction 29 (MPa)
−1082 (MPa) 513 (MPa)
−437 (MPa)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 11 of 23
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2020,
2020,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 11of
11 of23
23
manufactured from
manufactured from woven
woven carbon
carbon fibers
fibers (230)
(230) with
with the
the illustrated
illustrated properties
properties in
in Table
Table 2.
2. The
The plate
plate is
is
from woven carbon fibers (230) with the illustrated properties in Table 2. The plate is designed from five
designedfrom
designed from five
fivelayers
layers with
with aa sequence
sequence [0] [0]55 to
to get
get the
the required
required thickness.
thickness. Figure
illustrates the
the
layers with a sequence [0]5 to get the required thickness. Figure 13 illustrates the manufacturing process.
manufacturing process.
manufacturing process. The
The manufactured
manufactured composite
composite plateplate isis applied
applied toto the
the three-point
three-point bending
bending
Thetest,
manufactured
and the composite
the maximum
maximum loadplate
and itsis applied
its to the three-point
corresponding deflection are bending
are test, and
determined. the 14
Figure maximum
illustratesload
test, and load and corresponding deflection determined. Figure 14 illustrates
andthat
its corresponding
that the
the maximum
maximum load deflection
load is
is286
286 N are
N and determined.
and that
that the Figure
the corresponding 14 illustrates
correspondingdeflection that
deflection at
at thethe maximum
the critical
critical section load
sectionis is 286 N
is 19.917
19.917
andmm.
that
mm. the corresponding deflection at the critical section is 19.917 mm.
Figure13.
Figure
Figure 13.Composite
13. Compositeplate
Composite plate manufacturing
platemanufacturing
manufacturing process.
process.
process.
Figure14.
Figure
Figure 14.Three-point
14. Three-pointbending
Three-point bending test.
bendingtest.
test.
The The
The simulation
simulation
simulation of
ofof thethecomposite
the compositeplate
composite plate with
plate with the
with the same
the same characteristics
samecharacteristics
characteristics asas
as thethe
the manufactured
manufactured
manufactured oneone
one is is
is
performed
performed with
with ANSYS
ANSYS software.
software. The
The maximum
maximum load
load from
from
performed with ANSYS software. The maximum load from the test is applied with the same conditions the
the test
test is
is applied
applied with
with the
the same
same
conditions
conditions
of the test, and ofthe
of thecorresponding
the test, and
test, and the
the corresponding
corresponding deflection
deflection isdeflection
determined. is determined.
is determined.
The deflection The deflection
The deflection
is foundisis found
tofound to be
to
be 18.119 bemm
with 18.119
18.119 mm with
mm withpercent
a matching a matching
a matching percent
withpercent with the
with the
the practical practical
practical
result result
result91%.
of about of about
of about
Figure 91%. Figure
91%.15Figure 15 illustrates
15 illustrates
illustrates the
the
the simulated
simulated composite
simulated composite plate plate with
with the the applied
applied loadload and
and thethe boundary
boundary conditions
conditions and and then
then thethe total
total
composite plate with the applied load and the boundary conditions and then the total deformation
deformation result.
deformation result. The
The failure
failure criteria
criteria areare determined
determined for for the
the composite
composite plateplate forfor whole
whole layers.
layers. TheThe
result. The failure criteria are determined for the composite plate for whole layers. The upper layer
upper layer
upper layer designated
designated as as layer
layer (1)(1) and
and thethe additional
additional layers
layers werewere stacked
stacked from from thethe top
top toto the
the
designated as layer (1) and the additional layers were stacked from the top to the bottom. The critical
bottom. The
bottom. The critical
critical layer
layer is is the
the lower
lower layer
layer (layer
(layer (5)).
(5)). Maximum
Maximum failure failure occurs
occurs at at mid-span
mid-span underunder
layer isapplied
the lower
the applied
layer
load. After
(layer
After that,
(5)).
that, failure
Maximum
failure occurs
occurs at
failure
at the
occurs
the upper
upper layer
at (layer
mid-span
layer (layer
under
(1)) and
and then
the
then layer
applied
layer (4),
load.(2),
(4), layer
layer (2),
After
the load. (1))
that, failure
and finally
and occurs
finally layer at
layer (3). the
(3). Figureupper
Figure 16 layer (layer
16 illustrates
illustrates the (1)) and
the failure then layer
failure distribution (4),
distribution for layer
for all (2),
all layers. and finally
layers. Failure
Failure of layer
the (3).
of the
manufactured
manufactured platetheisisfailure
plate the same
the samedistribution
as of
as of the for all layers.
the simulated
simulated plate.
plate. Failure of theoccurs
The failure
The failure manufactured
occurs at the
at plate isin
the mid-span
mid-span the
in same
the
the
as Appl.
of the simulated
top layer,
top layer,
Sci. as10,
as
2020, shown
shown plate.
x FOR in The
in Figure
PEER Figure failure
REVIEW 17.
17. occurs at the mid-span in the top layer, as shown in Figure
12 of 17.
23
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 15.15. Simulation
Simulation ofcomposite
of the the composite plate ANSYS
plate using using ANSYS software.
software. (a) The simulation,
(a) The simulation, (b) Total
(b) Total deformation.
deformation.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Appl. Sci.Figure 15.5367
2020, 10, Simulation of the composite plate using ANSYS software. (a) The simulation, (b) Total 12 of 23
deformation.
Figure 15. Simulation of the composite plate using ANSYS software. (a) The simulation, (b) Total
deformation.
Layer (1) (upper) Layer (2) Layer (3) Layer (4) Layer (5) (Bottom)
Layer (1) (upper) Layer (2) Layer (3) Layer (4) Layer (5) (Bottom)
Figure
Figure16.
Figure 16.Layers
16. Layersfailure
Layers failurecriteria.
failure criteria.
criteria.
Figure 17. Manufactured plate failure.

5.2. Nonlinear
5.2. Nonlinear Buckling
Buckling Analysis
Analysis
5.2. Nonlinear Buckling Analysis
The nonlinear buckling analysis of the model is investigated, and the Buckling Load Factor
The nonlinear buckling analysis of the model is investigated, and the Buckling Load Factor (BLF)
(BLF) is determined. To ensure stability, the critical buckling strength (Pcr) must exceed the actual
The nonlinear
is determined. buckling
To ensure analysis
stability, of the buckling
the critical model is strength
investigated,
(Pcr ) and
mustthe Buckling
exceed Load Factor
the actual load (Pact ).
load (Pact). The BLF is defined in ANSYS as the load multiplier, as shown in the following equation.
(BLF) is determined. To ensure stability, the critical buckling strength (P
The BLF is defined in ANSYS as the load multiplier, as shown in the following equation. cr) must exceed the actual
load (Pact). The BLF is defined in ANSYS as the𝑩𝑳𝑭 𝑷𝒄𝒓

load=multiplier, as shown in the following equation.
(8)
𝑷
P𝒂𝒄𝒕
BLF = 𝑷 cr
𝒄𝒓 (8)
BLF must be ≥1 to avert failure due to𝑩𝑳𝑭 = PFor military standards, BLF must be ≥1.5 [40].(8)
buckling.
𝑷act
𝒂𝒄𝒕
The nonlinear Eigen value buckling analysis is computed for one pontoon with an equivalent load of
BLF BLF
an mustmustbebe≥1
adequate ≥1totoavert
portion avert failure
failure
of the due accommodated
due
tank load to
to buckling.
buckling.For bymilitary
For military
the ferry.standards,
standards,
The BLFBLF
nonlinear must be
must
Eigen ≥1.5
buckling[40]. [40].
be ≥1.5
TheThe nonlinear
nonlinear inEigen
analysis Eigen ANSYS value
value buckling analysis
is performed
buckling isis
for static
analysis computed
analysis.
computed forfor
oneone
Therefore, pontoon loadwith
thepontoon an equivalent
of the
withtank load
(63.5 t)
an equivalent is ofload
of an multipliedportion
an adequate
adequate by 1.3 toof
portion consider
ofthe
thetank theload
tank dynamic effect [10]. The
loadaccommodated
accommodated bypontoon
thethe
by is loaded
ferry.
ferry.TheThebynonlinear
4000 PaEigen
nonlinear as aEigen
uniform
buckling
buckling
load over
analysis in the upper
ANSYS is deck, which for
performed represents
static the ratio ofTherefore,
analysis. the total loadthecarried
load by
of one
the pontoon
tank only.
(63.5 t) is
analysis in ANSYS is performed for static analysis. Therefore, the load of the tank (63.5 t) is multiplied
multiplied by 1.3 to consider the dynamic effect [10]. The pontoon is loaded
by 1.3 to consider the dynamic effect [10]. The pontoon is loaded by 4000 Pa as a uniform load over by 4000 Pa as a uniform
loadAppl.
over the
2020,upper deck,
PEERwhich represents the ratio of the total load carried by one pontoon only.
the upper deck,
Sci. which
10, x FORrepresents
REVIEW the ratio of the total load carried by one pontoon only. The13study of 23 of
buckling effect to detect which element could fail is essential. Figure 18 illustrates the buckling analysis
The study of buckling effect to detect which element could fail is essential. Figure 18 illustrates the
and illustrates that the BLF is 5.3.
buckling analysis and illustrates that the BLF is 5.3.
(a) (b)
FigureFigure 18. Eigen

18. Eigen value value buckling
buckling analysis.(a)
analysis. (a)Isometric
Isometric view
view of
of the
thebuckling
bucklingfailure, (b)(b)
failure, Horizontal
Horizontal
sectionsection illustrates
illustrates the buckling
the buckling of the
of the internal
internal stiffeners.
stiffeners.
6. Results and Discussion

The steel and composite ferry are analyzed under four cases of loading. The achieved results
were analyzed as follows:
(a) (b)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10,
Figure 18. 5367
Eigen value buckling analysis. (a) Isometric view of the buckling failure, (b) Horizontal13 of 23
section illustrates the buckling of the internal stiffeners.

The steel and composite ferry are analyzed under four cases of loading. The achieved results were
The steel and composite ferry are analyzed under four cases of loading. The achieved results
analyzed as follows:
were analyzed as follows:
6.1. Case 1
6.1. Case 1
In this case of loading, the dynamic load of the tank (MLC70) is centered (i.e., no transverse
In this case of loading, the dynamic load of the tank (MLC70) is centered (i.e., no transverse
eccentricity is considered). Figure 19 demonstrates the deformation distribution for both steel and
eccentricity is considered). Figure 19 demonstrates the deformation distribution for both steel and
composite ferries under the moving load of the tank (MLC70). The deformation distribution is
composite ferries under the moving load of the tank (MLC70). The deformation distribution is
symmetric at any time along longitudinal axis of the ferry as the load is centered. Figure 20 illustrates
symmetric at any time along longitudinal axis of the ferry as the load is centered. Figure 20
the maximum total deformation with time for both steel and composite ferries.
illustrates the maximum total deformation with time for both steel and composite ferries.
(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FORFigure

PEER REVIEW
19. The total deformation distribution in case of loading 1. 14 of 23
Figure 19. The total deformation distribution in case of loading 1.
0.36
1.2 0.32
1.0 0.28
Total Deformation (m)
Total deformation (m)
0.24
0.8
0.20
0.6 0.16
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0.0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (Sec)
Time (sec)
Figure20.
Figure 20. The
The maximum
maximum total
totaldeformations
deformationswith
withtime forfor
time case 1. 1.
case
Figure
Figure 2020 shows
shows the
the fluctuationofof
fluctuation thethe deformationwith
deformation withtime
timedue
duetotothe
the dynamiceffect
dynamic effect
ofof the
the tank
tank over the ferry and shows also the damping effect while vanishing these
over the ferry and shows also the damping effect while vanishing these fluctuations. The maximum fluctuations. The
maximum
value valueequals
of the draft of the to
draft equals
1.1291 m at tot 1.1291
= 8 s form the
at t steel
= 8 sferry
for the
andsteel ferry
0.2335 mand 0.2335
for the m for the
composite ferry
composite ferry at the same time (t = 8 s). Figure 21 illustrates von-Mises stress
at the same time (t = 8 s). Figure 21 illustrates von-Mises stress distribution for the steel ferrydistribution for theand
thesteel ferry and
maximum the maximum
principal stress for principal
the composite stressferry.
for the
Thecomposite
maximumferry. Thestresses
principal maximum principal
are investigated
stresses are investigated as the failure index is the most important criteria for the safety of the
as the failure index is the most important criteria for the safety of the composite design.
composite design.
Figure 20 shows the fluctuation of the deformation with time due to the dynamic effect of the
tank over the ferry and shows also the damping effect while vanishing these fluctuations. The
maximum value of the draft equals to 1.1291 m at t = 8 s for the steel ferry and 0.2335 m for the
composite ferry at the same time (t = 8 s). Figure 21 illustrates von-Mises stress distribution for the
steel ferry and the maximum principal stress for the composite ferry. The maximum principal
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367
stresses are investigated as the failure index is the most important criteria for the safety 14 of ofthe
23
composite design.
Figure21.
Figure 21.Stress
Stressdistribution
distributionover
overthe
theferries
ferriesfor
forcase
case1.
1.
Themaximum
The maximum affectedaffected elements
elements are the the elements
elementsaround
aroundthe thetank
tanktracks.
tracks.Figure
Figure22 shows
22 shows the
maximum
the maximum values
values of of
stresses
stresses over
overthe theferry
ferrywith
withtimetimefor
for both
both materials.
materials. The
The maximum
maximum value of
von-Misesstresses
von-Mises stressesisis1.54 1088(Pa)
1.54 ×× 10 (Pa)forforthe
thesteel
steel ferry at t =
ferry at = 22 sec. Themaximum
s. The maximumprincipal
principal stress
stress for
for
7 7
thecomposite
the composite ferry
ferry is 3.47
is 3.47 10 which
× 10× Pa, Pa, which
is loweris than
lowerthethan the principal
principal strength ofstrength
the used oflaminates;
the used
laminates;the
therefore, therefore,
failure index is <1. The
the failure index is <1. Theferry
composite composite
shows the ferry shows
same trendthebut
same
withtrend
lower but with
values.
lower values. The low density of the composite material results in lower
The low density of the composite material results in lower deformation values from the steel ferry, deformation values from
the steel
which ferry,
is the which
reason foristhese
the reason
lowerfor these The
values. lower values. The
maximum maximum deformations
deformations are found to are be at t = 8to
found s
be at the
where, t = tank
8 s where,
is aboutthe tank over
passing is about passing
the last pontoon.overThese
the last pontoon.
values seem toThese values seem
be reasonable as thetoend be
ofreasonable
the ferry is asthethefree
endend.
of theTheferry is the free
maximum end. The
stresses maximum
occur as soonstresses occur tank
as the whole as soon as the
enters thewhole
ferry
tankfull
with enters
capacity at t =
the ferry with full capacity
2 s which also, isatreasonable.
t = 2 s which also, is reasonable.
8
1.6x10 4x107
8
1.4x10
Max.Prin.Stresses (Pa)
8
1.2x10 3x107
von Misis (Pa)
8
1.0x10
7
8.0x10
2x107
7
6.0x10
7
4.0x10
1x107
7
2.0x10
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0
Time (sec) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (Sec)
(a) von-Mises stress for steel ferry
(b) Max. principal stress for composite ferry
Figure
Figure22.
22.The
Thechange of of
change stresses with
stresses time
with forfor
time case 1. 1.
case
6.2.Case
6.2. Case22
Inthis
In thiscase,
case,
thethe dynamic
dynamic loadload of tank
of the the tank (MLC70)
(MLC70) is applied
is applied with an with an eccentricity
eccentricity of 0.5 mof 0.5 m
away
away from the center of the ferry to the right direction (+X direction). Figure
from the center of the ferry to the right direction (+X direction). Figure 23 illustrates that the 23 illustrates that
the deformations
deformations are unsymmetrical
are unsymmetrical aboutabout the center
the center of theof the ferry.
ferry. TheThe ferry
ferry is tilted
is tilted towards
towards thethe load
load
position(about
position (aboutthetheZZaxis).
axis).Additionally,
Additionally,the the ferry
ferry is is warped
warped and
and thethe rotation
rotation at at
thethe hinged
hinged point
point at at
the beginning of the ferry exists. This eccentricity results in an additional couple of moments which
helps to overturn the ferry as the central gravity of the load is transversely shifted.
Figure 22. The change of stresses with time for case 1.
6.2. Case 2
In this case, the dynamic load of the tank (MLC70) is applied with an eccentricity of 0.5 m away
from the center of the ferry to the right direction (+X direction). Figure 23 illustrates that the
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 15 of 23
deformations are unsymmetrical about the center of the ferry. The ferry is tilted towards the load
position (about the Z axis). Additionally, the ferry is warped and the rotation at the hinged point at
thebeginning
the beginning of of the
the ferry
ferry exists.
exists. This eccentricity results in an additional couple
couple of moments
moments which
which
helpsto
helps tooverturn
overturnthe the ferry
ferry as
as the
the central
central gravity
gravity of
of the
the load
load is
is transversely
transversely shifted.

Figure 24 shows the total maximum deformation values with time all over the ferry for both
Figure 24 shows the total maximum deformation values with time all over the ferry for both
materials. The figure illustrates that the maximum total deformation values have the same manner as
materials. The figure illustrates that the maximum total deformation values have the same manner
the previous case in Figure 20 but with higher values. The total deformation values are increased in this
as the
Appl. Sci.previous casePEER
2020, 10, xby
FOR in Figure 20 but with higher values. The total deformation values are increased
case of loading 7% for REVIEW 16 ofcase.
the steel ferry and about 9.5% for the composite ferry from the previous 23
in this case of loading by 7% for the steel ferry and about 9.5% for the composite ferry from the
previous case.
0.36
1.2
0.32
1.0
0.28
0.24
0.8
0.20
0.6
0.16
0.4
0.12
0.2 0.08
0.04
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0.00
Time (Sec) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (sec)
(a) The steel ferry
(b) The composite ferry
Figure
Figure24.
24.The
Thetotal
totaldeformations
deformationswith
withtime
timefor
forcase
case2.2.
The increase
increase in
in deformation
deformationvaluesvaluesininthis
thiscase
caseappears
appearstotobebedue duetotothe
theeccentricity
eccentricityeffect.
effect.
shows that the maximum deformation equals 1.2086 m at t = 8 s for the steel
Additionally, Figure 24 shows that the maximum deformation equals 1.2086 m at t = 8 s for the steel
ferry and 0.2557
0.2557 m
m for
for the
the composite
composite ferry
ferry at
at the
the same
sametimetime(t(t==88s).
s).The
Themaximum
maximumdeformations
deformations
occur at the
the same
same time
time asas the
theprevious
previouscase casewhere
wherethe thetank
tankisisabout
aboutpassing
passingover
over the last
the pontoon.
last pontoon.
The distribution of the stresses is illustrated in Figure
the stresses is illustrated in Figure 25. 25.
The increase in deformation values in this case appears to be due to the eccentricity effect.
Additionally, Figure 24 shows that the maximum deformation equals 1.2086 m at t = 8 s for the steel
ferry and 0.2557 m for the composite ferry at the same time (t = 8 s). The maximum deformations
occur
Appl. Sci.at the10,same
2020, 5367 time as the previous case where the tank is about passing over the last pontoon.
16 of 23
The distribution of the stresses is illustrated in Figure 25.
Figure25.
Figure 25.Stress
Stressdistribution
distributionover
overferries
ferriesfor
forcase
case2.2.
The
Themost
mosteffected
effected elements
elements are
are the elements around
around and
and beneath
beneaththe
thetank
tanktracks
tracksininaddition
additionto
tothe
theconnections
connections between
between pontoons.
pontoons. Figure
Figure 26 shows
26 shows thethe maximum
maximum values
values of von-Mises
of von-Mises stresses
stresses with
with
timetime
overover the steel
the steel ferryferry
and and the maximum
the maximum principal
principal stress
stress withwith
timetime for composite
for the the composite ferry.
ferry. The
Appl.
The Sci. 2020,
stresses
stresses 10,
are are xincreased
FOR PEER
increased forREVIEW
for
thethe both
both ferries.
ferries. 17 of 23
8
2.5x10
1.5x108
8
2.0x10
Max.Princ.Stress (Pa)
8
von Mises (Pa)
1.5x10 1.0x108
8
1.0x10
5.0x107
7
5.0x10
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (sec)
Time (Sec)
(a) von-Mises stress for steel ferry (b) Max. principal stress for composite ferry
Figure 26.
Figure 26. Stresses
Stresses change
change with
with time
time for
for case
case 2.
2.
The maximum
The maximum value
value of stresses equals 2.2 × 1088 Pa
× 10 Paatattt== 4 s for the steel ferry
ferry as
as in
in the
theprevious
previous
casebut,
case but,this
thisvalue
valueis is very
very close
close to the
to the yieldyield strength
strength of theofused
the steel.
used The
steel.maximum
The maximum
value ofvalue of
stresses
8
equals 1.49 × 10 Pa for the composite ferry at t = 8 s. The ferry is safe for both materials in this case
stresses equals 8
1.49 × 10 Pa for the composite ferry at t = 8 s. The ferry is safe for both materials in
this
of case of loading.
loading.
6.3.
6.3. Case
Case 3
In
Inthis
thiscase,
case,the
themoving
movingload is is
load applied
applied with transverse
with transverse eccentricity equal
eccentricity to 1.0
equal to m
1.0tomthe
toright from
the right
the
from center
the of the ferry
center (+X ferry
of the direction). Figure 27 illustrates
(+X direction). Figure 27that the deformations
illustrates that the are unsymmetrical
deformations are
unsymmetrical
about the centerabout
of thethe center
ferry. Theofferry
the ferry. The
is tilted ferry isthe
towards tilted
sametowards the same(about
load position load position (about
Z direction) as
Z direction)
the previous as thebut
cases previous cases but
with higher withashigher
values values as
the rotational the rotational
angle angle
at the hinged at the
point hinged
at the point
beginning
at the
of the ferry
beginning of the ferry
is increased. is increased.
Additionally, Additionally,
the ferry is warpedthe ferry
more is warped
than more case.
the previous than the previous
case.
In this case, the moving load is applied with transverse eccentricity equal to 1.0 m to the right
from the center of the ferry (+X direction). Figure 27 illustrates that the deformations are
unsymmetrical about the center of the ferry. The ferry is tilted towards the same load position (about
Z direction) as the previous cases but with higher values as the rotational angle at the hinged point
at the
Appl. Sci. beginning
2020, 10, 5367of the ferry is increased. Additionally, the ferry is warped more than the previous
17 of 23
case.
Figure27.
Figure 27.The
Thetotal
totaldeformation
deformationinincase
case3.3.
Figure
Figure2828shows showsthethemaximum
maximumdeformation
deformationvalues
valueswith
withtime
timefor
forthe
theferry
ferryfor
forboth
bothmaterials.
materials.
The
Thefigure
figure illustrates
illustratesthat thethe
that deformation in this
deformation in case has the
this case hassame manner
the same as in case
manner 2 but
as in casewith higher
2 but with
values
higherdue to the
values increase
due to thein the transverse
increase eccentricity.
in the transverse The deformations
eccentricity. are increased
The deformations arebyincreased
about 12% by
for the
about steel
Appl. Sci.12% ferry
2020,for the
10, x and by
steel
FOR about
PEERferry 19.5% for the composite ferry from case 1.
and by about 19.5% for the composite ferry from case 1.
REVIEW 18 of 23
1.4 0.36
1.2 0.32
0.28
1.0
0.24
0.8 0.20
0.6 0.16
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0.0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Figure 28. The total deformations with time for case 3.
The maximum deformation Figure is

28.increased
The total deformations with
to 1.262 m for thetime forferry
steel case and
3. 0.279 m for the composite
ferry. The above results illustrate that the increasing in the vertical displacement is caused by
The maximum deformation is increased to 1.262 m for the steel ferry and 0.279 m for the
the eccentricity effect. The stress distribution is illustrated in Figure 29.
composite ferry. The above results illustrate that the increasing in the vertical displacement is caused
by the eccentricity effect. The stress distribution is illustrated in Figure 29.
Figure 29. Stresses distribution for case 3.
Figure 30 shows the stresses with time in case 3. The stresses are increased with a very high
Figure 28. The total deformations with time for case 3.
The maximum deformation is increased to 1.262 m for the steel ferry and 0.279 m for the
Appl. Sci. 2020, ferry.
composite 10, 5367The above results illustrate that the increasing in the vertical displacement is 18
caused
of 23
by the eccentricity effect. The stress distribution is illustrated in Figure 29.
Figure29.
Figure 29.Stresses
Stressesdistribution
distributionfor
forcase
case3.3.
Figure
Figure3030showsshowsthe thestresses
stresseswith
withtimetimeinincase
case3.3.The
Thestresses
stressesareareincreased
increasedwith
withaavery
veryhigh
high
percentage
percentagefrom fromcasecase1.1. The increase
increase is
is about
about10 10times
timesforforthe
thesteel
steelferry
ferryand
and about
about 4.65
4.65 times
times forfor
the
the composite
composite ferry.
ferry.
9
1.6x10
9
1.4x10 1.5x108
9
Max.Prin.Sresses (Pa)
1.2x10
9
von Mises (Pa)
1.0x10
8
1.0x108
8.0x10
8
6.0x10
8
4.0x10 5.0x107
8
2.0x10
0.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (sec) Time (Sec)
(a) von-Mises stress for steel ferry (b) Max. principal stress for composite ferry
Figure30.
Figure 30.Stresses
Stresseschange
changewith
withtime
timefor
forcase
case3.3.
InInthis
thiscase
caseofofloading,
loading,thethevon-Mises
von-Misesstresses
stressesare
arehigher
higherthan
thanthe
thestresses
stresses inin the
the previous
previous cases.cases.
Themaximum
The maximumstress stressfor
forthis
thiscase
caseofofloading
loadingequals
equals1.58
1.58××10 9 9Pa
10 Pafor
forthe
thesteel ferryatatt t==1.8
steelferry 1.8s,s,which
which
exceedsthe
exceeds theultimate
ultimatestrength
strengthofofthetheused
usedsteel;
steel;additionally,
additionally,the theresults
resultsillustrates
illustrates its its insufficient
insufficient
torsionalstiffness
torsional stiffness toto resist
resist thethe twisting
twisting moment
moment from
from thethe eccentric
eccentric loading.
loading. Therefore,
Therefore, thethe steel
steel ferry
ferry is
8
not safe in this case of loading. For the composite ferry, the stress equals 1.62 × 10 Pa at t = 2 s, whichs,
is not safe in this case of loading. For the composite ferry, the stress equals 1.62
8 × 10 Pa at t = 2
iswhich
higheristhan
higherthethan
valuesthein
values in the previous
the previous cases ofcases of loading.
loading. The stresses
The stresses curve curve is changed
is changed as theas the
tank
tankisload
load is applied
applied at the connections
at the connections between between two pontoons.
two pontoons.
6.4.Case
6.4. Case4 4
InInthis
this case
case of of loading,
loading, thethe
loadload is applied
is applied withwith a transverse
a transverse eccentricity
eccentricity equal equal 1.5 mthe
1.5 m from from the
center
ofcenter of the
the ferry toferry to theThe
the left. left.total
The deformation
total deformation
overover the ferry
the ferry is asis shown
as shown
in in Figure
Figure 31.31.The
Thefigure
figure
illustratesthat
illustrates that
thethe deformations
deformations are asymmetrical
are asymmetrical andthe
and that that theisferry
ferry is warped
warped more thanmore than the
the previous
previous
cases cases
for both forand
steel bothcomposite
steel and composite
ferries. ferries.
6.4. Case 4
In this case of loading, the load is applied with a transverse eccentricity equal 1.5 m from the
center of the ferry to the left. The total deformation over the ferry is as shown in Figure 31. The figure
illustrates
Appl. Sci. 2020,that the deformations are asymmetrical and that the ferry is warped more than19 the
10, 5367 of 23
previous cases for both steel and composite ferries.
Figure 31.
Figure 31. The
The total
total deformation
deformation distribution
distribution in
incase
case4.4.
Figure32
Figure 32demonstrates
demonstrates the the maximum
maximum deformations
deformations with
withtime
timeoveroverthetheferry
ferryfor
forboth
bothmaterials.
materials.
Thefigure
The figureillustrates
illustrates that
that the
the deformations
deformations in this case
case are
are the
the same
same as as the
the previous
previouscases
casesbut
butwith
with
highervalues.
higher values.The The increase
increase ofof the
the deformation values from case
case 11 is
is about
about18%18%for
forthe
thesteel
steelferry
ferryand
and
30%
30% for
Appl.for the
Sci.the composite
composite
2020, ferry.
ferry.
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 23
0.36
0.36
1.4
1.4 0.32
0.32
1.2
1.2 0.28
0.28
(m)
(m)
deformation(m)
deformation(m)
1.0 0.24
1.0 0.24
Totaldeformation
Totaldeformation
0.8 0.20
0.8 0.20
0.16
0.6 0.16
0.6
0.12
0.12
Total
Total
0.4
0.4
0.08
0.08
0.2
0.2 0.04
0.04
0.0 0.00
0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (Sec) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (Sec) Time (sec)
Time (sec)
(a)
(a) The
The steel
steel ferry
ferry (b)
(b) The
The composite
composite ferry
ferry
Figure
Figure 32. The
32.The
Figure32. total
Thetotal deformations
totaldeformations with
deformationswith time
withtime for
timefor case
case4.4.
forcase 4.
The
The maximum
Themaximum deformation
deformationinin
maximumdeformation this
inthis case
thiscase equals
caseequals 1.3351
1.3351mm
equals1.3351 for
mfor the
forthe steel
thesteel ferry
steelferry att t=
ferryatat t ==7.8
7.8
7.8sssand
and 0.30341
and0.30341
0.30341
mm for
for the
the composite
composite ferry.
ferry. Figure
illustrates the
the stress
stress distribution.
distribution.
m for the composite ferry. Figure 33 illustrates the stress distribution.
(a)
(a) The
The steel
steel ferry
ferry (b)
(b) The
The composite
composite ferry
ferry
Figure
Figure 33. von-Mises
33.Von-Mises
Figure33. stress
von-Misesstress distribution
stressdistribution for
distributionfor case
case4.4.
forcase 4.
The
The stress
stress values
values exceed
exceed the
the allowable
allowable strength
strength for
for the
the steel
steel ferry.
ferry. Figure
Figure 34
34 shows
shows the
the stresses
stresses
in case 4 for both materials.
9
1.8x10 9
1.8x10 2.5x1088
9 2.5x10
1.6x10 9
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 20 of 23
Figure 33. von-Mises stress distribution for case 4.
The stress
The stress values
values exceed
exceed the
the allowable
allowable strength
strengthfor
forthe
thesteel
steelferry.
ferry. Figure
Figure34
34shows
showsthe
thestresses
stresses
9
1.8x10
2.5x108
9
1.6x10
9
1.4x10 2.0x108
Max.Prin.Stresses (Pa)
9
1.2x10
von Mises (Pa)
9
1.0x10 1.5x108
8
8.0x10
6.0x10
8 1.0x108
8
4.0x10
8 5.0x107
2.0x10
0.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (Sec)
Time (Sec)
(a) von-Mises stress for steel ferry (b) The composite ferry
Figure 34. Stresses change with time for case 4.

Figure 34. Stresses change with time for case 4.
The stress values are slightly increased compared to the previous case, having a maximum value of
1.65 × 10 Pa for the steel ferry at t = 2 s and 2.078 × 108 Pa for the composite ferry at t = 2.2 s. The results
9
assure that the increases in the vertical displacement and von-Mises stresses are caused by the increase
in the transverse eccentricity of the applied load. The von-Mises results of the composite ferry for
the whole cases are lower than the maximum stresses of the used composite materials, which means
that the ferry is safe and that there is no failure according to the maximum stress theory. The maximum
results for the four cases of loading for both materials are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. The results of the steel ferry and the composite one.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Weight (kN)
Def. (m) Stress (Pa) Def. (m) Stress (Pa) Def. (m) Stress (Pa) Def. (m) Stress (Pa)
Steel ferry 562.5 1.1291 1.54 × 108 1.2086 2.2 × 1.262 1.58 × 109 1.335 1.65 × 109
Comp. ferry 153 0.2335 3.47 × 107 0.2557 1.49 × 108 0.279 1.62 × 108 0.3034 2.078 × 108
These results make it possible to increase the capacity of the ferry to accommodate more than the tank load of
(MLC70) or to reduce the cross-sectional dimensions to make the ferry more economic.
7. Conclusions
In this study, the dynamic behavior of a ferry is investigated using ANSYS software. The simulation
of the ferry is performed for both steel and composite materials. The boundary conditions are
simulated, and the applied load is assigned as a dynamic load of the tank MLC70, which equals 623 kN.
The validation of the numerical model is checked by field measurement and mathematical results.
The validation is performed for the draft of the ferry under its own weight, and the results from
ANSYS are almost the same as the experimental results. Nonlinear buckling analysis is performed for
the composite ferry to ensure the safety of the model. Furthermore, the study presents the expected
modes of buckling and the methods of predicting their occurrence. The maximum stress theory which
is used to predict the failure is safe for the composite model for all cases. For eccentricity of more than
0.5 m (i.e., for 1 m transverse eccentricity), the stresses are increased with a very high percentage to
reach 9 times in steel ferry and 3.2 times in composite ferry. The results of the dynamic analysis also
show that, if there is eccentricity, then the transverse eccentricity of the moving tank MLC70 must not
exceed 0.5 m for the steel ferry, while may reach up to 1.5 m for the composite ferry with the same
outer dimensions and stiffeners as the steel ferry. When the transverse eccentricity of the moving tank
MLC70 is 0.5 m, the total deformation values are increased by 7% for the steel ferry and about 9.5% for
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 21 of 23
the composite ferry. Additionally, the stresses are increased by about 42% for the steel ferry and by
about 4 times for the composite ferry. If the eccentricity exceeds 0.5 m for the steel ferry and 1.5 m
for the composite, there will be an insufficient torsional stiffness to resist the twisting moment from
the eccentric loading. The composite ferry shows that the buckling load factor is 5.3, which means that
the capacity can be increased and shows also an improvement in weight/capacity ratio rather than
steel ferry, as composite ferry weighs 29% of the steel ferry. The improvement in the weight/capacity
ratio allows the increase of the permissible carrying load from a stability perspective. Additionally,
the aforementioned results illustrate that the increasing in the vertical displacement is caused by
the additional moment due to eccentricity.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.A.K., A.K.D. and E.F.; methodology Y.A.K. and E.F.; software M.N.L.,
Y.A.K. and E.F.; validation, M.N.L., Y.A.K. and E.F.; formal analysis, M.N.L., Y.A.K. and E.F.; investigation, M.N.L.,
Y.A.K. and E.F.; resources, M.N.L., Y.A.K. and E.F.; data curation, M.N.L., Y.A.K. and E.F.; writing—original draft
preparation, M.N.L., Y.A.K. and E.F.; writing—review and editing, M.N.L., Y.A.K., E.F. and A.K.D.; visualization,
M.N.L., Y.A.K. and E.F.; supervision, Y.A.K., E.F. and A.K.D.; funding acquisition all. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors are thankful to Military Technical College (Cairo-Egypt) for providing all
the necessary facilities to carry out that research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Cheng, Z.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. Wave load effect analysis of a floating bridge in a fjord considering inhomogeneous
wave conditions. Eng. Struct. 2018, 163, 197–214. [CrossRef]
2. Watanabe, E.; Utsunomiya, T. Analysis and design of floating bridges. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2003, 5,
127–144. [CrossRef]
3. Sun, J.; Jiang, P.; Sun, Y.; Song, C.; Wang, D. An experimental investigation on the nonlinear hydroelastic
response of a pontoon-type floating bridge under regular wave action. Ships Offshore Struct. 2017, 13, 233–243.
[CrossRef]
4. Shahrabi, M.; Bargi, K. Numerical simulation of multi-body floating piers to investigate pontoon stability.
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7, 325–331.
5. Zhang, J.; Miao, G.-P.; Liu, J.-X.; Sun, W.-J. Analytical Models of Floating Bridges Subjected by Moving Loads
for Different Water Depths. J. Hydrodyn. 2008, 20, 537–546. [CrossRef]
6. Hirono, Y. Positional displacement measurement of floating units based on aerial images for pontoon bridges.
In International Conference on Advanced Engineering Theory and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2016.
7. Wu, J.-S.; Shih, P.-Y. Moving-load-induced vibrations of a moored floating bridge. Comput. Struct. 1998, 66,
8. Ibrahim, M.M.; Hassan, M.A.; Ghanim, A.D. Effect of Floating Bridges on Velocity Distribution. J. Eng.
Res. Rep. 2019, 1–16. [CrossRef]
9. Fu, S.; Cui, W. Dynamic responses of a ribbon floating bridge under moving loads. Mar. Struct. 2012, 29,
10. Khalifa, Y.A. Study the Structural System Effect on the Stability of Floating Metallic Bridges. Ph.D. Thesis,
Military Technical College, Cairo, Egypt, 2008.
11. Raftoyiannis, I.G.; Avraam, T.P.; Michaltsos, G.T. Analytical models of floating bridges under moving loads.
Eng. Struct. 2014, 68, 144–154. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, H.-H.; Jin, X.-L. Dynamic analysis of maritime gasbag-type floating bridge subjected to moving loads.
Int. J. Nav. Arch. Ocean Eng. 2016, 8, 137–152. [CrossRef]
13. Jun, Z.; Liu, J.; Ni, X.L.; Li, W.; Mu, R.; Zhang, J. Dynamic Model of a Discrete-Pontoon Floating Bridge
Subjected by Moving Loads. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2010, 29, 732–737. [CrossRef]
14. Nguyen, X.V. A Moving Element Method for Hydroelastic Response of a Floating Thin Plate Due to a Moving
Load. In ACMSM25; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 189–198.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 22 of 23
15. Dai, J.; Leira, B.J.; Moan, T.; Kvittem, M.I. Inhomogeneous wave load effects on a long, straight and
side-anchored floating pontoon bridge. Mar. Struct. 2020, 72, 102763. [CrossRef]
16. Kvåle, K.A.; Sigbjörnsson, R.; Øiseth, O. Modelling the stochastic dynamic behaviour of a pontoon bridge:
A case study. Comput. Struct. 2016, 165, 123–135. [CrossRef]
17. Taetragool, U.; Shah, P.; Halls, V.; Zheng, J.; Batra, R.C. Stacking sequence optimization for maximizing
the first failure initiation load followed by progressive failure analysis until the ultimate load. Compos. Struct.
2017, 180, 1007–1021. [CrossRef]
18. Tsai, S.W.; Wu, E.M. A General Theory of Strength for Anisotropic Materials. J. Compos. Mater. 1971, 5, 58–80.
[CrossRef]
19. Helal, M.; Huang, H.; Wang, D.; Fathallah, E. Numerical Analysis of Sandwich Composite Deep Submarine
Pressure Hull Considering Failure Criteria. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 377. [CrossRef]
20. Kim, T.W.; Lee, D.H.; Trong, V.; Son, C.H.; Yoon, J.I.; Choi, K.H.; Kim, Y.B. A Study on Motion Control of
Multiple Floating Units. In Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material
Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 16–18 August 2018.
21. Fathallah, E.; Qi, H.; Tong, L.; Helal, M. Design optimization of lay-up and composite material system to
achieve minimum buoyancy factor for composite elliptical submersible pressure hull. Compos. Struct. 2015,
121, 16–26. [CrossRef]
22. Fathallah, E. Optimal Design Analysis of Composite Submersible Pressure Hull. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014,
578, 89–96.
23. Helal, M.; Fathallah, E. Multi-Objective optimization of an intersecting elliptical pressure hull as a means of
buckling pressure maximizing and weight minimization. Mater. Test. 2019, 61, 1179–1191. [CrossRef]
24. Kim, S.-H.; Yoon, S.J.; Choi, W. Design and Construction of 1 MW Class Floating PV Generation Structural
System Using FRP Members. Energies 2017, 10, 1142. [CrossRef]
25. Imran, M.; Shi, D.; Tong, L.; Waqas, H.M.; Muhammad, R.; Uddin, M.; Khan, A. Design Optimization and
Non-Linear Buckling Analysis of Spherical Composite Submersible Pressure Hull. Materials 2020, 13, 2439.
[CrossRef]
26. Omidali, M.; Khedmati, M.R. Reliability-Based design of stiffened plates in ship structures subject to wheel
patch loading. Thin Walled Struct. 2018, 127, 416–424. [CrossRef]
27. Abozaid, M.A.; Elbeblawy, M.S.A.; Sayed-Ahmed, E.Y. Structural Performance of Hybrid Composite Pontoon
Compared to Steel. In The International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering; Zagazig University
Medical Journal: Ash Sharqiyah, Egypt, 2016; Volume 11, pp. 1–14.
28. Siwowski, T.; Rajchel, M. Structural performance of a hybrid FRP composite—lightweight concrete bridge
girder. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 174, 107055. [CrossRef]
29. Botros, F.; Williams, J.; Coyle, E. Application of composite materials in deep water offshore platforms.
In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 1997.
30. Błażejewski, W.; Filipiak, A.; Barcikowski, M.; Łagoda, K.; Stabla, P.; Lubecki, M.; Stosiak, M.; Śliwiński, C.;
Kamyk, Z. Design and implementing possibilities of composite pontoon bridge. Sci. Lett. Rzesz. Univ.
Technol. Mech. 2018, 35, 411–420. [CrossRef]
31. Mégel, J.; Kliava, J. Metacenter and ship stability. Am. J. Phys. 2010, 78, 738–747. [CrossRef]
32. Schetz, J.A.; Fuhs, A.E. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999.
33. Mégel, J.; Kliava, J. On the buoyancy force and the metacentre. arXiv 2009, arXiv:0906.1112.
34. Chirica, I.; Boazu, D.; Beznea, E.-F. Retracted: Response of ship hull laminated plates to close proximity blast
loads. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2012, 52, 197–203. [CrossRef]
35. King, R. Principles of Flotation; South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Johannesburg: Johannesburg,
South Africa, 1982.
36. Fathallah, E.; Qi, H.; Tong, L.; Helal, M. Design Optimization of Composite Elliptical Deep-Submersible
Pressure Hull for Minimizing the Buoyancy Factor. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2014, 6. [CrossRef]
37. Chopra, A.K. Theory and applications to earthquake engineering. In Dynamics of Structures, 4th ed.; Prentice
Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2015.
38. Helal, M.M.K.; Elsayed, F. Dynamic behavior of stiffened plates under underwater shock loading. Mater. Test.
2015, 57, 506–517. [CrossRef]
39. Fathallah, E. Multi-Objective Optimization of Composite Elliptical Submersible Pressure Hull for Minimize
the Buoyancy Factor and Maximize Buckling Load Capacity. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 578, 75–82.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367 23 of 23
40. Hornbeck, B.; Kluck, J.; Connor, R.; Bauer, L.; Pfenning, F.; Reiter, M.; Chaudhuri, K.; Garg, D.; Garriss, S.;
McCune, J.; et al. Trilateral Design and Test Code for Military Bridging and Gap-Crossing Equipment.
In Trilateral Design and Test Code for Military Bridging and Gap-Crossing Equipment; Defense Technical Information
Center (DTIC): Alexandria, VA, USA, 2005.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

البحث السابع

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

البحث السابع

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5367; doi:10.3390/app10155367 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Figure 5. The isometric

Table 1. The properties of structural steel.

Case (1) Case (2)

Case (3) Case (4)

3.4. Elastic Support Stiffness

By substituting in Equation (8), we obtain the following:

3.5. Convergence Study

Figure 8. Maximum total deformations with mesh sizing.

Epoxy Carbon UD (230 GPa) Epoxy Carbon Woven

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23

Figure 12 illustrates the 11.

Figure 12. Coordinate systems.

Figure 12. Coordinate systems.

Figure 17. Manufactured plate failure.

load (Pact). The BLF is defined in ANSYS as the𝑩𝑳𝑭 𝑷𝒄𝒓

FigureFigure 18. Eigen

6. Results and Discussion

6. Results and Discussion

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FORFigure

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

Figure 23. The total deformation distribution in case of loading 2.

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

Figure 28. The total deformations with time for case 3.

The maximum deformation Figure is

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

Figure 29. Stresses distribution for case 3.

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

(a) The steel ferry (b) The composite ferry

Figure 34. Stresses change with time for case 4.

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

You might also like