Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Hull Imperfections
by
Harvey C. Lee
A Seminar Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Approved:
_________________________________________
Dr. Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Seminar Adviser
Copyright 2007
by
Harvey C. Lee
All Rights Reserved
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF EQUATIONS ...................................................................................................vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS ......................................................................................................viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT...................................................................................................ix
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... x
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
PURPOSE .......................................................................................................... 3
1.3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 4
1.4
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 32
8. REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 33
9. APPENDIX A MATERIAL PROPERTIES........................................................... 34
10. APPENDIX B MAIN CYLINDRICAL SECTION ANSYS MACRO.................. 36
11. APPENDIX C SUBMARINE ANSYS MACRO................................................... 40
12. APPENDIX D MAIN CYLINDRICAL SECTION EIGENVALUE BUCKLING
RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 50
iii
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Main Cylindrical Section Eigenvalue Buckling Results.................................... 9
Table 2 Nonlinear Buckling results of the main cylindrical section............................. 12
Table 3 Eigenvalue Buckling results of the submarine................................................. 16
Table 4 Nonlinear Buckling results of the submarine................................................... 19
Table 5 Submarine depth capability vs. hull out-of-roundness .................................... 22
Table 6 Submarine buckling results.............................................................................. 26
Table 7 Submarine depth capability vs. hull out-of-roundness with plasticity............. 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Submarine Design Configuration and Dimensions .......................................... 7
Figure 2 FEA model of the main cylindrical section with boundary conditions ............ 9
Figure 3 Convergence of main cylindrical section Eigenvalue Buckling results ......... 10
Figure 4 Buckled mode shape of 2 nodal diameters of the main cylindrical section ... 10
Figure 5 Definition of out-of-roundness ....................................................................... 11
Figure 6 Nonlinear Buckling of the main cylindrical section with 4 OOR................. 12
Figure 7 Southwell Plot of the main cylindrical section with 4 OOR......................... 13
Figure 8 Comparison of ANSYS and Southwell method in determining the critical
buckling pressure of the main cylindrical section as a function of OOR ................ 14
Figure 9 FEA model of the submarine with boundary conditions................................ 15
Figure 10 Convergence of submarine Eigenvalue Buckling results ............................. 16
Figure 11 Submarine buckled mode shape of 2 nodal diameters ................................. 17
Figure 12 Buckled mode shape of main cylindrical section with internal stiffeners .... 18
Figure 13 Main cylindrical section OOR of 4 with eccentricities shown ................... 18
Figure 14 Nonlinear Buckling of the submarine with 1 OOR .................................... 19
Figure 15 Southwell Plot of the submarine with 1 OOR ............................................ 20
Figure 16 Comparison of ANSYS and Southwell method in determining the critical
buckling pressure of the submarine as a function of OOR ...................................... 21
Figure 17 Graph of Bernoullis equation plotting ocean pressure against depth.......... 22
Figure 18 Submarine depth capability vs. hull out-of-roundness ................................. 23
Figure 19 Hull stresses for 4 OOR .............................................................................. 24
Figure 20 Internal stiffener stresses in the main cylindrical section for 4 OOR ......... 24
Figure 21 Bilinear True Stress-Strain Curve for AISI 4340 Steel ................................ 25
Figure 22 Multilinear Isotropic Hardening curve for AISI 4340 Steel......................... 26
Figure 23 Submarine buckling strength as a function of out-of-roundness .................. 27
Figure 24 Buckled mode shape for 4 OOR with elastic-plastic material.................... 27
Figure 25 Hull stresses for 4 OOR with elastic-plastic material................................. 28
Figure 26 Equivalent plastic strain of the internal stiffeners for 4 OOR .................... 29
Figure 27 Submarine depth capability vs. hull out-of-roundness (Final Summary)..... 30
vi
LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation 1 Bernoulli's Equation ..................................................................................... 6
Equation 2 Flugge's Theoretical Buckling Solution for a Simply Supported Cylinder
Under Uniform External Pressure.............................................................................. 8
Equation 3 Relation between Critical Buckling Pressure and Ocean Depth ................ 21
Equation 4 Relation between True Strain and Engineering Strain ............................... 25
Equation 5 Relation between True Stress and Engineering Stress ............................... 25
vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
FEA
Pcrit
DOF
Esize
OOR
Out-of-Roundness (in.)
BF
R2
True
Eng
True
Eng
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
To my loving wife Jennifer, whose very patience and
unwavering support, has encouraged me to bring this paper to its
final completion.
ix
ABSTRACT
The design of submarines for deep sea exploration has many challenges.
The greatest challenge is its buckling strength against the crushing pressures
of the ocean depth. The problem lies in the fact that there are no theoretical
solutions for such complex geometry. To further complicate the problem,
the out-of-roundness of the cylindrical hull due to manufacturing tolerances
as well as material nonlinearity must also be considered. To overcome
these issues, Finite Element Analysis will be used to determine the crushing
depth of a given submarine design once its buckling strength has been
found.
1. Introduction
Although there is much literature dealing with the stability of circular cylindrical
shells under uniform external pressure, only a few are devoted to numerical methods of
analysis with consideration to geometric imperfections and material nonlinearity. Of the
few are Forasassi and Franos [7] test and modeling report, in which they found the
length, thickness-to-diameter ratio, modulus and yield stress of the material, and initial
imperfections in the form of ovalization to be major factors that affected the collapse
pressure of pipes. These factors, as well as the end constraints, are key determinants in
the collapse pattern, or buckled mode shape, which are in the form of nodal diameters or
lobes.
The difficulty faced by the structural analyst is determining the critical buckling
pressure of the real cylindrical structure of concern. These structures are typically
complex whereby there are no derived theoretical solutions, such as the case with our
deep sea exploration submarine.
approximated to a more simplistic geometry, the theoretical solution can still be quite
complex. This is evident in Flugges [9] derivation for a simply supported cylinder
under uniform external pressure as shown in Eqn 2.
To overcome these challenges require the use of numerical methods or Finite
Element analysis.
Eigenvalue Buckling analysis. This method, as defined by Brown [3], predicts the
theoretical buckling strength of an ideal linear elastic structure. As an example, the
Eigenvalue Buckling solution of an Euler column would match the classical Euler
solution. Although it is relatively simple to execute, its limitations restrict it from
modeling the true nature of real structures, which have geometric imperfections and
material nonlinearity amongst other non-ideal characteristics. It is anticonservative, but
does provide a good start for preliminary assessments.
In order to model the behavior of real structures, a more advanced and
computationally intensive method is required, which is the Nonlinear Large
Displacement Static Buckling analysis. This approach seeks the load level at which the
The equilibrium
equation can be rewritten in the form {U} = {F}/[K], where [K] is the global stiffness
matrix, {U} is the displacement vector and {F} is the load vector. The Nonlinear
method requires an iterative process to solve for {U} since information about [K] and
{F} are not known. Instability occurs within this iterative process when [K] approaches
zero. In ANSYS, the Finite Element Analysis software used in this study, the instability
manifests itself as an unconverged solution, indicating that the cylindrical structure can
no longer carry any more external pressure load because buckling has occurred. In
general practice, the solution previous to the last unconverged solution is the buckling
strength.
This paper, however, will use the Southwell method in determining this limit.
Kos [6] NASA report describes how the Southwell plot is generated as well as its
limitations. He states:
Therefore, the Southwell method will be applied only to the Nonlinear Buckling analysis
with full elasticity and the study will show whether it is reliable or not in determining
the buckling strength of the submarine.
It is possible that a cylindrical structure under uniform external pressure
experience inelastic buckling. This occurs when the hoop stress exceeds the yield
strength before the critical buckling pressure is reached. Beyond the yield point, the
materials stiffness, or modulus of elasticity, reduces significantly and thus the buckling
strength. Therefore, it is important that plasticity is considered in the analysis of our
2
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is several folds, all related to determining the critical
buckling pressure, or buckling strength, of the submarine using Finite Element Analysis
(FEA). First, is to understand the effects of mesh density on the accuracy of the
solution. Second, is to understand the relationship, differences and advantages and
disadvantages between an Eigenvalue Buckling analysis and a Nonlinear Large
Displacement Static Buckling analysis. Lastly is to understand the effects of plasticity if
the stresses in the hull and internal stiffeners exceed the yield strength of the material.
1.3 Methodology
The commercial code ANSYS will be used to conduct all Finite Element analyses.
All Finite Element models will be generated with Shell 181 elements. This element is
based on the Reissner/Mindlin thick shell theory which includes bending, membrane and
transverse shear effects.
complete. If so, then the method in Stage 2 will be re-executed but with elastic-plastic
material properties.
2. Submarine Design
Our deep sea exploration submarine was designed with the intent to have a
maximum crew capacity of 12 and a depth capability of 4 to 5 miles. The general layout
would be similar to a military submarine but on a much smaller scale. To support the
crew and all the necessary controls and instrumentation, the mean hull diameter was set
at 12 ft.
The main cylindrical section was divided into the fwd, mid and rear
compartments which are the control room, the research and analysis room and the engine
room, respectively.
Sonars and fwd ballast tanks are situated in the nose of the
submarine whereas the propulsion system and aft ballast tanks are mounted inside the
conical tail section. Two vertical and two horizontal fins that are welded onto the tail
provide stability and maneuverability. The fwd and aft bulkheads separate the nose and
tail section from the main compartments. Internals stiffeners welded onto the hull
provide additional strength for the submarine.
A very strong material is required if our submarine is to withstand the crushing
pressures of the ocean floor. As a result, AISI 4340 Steel, oil quenched at 845C and
tempered at 425C, was selected.
P = Po + gh
Equation 1 Bernoullis Equation
where
= Density of Seawater
g = Gravitational Acceleration
h = Ocean Depth
Several iterations were performed until reasonable sizes for the hull and internal
stiffeners were determined such that the 4 to 5 mile depth capability of the submarine
can be achieved. (A thickness of 1 ft. was prescribed for the bulkheads and remained
constant through each iteration) The final dimensions of our deep sea exploration
submarine structure as a finite element model is shown in Figure 1 below. Preliminary
analysis shows that its buckling strength is 11,219 psi, yielding a maximum ocean depth
capability of 4.9 miles.
Pcrit
Et
r (1 - 2)
(1 - 2 )4 + k [(2+ m2) - 2 (6 + 34 m 2 + (4 - )2 m4 + m ) + 2 (2 - ) 2 m 2 + m4 ]
m2(2 + m2) 2- m2(32+ m2)
E = Modulus of Elasticity
r = Mean hull radius
t = Hull thickness
= Poissons ratio
m = Nodal diameters
2
r & k= t
=
12 r 2
l
With the dimensions and material properties of our submarine section, the minimum
critical buckling pressure or buckling strength was calculated to be 4,097 psi with a 2
nodal diameter mode shape (m = 2).
The FEA model, shown in Figure 2, was set up in the global cylindrical
coordinate system and an external reference pressure of 12,000 psi was applied. An
Eigenvalue Buckling analysis was then conducted with several iterations of mesh
refinement until the solution converged to the theoretical solution with an error of
0.09%. The results are shown in Table 1 and Figure 3 plots the convergence to the exact
solution. Also, the buckled mode shape was found to be 2 nodal diameters (Figure 4),
confirming Flugges theoretical equation. As a result, the FEA model of the main
cylindrical section of our submarine has been calibrated.
Esize
6
5
4
3
2
1
DOF
336
480
720
1248
2280
8880
Pcrit (psi)
5,442
5,356
4,555
4,319
4,211
4,093
Flugge (psi)
4,097
4,097
4,097
4,097
4,097
4,097
Error
32.82%
30.73%
11.17%
5.41%
2.78%
0.09%
Isometric View
Side View
Front View
Figure 2 FEA model of the main cylindrical section with boundary conditions
Pcrit (psi)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
DOF
The main cylindrical section FEA model that converged to the theoretical
solution had a uniform mesh density based on an element size of 1 (See Table 1). The
boundary conditions of simply supported ends and a reference pressure of 12,000 psi
were maintained. A Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling analysis was then
conducted for all four prescribed out-of-roundness using very small incremental load
steps. The results are shown in the table below and compared against the Eigenvalue
solution, which assumes perfect geometry with zero out-of-roundness.
OOR (in.)
0
1
2
3
4
ANSYS (psi)
4,093
3,591
3,324
3,117
2,898
Southwell (psi)
4,093
4,000
3,894
3,711
3,619
Eigenvalue
Southwell plots were generated for each OOR case using the peak nodal
deflection (In Figure 6, the peak nodal deflection would be 0.657806 ft.). This is
possible because the load and deflection history in the Nonlinear analysis were recorded.
Figure 7 below shows the Southwell plot for the 4 out-of-roundness condition. A linear
trendline, shown in red, was fitted through the points and its equation and R2 value
given.
In the Southwell method, the inverse slope of this trendline is the critical
Southwell Plot
OOR = 4"
3.00E-04
y = 0.0002763x + 0.0000447
2
R = 0.9989078
2.50E-04
2.00E-04
1.50E-04
1.00E-04
5.00E-05
0.00E+00
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Deflection (in.)
Critical
Buckling Pressure (psi)
4000
ANSYS
Southwell
3500
3000
2500
0
OOR (in.)
14
All DOF = 0
15
freedom) of 28,200. The results are shown in Table 3. Figure 10 plots the convergence
of the solution and Figure 11 shows the final buckled mode shape of 2 nodal diameters.
Esize
6
5
4
3
2
1
DOF
1,032
2,760
3,000
3,384
7,512
28,200
Pcrit (psi)
23,855
12,924
12,905
12,508
11,678
11,219
Error
112.62%
15.19%
15.02%
11.48%
4.09%
0.00%
Pcrit (psi)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10000
20000
30000
DOF
The next step was to perform the Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling
analysis using the converged FEA model of the submarine. The method used to create
the geometric imperfection of the hull is similar to what was done for the main
cylindrical section as described in Chapter 4, but with internal stiffeners. Therefore, the
16
main cylindrical section of the submarine with internal stiffeners was isolated,
everything else being deleted, and an Eigenvalue Buckling analysis was conducted.
Again, the ends were simply supported and a reference pressure of 12,000 psi was
applied. Figure 12 shows the buckled mode shape.
17
- 0.166667
+ 0.166667
+ 0.166667
- 0.166667
OOR (in.)
0
1
2
3
4
ANSYS (psi)
11,219
9,796
8,450
7,950
6,950
Southwell (psi)
11,219
10,132
10,111
10,417
10,537
Eigenvalue
Southwell plots were generated for each OOR case using the peak nodal
deflection. This is possible because the load and deflection history in the Nonlinear
analysis were recorded. Figure 15 shows the Southwell plot for the 1 out-of-roundness
Southwell Plot
OOR = 1"
3.00E-05
y = 0.0000987x + 0.0000012
R2 = 0.9972790
2.50E-05
2.00E-05
1.50E-05
1.00E-05
5.00E-06
0.00E+00
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Deflection (in.)
A linear trendline, shown in red, was fitted through the points and its
equation and R2 value given. In the Southwell method, the inverse slope of this trendline
is the critical buckling pressure. For an OOR of 1, the critical buckling pressure was
calculated to be 10,132 psi.
The buckling strength of the submarine calculated from the Southwell plots for
each case (See Table 4) was found to be inconsistent and erroneous. The trend shows
that as the out-of-roundness increases from 2 to 4 the buckling strength becomes
relatively level with a slight increase, which of course is not possible. Figure 16 shows
the trend against that of ANSYS. Because the Southwell method was found to be
inaccurate and thus unreliable in this particular study, the buckling strength determined
by ANSYS was used from this point forward. It must be reclarified that in Figure 16,
20
which is a graphical plot of Table 4, the critical buckling pressure for the out-ofroundness of 0 is based on the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis.
Pcritical (psi)
10000
8000
ANSYS
6000
Southwell
4000
2000
0
0
OOR (in.)
21
20000
Pressure (psi)
18327
16038
15000
13749
11460
10000
9171
6882
5000
4593
2304
14.7
0
10
11
Depth (mi)
OOR (in.)
0
1
2
3
4
ANSYS
Pcrit (psi)
11,219
9,796
8,450
7,950
6,950
Depth Capability
4.9
4.3
3.7
3.5
3.0
22
miles
miles
miles
miles
miles
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
23
6. Plasticity Effects
The Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling analysis that was performed in
the previous chapter assumed perfectly elastic material behavior. Unfortunately, what
was found was that the stresses in the hull and internal stiffeners exceeded the materials
yield strength of 214 ksi (See Figures 19 & 20), rendering the submarines buckling
True = ln (1 + Eng)
Equation 4 Relation between True Strain and Engineering Strain
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Strain (in./in.)
Figure 21 Bilinear True Stress-Strain Curve for AISI 4340 Steel
25
To analyze for plasticity in ANSYS, the multilinear isotropic hardening (MISO) rule was
used (Figure 22). Brown [3] recommends this option for proportional loading and large
strain applications of metal plasticity.
Eigenvalue
Pcritical (psi)
10000
8000
ANSYS - Elastic
ANSYS - Elastic-Plastic
6000
4000
2000
0
0
OOR (in.)
From Table 6 and Figure 23, it can be clearly seen how plasticity effects reduce
the submarines buckling strength even further, due primarily to the tangent modulus
once the yield strain has been exceeded. Furthermore, when plasticity is considered, the
stresses yield off and redistribute over a larger area of the submarine. Figure 24 shows
the buckled mode shape and Figure 25 shows the dramatic difference in stress compared
to that in Figure 19. Both figures are for an out-of-roundness of 4.
The majority of the backing strength against buckling is attributed to the internal
stiffeners in the main cylindrical section. Once they yield, their hoop stiffness that
provides ring stability begins to decline. Figure 26 shows how the high plastic strains
due to bending are concentrated at four local regions in the internal stiffeners. This is
caused by the 2 nodal diameter buckled mode shape.
28
ANSYS - Elastic-Plastic
OOR (in.)
Pcrit (psi)
0
11,219
1
8,262
2
7,166
3
6,330
4
5,724
Depth Capabilty
4.9
3.6
3.1
2.8
2.5
miles
miles
miles
miles
miles
5.0
4.0
ANSYS - Elastic
ANSYS - Elastic-Plastic
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
30
7. Conclusions
The buckling analysis results of our deep sea exploration submarine were overall
what was expected. First, it was clearly seen that by increasing the Finite Element mesh
density the buckling solution from the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis monotonically
converged to the exact solution, as in the case of the main cylindrical section study. This
approach defined the calibration of the model and was then applied to the more complex
submarine model, where a theoretical or exact solution does not exist. The buckling
solution of the submarine through mesh refinement showed the same behavior,
converging to a value within 5% error, which is acceptable by industry standards.
From the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis it was shown that an ideal geometry of
the submarine with no imperfections resulted in the highest buckling strength of 11,219
psi. Using Bernoullis equation, this translated to a crushing depth capability of 4.9
miles into the ocean. However, once imperfections were introduced via hull out-ofroundness, in our particular case ovalization, the depth capabilities were dramatically
different. In order to model this imperfection, a Nonlinear Large Displacement Static
Buckling analysis was required.
31
Finally, it was found that the stresses in the hull and internal stiffeners exceeded
the yield strength of the material for each out-of-round condition analyzed. Therefore,
the Nonlinear Large Displacement Static Buckling analyses had to be rerun, but with
elastic-plastic material properties in order to capture a better representation of its true
behavior. Indeed, what was found was that plasticity effects reduced the submarines
buckling strength even further, due primarily to the tangent modulus once the yield
strain had been exceeded. With respect to the ideal buckling strength of the submarine,
with plasticity considered, the actual reductions were approximately 26%, 36%, 44%
and 49% for the out-of-roundness of 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, as compared to the
previous Nonlinear fully elastic results. These reductions translate to a more accurate
depth capability of 3.6, 3.1, 2.8 and 2.5 miles for our deep sea exploration submarine.
In conclusion, although the design intent of our deep sea exploration submarine
was to have a depth capability in the order of 4 to 5 miles, manufacturing limitations
leading to hull imperfections, in conjunction with real material behavior, proves more
challenging in achieving this endeavor.
7.1 Recommendations
Although this study provides a relatively reasonable method in analyzing the
buckling strength of a deep sea exploration submarine given the timeframe allowed,
further improvements can be made. For example, it was assumed that if the Finite
Element model from the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis converged with a particular mesh
density, it was also valid for the Nonlinear analysis. This may or may not be the case
and it is recommended that a convergence study be executed for the Nonlinear analysis
as well. Mesh refinement can be confined to the areas of concern (ie: main cylindrical
section and internal stiffeners) so that computational time can be reduced. Also, within
this convergence study, it is recommended that the mesh density be examined to
determine whether it is sufficient in capturing the actual stresses and strains since they
have a direct effect on the results of the Nonlinear analysis with plasticity. The Finite
Element model in this study was relatively coarse since displacements were of primary
concern and stresses and strains were of secondary interest.
32
8. References
[1] Warren C. Young and Richard Budynas, Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain,
7th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002.
[2] R. Cook, D. Malkus, M. Plesha and R. Witt, Concepts and Applications of Finite
Element Analysis, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
[3] K. Brown, Advanced ANSYS Topics, V5.5, CAEA, Inc., 1998.
[4] H. Schmidt, Stability of Steel Shell Structures General Report, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 55 (2000) 159 181.
[5] F.B. Sealy, J.O. Smith, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, 2nd Edition, Wiley &
Sons, 1952.
[6] W. L. Ko, Accuracies of Southwell and Force/Stiffness Methods in the Prediction
of Buckling Strength of Hypersonic Aircraft Wing Tubular Panels, NASA Technical
Memorandum 88295, Nov 1987.
[7]
33
KeyWords:
alloy steels, UNS G43400, AMS 5331, AMS 6359, AMS 6414, AMS 6415, ASTM A322, ASTM A331, ASTM A505, ASTM A519, ASTM A547,
ASTM A646, MIL SPEC MIL-S-16974, B.S. 817 M 40 (UK), SAE J404, SAE J412, SAE J770, DIN 1.6565, JIS SNCM 8, IS 1570
40Ni2Cr1Mo28, IS 1570 40NiCr1Mo15
SubCat: Low Alloy Steel, AISI 4000 Series Steel,
Medium Carbon Steel, Metal, Ferrous Metal
Component
Carbon, C
Chromium, Cr
Iron, Fe
Manganese, Mn
Molybdenum, Mo
Nickel, Ni
Phosphorous, P
Sulfur, S
Silicon, Si
Properties
Physical
Value
Min
0.37
0.7
Max
0.43
0.9
0.2
0.3
96
0.7
1.83
0.035
0.04
0.23
Metric
Value
English
Value
Min
Max
Density, g/cc
7.85
0.284
--
--
Mechanical
Tensile Strength, Ultimate, MPa
Tensile Strength, Yield, MPa
Elongation at Break, %
Reduction of Area, %
Modulus of Elasticity, GPa
Bulk Modulus, GPa
Poissons Ratio
Machinability, %
1595
1475
12
46
212
140
0.3
50
231
214
12
46
30700
20300
0.3
50
---------
---------
81.5
11800
--
--
2.48E-05
5.52E-05
7.97E-05
2.98E-05
-----
-----
-----
12.7
12.3
13.7
12.6
13.7
13.9
14.5
0.475
44.5
----------
----------
----------
Electrical
Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cm
Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm
Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm
Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm
Thermal
CTE, linear 20C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 20C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 250C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 250C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C
Specific Heat Capacity, J/g-C
Thermal Conductivity, W/m-K
34
Comment
KeyWords:
alloy steels, UNS G43400, AMS 5331, AMS 6359, AMS 6414, AMS 6415, ASTM A322, ASTM A331, ASTM A505, ASTM A519, ASTM A547,
ASTM A646, MIL SPEC MIL-S-16974, B.S. 817 M 40 (UK), SAE J404, SAE J412, SAE J770, DIN 1.6565, JIS SNCM 8, IS 1570
40Ni2Cr1Mo28, IS 1570 40NiCr1Mo15
SubCat: Low Alloy Steel, AISI 4000 Series Steel,
Medium Carbon Steel, Metal, Ferrous Metal
Component
Carbon, C
Chromium, Cr
Iron, Fe
Manganese, Mn
Molybdenum, Mo
Nickel, Ni
Phosphorous, P
Sulfur, S
Silicon, Si
Value
Properties
Physical
Density, g/cc
Metric
Value
7.85
English
Value
0.284
Min
--
1985
1840
4
11
213
140
0.3
50
288
267
4
11
30900
20300
0.3
50
---------
---------
82
11900
--
--
2.48E-05
2.98E-05
5.52E-05
7.97E-05
2.48E-05
2.98E-05
5.52E-05
7.97E-05
-----
-----
-------
-------
Mechanical
Tensile Strength, Ultimate, MPa
Tensile Strength, Yield, MPa
Elongation at Break, %
Reduction of Area, %
Modulus of Elasticity, GPa
Bulk Modulus, GPa
Poissons Ratio
Machinability, %
Shear Modulus, GPa
Electrical
Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cm
Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm
Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm
Electrical Resistivity at Elevated Temperature, ohm-cm
Thermal
CTE, linear 20C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 250C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C
CTE, linear 500C, m/m-C
Specific Heat Capacity, J/g-C
Thermal Conductivity, W/m-K
Min
0.37
0.7
Max
0.43
0.9
0.2
0.3
96
0.7
1.83
0.035
0.04
0.23
10.4
12.6
13.7
13.9
0.475
44.5
35
Max
Comment
-- density is in lb/in^3 for english units
36
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,5
FLST,8,2,3
FITEM,8,1
FITEM,8,2
LROTAT,P51X, , , , , ,P51X,
!
FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,2
FITEM,2,4
FITEM,2,-7
ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,
!
FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,4
FITEM,2,8
FITEM,2,11
FITEM,2,13
FITEM,2,15
ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,
!
FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,4
FITEM,2,16
FITEM,2,19
FITEM,2,21
FITEM,2,23
ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,
!
/REPLOT
!
/SOLU
FLST,2,8,4,ORDE,6
FITEM,2,4
FITEM,2,-7
FITEM,2,24
FITEM,2,27
FITEM,2,29
FITEM,2,31
!*
/GO
DL,P51X, ,UX,0
FLST,2,8,4,ORDE,6
FITEM,2,4
FITEM,2,-7
FITEM,2,24
FITEM,2,27
FITEM,2,29
FITEM,2,31
!*
/GO
DL,P51X, ,UY,0
FLST,2,2,3,ORDE,2
FITEM,2,6
FITEM,2,8
!*
/GO
DK,P51X, ,0, ,1,UZ, , , , ,
!
,360,4,
37
FLST,2,2,3,ORDE,2
FITEM,2,18
FITEM,2,20
!*
/GO
DK,P51X, ,0, ,1,UZ, , , , , ,
!
/VIEW,1,,,-1
/ANG,1
/REP,FAST
/prep7
/TITLE,Cylindrical Hull Section (Esize = 1)
!*
TYPE,
1
MAT,
1
REAL,
1
ESYS,
0
!
esize,1
!*
amesh,all
csys,1
nrotat,all
sfe,all,2,pres,,12000,,,
/SOLU
SBCTRAN
!
/DIST, 1,
27.1280083138
/FOC,
1, -4.93790132953
,
4.04348334897
/VIEW, 1, -0.446499709800
, 0.488816565998
/ANG,
1, 0.415875984041
/DIST,1,0.924021086472,1
!
/PSF,PRES,NORM,2,0,1
/PBF,TEMP, ,1
/PIC,DEFA, ,1
/PSYMB,CS,0
/PSYMB,NDIR,0
/PSYMB,ESYS,0
/PSYMB,LDIV,0
/PSYMB,LDIR,0
/PSYMB,ADIR,0
/PSYMB,ECON,0
/PSYMB,XNODE,0
/PSYMB,DOT,1
/PSYMB,PCONV,
/PSYMB,LAYR,0
/PSYMB,FBCS,0
!*
/PBC,ALL,,1
/PBC,NFOR,,0
/PBC,NMOM,,0
/PBC,RFOR,,0
/PBC,RMOM,,0
/PBC,PATH,,0
!*
38
,
16.2225589785
, -0.749464057814
/AUTO,1
/REP,FAST
!
eplot
/replot
FINISH
! Run the Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis for the first 7 modes
/SOL
!*
allsel
ANTYPE,0
pstres,on
solve
!*
FINISH
/SOLUTION
ANTYPE,1
BUCOPT,LANB,7,0,0
MXPAND,7,0,100000,1,0.001,
solve
FINISH
/POST1
allsel
eplot
SET,FIRST
rsys,1
/contour,0,12
plnsol,u,x,0,1
/ANG,1
/REP,FAST
/DIST,1,1.37174211248,1
/STAT,GLOBAL
FINISH
39
40
LSTR,
3,
4
!
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,5
FLST,8,2,3
FITEM,8,1
FITEM,8,2
LROTAT,P51X, , , , , ,P51X,
!
FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,2
FITEM,2,4
FITEM,2,-7
ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,
!
FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,4
FITEM,2,8
FITEM,2,11
FITEM,2,13
FITEM,2,15
ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,
!
FLST,2,4,4,ORDE,4
FITEM,2,16
FITEM,2,19
FITEM,2,21
FITEM,2,23
ADRAG,P51X, , , , , ,
!
/VIEW,1,,,-1
/ANG,1
/REP,FAST
/replot
!
!
!
/PREP7
csys,1
LSTR,
5,
1
LSTR,
1,
7
LSTR,
1,
8
LSTR,
1,
6
LSTR,
17,
4
LSTR,
4,
19
LSTR,
4,
20
LSTR,
4,
18
!
FLST,3,2,3,ORDE,2
FITEM,3,9
FITEM,3,13
KGEN,2,P51X, , ,-1, , , ,0
LSTR,
9,
21
LSTR,
13,
22
!
ADRAG,
40, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
42, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
45, , , , , ,
,360,4,
8
11
13
41
ADRAG,
48, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
41, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
54, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
57, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
60, , , , , ,
!
FLST,2,3,4
FITEM,2,32
FITEM,2,7
FITEM,2,34
AL,P51X
FLST,2,3,4
FITEM,2,34
FITEM,2,6
FITEM,2,33
AL,P51X
FLST,2,3,4
FITEM,2,33
FITEM,2,5
FITEM,2,35
AL,P51X
FLST,2,3,4
FITEM,2,35
FITEM,2,4
FITEM,2,32
AL,P51X
FLST,2,3,4
FITEM,2,36
FITEM,2,31
FITEM,2,38
AL,P51X
FLST,2,3,4
FITEM,2,38
FITEM,2,29
FITEM,2,37
AL,P51X
FLST,2,3,4
FITEM,2,37
FITEM,2,27
FITEM,2,39
AL,P51X
FLST,2,3,4
FITEM,2,39
FITEM,2,24
FITEM,2,36
AL,P51X
aplot
!
FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,3,4
KGEN,2,P51X, , , , ,8, ,1
kplott,,,,,,,,,1
FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,3,39
KGEN,2,P51X, , , , ,8, ,1
kplott,,,,,,,,,1
15
16
19
21
23
42
LSTR,
4,
LSTR,
39,
/replot
lplot
!
FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,3,40
KGEN,2,P51X, , ,2,
FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,3,40
!
LSTR,
40,
FLST,2,1,4,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,68
FLST,8,2,3
FITEM,8,39
FITEM,8,40
AROTAT,P51X, , , ,
!
FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,3,39
KGEN,2,P51X, , ,4,
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,45
FLST,8,2,3
FITEM,8,4
FITEM,8,39
LROTAT,P51X, , , ,
!
LSTR,
17,
LSTR,
46,
LSTR,
20,
LSTR,
45,
LSTR,
19,
LSTR,
48,
LSTR,
18,
LSTR,
47,
/replot
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,31
FITEM,2,82
FITEM,2,76
FITEM,2,80
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,81
FITEM,2,76
FITEM,2,83
FITEM,2,72
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,24
FITEM,2,80
FITEM,2,77
FITEM,2,86
AL,P51X
39
40
, , ,1
41
, ,P51X, ,360,4,
, , ,1
, ,P51X, ,360,4,
46
42
45
41
48
44
47
43
43
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,77
FITEM,2,81
FITEM,2,73
FITEM,2,87
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,82
FITEM,2,29
FITEM,2,84
FITEM,2,79
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,79
FITEM,2,85
FITEM,2,75
FITEM,2,83
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,86
FITEM,2,27
FITEM,2,84
FITEM,2,78
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,87
FITEM,2,78
FITEM,2,85
FITEM,2,74
AL,P51X
!
FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,3,46
KGEN,2,P51X, , ,-1, , , ,1
LSTR,
46,
49
ADRAG,
88, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
89, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
92, , , , , ,
ADRAG,
95, , , , , ,
!
FLST,3,4,3,ORDE,2
FITEM,3,41
FITEM,3,-44
KGEN,2,P51X, , ,6, , , ,1
kplott,,,,,,,,,1
!
FLST,3,4,3,ORDE,2
FITEM,3,58
FITEM,3,-61
KGEN,2,P51X, , , , ,-3, ,1
LSTR,
59,
63
LSTR,
58,
62
LSTR,
61,
65
LSTR,
60,
64
lplot
LSTR,
42,
59
77
78
79
76
44
LSTR,
41,
58
LSTR,
44,
61
LSTR,
43,
60
LSTR,
63,
46
LSTR,
62,
45
LSTR,
65,
48
LSTR,
64,
47
NUMMRG,KP,.001,.001, ,LOW
/replot
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,105
FITEM,2,101
FITEM,2,109
FITEM,2,81
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,106
FITEM,2,102
FITEM,2,110
FITEM,2,83
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,107
FITEM,2,103
FITEM,2,111
FITEM,2,85
AL,P51X
FLST,2,4,4
FITEM,2,108
FITEM,2,104
FITEM,2,112
FITEM,2,87
AL,P51X
aplot
!
FLST,3,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,3,1
KGEN,2,P51X, , , , ,-9, ,1
kplott,,,,,,,,,1
LSTR,
1,
23
!
csys,0
! Create Nose
K,next,0,5.963,-1
K,next,0,5.850,-2
K,next,0,5.657,-3
K,next,0,5.375,-4
K,next,0,4.989,-5
K,next,0,4.472,-6
K,next,0,3.771,-7
K,next,0,3.317,-7.5
K,next,0,2.749,-8
K,next,0,2.398,-8.25
K,next,0,1.972,-8.5
K,next,0,1.404,-8.75
K,next,0,1.258,-8.8
45
K,next,0,1.091,-8.85
K,next,0,0.892,-8.9
K,next,0,0.632,-8.95
K,next,0,0.000,-9
!
FLST,3,18,3
FITEM,3,5
FITEM,3,25
FITEM,3,27
FITEM,3,29
FITEM,3,30
FITEM,3,31
FITEM,3,33
FITEM,3,35
FITEM,3,37
FITEM,3,38
FITEM,3,50
FITEM,3,52
FITEM,3,54
FITEM,3,56
FITEM,3,57
FITEM,3,66
FITEM,3,67
FITEM,3,68
BSPLIN, ,P51X
/replot
!
FLST,2,1,4,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,46
FLST,8,2,3
FITEM,8,1
FITEM,8,23
AROTAT,P51X, , , , , ,P51X, ,360,4,
!
NUMMRG,KP,0.001,0.001, ,LOW
lplott
!
FLST,5,28,5,ORDE,6
FITEM,5,1
FITEM,5,-12
FITEM,5,33
FITEM,5,-40
FITEM,5,45
FITEM,5,-52
ASEL,R, , ,P51X
lsla
ksll
!
cm,externalshell.a,area
! Define area attributes
FLST,5,8,5,ORDE,2
FITEM,5,21
FITEM,5,-28
CM,_Y,AREA
ASEL, , , ,P51X
CM,_Y1,AREA
46
CMSEL,S,_Y
!*
CMSEL,S,_Y1
AATT,
1,
3,
1,
CMSEL,S,_Y
CMDELE,_Y
CMDELE,_Y1
!* Define area attributes
FLST,5,16,5,ORDE,6
FITEM,5,13
FITEM,5,-20
FITEM,5,29
FITEM,5,-32
FITEM,5,41
FITEM,5,-44
CM,_Y,AREA
ASEL, , , ,P51X
CM,_Y1,AREA
CMSEL,S,_Y
!*
CMSEL,S,_Y1
AATT,
1,
2,
1,
CMSEL,S,_Y
CMDELE,_Y
CMDELE,_Y1
! Define area attributes
cmsel,s,externalshell.a
lsla
ksll
aplot
FLST,5,28,5,ORDE,6
FITEM,5,1
FITEM,5,-12
FITEM,5,33
FITEM,5,-40
FITEM,5,45
FITEM,5,-52
CM,_Y,AREA
ASEL, , , ,P51X
CM,_Y1,AREA
CMSEL,S,_Y
!*
CMSEL,S,_Y1
AATT,
1,
1,
1,
CMSEL,S,_Y
CMDELE,_Y
CMDELE,_Y1
! Create mesh
allsel,all
ESIZE,1
MSHKEY,1
amesh,all
!* Reverse area normals
asel,s,,,21
asel,a,,,25
asel,a,,,29
0,
0,
0,
47
asel,a,,,30
asel,a,,,31
asel,a,,,32
asel,a,,,39
asel,a,,,40
asel,a,,,47
asel,a,,,48
lsla
ksll
esla
nsle
AREVERSE,all
!
FINISH
/SOL
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,40
!*
/GO
DK,P51X, ,0, ,1,ALL, , , , , ,
FINISH
/PREP7
allsel
csys,1
nrotat,all
!
FLST,5,28,5,ORDE,6
FITEM,5,1
FITEM,5,-12
FITEM,5,29
FITEM,5,-40
FITEM,5,49
FITEM,5,-52
ASEL,R, , ,P51X
esla
nsle
eplot
!
cm,externalshell.e,elements
!
sfe,all,2,pres,,12000,,,
!
FINISH
! Run the Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis for the first 7 modes
/SOL
!*
allsel
ANTYPE,0
pstres,on
solve
!*
FINISH
/SOLUTION
ANTYPE,1
BUCOPT,LANB,7,0,0
MXPAND,7,0,100000,1,0.001,
48
solve
FINISH
/POST1
allsel
eplot
SET,FIRST
SET,NEXT
rsys,1
/contour,0,12
plnsol,u,x,0,1
/ANG,1
/REP,FAST
/DIST,1,1.37174211248,1
/DIST, 1,
27.1280083138
/FOC,
1, -4.93790132953
/VIEW, 1, -0.446499709800
/ANG,
1, 0.415875984041
/DIST,1,0.924021086472,1
/REP,FAST
/STAT,GLOBAL
FINISH
,
,
4.04348334897
0.488816565998
49
,
16.2225589785
, -0.749464057814
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Southwell Plot
OOR = 1"
3.00E-05
2.50E-05
y = 0.0000987x + 0.0000012
R2 = 0.9972790
2.00E-05
1.50E-05
1.00E-05
5.00E-06
0.00E+00
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Deflection (in.)
Southwell Plot
OOR = 2"
3.00E-05
2.50E-05
y = 0.0000989x + 0.0000046
R2 = 0.9978519
2.00E-05
1.50E-05
1.00E-05
5.00E-06
0.00E+00
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Deflection (in.)
64
0.2
0.25
Southwell Plot
OOR = 3"
3.50E-05
y = 0.0000960x + 0.0000081
R2 = 0.9992345
3.00E-05
2.50E-05
2.00E-05
1.50E-05
1.00E-05
5.00E-06
0.00E+00
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Deflection (in.)
Southwell Plot
OOR = 4"
4.00E-05
3.50E-05
y = 0.0000949x + 0.0000116
R2 = 0.9996126
3.00E-05
2.50E-05
2.00E-05
1.50E-05
1.00E-05
5.00E-06
0.00E+00
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Deflection (in.)
65
0.2
0.25
66
67
68
69
70
71