Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Ultimate strength of composite ships hull girders in the presence

of composite superstructures
Fattaneh Morshedsoluk, Mohammad Reza Khedmati n
Department of Marine Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran 15916-34311, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An extended formulation of the Coupled Beam Theory (CBT) developed by the authors is employed in
Received 26 May 2015 order to calculate the ultimate strength of composite ships taking into account of the effect of the su-
Received in revised form perstructure. A nonlinear nite element method is applied for solving the equilibrium equations. Be-
29 October 2015
haviour of the stiffened composite panels in tension and compression is modelled by using progressive
Accepted 24 January 2016
Available online 4 February 2016
failure method. Both hull and superstructure of the ship are modelled using beam elements. Connection
between beam elements representing hull and superstructure is made using specially developed spring
Keywords: box elements. Accuracy of the extended method is demonstrated using an available experimental result
Composite ship hull and also the results of nite element analysis. Also, a set of composite ships having different lengths of
Composite superstructure
superstructure is generated and analysed. Efciency of the composite superstructure in contribution to
Progressive failure
the ultimate bending strength of the composite ships is nally evaluated.
Coupled Beam Theory (CBT)
Ultimate strength & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the composite superstructure in the bending strength of the

Laminated composites can be used in different structures in the
elds of aerospace, marine and civil engineering. These sorts of
composites are generally assemblies of some layers of brous
composite materials, which can be joined together with the aid of
adhesives or resins, in order to provide required engineering
properties, including in-plane stiffness, bending stiffness, strength,
and coefcient of thermal expansion. It should be emphasised that
different structural arrangements of laminated composites in-
cluding single-skin, stiffened skin and sandwich panels are used in
the engineering structures. Application of such materials in ship
structures dates back to the late 1970s. Initially, small boats and
ships topsides were being built of such composite materials. Over
the time, usage of the composite materials in ship construction
continued to grow and in recent years, some longer vessels like
frigates and passenger ships are made of laminated composite
materials.
Having larger composite ships in length necessitates assess-
ment of their ultimate bending strength in the early stages of
structural design. In most of the steel ships, there is no super-
structure in the amidships region and thus, the effect of super-
structure on the ultimate strength of the ship is negligible. How-
ever, composite superstructures are often tted in the amidships
of the composite ships. This leads to the signicant contribution of
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khedmati@aut.ac.ir (M.R. Khedmati).
composite ship.
The ultimate strength of steel ships has been widely in-
vestigated by many researchers around the world. Caldwell [1]
was the rst who estimated the ultimate strength of steel ships
employing the fully plastic bending theory of the beams. However,
he did not consider the reduction in the load-carrying capacity of
structural members after they attain their corresponding ultimate
strengths. Smith [2] proposed an approach for calculation of the
ultimate strength of the ships. He rst divided the ship's cross
section into different unstiffened/stiffened plate panels, and then
performed a progressive collapse analysis under bending on it
assuming that the cross section remains plane after bending and
each of the panels behaves according to its corresponding average
stressaverage strain relationship. Finite element method was
applied by Smith [2] in order to obtain the average stressaverage
strain relationships for unstiffened/stiffened panels. Other re-
searchers made some attempts for derivation of the average
stress-average strain relationships for ships unstiffened /stiffened
plate panels subject to in-plane compression alone or in combi-
nation with other loads using analytical approaches. Among them,
reference may be made to the work of Khedmati [3].
In all of above-mentioned research studies, the ultimate
strength of the ships is calculated by ignoring the effect of the
superstructure. On the other hand, the available theoretical
methods to estimate the ultimate strength of the ship's hull with a
superstructure are mostly based on the simple beam theory or
two-beam theory. Mackney and Rose [4] have studied the effect of
the superstructure on the longitudinal strength of a ship both

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016.01.024
0263-8231/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138 123

Nomenclature M0 Ultimate bending strength of the ship without any

superstructure
Ai Cross-sectional area of the i-th beam Ni Axial force of the i-th beam
A Constant Matrix Ni[x] Shape functions
Diagonal matrix containing the singular values pij Transverse (vertical) distributed forces between the i-
B Constant Matrix th and j-th beams
Cij Bending moment lever on the i-th beam due to the Qi Shear force of the i-th beam
dij j >force
shearing i between the i-th and j-th beams qi External force of the i-th beam
={ 0 j = i R1 Residual
dik Distance
eij j <between
i the upper bre of the beam to the R2 Residual
reference line sij Longitudinal distributed shear forces between the i-th
D Constant Matrix and j-th beams
eij Distance between the lower bre of the beam to the R12 Shear strength in plane 12
reference line Tij Shear stiffness between the i-th and j-th beams
Eit Tangential modulus of the i-th panel or slope of the U Square and orthogonal matrix
mean stress-mean strain curve of the i-th panel ui Axial displacement of the i-th beam
EAi Axial stiffness of the i-th beam ui* Approximate axial displacement of the i-th beam
EAit Tangent axial stiffness = EitAi uij Normal degree of freedom of j-th node from i-th beam
EAij EA value for j-th node of i-th beam V Square and orthogonal matrix
EIi Bending stiffness of i-th beam viM Transverse displacement of the i-th beam due to the
EIit Tangent bending stiffness = EitAi zi2 bending
EIij EA value for j-th node of i-th beam vi Total transverse displacement for the i-th beam
EXi Value which modies the internal forces if the re- viM * Approximate transverse displacement of the i-th
ference line differs from the centroid of the cross- beam due to the bending
section vij Vertical degree of freedom of j-th node from i-th beam
EXit Tangent modier of the forces = EitAi zi Xi First sectional moment of area of the i-th beam
EXij EX value for j-th node of i-th beam XT Tension strength in direction 1
Hi Effective Height of the i-th beam XC Compression strength in direction 1
Ii Sectional moment of inertia of the i-th beam YT Tension strength in direction 2
i YC Compression strength in direction 2
k mj Stiffness matrix elements of i-th beam
kEAi Constant XS Nodal displacement vector of system
kEIi Constant zi Distance of the i-th panel to the reference line
kEXi Constant iju Relative axial displacement
K Global stiffness matrix of system ijv Relative transverse displacement
k ij(x ) Vertical stiffness between the i-th and j-th beams s Coefcient of efciency of the superstructure or su-
L Length of hull perstructure effectiveness coefcient
Ls Length of superstructure 1 Normal stress in direction 1
Mi Bending moment of the i-th beam 2 Normal stress in direction 2
Mx Ultimate bending strength of the ship under 12 Shear stress in plane 12
consideration ji Tangential degree of freedom of j-th node from i-th
M100 Ultimate bending strength of the ship with a super- beam
structure of 100 percent efciency

experimentally and numerically. The simple beam theory and -
nite element method were applied in their study, while they ig-
nored the effect of the connection between the hull and super-
structure. Naar et al. [5] proposed a new approach called Coupled
Beams Method (CBM) to evaluate hull girder response of passen-
ger ships. This method is based on the assumption that the global
bending response of a modern passenger ship can be estimated
with the help of beams coupled to each other by distributed
longitudinal and vertical springs. To solve the governed equations,
Naar et al. [5] proposed an analytical method that was only ap-
plicable when the superstructure is as long as the ship's hull.
Very few publications can be found in the literature addressing
the issue of ultimate strength of composite ships. Chen et al. [6]
were the rst who tried to estimate the ultimate strength of
composite ships. They proposed a simple analytical method for
calculating the ultimate strength of composite vessels. In their
method, the behaviour of composite panels was formulated with a
simple formula. Chen and Soares [7] extended the above-men-
tioned method for calculating the ultimate strength of composite
ships under bending moment. Two types of the failure modes
were considered in their study; the panel buckling as well as
fracture of the composite materials. Later, Chen and Soares [8]
estimated the reliability of composite ships under bending mo-
ment, using the rst method proposed by Chen et al. [6]. To cal-
culate the reliability of the reinforced plate buckling failure, the
failure of the rst layer of the reinforcing plate and the ultimate
failure of the reinforced plate were considered. Finally, Chen and
Soares [9] used Smith's method, which is a conventional approach
and capable of calculating bending moment-curvature curves, in
order to calculate the ultimate strength of composite vessels.
Application of the composite materials to the construction of
long ships is still a relatively new and growing subject, which
needs more research to be performed on assessment of the ulti-
mate strength of these types of the ships. Besides, most of the
previous studies do not take into account of the effect of the su-
perstructure on the ultimate strength of the ships.
As it is understood from the above-mentioned review, ultimate
strength of the ships taking the superstructure's effect into ac-
count have been studied in many aspects, the most of which are
only devoted to the linear elastic material behaviours.
124 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138

Furthermore, there has been no investigation to study the ultimate

strength of the ships possessing superstructures with a length
smaller than the length of the ship. Therefore, diagnosing this
shortcoming, the aim of the present study is to develop an ap-
proach to investigate effect of the superstructure on the ultimate
strength of the composite ship. A nite element approach based
on the method described by Naar et al. [5] is proposed. In this
method, the composite ship structure is divided into the hull beam
and superstructure beam, which are connected together by means
of some springs. The beams are constructed of composite stiffened
plate panels. The behaviour of each of the panels composing the
hull and superstructure beams is represented by the so-called
average loadaverage strain curve. This curve can portray the
behaviour of the composite stiffened panel under either com-
pression or tension loads, including local failure modes. The
average loadaverage strain curves are derived using a progressive
failure nonlinear nite element analysis, the details of which are
described by Morshedsoluk and Khedmati [10]. Finally, the ulti-
mate longitudinal strength of the composite hulls with composite
superstructures of any length is obtained from the momentdis-
placement relationship, which is established by imposing pro-
gressively increasing load on the hull-superstructure girder.

2. Methodology of ultimate strength calculations

The ultimate strength of a composite hull equipped with a

composite superstructure is estimated based on the nonlinear
form of the Coupled Beam Theory (CBT), which is aimed to eval-
uate the hull girder response of the whole ship under global
bending loading condition [10]. According to the CBT, the ship
structure is divided into several separate beams; superstructure
beams and main hull beam. The beams are coupled to each other
by means of a number of vertical springs and shear springs. The
joining springs transfer shear forces and vertical forces among the
adjacent beams. Modelling scheme and couplings among the
beams are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The Coupled Beam
Theory is not readily applicable when assessment of the ultimate
Fig. 2. Couplings among the beams in the ship structure model.
strength of the hull girders. This fact is due to the nonlinearity of
the stress distribution in the cross section of the hull girder during
bending, which leads to ultimate failure of the ship hull.
To overcome above-mentioned shortcoming of the Coupled
Beam Theory, hull and superstructure beams are assumed to be
consisting of several stiffened panels, the stiffness of which will
reduce due to collapse during bending. Thus, the non-prismatic
beam theory will be applied and the stiffness of the stiffened pa-
nels is gained from their corresponding mean stress- mean strain
curves obtained by using progressive failure method. Finally, the
governed nonlinear equations are solved by means of the nite
element method. Linear and nonlinear forms of the governing
equations of the Coupled Beam Theory are presented in this
section.

2.1. Linear form of the governing equations of the Coupled beam

theory

To study the effect of superstructure on the ultimate strength of

Fig. 1. Basic concept of discretisation of a multi-deck ship into a set of coupled
beams according to the Coupled Beam Theory (CBT).
a ship hull girder, the whole ship structure is modelled using
Coupled Beam Theory (CBT). A differential segment of the i-th
beam with the internal/external/coupling forces acting on it is
shown in Fig. 3. The internal forces that are known from beam
theory include axial force Ni , shear force Q i and bending moment
Mi . In addition, the coupling forces consist of vertical distributed
forces pij and longitudinally distributed shear forces sij . The sub-
script ij represents the effect of the j-th beam on the i-th beam.
The only external force acting on the segment is qi , which is the
result of the difference between weight and buoyancy forces. All
these loads change by their corresponding differential values to-
wards the other section of the segment under consideration in the
 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138 125

where the elements of the matrix of shear forces sij and also ele-
ments of the matrix of vertical forces pij are as follows

sij j > i
sij = { 0 j = i
sij j < i (3)

and

pij j > i
pij = { 0 j = i
pij j < i (4)

The equilibrium equation for the moments about z-axis gives

2 n
Mi ( Cijsij )
2
+ pij + = qi
x j=1
x (5)

where the elements of the matrix C are

dij j > i
Cij = { 0 j = i
eij j < i (6)

In addition to above equations, the coupling equations are used

Fig. 3. A differential segment of the i-th beam with internal/external/coupling
forces acting on it.
i-th beam as shown in Fig. 3.
Linear forms of the equilibrium equations and the equations of
vertical coupling and shear coupling for the segment under study
are all presented in Morshedsolouk and Khedmati [10]. In this
study, the reference line is xed to the deck position, which may
differ from the centroid position of the cross-section. dik and eij are
respectively representing the distance between the upper and
lower bres of the beam to the reference line. The equations of
equilibrium for the forces acting on the i-th beam in both long-
itudinal and transverse directions are
n
Ni
+ sij = 0
x j=1
to dene the interaction between beams. They include both shear
coupling and force coupling. Shear coupling between two neigh-
bouring beams is shown schematically in Fig. 4. Due to existence
of the shear element with the shear stiffness Tij , displacement
discontinuity iju causes shear forces sij between beams. It is as-
sumed that this shear force is constant over length dx. Thus, it may
be considered as the response of distributed horizontal spring
between the two neighbouring beams. Shear stiffness depends on
the effective height Hij of the shear element and also its effective
area. In this case, as shown in Fig. 4, the effective height is equal to
the deck spacing. Therefore, the approximate shear force in the
side shell or in the longitudinal bulkhead is equal to
sij(x) = Tij(x)iju(x) (7)
The relative displacement can now be formulated with the help
(1)
of axial displacement u and deection v M of beams as follows

v jM viM
n iju = uj + eji ui + dij
Q i x x (8)
+ pij = qi
x (2)
j=1 where viM is the deection of i-th beam caused by bending.

Fig. 4. Shear coupling between two neighbouring beams.

126 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138

Fig. 5. Vertical coupling between two neighbouring beams.

Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (7) results in the following equation 2viM ui
for the shear force Ni = EXi + EAi
x2 x (13)

v jM viM In which the parameters EAi and EIi are respectively the axial
sij = Tij(uj Cji ui + Cij ) stiffness and the bending stiffness of i-th beam with respect to the
x x (9)
reference axis, EXi is also the value that modies the internal
And the longitudinal shear stiffness matrix is forces when the reference line differs from the line passing
through the centroid of the cross-section. It should be noted that
Tij j i the matrices EAi , EIi and EXi are diagonal. The unknown para-
Tij = {
0 j=i (10) meters on the reference line would be ui and viM .
Eliminating Mi and Ni from the above equations, results in the
The next type of coupling is the vertical one. This type of following equations
coupling is of great importance when the superstructure is weakly n
u 2v M
supported, as well described by Bleich [11]. The interaction be- sij = (EAi i EXi i2 )
j=1
x x x (14)
tween i-th and j-th beams is described with distributed vertical
springs, see Fig. 5. Vertical coupling force pij that depends on
n
vertical coupling stiffness k ij and relative deection ijv , is calcu-
( cijsij ) 2 2v M u
qi pij = 2
(EIi i2 + EXi i )
lated as the difference between beam deections vi and vj . Hence i=1
x x x x (15)

Pij = kij(x)ijv(x) = kij(x)(vj(x) vi(x))
(11)
Using the beam theory, the relations between the internal
forces and displacements are dened assuming that the material
follows the Hooke's law. If the values of axial displacement ui and
The unknowns in Eqs. (14) and (15) are axial deection ui and
transverse deection induced by bending viM .
2.2. Nonlinear form of the governing equations of the Coupled beam
theory

deection viM are known for i-th beam, then the amounts of
To calculate the ultimate strength of the ships considering the
bending moment Mi and axial forces Ni can be determined as
effect of the superstructure, nonlinear forms of the above-men-
follows (see Criseld [12])
tioned equations are to be rst derived and then solved. The linear
forms of these equations are again summarised in the third col-
2viM ui
Mi = EIi + EXi umn of the Table 1. The equations in the third column of the Ta-
x2 x (12)
ble 1 are transformed to their nonlinear forms as presented in the
 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138 127

Table 1
Nonlinear and linear equations of the Coupled Beam Theory (CBT).

Type of equations Equation no. Linear form Nonlinear form

Equilibrium equations 1 Ni Ni
+ nj = 1 sij = 0 + nj = 1 sij = 0
x x
2 Q i Q i
+ nj = 1 pij = qi + nj = 1 pij = qi
x x
3 2Mi ( Cijsij ) 2Mi ( Cijsij )
+ nj = 1 pij + = qi + nj = 1 pij + = qi
x2 x x2 x
Coupling equations 1 v M v M v M v M
j i j i
sij = Tij(uj Cji ui + Cij ) sij = Tij(uj Cji ui + Cij )
x x x x
2 pij = k ij(vj vi ) pij = k ij(vj vi )
Beam deformation equations 1 2v M ui 2v M ui
Mi = EIi 2i + EXi Mi = EIi i
+ EXi
x x x2 x
2 2v M ui 2v M ui
i i
Ni = EXi + EAi Ni = EXi + EAi
x2 x x2 x

fourth column of that table. For the nonlinear forms of the equa-
tions, the coordinate axis is xed and independent of the beams
neutral axes. Therefore the C matrix is remained unchanged dur-
ing the calculations.

3. Average stress-average strain curves

As it was mentioned earlier, the average stress- average strain

curves of the stiffened panels determine the behaviour of these
structural elements under compression or tension and conse-
quently, they could affect behaviour of the global ship structure.
Different analytical, numerical and experimental methods are
available in order to obtain or reach these curves for unstiffened/
stiffened metallic panels. However, only numerical or experi-
mental approaches have been developed or used in order to derive
the average stress- average strain curves for unstiffened/stiffened
composite panels. In this study, the average stress- average strain
curves of the composite panels are derived using nonlinear nite
element method in combination with the progressive failure
analysis.

3.1. Progressive failure method

Details of the progressive failure method that has been applied

herein, are fully presented and validated by Morshedsolouk and
Khedmati [13]. They utilised the ANSYS software [14] in their
modelling attempts, owing to its capabilities for analysing most of
the structural problems regardless of their diversity in structural
components. Note that all pre- and post-processing steps of the
modelling were carried out by a macro code written in the ANSYS
Fig. 6. Applied algorithm for progressive failure analysis.
Programming Design Language (APDL).
The adopted algorithm for the nonlinear nite element method
required parameters for two-dimensional failure criteria include
including progressive failure analysis is outlined in a owchart
longitudinal, transverse and tensile as well as shear strengths. As
shown in Fig. 6. After geometric modelling and descretisation of
mentioned above, this study uses Tsai-Wu failure criterion that is
the panel and furthermore, applying boundary and loading con-
in good harmony with experimental results. This criterion is re-
ditions, nonlinear nite element method is employed in order to
ected as Eq. (16). 1, 2 and 12 are the normal stress in direction 1,
calculate stresses and nodal displacements at each of the gauge
normal stress in direction 2 and shear stress in direction 12, re-
points of the elements. In the next step, the failure criterion index
spectively.
is computed. If occurrence of the failure is detected inside a layer
of a typical element, values of the mechanical properties are re- 1 1 1 1 2 2
( + )1 + ( + )2 + 1 + 2 + ( 12 ) + 2f12 12
duced to zero for that specic layer. The above-mentioned pro- XT XC YT YC XT XC YT YC S12
cedure is followed again until the nal failure of the whole panel is
1 (16)
attained, when it becomes unstable.
Tsai-Wu failure criterion is employed in the progressive failure If the stacking sequences of the plate and stiffeners are not the
analysis of the composite panels. The use of a precise mathema- same as each other or if there exist several types of stacking se-
tical equation for estimating the failure is strictly constrained to quences in the structure under consideration, then the states of all
the number of the possible states of failure. It is also noted that the layers should be investigated for all of the applied nite elements.
128 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138
Fig. 7. Characteristics of the plate models with their stiffening members.
Later, the inferred stresses in each layer have to be transferred to
the relevant coordinate system and nally, the magnitudes of
stresses are put in the failure criterion.
3.2. Finite element model of composite panels
The extent of plate models with their stiffeners is presented in
Fig. 7. The extent of the models is so chosen that each model in-
cludes two transverse stiffeners and two longitudinal stiffeners.
The geometric and dimensional characteristics of the selected
stiffened plates are given in Table 2. Table 3 tabulates the me-
chanical characteristics of the applied composite.
Fig. 8 shows a nite element model of a stiffened plate. Lines
AB, BH, GH and AG represent the boundaries of the model and
lines CD and EF demonstrate locations of the web frames or
transverse stiffeners. Given that the transverse stiffeners are stiffer
than the longitudinal ones; lateral deformation of the panels is
assumed to be zero in the locations of the transverse stiffeners.
The boundary conditions imposed on the stiffened plates are as
follows:
 Symmetrical conditions are applied along the lines AG and BH.
 In the case of odd and even dimensional ratios, periodic con-
tinuous or symmetry conditions are applied on transverse lines
AB and GH in Fig. 8, respectively.
 Since transverse stiffeners are not modelled, the deformation of
the plate points along z axis is constrained at the locations of
the transverse web frames.
 Furthermore, longitudinal deformation of the model is coupled
at the edge loaded by compressive force.
Owing to the fact that the stiffened plates are thin-walled
structures, their out-of-plane stresses are negligible, while their
in-plane stresses are determinant. Hence, modelling of these
components would be precise enough when employing the shell
elements. Therefore, the Shell-181 element, that is appropriate for
Table 2
Dimensions of the studied stiffened panel models.
Parameter Magnitude
a 300
bf 1000
d 18
b2 62
b3 60
h1 50
h2 10
h3 10
h5 12
Table 3
Mechanical properties of the material used in this study (Direction 1 is the laminate
main direction and direction 2 is the direction normal to direction 1).
Mechanical properties Symbols Magnitude
Module of Elasticity in main direction of the material E1 15 GPa
Module of Elasticity in direction normal to main di- E2 13.5 GPa
rection of the material
Shear Modulus in direction 12 and 13 G12, G13 3.45 GPa
Shear Modulus in direction 23 G23 3.45 GPa
Tensile strength in direction 1 XT 238 MPa
Compression strength in direction 1 XC 210 MPa
Tensile strength in direction 2 YT 204 MPa
Compression strength in direction 2 YC 224 MPa
Shear strength in direction 12 S12 84 MPa
Shear strength in direction 13 S13 84 MPa
Shear strength in direction 23 S23 84 MPa
modelling thin and relatively thick plates and is constructed based
on Classic Plate Strain and Mindlin theories, was used in the
analyses utilising ANSYS software. These elements are composed
of 4 nodes, where each node has 6 degrees of freedom. The ele-
ment is appropriate for both linear and nonlinear solutions with
large deformations and great angle variations. Also, this element
can be used for modelling composite materials.
One of the important factors in the nite element analysis is mesh
density that should be so selected to give acceptably precise solutions.
Excessive increase in the density of meshing will dramatically increase
the time required for the solution. Therefore, the density should be
determined accurately. Based on the results of numerous analyses
performed by the authors, the density with 40 longitudinal meshes
and 15 transverse meshes is nally chosen for the plates. Also, the
density with 2 meshes in the height of web, 2 ones in the width of
ange and 40 meshes in the length is considered for stiffeners.
4. Application of the nite element method
Nonlinear equations presented in Table 1, are solved using Fi-
nite Element Method (FEM). Detailed of the stiffness matrices for
linear elements and also for spring box elements are derived and
given in Morshedsolouk and Khedmati [10]. Using the incremental
nonlinear form of the equations given in Table 1, the nonlinear
stiffness matrix can be derived in the same way.
The adopted concept for discretisation of ship structure into
different beam and spring elements is shown schematically in the
Fig. 9. As can be seen in Fig. 9, both hull and superstructure are
modelled as beams consisting of a number of beam elements. In
the connecting region between hull and superstructure, the nodes
are so located to have the same abscissa. The beam elements are of
three-node type, having a total number of six degrees of freedom,
so that the variations in the axial force can be easily considered.
The reference line is considered at the deck level.
The beams representing hull and superstructure are connected
to each other using the so-called spring box elements. The stiff-
ness matrix of these spring box elements is derived using equili-
Unit brium conditions. Any spring box element consists of 9 transverse
springs and also 9 shear springs, Fig. 10. The transverse springs
mm
and shear springs are simulating respectively vertical forces and
mm
mm shear forces acting between the two beam elements; one inside
mm the hull and the other one inside the superstructure.
mm
mm 4.1. Derivation of stiffness matrices
mm
mm
mm
The governing equations to be solved are all summarised in
Table 1. Galerkin method is adopted in order to solve the set of
 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138 129

Fig. 8. Dimensional parameters of the nite element model.

equations. Using the Galerkin method, nite element equations

are formulated. Length of the ship is divided into m intervals. The
rst node is chosen at the after perpendicular position, while the
last node is placed at the forward perpendicular. Each of the in-
tervals includes three nodes. ui* and viM * are approximate solutions
for the ui and viM functions in i-th interval. These approximate
solutions are considered as linear combination of the corre-
sponding nodal deections in the following manner
9
ui* = i = 7 xijNj(x) (17)

6
viM * = i = 1 xijNj(x) (18)

Degrees of freedom in above equations are as follows

X i = [ x1i x2i x3i x4i x5i x6i x7i x8i x 9i ]

= [ v1i v2i v3i 1i 2i 3i u1i u2i u3i ]

where ji , vij and uij are nodal angular displacement and nodal
displacements of the i-th beam in normal directions, respectively.
The shape functions Nj(x ) are obtained as follows

23x2 66x 3 68x 4 24x5

N1[x] = 1 + +
L2 L3 L4 L5
16x2 32x 3 16x 4
N2[x] = 2
+ 3
+
L L L4
7x 2 34x 3 52x 4 24x5
Fig. 9. Adopted concept for discretisation of ship structure into different beam and N3[x] = 2
3
4

spring elements. L L L L5
6x 2 13x 3 12x 4 4x 5
N4[x] = x + 2
3
+ 4
L L L L
2 3 4 5
{ N5[x] = 8x + 32x 40x + 16x
L 2 3 4
L L L
x2 5x 3 8x 4 4x 5
N6[x] = + 2 3 + 4
L L L L
3x 2x 2
N7[x] = 1 + 2
L L
4x 4x 2
N8[x] = 2
L L
x 2x 2
N9[x] = + 2
Fig. 10. Different components within any of spring box elements. L L (19)
130 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138

Fig. 11. Adopted procedure for the ultimate strength calculations.

Table 4
Dimensions of the model tested by Mackney and Rose.

Parameter Magnitude Unit

Hull length 2 m
Hull breadth 0.25 m
Hull depth 0.167 m
Superstructure depth 0.116 m
Superstructure length 0.5 m

Fig. 12. A schematic view of the Mackney and Rose test specimen.

x2 u * 2v M * n
The residuals would be x Nm(x)( (EAit i EXit i 2 ) + j = 1 sij*)dx = 0 m
1 x x x
= 7, 8, 9 (22)
u * 2v M * n
R1 = (EAit i EXit i 2 ) + j = 1 sij*
x x x (20)
x2 2 2v M * u * ( cijsij*) n
x Nm(x)( 2
(EIit i 2 + EXit i ) + + j = 1 pij*
( cijsij*) x x x x
2
2v M * ui* n
1
R2 = 2
(EIit i 2 + EXit )+ = j = 1 pij* qi* qi*)dx = 0 m = 1, , 6
x x x x (21) (23)

Based on the Galerkin method, in order to have the least Integrating Eqs. (22) and (23) by parts results in
amount of error, the functions ui* and viM * have to satisfy the
following equations
 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138 131

Fig. 13. Model built in Hull_Superstructure_Interaction software for Mackney and Rose test specimen.

Fig. 14. Comparison of the results for Mackney and Rose test specimen. Fig. 16. Comparison of the bending moment-curvature diagrams for the composite
ship hull with the section as assumed by Chen and Soares in the sagging condition.
d * d
(Nm(x) Mi (x))0L ( Nm(x)Mi*(x))0L
dx dx
L d2 2v M * u *
+
0 dx 2
Nm(x)(EIij i 2 + EXij i )dx=
x x
L L
0 Nm(x)qi*(x)dx 0 Nm(x)Kij(x)(v*j (x) vi*(x))dx

(Nm(x) cijsij*)0L +
{ M
d2
L dv * M*
0 N(
m (x )Tij (x )(u*j Cji j ui* Cij dvi ))dx
dx2 dx dx
d L d u * 2v M *
(Nm(x) Ni*(x))0L Nm(x)(EAii i + EXii i 2 )d
dx 0 dx x x
x=
L dv jM * dv M *
0 (Nm(x) Tij(u*j Cji ui* Cij i ))dx
dx dx (24)

Where, the stiffness matrices for the beam elements and spring
box elements can be easily obtained using Eq. (24). Fig. 17. Comparison of the bending moment-curvature diagrams for the composite
ship hull with the section as assumed by Chen and Soares in the hogging condition.
4.2. Assembling stiffness matrix
v M and per each node would take the following form
After derivation of stiffness matrices for hull beam elements,
2
superstructure beam elements and also spring box elements, L d2Ni d Nj
global stiffness matrix of the whole ship structure is to be as-
Kij = Kji = 0 EI (x)
dx2 dx2
dx 1 i, j 6
sembled. Since the shear force and bending moment are zero at 2
L d2N d Nj
both ends of the ship, in order to solve nite element equations, Kij = Kji =
0
EX (x) 2i 2 dx 1 i 6, 6 j 7
dx dx
singular points should be eliminated so that rigid body motion of
2
the ship is prevented. The resulting set of the nite element L d2Ni d Nj
equations is then solved.
Kij = Kji =
0
EA(x) 2
dx dx2
dx 7 i, j 9
(25)

4.3. Stiffness matrix of the beam elements Since the sectional properties of a ship are generally variable
along its length, it would be more accurate if the sectional prop-
Based on the Eq. (24), the stiffness matrix elements for the i-th erties of the beam elements can also vary along their length.
beam element having nodes 1, 2 and 3 with degrees of freedom u, Therefore, the quantities EAit , EXit and EIit are dened as follows

Fig. 15. Model created in the Hull_Superstructure_Interaction software for analysing the composite ship hull with the section as assumed by Chen and Soares.
132 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138

Cij2TijA CijTijB CijCjiTijA CijTijB

CijTijB TijD CjiTijB TijD
KShear = [ ]=
2
CijCjiTijA CjiTijB Cji TijA CjiTijB
CijTijB TijD CjiTijB TijD

1k6 7k9 1k6

L L L
2
1 m 6 [ 0 Cij TijNm
Nkdx] [ 0 CijTijNm
Nkdx] 0
[ CijCjiTijNm
Nkd
L L L

[
7m9 [ 0
CijTijNm Nkdx] [ 0 TijNmNkdx] [ 0
CjiTijNm Nkd
L L L
1m6 [ 0
CijCjiTijNm Nk dx] [ 0
CjiTijNm Nkdx] [ 0 Cji2TijNm

Nk
L L L
7 m 9 [ 0
CijTijNm Nkdx] 0
[ TijNmNkdx] 0
[
CjiTijNm Nkd
(28 )

and
Fig. 18. Finite element model of the composite ship hull with the section as as-
sumed by Chen and Soares. L L
[ 0 kijNkNmdx] 0 0
[ kijNkNmdx] 0

Table 5 0 0 0 0
Comparison of the ultimate strength results for the sagging condition.
KTrans = [ ]
L L
[0 kijNkNmdx] 0 [ 0 kijNkNmdx] 0
Method Year Ultimate bending moment [MN m] Error [%]
0 0 0 0
Chen and Soares 2008 126 kijE 0 kijE 0
Chen and Soares 2007 125 0.8
FEM 2013 140 11.6 0 0 0 0
=[ ]
Present method 2013 133 5.7 kijE 0 kijE 0
0 0 0 0 (29)
Table 6 Details of A, B, D and E matrices are given in the Appendix A.
Comparison of the ultimate strength results for the hogging condition.

Method Year Ultimate bending moment [MN m] Error [%] 4.5. Elimination of singular points in the solution of nite element
equations
Chen and Soares 2008 185
Chen and Soares 2007 178 7.8%
FEM 2013 200 8.1% Global stiffness matrix of the whole ship is a singular matrix.
Present method 2013 197 5.9% This is due to the fact that there are not enough support con-
straints to prevent rigid body motion of the whole ship structure.
In such cases, Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) procedure may
EI (x) = EI1N7(x) + EI2N8(x) + EI3N9(x) be proposed to solve the problem. Any square matrix like global
stiffness matrix of system (whole ship structure), K, can be written
EX (x) = EX1N7(x) + EX2N8(x) + EX3N9(x)
as below as a product of three matrices:
EA(x) = EA1N7(x) + EA2 N8(x) + EA3N9(x) (26) K = U . . V T (30)

In which U and V are square and orthogonal matrices. Also, is

K = KEA1EA1 + KEA2EA2 + KEA3EA3 + KEX1EX1
+ KEX2EX2 + KEX3EX3 + KEI1EI1 + KEI2EI2 + KEI3EI3
The vector of degrees of freedom for the i-th beam element is
[ v1i v2i v3i 1i 2i 3i u1i u2i u3i ]T and the relevant matrices KEAj , KEXj
and KEIj are constants, given in the Appendix A.
4.4. Stiffness matrix of the spring box elements
Spring box elements are used in order to simulate the con-
nection between beam elements of the hull and beam elements of
the superstructure. Forces acting on the beam elements coming
from the spring box elements are jn= 1sij , jn= 1pij and jn= 1cijsij , which
are respectively representing axial force per unit length, transverse
force per unit length and bending moment per unit length.
Any of the spring box elements have 6 nodes, a total of 18
degrees of freedom, shear stiffness and transverse vertical stiff-
ness. The shear stiffness matrix and transverse vertical matrix for
such elements would be
a diagonal matrix that contains the singular values. Symmetry of
(27) global stiffness matrix, K, imposes equality of the two matrices U
and V. Also, since U is orthogonal, then its transpose, UT, will be
equal to its inverse, U 1. Besides, inverse of the diagonal matrix, ,
would form another diagonal matrix called 1, in which the di-
agonal elements are just the reciprocals of the diagonal elements
of the matrix .
The problem exists when the system consists of one or more
singular values. This means that the value of one or more of the
diagonal elements is very small compared to the largest value of
other diagonal elements of the matrix . As a result of that, the
reciprocal of such diagonal elements having very small values
would have a very large value, which tends to distort the numer-
ical solution, sending it off to innity along a direction which is
spurious. A good approximation is to throw these spurious direc-
tions away completely by setting 1/ii for the offending singular
values to zero. Therefore, K 1 can be written as follows:
K 1 = V . 1. UT (31)
 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138 133

Fig. 19. Typical cross section of a composite ship hull with a composite superstructure.

Now, the nal solution of the nite element equations takes the 4.6. Solution procedure
following form:
The whole process of estimating the ultimate strength consists
1 T
Xs = V . . U . F (32) of 2 different stages; development of the average stress- average
strain curves for the unstiffened/stiffened panels composing the
where F and Xs are vector of external forces and vector of nodal ship's hull and its superstructure and then, estimation of the ul-
displacements of the system, respectively. timate strength of the whole ship structure. As it was already
stated, the average stress- average strain curves are herein
134 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138

120

100

Vertical Deflection [mm]

Ls=0 m
Ls=10 m
80 L=16 m
Ls=20 m
60 Ls=24 m
Ls=30 m
40

20

0
0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250
Fig. 20. Loading condition. Bending Moment [MN.m]

Fig. 22. Curves of vertical deection versus bending moment for different lengths
developed by using progressive failure analysis, as documented by of the superstructure.
Morshedsolouk and Khedmati [13].
As a summary, it can be simply stated that the ship structure is
rst divided into separate beams. The beams represent ship's hull
and its superstructure. In the next step, cross-section of each beam
is divided into several unstiffened/stiffened panels. Then, the
geometry and information related to the panels are extracted and
based on them; the input les for performing progressive failure
analysis are created. The input les are now imported to a code
capable of doing nonlinear nite element analysis implementing
the progressive failure modelling. In the nal step, a MATLAB code
called Hull_Superstructure_Interaction is programmed in order to
calculate the ultimate strength of the whole ship based on the
Coupled Beam Theory (CBT). Flow of the whole process is shown
in Fig. 11.

5. Verication

To verify the developed method, the code Hull_Superstruc- Fig. 23. Values of the superstructure effectiveness coefcient for different relative
lengths of the superstructure.
ture_Interaction is tested against the experiment made by Mackney
and Rose [4], studies of Chen and Soares [9] and the Finite Element

Fig. 21. Vertical deections of the hull and superstructure (left) and positions of the failed sections for different superstructure lengths (right).
 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138
Method.
Mackney and Rose performed a set of experiments on a scaled
model of a ship possessing a superstructure. The scale factor of the
model was 1:60 and it was made of Lucite L Acrylic cast. A sche-
matic picture of the model is shown in Fig. 12. Dimensions of the
model are also given in Table 4. It should be noted that the whole
model was tested under pure bending. Mackney and Rose test
specimen was modelled in the software Hull_Superstructure_-
Interaction as two independent beams, which are connected by
spring boxes, Fig. 13. According to description of the experiments
made by Mackney and Rose [4], the applied force at the both ends of
the structure created a pure bending. Therefore, herein, bending
moment is also applied in the same way at the both ends of the
structure. Considering the fact that Mackney and Rose performed
their test in the elastic range and no failure occurred in the model,
mechanical properties of the whole structure, including EI, EX and
EA are considered constant throughout the loading.
In this study, the hull deection is calculated and compared
with the values provided by Mackney and Rose [4]. Results of
this comparison are presented in Fig. 14. In that gure, the solid
line with square marks represents the amount of deection
calculated by the Hull_Superstructure_Interaction code and the
line with a hollow square marks represent the amount of de-
ection experienced during Mackney and Rose test. It can be
realised that the results of both models are similar in the cen-
tral areas and the amount of error in the calculations compared
with the experimental results is around 1.57 percent. The cal-
culation error is slightly higher in the support areas, and it is
about 8.62 percent. This is mainly because the loading proce-
dure was not clearly specied by Mackney and Rose [4] in these
areas.
As it was mentioned earlier, Chen and Soares [9] have made
some study on the evaluation of ultimate strength for the com-
posite vessels without any superstructure. In their research, the
ultimate strength of a composite ship hull was calculated using the
Smith's method. The composite ship analysed by Chen and Soares
[9] is also modelled in Hull_Superstructure_Interaction code as
shown in Fig. 15. A comparison between the bending moment-
curvature diagrams for both sagging and hogging load cases is
presented in Figs. 16 and 17, respectively. In these two gures,
solid lines with circular marks represent the solution of Chen and
Soares [9], while the line with hollow circular marks are obtained
from implementing Hull_Superstructure_Interaction code.
In order to further verify the Hull_Superstructure_Interaction
code, the structure of the composite ship hull studied by Chen and
Soares [9] is also modelled in the commercial ANSYS software [14]
and its ultimate strengths in both hogging and sagging conditions
are determined. A perspective view on the nite element model
built in the environment of ANSYS software can be seen in Fig. 18.
Results of the ultimate strength calculations with the aid of ANSYS
software are also compared with those obtained from Hull_Su-
perstructure_Interaction code.
Boundary conditions applied to the nite element model in
Fig. 18 are such that the middle part of the ship's structure is under
pure bending. Therefore, the degrees of freedom of the nodes lo-
cated at the cross-section No. 2 and the cross-section No. 3 are
vertically bound, while equivalent vertical forces are applied on
the nodes located at cross-section No. 1 and cross-section No. 4.
In the sagging mode, the upward vertical forces applied on
each of the cross sections No. 1 or No. 4 are equivalent to
37,800 kN. However, these forces in the hogging condition are
55,500 kN in downward direction. It should be noted that the
vertical displacement of the nodes located at the cross-sections
No. 1 or No. 4 are coupled. Thus, in both cases, the middle region of
the model is under pure bending. The results are compared with
the results of previous works in Tables 5 and 6. It can be seen that
135
in all cases, the results suggest compliance between the present
method and previous research studies.
It may be worthy to note that the CPU time required on a PC with
an AMD Athlon IIX4 620 2.6 GHz Processor with 2 GB RAM in
order to calculate the ultimate strength of the composite ship hull
studied by Chen and Soares [9] using the nite element method
(here with the aid of commercial ANSYS software) was about 160
hours. Of course, this amount of time is not including the time de-
voted to creating the composite ship model in the nite element
code. This is while; calculation of the ultimate strength of the same
composite ship using developed Hull_Superstructure_Interaction
code takes a CPU time of about 20 minutes only.
6. Case studies
In order to perform case studies, typical composite ships with
prismatic hull and superstructure are modelled. Length, breadth,
width and height of the superstructure are assumed to be equal to
40 m, 9 m, 6 m and 4 m, respectively. The span of the longitudinal
stiffeners is 1 m. A sample cross-section of the ships studied herein
is shown in Fig. 19. It should also be noted that the composite hull is
the same as that studied by Chen and Soares [9], while a composite
superstructure has been produced and tted on it.
As it was already described, in order to estimate the ultimate
strength of the ships having a superstructure tted on their hull
using the Coupled Beam Theory, the ship structure is to be divided
into two separate beams so that each of the beams has to be de-
scretised into 3-node beam elements.
Parametric study is now carried out for ve different super-
structure lengths equal to 10 m, 16 m, 20 m, 24 m and 30 m. In all
of these situations, superstructure is located in the middle of the
ship. The loading condition used in this study is shown in Fig. 20. It
can be simply realised that the loading condition is such that the
resultant maximum bending moment lies in the middle of the
ship. and L are load factor and length of the ship, respectively.
The rst case study is a ship with no superstructure. This case is
used to calculate the superstructure efciency and also it is re-
garded as a reference case for comparisons. It is clear that the
maximum bending moment is attained at the midship section.
Consequently, failure will occur in the midship section. Trend of
the vertical deection and also locations of the failed sections are
shown in Fig. 21.
The next set of the cases studied herein include superstructures
with lengths equal to 10 m, 16 m and 20 m. These superstructures
are short compared with the ship's length. As the curvature of the
deected superstructure in such cases is small compared to the
ship's curvature, the amount of the bending moment sustained by
the superstructure would not be so considerable. However, super-
structure bears enough bending moment to shift the failed section
to the adjacent sections near the ends of the superstructure and
improve the ultimate strength of the ship by 6 percent.
The last two case studies are devoted to the composite ships in
which the length of the superstructure is relatively large with
respect to the ship's length. In such cases, superstructure is either
24 m or 30 m long. The deection curve and also locations of the
failed sections are shown in Fig. 21. The curvature of the super-
structure is near to the curvature of the ship's hull, so both of them
contribute in the carriage of the bending moments. As can be
found, the failed sections in these ships are concentrated at their
midship regions.
In order to summarise the effect of the superstructure's length
on the ultimate strength of the composite ships, the curves of
vertical deection-bending moment for the above-analysed ships
are also presented in Fig. 22. The ultimate strength of the ship with
no superstructure is the lowest amongst all other case studies. In
136 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138

other cases, the ultimate bending moment carried by the ship Appendix A
increases as the length of the superstructure is increased.
The level of contribution or participation of the superstructure in
the longitudinal strength of the ships is measured in terms of a
quantity called the Coefcient of Efciency of the Superstructure or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Superstructure Effectiveness Coefcient, which is dened as follows: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M100 Mx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s = 100
M100 M0 (33) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KEA1 = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]
Mx , M100 and M0 are the ultimate bending strength of the ship
37 22 7
under consideration, the ultimate bending strength of the same 0 0 0 0 0 0 15L
30L 30L
ship with a superstructure of 100 percent efciency and the ulti- 22 8 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 15L 15L
mate bending strength of the same ship without any super- 5L
structure, respectively. The trend of the superstructure effective- 7 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 15L 10L
30L
ness coefcient is shown in Fig. 23. Ls in Fig. 23 is representing the
length of superstructure. As can be realised from the results de-
picted in the Fig. 23, for relative superstructure lengths below 0.4,
effectiveness of the superstructure is almost equal to its relative
length. As the relative length of the superstructure is increased 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
beyond 0.4, its effectiveness coefcient is increased with a faster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
trend to a level of nearly 90 percent for the Ls/L equal to almost 0.7. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
It can be stated that the superstructure fully contributes to the 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ultimate bending strength of the whole composite ship, when its 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ls/L has values higher than 0.7. KEA2 = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]
6 16 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 15L 15L
5L
16 32 16
7. Conclusions 0 0 0 0 0 0 15L 15L
15L
2 16 6
A method based on the Coupled Beam Theory (CBT) is pre- 0 0 0 0 0 0 15L 15L
5L
sented in order to predict the ultimate longitudinal strength of
composite ship hulls considering superstructure effect. The beha-
viour of the composite panels in the ship structure is deduced
from their mean stress-mean strain curves. The progressive failure
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
method in conjunction with the nonlinear nite element method
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
is used to calculate mean stress- mean strain curves. Verication
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
study shows that the method is accurate enough and it is also
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
much faster than other methods.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The CPU time on a PC with an AMD Athlon IIX4 620 2.6 GHz KEA3 = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]
Processor with 2 GB RAM for calculating the ultimate strength of a 1 2 7
typical composite hull without/with its composite superstructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 10L 15L
30L
using the nite element method is something about 160 to 180 h. 2 8 22
0 0 0 0 0 0 15L 15L
Of course, this amount of time is not including the time devoted to 5L
7 22 37
creating the entire hull-superstructure model in the nite element 0 0 0 0 0 0 15L
30L 30L
codes. This is while, calculation of the ultimate strength of the
same composite ship using the software developed based on the
presented method takes a CPU time of about 20 min only.
The results of some case studies have shown that the length of
237 988 277
superstructure has signicant effect on the ultimate strength of 0 0 0 0 0 0
35L2 105L2 105L2
the composite ship and the location of the failed sections. In ships
32 128 32
with a short superstructure (having a length roughly less than or 0 0 0 0 0 0
5L2 15L2 15L2
equal to half of the ship's length) located at the middle portion of 13 92 53
0 0 0 0 0 0
the ship's hull, the sections situating at the superstructure ends 35L2 105L2 105L2
and their neighbouring regions are generally failed. Whilst, for the 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 356
105L 16
case of longer superstructures (with a length roughly more than 35L 21L
32 64 32
half of the ship's length), the failed sections are often located near KEX1 = [ 0 0 0 0 0 0 35L ]
35L 35L
the midship section of the ship structure. 1 8 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 105L
35L 105L
237 32 92 92 32 1
0 0 0
Acknowledgements 35L2 5L2 35L 35L 35L 35L
988 128 92 356 64 8
105L 35L 0 0 0
105L2 15L2 105L2 105L
The research reported in this paper are some part of the results
277 32 53 16 32 11
obtained in the PhD studies of the rst author under supervision 105L 0 0 0
105L2 15L2 105L2 21L 35L
of the second author in the Department of Marine Technology of
Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran, Iran. The research
had not any funding support.
 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138 137

344 16 104 1112 1024 88 796 64 12

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105L2 7L2 105L2 21L3 21L3 21L3 105L2 3L2 35L2
64 64 1024 2048 1024 832 832
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15L2 15L2 21L3 21L3 21L3 105L2 105L2
104 16 344 88 1024 1112 12 64 796
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105L2 7L2 105L2 21L3 21L3 21L3 35L2 3L2 105L2
10 24 22 796 832 12 652 544 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 35L 2
315L 315L 0 0 0
21L 105L
KEI2 = [ 105L 105L2 35L2 45L
]
64 128 64 64 544 5632 544
KEX2 = [ 0 0 0 0 0 0 35L 35L ] 2 0 64
315L 315L 315L 0 0 0
35L 2
3L 3L
22 24 10
0 0 0 0 0 0 35L 12

832 796 8 544
315L 315L 0 0 0
652
105L 21L
35L2 105L2 105L2 45L
344 64 104 10 64 22
35L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105L2 15L2 105L2 21L 105L
16 16 24 128 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 35L 35L 0 0 0
7L2 7L2 35L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 64 344 22 64 10
35L 0 0 0
105L2 15L2 105L2 105L 21L

58 1984 2042 4 608 22

0 0 0
105L3 105L3 105L3 21L2 105L2 5L2
1984 5632 1088 64 768 2176
0 0 0
105L3 105L3 15L3 21L2 35L2 105L2
KEX3
2042 1088 9658 20 416 2638
53 92 13 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2 2 105L3 15L3 105L3 7L2 15L2 105L2
105L 105L 35L
4 64 20 83 304 199
32 128 32 2 315L 315L 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 KEI3 = [ 21L
2 21L 7L2 315L
]
15L2 15L2 5L2
608 768 416 304 2944 2032
277 988 237 2 315L 315L 315L 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
105L 35L 15L 2
105L2 105L2 35L2
22 2176 2638 199 2032 2419
11 8 1 315L 315L 315L 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 105L 5L2 105L2 105L2
105L 35L
32 64 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
=[ 0 0 0 0 0 0 35L ]
35L 35L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 356 92
0 0 0 0 0 0 105L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21L 35L
53 32 277 11 32 16
105L 0 0 0
105L2 15L2 105L2 35L 21L
92 128 988 8 64 356
35L 105L 0 0 0
105L2 15L2 105L2 105L 278 256 22 13 13 1
105L 105L 70
13 32 237 1 32 92 105L 210 210
0 0 0
35L2 5L2 35L2 35L 35L 35L 256
105L 512 256
105L 105
8
0 8
105L 105
22 256 278 1 8 13
105L 105L 21 210
105L 70
A=[ ]
13 8 1 2L 4L L
105 315 126
210 70 45
9658 1088 2042 2638 416 20 13 8 4L 128L 4L
0 0 0 0 21 315 315
105L3 105L2 15L2 7L2 210 315
15L3 105L3
1 8 13 L 4L 2L
1088

5632

1984 2176 768 64
0 0 0 70 210 126 315
3 3 3 2 2 2 105 45
15L 105L 105L 105L 35L 21L
2042 1984 58 22 608 4
0 0 0
105L3 105L3 105L3 5L2 105L2 21L2
2638 2176 22 2419 2032 199
2
315L 315L 315L 0 0 0
KEI1 = [ 105L 105L2 5L2 ] 101 4 11
210 7
416 768 608 2032 2944 304 210
2 315L 315L 315L 0 0 0
15L 35L2 105L2 8
0 15
8
20 4 199 304 15
64 83
315L 315L 0 0 0 11 4 101
7L2 21L2 21L2 315L 210
7 210
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B=[ ]
13L L L
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 420
420
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8L
105 16L
105
8L
105
L L 13L
420 35
420

2L L L
30
15 15
L 8L L
D=[ ]
15 15 15
L L 2L
30
15 15
138 F. Morshedsoluk, M.R. Khedmati / Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 122138

unstiffened /stiffened plates subject to in plane compression, Sci. Iran. 12 (4)

(2005) 359367.
[4] M.D.A. Mackney, C.T.F. Rose, Preliminary ship design using one-and two-di-
523L 4L 131L 19L2 8L2 29L2 mensional models, Mar. Technol. 36 (2) (1999) 102111.
3465 63 6930 2310 [5] H. Naar, P. Varsta, P. Kujala, A theory of coupled beams for strength assessment
693 13860
of passenger ships, Mar. Struct. 17 (8) (2004) 590611.
4L 128L 4L 2L2 2L2
63 315 63 315 0 [6] N.Z. Chen, H.H. Sun, C. Guedes Soares, Reliability analysis of a ship hull in
315
composite material, Compos. Struct. 62 (1) (2003) 5966 [4].
2 2 2
131L 4L 523L 29L 8L 19L [7] N.Z. Chen, C. Guedes Soares, Longitudinal strength analysis of ship hulls of
6930 63 3465 13860 693
2310 composite materials under sagging moments, Compos. Struct. 77 (1) (2007)
E=[ ]
19L2 2L2 29L2 2L3 L3 L3 3644 [5].
2310 315 13860 3465 [8] N.Z. Chen, C. Guedes Soares, Reliability analysis of ship hulls made of com-
1155 4620
2 3
posite materials under sagging moments, J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 12 (4) (2007)
2 8L 3 32L 3
8L L L 263271 [6].
0 693 3465
693 1155 1155 [9] N.Z. Chen, C. Guedes Soares, Ultimate longitudinal strength of ship hulls of
29L2 2L2 19L2 L3 L3 2L3 composite materials, J. Ship Res. 52 (3) (2008) 184193 [7].
3465 [10] F. Morshedsolouk, M.R. Khedmati, An extension of coupled beam method and
13860 315 2310 4620 1155
its application to study ship's hull-superstructure interaction problems, Lat.
Am. J. Solids Struct. 8 (3) (2011) 265290.
[11] H.H. Bleich, Non-linear distribution of bending stresses due to distortion of
cross-section, J. Appl. Mech. 29 (1952) 95104.
References [12] M.A. Criseld, Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures,
Volume 1, John Willey & Sons, West Sussex, England, 1991.
[1] J.B. Caldwell, Ultimate longitudinal strength, Trans RINA 207 (1965) 411430. [13] F. Morshedsolouk, M.R. Khedmati, Parametric study on average stressaverage
[2] C.S. Smith, Inuence of local compressive failure on ultimate longitudinal strain curve of composite stiffened plates using progressive failure method,
strength of a ship's hull, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 11 (12) (2014) 22032226.
Practical Design in Shipbuilding, Tokyo, Japan, 1977. pp. 7379. [14] Swanson Analysis Systems Inc., ANSYS User's Manual (Version 7.1), Houston,
[3] M.R. Khedmati, Simulation of average stress average strain relationship of ship 2003.