Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROBABILISTIC STRUCTURAL
ANALYSIS OF SHIP HULL
LONGITUDINAL
STRENGTH
Thisdocument
hasbeenapproved
forpublic
release
endsalqits
distribution
isunlimited.
SHIP STRUCTURE
1981
COMMITTEE
,Nr.J. GROSS
~P.*Y As.ist@
Administrator
,orConrre
retal Development
,YuritinEAdministration
<Mr.P. ,v.PALER)40
Deputy Director, HulL Gmlq
,Nava
1 Sea SyaternsCornnmd
MF. P. McDONALD
Chief, Branch of Offshore
Field @ezntimts
u.S. Geological Survey
Mr. W. N. RANNAN
Vice ?rwsident
Axetican Bmati of Ship@ng
Mr. C. J. WRI!O?S!WI!
Engi*er Ofploer
,% lit~
Sealift Conrncmd
CUR T. L
ROEW50W,
CI.
s. Coast Gumi
(Secx?tm )
SKIP STICUCTURS.SUECONMIHEE
The SHIP STSUCTURS SUSCOIU-IITTEE
acts for the Ship Structure Committee
m technical matters by providio~ techr.ical.o.rdir,atioofor the determination
of goals and objectives of the program, and by evaluating and interpreting
che resul,w in terms of structural desi~, construciton and qeration .
U.S. CUAST GUARU
MILITARY SEALI~
CAST R. L. BRO&7i
CDR J. C CARD
CUR J. A. SA?LC4L,JR.
CDR V. M. SIMFSON, JR.
Mr.
w.
Mr.
Mr.
G.
T.
A.
D.
CUMMANO
ASSE
w. CBASMAN
B. STAVOVY
STEIN
~F.lCAN
BUSEAU UF SNIPPING
Dr. D. LIU
L@. I. L. STE.W
MAIuTIMS AUIIIN1STRATION
m.
Dr.
W.
Mr.
N. 0. SA.WSR
!/.M. M4CLEAN
F. SEIROLD
M. W. TOW
S. G. STIAN.ST3V
- Liaison
Dr. !..
R. PORTSR - Liaison
Mr. N. 0. :WWRR
- Liaise
D S
WLDING
cOuNcxL
LC3R R. G. VORIWAN
W.
ksssmm
3?. :;.
-B. ,CX -
Liaison
U S
cUAST WARD
ACADEMY
NAVAL ACADEXY
- Liaison
Member
Agencies:
United
States
Coast
Guard
Naval
SeaSystems
Command
Military
Sealift
Command
Maritime
Administration
United
States
Geological
Survey
Ameriwn
Bureau
ofSipping
Address
Correspondence
to:
Secretary,
Ship
Structure
Committee
U.S.Coast
Guard
Headquarters,
(G-M/TP
13)
Washington,
D.C.20593
structure
Committee
An Interagency
Advisory
Committee
Dedicated
to Improving
theStructure
ofShips
SR-1241
March1981
Uncertainties
areunavoidable
inanyengineering
design.Limitation
onthecontrol
ofmaterial
properties,
milltolerances
inplateandextruded
shapethickness,
timedependent
effects
suchasdeterioration
duetocorrosion,
cracking,
wearandtearareonlysomeofthefactors
that
contribute
totheuncertainties
associated
withtheactual
strength
of a ships
hull.Shipdesigners
andnavalarchitectsusually
treattheseitemsina qualitative
senseas
veryfewattempts
havebeenmadetoquantify
them.
Basedon previous
experience,
thequalitative
assessment
of theuncertainties
doesnotlenditself
to
systematic
improvement
of design
procedures.
Therefore,
theShipStructure
Committee
initiated
thisproject
to
develop
a computer
program
to analyze
theuncertainties
associated
withshiphullstrength.
Thedevelopment
of
theprogram
anditscontents
arepresented.
&/Q
RearAdmiral,
U.S.CoastGuard
Chairman,
ShipStructure
Committee
...
Technical
Report
Documentation
Page
1. ReportNo.
3. Recipients CotologNo.
2, GovernmentAccession~,>~
SSC-301
4. Title and
Subt#tl=
5. ReportDate
PROBABILISTIC
STRUCTURAL-ANALYSIS
OFSHIPHULL
LONGITUDINAL
STRENGTH
DECEMBER
1980
6. PctformingOrganizationCode
t\
8. Pbr{ormingOrgonizotionReportND,
7. Authorts)
J.C.Daidola
andN.S.Basar
9. PerformvrlgOrgonizottonNgmeand Address
M. Rosenblatt
& Son,Inc.
350Broadway
NewYork,NY 10013
Il.
Controctor GronfNQ.
D07-CG-61908-A
Is.
Type of Repo,t ondPeriod Covered
.
12, SponsoringAgencyNamemid Addres~
U.S.CoastGuard
Office
ofMerchant
Marine
Safety
Washington,
D.C.20593
14. SponsoringAgencyCode
11
G-M
15. SupplementaryNotes
SHIPSTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
Project
SR-1241
16. Abs.rroct
Existing
probabilistic
structural
design
methods
arereviewed,
their
applicability
toshiphullstructural
design
considered
andthemostpromising
probabilistic
analysis
techniques
areidentified.
Thecurrent
stateofknowledge
concerning
structural
modesof failure
andloaddistribution
isconsidered
withrespectto
itsimpact
onprobabilistic
structural
analyses.
Theemphasis
ison longitudinal
strength
considerations.
Fact:rs
influencing
strength,
tntermsofuncertainties
inshipstrength
distribution,
arerevfewed.
Different
methods
areproposed
toobtain
coefficients
of variation
forvarious
typesofdataontheuncertainties.
Samplecalculations
areperformed
fora number
ofshipsusinganapproximateprobabilistic
method
andy~elding
safety
margins
foreach.Thismethod
requires
thqtonlythecoefficients
ofvariation
ofthestrength
andloadbe
known.
A computer
program
isdeveloped
toperform
thiscalculation
forany
shipsubjected
toanyloadormodeoffailure.
17. Key Words
18. DistributionStatement
Document
isavailable
totheU.S.Public
through.
theNational
Technical
Information
, Service,
Springfield,
VA22161
Longitudinal
strength
Probabilistic
design
Hullgirder
failure
Coefficients
ofvariation
19. SecurityClassif. (oI this report)
UNCLASSIFIED
L
FormDOTF 1700.7(8-72)
UNCLASSIFIED
1
1
Reproduction
of cotnpl.eted
pageuthorized
*.
-%LtL
22. Price
88
I
METt71C
CONVERSION
FACTORS
Approximate
Conversions
10MetricMeasures
Symbol
ApproximateConversionsf
Symbol
WhenYOIIknow
Muhiplyby
To find
WhsaYouKnow
Multi
SVmbal
lEU
lEfJGTH
in
h
Vd
mi
inches
lee!
yards
mites
2.5
30
0.9
1.6
c.mtmmtcrs
centimeters
<Ill
cm
kilametexs
lull
meters
nm
cm
m
m
km
millirrwlws
ceniimwwrs
nwmls
nwters
kitmmeters
AR
AREA
inz
mi2
squnta
inches
suuarm
icfet
s@mewards
square
mites
acres
6.5
0.02
0.9
2.6
0.4
z.quara
cemnmciers cmz
~2
Squmo
meters
~z
sqmro
nwcrs
sqmmkilmuet{:rs km2
ht+c
I;),*S
ha
cm
~2
km
hO
square
c*nlineters
0.
square
meters
1.
squara
kikmcters
0.
hect~es
[10,0001112} 2.
MASS[weight]
&
y
Winces
pumds
S!WMI
twta
(2000ibl
20
0.45
0.9
Omnt
kitoqranw
40+1,%0
s
u
kg
t
9
kg
i
gmrm
kiIogrwrts
mnnns
(10+0kfl)
VOLUME
tsp
Tbp
IIor!
c
pt
qt
gal
,,3
Vda
teaapams
mbles~s
ftuidcNnc*a
cups
pints
quam
gallmls
cubichot
cubicyard~
5
15
30
0,24
0.47
0.95
3.0
0.02
0,1s
Fahrenheit
lcmpwatum
5/9Ialier
subtract
ino
321
MASS(
0.
2.2
1.
VOL
nlilJi#itacs
miliililefs.
mltli~ilers
kite!s
Iiqers
tilers.
tiler2cb#c
nwiers
cubicnelnrs
ml
mt
mt
I
1
1
ml
I
I
L
~3
Celsius
lcr@ratur*
milliliters
Iiwm
liters
liters
cubic
meters
cubic
rrmaers
;3
ml
0.0
2,
1.
0.
35
1.
TEMPER
c
0.0
0.4
3.3
3.
t3.6
9/5
Cataius
Wllp4tathlre add
.1u,t 2.54
Iwlcl!vl.
f,.
11!.2,
*.=1COllwwblh,ns
,WJ
InLno
&M.3,11w!
Kllh+sr
SLwNW M!ic.
Putll.
2ni4
U,uw
dWuwhts
a,.+
M,-M8us,
Fnco
s2.25,
SOCmdutI
MO.
Cl
3.T0205.
F
-40
0
}t ,1
-20
-40
C
32
80
40
, ,I #
20
0
TABLEOF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
..... ..... .. ... .. ... ... .. .. .. .... .. ...... ...
Secticn
2.
STATEMENT
ANDOBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fj~~t;~~ 3.
PROBABILISTIC
APPROACH
TO STRUCTURAL
DESIGN
............. .
3.1
3.2
General .** . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Probabilistic Methods
..... ..... ...................
3
4
3.2.1
Quantitative
Measure
of Performance
......
3.2.2 Classical Approach... ~.. . ~. . . . . . ..- ..-..,
Section
1.
Strength Statistics. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . , .
Strength Equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strength Distribut ions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T?meDependentStrengths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
6
9
13
LoadStatistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .
15
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P, . . . , . . . r .
Equationsand Distribut ions. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
16
3.4.1
3.4.2
Sect7cm4.
2
7
3.3*I
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.4
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
MODES
OFHULLFAILURE
. . . . . . . . . . . . ,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jtl
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Modesof FailureoF the Hull Girder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
lb
20
Section 5.
LOADINGS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
sectian 6.
PROBA!31LISTIC
STRUCTURAL
ANALYSIS
OF SHIPHULL
. . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .
LONGITUDINAL
STRENGTH
23
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
. . . . . . . . .* .+ . . . . . . . . . c. . . r .
Methodology
Strength and LoadDistributions .F. +r..r.
Strength equations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Time DependentS:rength Analyses. . . . . . . . .
24
24
25
26
4.1
4.2
4.3
:::
i)evel~prnent
of a probabilistic Structural
~n;l{sis
. .
6.2.2
$.2.3
-v-
TABLEOFCONTENTS
(cont.)
Page
6.3 Application
of Probabilistic
Structural
....***
..**...
.................*..*
......26
Analysis
Methodology
........ ........................**----.....26
6.3.1 General
..*.*...
..........................27
6.3.2 Method
ofApproach
* ... ..
INHULLSTRENGTH
Section
7. UNCERTAINTIES
........................29
.....*.
...............................................29
7.1 General
........................ .............29
7.2 Objective
Uncertainties
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
.........*.*..
...............................29
General
Formsof Existing
Data*.........................--.
Determination
ofCoefficients
of Variation
(COVS
)....;
COVSfromLiterature
Survey
........................32
Uncertainties
.... .........................---......45
7.3 Subjective
....*.**
.**.....
.....*..
*......
..................45
7.4 Conclusions
,
....... .*............ ................... ...46
CALCULATIONS
Section
8. SAMPLE
.................*..*
.............. *.....
............
8.1 General
..... ..............-.- .............-....%
8.2 Computer
Algorithm
.............*
...........................50
8.3 Analysis
andResults
.........***..
............................
-*............55
Section
9. CONCLUSIONS
........... . .......57
.. ......... * ..............* * ...........
...68
Section
11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
REFERENCES
..... ........ ............... . -............ .........59
..... .. *.................
Section
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDICES.
A. DERIVATION
OFSTRENGTH
COVEQUATIONS
...............................64
ANDDOCUMENTATION
FORCOMPUTER
PROGRAM.
....................67
B. LISTING
-vi-
LIST OFF,IGURES
NO.
.
1
PAGE
Curw!ative Long.TerrnDistribution of AverageBending
Moments
. .. . . .. .. ... .. .... ..... ... . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . ...
22
28
34
35
36
ApproximateProbabilistic MethodAlgorithm. . . . . . . .
48
52
Reliability
54
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* . . . . . . . . . ,
-vii-
,,
.. ,
LIST OFTABLES
PAGE
NO.
.-
33
33
33
Flange BreadthUncertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
38
..*.**.
COVof Beam
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
. . ...** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------
-.*-
. ..-..
39
Uncertainty--Depth Of Ship.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
Uncertaint-y--Beamof Ship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
41
42
Objective Uncertainties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
---
43
44
Apptoximate
Probabilistic Method.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
~UNIVERSE
IRELAND
Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
uNIVERSE
lRELAb!D
Structural Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
IIJNIVERSE
IRELAND
Uncertainty COVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
St,rengthCOVEquationTerms. . . .. -------
-v{<i.
. .. .... .. .. .. .
53
NOMENCLATUR&
Area of Flarlge~
Area of Webs
Beamof Ship
Depthof Ship
MeanSquareValue
Density Functionof Lbad
Distribution Function of Load
Density Functionof Strength
Distribution Function of Strength
Density Function of Load
Distribution FunctionofLoad
Height of Static Wavethat Yields Average Irregular WaveLongitudinal
BenrJingMoment
Strength Factor or Parameter
Parameter
Lengthof S+ip
Meanof Margin of Safety
Margin of Safety,(S-Z)
Meanof Loacl
Heanof Strength
Meanof Still
WaterBending
Moment;
(mO- Deterministic SWBM)
-ix-
s/z
Reliability
R=
Rate of Corrosion
Failure GoverningStrength
SM
Fay
Thickness
tc
(For CorrosionAllowafice)
to
(Original)
tf
(Of Flange)
(Of Web)
$1
m1
Tolerance
v~
Vz
Vx
Coefficient of Variation of x
VXa
vXs
.%
Meanof Variable x
Failure GoverningLoad
Coefficient of Variation
*y
#yn
4zn
4 Zr,
-x-
Random
Variable RepresentingConstituerit parts. of Strength
Central Safety Factor,(mS/mz)
Density Function of Load
Distribution Function of Load
T
Time
Coefficient of Variation of Strength
Variance of Margin of Safety
Average Failure Stress
Variance of Load
Variance of Strength
Variance of Still
Mm2il
Initial
Lateral
Deflectio+fi-of.Plating
-xi
SECTION1.0
INTRODUCTION
-1-
SECTION
2.0
STATEMENT
OFOBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were modified by the Ship Structure Committee during the courseof the project to be commensurate
with what was found
to be available and possible within the rather small funding allocated.
The final objectives can be stated as follows:
o Survey the existing literature on reliability analysis and probabilistic design methodsin structures. Comment
on the applicability to ships.
, or use an existing method,for the formulation
o Developa method
of strength in terms of the meansand variances of its uncertainties. Althougha mathematicaldistribution of strength is not required, observations are to be madewith respect to the impactof
using only meansand variances.
o Relate the existing bending
mcrnentdistributions calculated from
existing data to the developedstrength distributions using an existing
methodfor structural reliability analysis. Use available statistical strength parametermeansand variances and makeassumptions
for any strength or load parametersfor which no statistical data
are available.
o Developa FORTRAN
IV computerproqramto perform the aboveprocedure with the objective of determining the safety level of a given
ship subjected to a given load.
n AppIy the developedmmputer?zedproceduri tc actual ships,
o On the basis of ob,tainedresults , suggestfurther research to
develop suitable longitudinal strength criteria for future designs.
-2-
SECTION
3.0
PROBABILISTIC
APPROACH
TO STRUCTURAL
DESIGN
3.1
General
-3-
the failure-governing
loadandstrength
distribution
for each
critical failure mode.
An upper boundcf.the total probability of failure or a lower
boundof the reliability will be the sum of the individual
probabilities of each of the critical failure modesunder the
assumptionthat these modesare mutually exclusive events.
Becauseof the difficulty associated with the determination of
the fiji]ul-e-governing
load and strength functions and di~tributions,a number
or probabilistic approachesor methodshave evolved. They differ fundamentally
in tile two primary aims of any probabilistic analysis as mentionedabove:
0 Quantitative measureof performance
0 Rational quantification of load and strength
Actually, not all the approachesare necessarily probabilistic in
the mathematicalsense in that for some
, probability densities and distributions
are not needed,and the output is not a probability.
Thesemethodsmaybe groupedas follows:
Classical probabilistic approach
0 Safety index approach
0 Strength reduction and load magnification factors approach
The presentation in this section is divided into three groups. The
first groupdiscussesthe general approachused in obtaining the quantitative
measureof performanceof a structure given the load and strength statistics.
T!-Icnext groupseach deal with details of the strength and load formulations
respectively, in a general sense. More specific mentionof these considerations,
as applicable to ships, is given in Sections 5.0 thru 7.0,respectively for
longitudinal stre;gth, and for uncertainties in-the ;trength-nfthe ship shull.
The literature contains abundantsourcesof probabilistic structural
ariayses Most of the work has beendone in the areas of civil and mechanical
e~g neer ng but has morerecently spread to naval architecture.
Probabilistic design conceptsfor structures were first proposedin
Since then, several investigators have presented
the ~.sm in 1947 [1].
further considerations for applications
in civil en~ineerinq.
. .
- . References[2]
thru [6], mechanicalengineering, references [7] thru [9], and more recentiyin naval architecture, reference [10].
Within the frameworkof the present study, a brief review of the
numerousmethodsas cited was performedto identify the oneswhich wouldseem
appropriate for future consideration in probabilistic structural analyses
of ships from the standpoint of design.
3,Z
3,2.1
Probabilistic Methods
Quantitative Measureof Performance
-4
being consic!el-ed.
Thosemethodsthat are moreprobabilistic in the mathematical
Their measureof performanceis
in terms of a probability defining failure or reliability.
Classical Approach
Pf = P (Z>s)
while
(2)
R = I-Pf = P (S>Z)
(3).
= ~~(j(z)
FQ (q) o~~(d
fs (qz) z dz
(4)
FS (qz) dz
(5)
5-
~+(dF~ (z) dz
= ]-j~(Z)
fs (Z) dz
(6)
(7)
Equations (6) and (7) are rather simple and could easily be
evaluated provided the derlsity arid distribution functions of load and
strength are known. This is where the crux of the matter lies and will
The methodsthat makeuse
bradiscussed later in Sections 3.3and 3.1}.
of Equations (6)and (7)varySignifi=rrtly
incornp~exity
andeffort
required for execution.
Equation (7) can be evaluated for each modeof failure and,
as nated previously, the sumof all probabilities of failure for all modes
will give an upper bound. To do better would require the joint probability
de~sity function of strength in the various failure modeswhich would be
atbest very difficult to obtain. A lower boundorI the probability of
failure can.be determinedby assumingthat the modesof failure are perfectly
correlated.
3.2.3
Safety~
.
The difficulty in obtaining load and strength density and distribution functions has led investigators to develop approacheswhich miniin!ze the effort required. For instance, in,the area of ships, [13] contains
an approximate semi-probabilistic design methodwhich wasmotivated, among
other things, by the lack of data on loads and strength and by the controThe method
versial status of forms of load and strength distributions.
requires that orIly the meansand variances of the load and strength be known.
This approximateapproachconsiders the margin o safety II
5
of Equation (3) as a randomvariable
withmeanw andvariance
OH.
(8)
S+i!
~2
(10}
where:
riis, 0s= meanand variance, respectively of strength.
in
~j=, .-.-
1+~vsz+vzz+~%$
l-+f52
..8
1/2
(12)
(13]
s
ski .
gN
(,1,)
/u
Y = safety index = mMM
Vkre:
s =
s
SH = required section modulusof the ship hull
91
proposed
[13]todetermine
thisvaluefromexisting
designs
totakeinto
if the probability
Inaddition,
account
thevastaccumulated
experience.
of failure associated with past designs is socially acceptable, then this
aspect is also considered.
3.2.4
~h
-7-
z
f. ~
= minimumstrength = S-K$ S
average strength
m~
=. 1-KSVS; $< 1
(15)
l%cto~$
givi~thenumberofstandard
deviations betweenthe averageand the
minimumstrengths and the maximum
loads,
respectively.
For a safe design, the minimumstrength mustexceedor equal
the maximum
load:
where:
%>= K
(17)
mf > m
s s-
z z
Strength Statistics
3.3.1General
It mustbe first stated that the strength of the hull girder
mayor maynot vary with time dependingon the failure modebeing considered. Time invariant strengths will include yielding and buckling.
Time variant strengths will include fracture, fatigue, Snd reducedstrengths
due to corrosion. For ships, time variant strengths will a so normally
include randomloadings of low or high cycles, and possibly thermal loadings.
This scenario shouldcover the most significant nmdesof hu 1 girder failure
which need to be addressed.
3.3.2
Strength Equation
S= k,k2k3----knS
-8-
En)
(18)
(19)
where:
cl----en
s
i---
The Kfactors.account for physical variables suchas size, forming and manufactut-ing processes, surface finish, load, heat treatment, direct surface
environment, temperature, timez corrosion~ etcThe approachgiven by Equation (18) has beenused in ships,
but the actual examplesdevelopedhave beensuch that only the explicit
functional strength constituents, F, have beenconsideredas random
variables or uncertainties in the strength. As the probabilistic analyses
becomemorecomprehensive
and moreuncertainties becomeidentified, some
of these maynot appear as constituents in the strength equation, and
the approachdepicted in Equation (19) mayhave to be adoptedin addition
to that in Equation (18).
3.3.3
Strength Distributions
(7) .
The probabilistic structural analysis approachesfound in
the literature assumethat the strength distribution can be determinedin
one of the following ways:
0 Actual component
strength distribution determinedby
actual testing under the exact geometry, application,
andoperational
environment
inwhich the component
shall function.
0 Component
strength distribution synthesizedfrom the
knowndistributions of the constituent parts and
strength factors as given in Equations (18) and (19).
o An assumptionmadeas to what type of distribution the
strength will follow, i.e. normal, lognormal, Weibull, etc.
0 An assumptionmadethat all that can be determinedof
the strength is its COV.
The first
machinedesign and someof
This approachwould hardly
size of the structure, the
-9-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1o-
j+)
=T*
s
~ (s) JsJ.@
-z
where:
exp -1/2(~:)
As s?!! (.)
(20)
(21)
s = mea~of strength S
s = standard deviation of strength S
Y = standard tabulated normal function.
s
s = f(E,,
E2,---- PEn)
-11-
f(r,
~f
+&(Ei
- Ti
) (~~)~t(22)
.
rz, ----, q. )
+ v2z-%i
<+
- ~i)2 (-?!.)
aEi2&;
+....
+ (Remainder)
are statistically
reduces to:
(25)
..
IfEquation
(25)iswritten
,intermsof a coefficient of
variation
(COV):
m&6:i*
Cov
g=$=
COVsof constituent parts
4
-12-
(26)
Equations (23), (25) , and (26) then gi,ve the strength parame~erls~lean,
variance,and CGVrespectively in terms of the meansand variances of
the constituent parts, ( E ). Thesemust be determinedfrom data or by
estimation as discussed in detail in Section 7.o. The definition of
the strength is then completeand the probability of failurd can then
be evaluated. The greatest amountof effort is neededin determining
the strength COV,and is only a fraction of that required by the first
~ViO approaches. Onewould,of course,havea lesser degreeof confidence
in tha results.
The fourth approachrequires only that the COVor the
man and variance of the strength be known. The procedureto obtain
datacanonlybe usedin the semi~
these was just given above. Ttiese
probabilistic methodsoutlined in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. This approach
req~ires the least computational effort to obtain its results.
3.3.4
Time DependentStrengths
-13-
B, tw, ~Y)
(27)
= N5y E D(@+l/3twD) s
Y
where:
= tensile strength
Y
D = section depth
B
= section beam
= area of flanges
Aw w area of webs
f
t(r)
to
Another
approachto consider
theeffect
of corrosion
whi~!~ C50CSnot result in a time dependentstrength is to take the total
plate Lhicknessas the sumof the thickness required for limiting stresses,
-14-
pl us
t,
thickuess
for
by
Equation
~:
tc
allowance,
[62]:
(29)
=t+tc
t
Which
corrosion
(26)
yields:
(>)2
. ~:
7=22
(~)
(30)
6=
n
where:
= COV of
6t
the
plate
thickness
due
to
production
tolerances
n
6
c
As
pointed
strength
a Monte
out
COV due
in
[62],
the
fatigue-crack
for
a
tanker
both
the
gives
a
function
a
as
random
variables.
also
presented.
is
random
source
probabilistic
given
therein
of
logarithmic
then
a method
fatigue
quantitative
study
is
is built
and
is
rating
the
the
information
limited
through
service
with
[t
results
rel iabi
point
of
obtained
by
1 ity
of ship
[19].
view.
The
Section
3.2.4.,
random
fatigue.
3.4
Load
has
Genera
As
istic
is
Of
sufficient
S-!1
noted
used
extended
1 istic
analysis
loads.
of
fatigue.
on the
amount
in
as
to
Section
2.0,
Of
hull
under
born
provide
on the
[5]
which
The strength
coefficients
are
regarded
Statistic
data
structure,
this
only
a standard
ity-control
led
clearly
therein
used
of
reference
study
which
maintenance
in
This
this
curve,
is
members
these
raridom
variables
in time
by factors
other
defects
be
procedure
that:
treating
well
qual
therefore,
basis
normal
in mind
information
of
previously
constant
ship
which
fab:-icat
ion
ope-
that
on
design-oriented
discussed
stress
in
range
and
design,
and
discussed
do not
include
details
the
load
is one of the
probabil
wave
the
unexpected
approach
of
using
structural
course
it
of
of
The
structure
law and
this
analysis
will
structures
merely
been
group
others
Statistics
3.4.1
structural
characteristics
and
the
satisfactory
should,
one
by
probabi
transverse
of
to within
a range
sound workmanship
put
inlo
conditions.
for
analysis
on
of strength
lack
on
from
joint.
of
ship
on Miners
and
of
vary
addressed
presented
during
approximation
llbeca~e
or
is
st i 11 water
found
considered
butt-welded
A sensitivity
The degradation
not
wil
been
and
evaluation
is based
1 inear
is
rate
has
[651 .
technique
longitudinal
to
only
this
at
the
subjected
represents
and
initiation
analyzing
corrosion
corrosion
members
to another
Carlo
simulation
In [19],
of
to
it will
be
mechanics
structural
in
concerning
two major
design.
the
objectives
the
load
distribution.
considerations
of any
discussed
that
must
The
here
from
the
be considered
1 iterature
-15-
on
of
this
study
However,
since
probabi
I istic
standpoint
for
appl
loads
does
of
i cation
not
in
address
this
with
respect
this
to
ships
the
fr,l
types
included
in
of
the
Section
situation
5.o
of
of
loads
water
due
Ships
owrl
Thermal
type
of
has
been
Equations
and
strength
and
stated
to
that
presented
3 .3.3
design
Lending
momerits
of
and
same
weight
and
description.
and
require
Hence,
distributions
th+
procedures
into
sti
that
of
11 water
effects
of
should
be
be
only
found
in
the
considered
11
on
water
load
must
since
this
hence,
wi 11
the
add
the
local
random
analyses
of
be
considered.
of
longitudinal
loadings,
load
strength,
such
toward
respect
those
found
ships
presented
ng
moments
in
to
[10]
as
that
increasing
and
probabil
bending
term,
moments
are
assumed
to fol
and an exponential
probability
(X)
been
the
wave
cons idered.
low
(l/k)
. (x/k)
JxfL(x)
L-l
in
probabi
this
1 istic
total
to
water
the.
overal
load
head,
load
and
c--(x/k)
dx = \-e-(x/k)
-T6-
probabi
proposed
1 istic
in
the
structural
bending
moments
and sti 11The ampl itudes
of
the wave
a Rayleigh
law in the
both
the
short-term
respectively,
funct
ions,
f, (x) =
FL
have
used
distribution
Iong. term.
in
Using
and the
long-term
wave
are
given
as follows:
x>O
>0
is tic
wave
information
Section
5.0.
due
distributions
been
therein;
bendi
distribution,
and densi ty
specific
have
water
Weibull
bution
to
stress.
With
1 iterature,
case
of
be
similar
1 iterature
sti
the
(n
should
bending
distributions.
ana Iys
effects
synthesizing
the
whole
and wave
This
is primarily
due to lack
of
as discussed
further
in
of
loads,
that
in any complete
here,
however,
the
apply
well.
types
out
include
these
the
same
al 1 that
would
to other
be pointed
total
for
In
safety.
appl icable
I t should
is,
directly.
vibration.
expressions
the
thermal
to
have
with
of
parts
combining
analyses
induced
margin
ships,
strength
ships
propelrer
deal
as
to
for
slamming,
and
distributions
slamming,
in
(7)
equations
the
constituent
procedure
for
frequency)
including
ity,
mathematical
respect
The
;tructur.~1
carry
strength
load
springing,
moments,
consist
buoyancy.
(row
:
and
through
load
their
the
of
The
(1)
the
With
distributions
emphasized.
hul 1 girder
Distributions
reliabil
for
for
cases
induced
springing,
failure,
and
frequency)
whipping,
of
expressions
most
the
train.
wave
(high
Equations
ity
expressions
to
to weight
wave
Quasi-static
probabil
ied
effects.
Oynamic
the
appl
[59] :
lowing
Calm
in
appraisal
is
report.
The
or
A qualitative
point
extensively.
to
loads
applied
(3?)
(32)
the
short
the
distri-
wi 11
Yn
(33)
(34)
bending momentisincorporated
firstas
ciaterministic
andthenasa normally
distributed
randomvariable. The
combinedstill-water and wave bendingmomentprobability density and
distribution func~ions in the deterministic case are:
.
.
The still-water
= 0, otherwise, ~ >Me
(36)
= O-otherwise, z >mo
where m is the deterministic bendingmoment.
o
The prohabil itydensity and distribution functions in the
and
9dl
mzm(z)
= -,
k uafi
- ~/@~-i,e-(@)J
o
(m}
waterbending