Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

Buckling of Stiffened Panels 1 overall buckling vs plate buckling PCCB Panel Collapse Combined Buckling

Various estimates have been developed to determine the minimum size stiffener to insure the plate buckles while the stiffener remains straight. this is equivalent to insuring that plate buckling occurs before overall buckling.

Timoshenko does so by calculating k in σ cr :=

k

2

π

D

b 2 t

and observing the

value of γ which results in a critical stress above that which will cause plate buckling alone. where;

flexural_rigidity_of_combined_section

γ :=

flexural_rigidity_of_plate

γ :=

E

I x

Db

where;

I x is the inertia of the plate with the attached plate associated with individual stiffener.

Bleich pg 365, 367, for plates with longitudinal stiffness determines minimum γ to insure the plate buckles before the stiffener (overall buckling). unfortunately Bleich uses different ratios than Hughes. Bleich uses B where Hughes uses b.

for the following:

α :=

a

B

δ :=

A x

Bt

γ :=

E

I x

DB

α := 0.1 , 0.2

γ o

(

)

α , δ , n

:=

π

n

α

4⋅ α
+ 1
n

+

• 16

α

n

10

δ := 0.1

(

)

α , n

κ 1

:=

• 16

α

π

• 2

n

3

• 1 tanh

 

κ 1

(

)

α , n

• 2

(

)

α , n

• 1 κ 2

(

tan

κ 2

)

α , n

• 2

(

)

α , n

κ 2

(

)

α , n

2

⋅ δ

:=

γ omax

(

α , δ

)

:=

π

n

α

4⋅ α
− 1
n

max

    

 

γ o

(

γ o

(

γ o

(

α , δ , 1 α , δ , 2 α , δ , 3

)

)

)

 

 

 γ o ( α , δ , 1) γ o ( α , δ , 2) γ o ( α , δ , 3)
40
20
0
0
5
10
α

40

γ omax ( α , δ )

20

0

0
5
10
α

1

curve fit:

one stiffener, combining Hughes and Bleich terms, N=1 stiffener

 ( α , δ ) := 22.8 2 ( α , δ ) := 48.8 2 γ omax ( α , δ ) γ bx ( α , δ )

⋅ α

+

2.5
2
10.8
+
+ 16⋅ δ
⋅ α
α
2
2
0.5
112⋅ δ
1 +
⋅ 2⋅ δ
2

γ

bx

(

γ bx1

γ

bx2

)

 

γ bx1

(

α , δ

)

min

(

)

 

γ bx2

α , δ

two stiffeners

γ

bx21

Π

,

δ

x

:=

γ

bx22

Π

,

δ

x

:=

800

600

γ bx21

Π ,

δ x

γ bx22

Π ,

δ x

### )

400

200

:=

 

 

Hughes: 13.1.4

slightly

modified in

terms

α , δ

40

30

20

10

0

0
5
10
α

Fig. 180, Bleich

to move to Bleich relationships in Hughes terms (ratios) to match text:

where:

Π :=

one stiffener

γ

bx11

Π ,

δ

x

:=

γ

bx12

Π ,

δ

x

:=

Π := 1 , 1.1

5

E ⋅
a
A x
I x
:=
γ :=
δ x
B
b ⋅ t
D⋅ b
2
22.8 ⋅ Π
+
(
2.5
+
16 δ
)
Π
− 10.8 ⋅
Π
x
48.8
+
112 δ
⋅ (
1
+
0.5
)
x
δ x
300
200
(
Π ,
)
γ bx11
δ x
(
Π ,
)
γ bx12
δ x
100
0
3
Π

+

• 2 δ x

43.5

36 Π

0

2
288
+
610 δ
+
325
x
δ x

0246

12345

Π

Π

2

combination

γ b

Π

,

δ

x

, N)

:=

if

N = 1 min

,

 

 

 

γ bx11

γ bx12

Π ,

Π ,

δ x

 

δ x

 

,

min

 

 

 

γ bx21

γ bx22

Π ,

Π ,

δ x

δ x

### )

      

minimum ratio of EI/Db (A/bt = 0.1)

500
400
300
200
100
0
gamma = EI/Db

12345

panel aspect ratio = a/B

• 2 stiffeners

• 1 stiffener

A more direct approach is to calculate the overall buckling stress and insure it is larger

than the plate critical stress.

The overall buckling stress is the value at which the stiffeners reach critical stress,

modeling each stiffener as a column of stiffener with attached (portion) of plate with some

equivalent slenderness ratio.

λ

:=

L_over_ρ eq

We will continue to model the plate failure as a gradual failure i.e the center of the plate

"fails" in buckling while the outer section remains effective at an effective breadth b e

paradoxically, the column is "stiffer" when the plate flange ( b e ) is reduced for ratios typical

of ship structure: let's first evaluate the plate and column critical stresses for a short panel.

As we assumed in plate buckling (and bending) the width is such that we can model a slice

independently:

the column is a stiffener with an attached plate of width b

the plate is a width b

some typical scantlings:

stiffener web

stiffener flange

A

w := 0.8

A

f

:= 0.85

stiffener area

A

s

:=

A w

+

A f

stiffener depth panel length

d := 5

L := 96

stiffeners b

b := 30

t = 0.5

3

calculate in terms of b e , initially b e = b

moment of inertia using 8.3.6 to calculate radius of gyration:

A e

(
b
)
:=
A
+
b
⋅ t
e
s
e
(
b
)
I e
e
(
b
)
:=
ρ e
e
(
b
)
A e
e

column critical stress:

C

1

b

e

:=

A w

A e

b

e

A w

3

4

+

A

f

b

e

t

A

e

b

e

I e

b

e

:=

A

e

b

e

( d)

2

C

1

b

e

σ e_cr

b

e

:=

π

2

E

L

ρ e

b

e

### )

2

; initial value

σ e_cr ( b) = 49341

plate critical stress:

σ a_cr

b

e

### )

:=

3.615E

t

2

b e

initial value σ a_cr ( b) = 30125

things are ok as column > plate => plate "fails" first. now consider increasing stress

beyond σ a_cr ( b) and plate gradually fails reducing effective breadth. Note that we are using

an assumption due to von Karman, that the "failed" center region has no compressive

stress while the outer regions are fully effective at σ e defined from force equilibrium as

σ e

b

e

### )

:=

σ a b

b e

now consider what happens to the values of critical stress as effective

breadth is reduced. the definitions above are still active; repeated here for info:

b e := 15

..

b

these values are not "short" but with

appropriate scantlings the result is the

5
same. this set of values assumes
1
. 10
yield stress is > 3x10^4 or so.
2
4
8
. 10
π
⋅ E
column:
(
)
:=
σ e_cr b
e
2
L
 
4
(
b
)
6
. 10
ρ e
e
2
t
4
plate:
(
)
:=
3.615⋅ E
4
. 10
σ a_cr b
e
b e
4
2
. 10
15
20
25
30
critical stress

column (stiffener with plate)

plate alone

4

even though the numbers above represent a long column (plate), the analysis is only

appropriate for short panels. to analyze long panels a correction is needed to λ =

L_over_ρ to account for the tendency of the plate to deflect with more than one half sine
wave making the column slightly stiffer (smaller slenderness ratio λ). Τhe correction is as
follows:
(
b
)
E ⋅
(
b
)
B
γ x b e
e
I x
e
C
:=
or
C π := 1
whichever is less. γ x b
(
)
:=
π
e
a
(
(
))
D ⋅
21
+
1
+
b
b e
γ x
e
2
L
π
⋅ E
and L_over_ρ
=
(
b
)
:=
C π
then σ e_cr
e
ρ
(
b
)
2
e
eq
L
 
C π
(
b
)
ρ e
e
this adds a non linearity to the problem so an iterative method is used to make the initial
comparison of whether the column critical stress is greater than the plate critical stress
or to solve for the common critical stress. The text proposes an iterative method similar
to that below for PCCB to determine the common value of critical stress. After doing so
it is necessary to bring this stress (based on effective breadth) back to applied (average)
stress; again using statics
(
b e ⋅ t +
)
A x
⋅ (
b⋅ t +
A x )
=
⋅ (
b e ⋅ t +
)
and
σ a b
(
)
:=
(
) at the effective
σ a
σ e
A x
e
σ e_cr b e
(
b⋅ t +
)
A x

Some calculations to validate the column becoming "stiffer" with less effective plate. Think of the location of the

neutral axis or the radius of gyration as the plate is reduced. With a wide plate flange the neutral axis is close to

the plate. The radius of gyration which plays in the critical stress varies as follows: (recall larger ρ => larger

critical stress:

b e := 0
..
b
2.5
(
b
)
2
ρ e
e
b e
ρ e
2
1.5
1
0
5
10
b e ⋅ t
A s
2
. 10 5
1.5 . 10 5
(
b
)
σ e_cr
e
b e
1
. 10 5
σ e_cr
2
4
5
. 10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10

b e t

A s

now for our design rules for PCCB Panel Collapse Combined Buckling:

5

- PCCB - Panel Collapse Combined Buckling

function of b e , graphical approach

b
HSF
b
stiffener
BSF := 3.94
a
plate
a
:= 8⋅ 12
L := a
material
σ
:=
80 10 3
Y
general parameters:
HSW := SDEPTH − TSF
A
:= ( SDEPTH − TSF) ⋅ TSW
w
HSW = 4.79
A
= 0.81
w
TSF
t
d
:=
SDEPTH −
+
B
:= ( N1
+
)b⋅
A p := b⋅ t
2
2
d = 5.14
B = 75
A p = 12.5
parameters that are functions of b e
let:
b e := 0.7657 ⋅ b
compare with
(
If
b r b
(
)
b r b e ) .
e
(
b
)
A e
e
A w
(
b
)
:=
A
+
b
⋅ t
A e
e
s
e
+
A
b
⋅ t
A w
f
e
3
4
C
(
b
)
:=
1
e
(
A
(
b
)) 2
e
e
(
) = 11.23
C 1 b e ) = 0.09
(
A e b e
(
b
)
(
2
)
I e
e
(
)
12
1
υ
(
b
)
b
:=
I e
e
ρ e
e
(
)
(
b
)
:=
b
γ x
A e
e
e
C
:=
⋅ ( t ) 3
b e
π
(
) = 1.52
ρ e
b e
(
) = 118.07
γ x b e
for iteration
C π ⋅ a ⋅ t
(
)
(
b
)
b
:=
b r
e
b r
e
= 0.7657
(
2
)
(
b
)
b
3
1
υ
ρ e
e
(
) = 19.14
b r b e

Checks??

 input data input := 1 ignore numerical values shown here TSF := .215 TSW := .17

t p

SDEPTH := 5.

try this with SDEPTH = 6, to see yield effect

b := 25

t := .5

N := 2

L = 96

6

E t

3

υ := 0.3

E

:=

29.6 10

D

:=

12

1

A

f

:= BSFTSF

A

s

:=

A w

+

A f

A

f

= 0.85

A

s

= 1.66

bt

A s

= 7.53

δ x

:=

A s

bt

δ x = 0.13

υ

• ## 2 )

as a place to start and for printing purposes. Can also use be directly and

/ b < start use result until converges.

   

2
(
b
)
:=
A
(
b
)
⋅ ( d)
C
(
b
)
I e
e
e
e
1
e
(
) = 25.87
I e b e
(
b
)
B
γ x
e
   
a
(
(
))
21
+
1
+
b
γ x
e
1
   
C π = 1
b
(
b
)
r
e
:=
b rat = 0.766
b rat
b

min

   

6

critical stress relationships:

stiffener & plate as a column

effective portion of plate

original plate

2
2
π
⋅ E
π
⋅ D
2
2
σ
(
b
)
:=
σ
(
b
)
:=
−4
t
π
⋅ D
ecr
e
ecr_pl
e
:=
3.62 ⋅ E
OR ....
:=
−4
2
2
σ o
σ o
C π ⋅ L
⋅ t
b
b e
b 2 ⋅ t
(
b
)
ρ e
e
σ
o = −42804
σ
= −42804
o
σ
(
) = −73015
(
) = −73008
ecr
b e
σ ecr_pl
b e
for plotting to determine intersection;
b
b
:=
,
+ 0.1
b
b e
2
2
5
1.8
. 10
5
1.6
. 10
5
1.4
. 10
(
b
)
σ ecr
e
5
1.2
. 10
(
b
)
σ ecr_pl
e
σ Y
− σ o
1
. 10 5
8
. 10 4
6
. 10 4
4
. 10 4
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26

now obseving intersection:

b

e

:=

b

rat

b

b e

b

e

= 19.14

assuming iteration complete and matched above.

7

stiffener & plate as a column

σ

ecr

b

e

:=

π

2

E

C π L

ρ e

b

e

### )

2

effective portion of plate

σ

ecr_pl

b

e

### )

:=

4

π

2

D

b e

2

t

translation back to applied stress

σ

axcr

:=

b e t +

A s

bt +

A s

σ ecr

b

e

σ

ecr

b e

) = −73018

σ

ecr_pl

### (

b e

) = −73015

partial safety factor

γ

C := 1.5

σ

C

:= −20000

γR PCCB

:=

σ C

γ

C

σ axcr

input

λ :=

a

π ⋅

ρ e

b

e

### )

σ Y
E

σ

axcr

= −57913

is it slender?? λ>1 ??

λ = 1.05

γR PCCB = 0.51801

8