Plastic Design Methods Advantages

and Limitations I
BY D R . D . C . DRUCKER, 2 VISITOR

INTRODUCTION

T h e necessity for considering plasticity in The designer of large steel structures often
all structural design is clear. Assembly thinks in terms of the stress-strain diagram for steel
and welding stresses add to the stress im- obtained in routine tests, Fig. 1. An allowable or
posed by the loading, and it is inevitable Working stress is chosen at some fraction 1/n of the
that stress concentrations will produce lower yield point. The apparent factor of safety
some local plastic flow in the best of de- n, is selected carefully b y specification writers to
signs. Furthermore most heavy metal take m a n y conditions into account and so will v a r y
structures will enter appreciably into the for different members and different structures.
plastic range before reaching their loado Stresses are computed from the given loading b y
carrying capacity. An exact plastic design formulas of the strength-of-materials type based
would be a formidable task but neglecting upon elastic considerations, Mc/I, P/A +Mc/I,
w o r k - h a r d e n i n g provides a simple and yet and so on. These stresses are restricted to be less
a reasonably satisfactory approximation than the specified working stress. A safe design
termed limit design. At the limit load the thus is evolved, not due to the adequacy of the for-
idealized structure collapses. For the over- mulas but to reliance upon the experience of dec-
whelming majority of structural problems, ades or centuries.
a design based upon a reasonable factor An actual structure is a very complex body with
of safety against this plastic collapse pro- an extremely complicated state of stress. I t is
vides a more appropriate structure than a pierced b y m a n y holes varying from hatch open-
design based upon elastic action. Also, it ings to rivet holes. Reinforcements of all kinds
requires far ' less effort. If designers de- are present; doubler plates, rings, bulkheads, stiff-
vote sufficient attention to application of eners. In its fabrication local stresses are pro-
the theory much repeated trial corrected by duced by welding and mismatch, and there are
analysis will be replaced by a direct design over-all assembly stresses. Individual structural
method. Also, the actual continuity and elements such as beams and thick plates come f r o m
the real details of the structure will not have the mills with cooling residual stresses which are
to be oversimplified as at present. Al- often over one half the yield stress. M a n y second-
though limit analysis is relevant, a more ary stresses arise owing to continuity of the struc-
complete analysis is needed for plastic ture. For example bending and torsion m a y aet
buckling, strengthening by secondary mem- on what are supposed to be simple tension mem-
brane stresses, and brittle fracture. Illus- bers, and axial force and torsion act upon beams.
trations are provided for these and all The combination of unknown initial stress and
major points of the paper. stress concentration and redistribution due to dis-
continuities of the structure defy calculation.
The net result in terms of a load-deflection
curve, Fig. 2, is quite different in appearance from
1 T h e r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d in this paper were o b t a i n e d in the course"
Fig. 1 even for relatively simple laboratory models.
of research sponsored by the Office of N a v a l Research u n d e r Con- On the first loading there is likely to be an almost
t r a c t N o n r 562(10) with B r o w n U n i v e r s i t y .
C h a i r m a n , D i v i s i o n of Engineering, Brown U n i v e r s i t y , P r o v i - immediate local yielding at some point. As load-
dence, R. I.
P r e s e n t e d a t t h e A n n u a l Meeting, New York, N. Y., N o v e m - ing proceeds there is a marked departure from the
ber 14-15, 1957, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE
ENGINEERS. linear elastic relation on which the design sup-
172
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
W
STRAIN
FIG. 1 TENSILE STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAM
/ ~ - FAILURE LOAD
. STRESS REAONEO
-- ACCORDINGTO CALCULATION " which ignores work-hardening. As will be seen,
f ACCORO,NGTO CA~ULAT,ON
DEFLECTION
FIG. 2 FIRST LOADING OF AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE
posedly is based. The experimental load-deflec-
tion curves will v a r y with m a n y random factors
b u t will show clear evidence of appreciable, al-
though small, plastic flow long before the working
load is reached. Furthermore, as indicated in
Fig. 2, nothing distinguishes clearly the point at
which first yield is calculated. This is partly be-
cause yielding actually occurs earlier b u t mainly
because the structure is continuous and local yield-
ing has little effect on over-all deflection. The
factor of safety N on load will v a r y greatly from
one structure to another for a given so-called
factor of safety on stress n. If the structure is
essentially stable as in Fig. 2 nothing catastrophic
happens at the flattened portion of the load-de-
flection curve. Generally, however, deflections
would be considered excessive above some arbi-
t r a r y failure load as indicated.
Certainly, except for problems of fatigue in
which failure m a y occur under cyclic stresses in the
elastic range, the factor of safety N based on load
is far more significant than n which is based on a
nominally elastic stress distribution. T h e calcu-
lation or estimation of N requires careful consid-
eration of plastic action. If elastic stress formu-
AND LIMITATION:s 173
Sy
, bJ
ag
/
STRAIN
FIG. 3 IDEAL OR PERFECT, PLASTICITY FOLLOWING
ELASTIC ACT'ION
l a s a r e thought of as giving a first approximation
to the load-carrying capacity of real structures, a
second and much better approximation would be
given b y an idealized stress-strain curve, Fig. 3,
this initially elastic and then ideally or perfectly
plastic solid generally proyides a v e r y good ap-
proximation on the safe side for a structural
metal. Better approximations to the actual
stress-strain curve can be devised easily. Al-
though our present ability to solve structural
problems is limited and there are few areas in
which answers can be or need be obtained with
such better approximations, work is progressing in
this direction.
As demonstrated later, computation of the load-
carrying capacity for an elastic-perfectly plastic
solid usually does not require a detailed analysis of
the state of stress as the load is increased from
zero. The theorems of limit analysis, which will
be discussed, m a y be used instead. All the diffi-
culties of. elastic stress analysis and the still more
complicated elastic-plastic stress analysis can be
omitted. T h e calculation of load-carrying ca-
pacity b y use.of the limit theorems is much easier
than the calculation of stress in the elastic range.
Answers obtained are not only more significant but
fortunately they are also simpler. The limit
analysis of complete structures or of complex
groups of structural elements and their connec-
tions is feasible for configurations in which elastic
analysis can hardly give the order of magnitude of
the m a x i m u m stress. One of the i m p o r t a n t
general results is t h a t initial or residual stresses or
thermal stresses do not affect the limit load.
T h e simplicity of limit analysis opens the way to
limit design, to direct design as contrasted with the
trial-and-error procedure which is normally fol-
lowed. The first steps taken along these lines will
174 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
Mot LIMIT MOMENTf?
S bh z
;= h ( C ) PLASTIC HINGE
i,u .&
Sy
o
CURVATURE
FIG. 4 PURE BENDING OF BEAM oF RECTANGULAR CROSS
SECTION b X h
be outlined. Much more remains to be done but
the start is encouraging.
There are numerous problems for which limit
analysis is not adequate. These include problems
of compressive loading producing buckling before
full plasticity is reached and, in general, a n y prob-
lem in which the weakening or strengthening
effect of deformation prior to collapse is large.
Brittle fracture is another extremely important
area in which conventional elastic or plastic analy-
sis and design are not suitable although limit de-
sign does have relevance. These more trouble-
some problems are discussed in some detail in the
paper. TheY supplement the examples given to
illustrate limit analysis and design.
T H E P L A S T I C B E H A V I O R OF B E A M S
A s t u d y of the behavior of beams is very helpful
because despite .the simplicity of analysis and of
experiment most of the features of more general
structures appear. Consider first a beam of ree-
tangnlar cross section under pure bending, Fig. 4.
Suppose the beam to be free of stress initially and
further idealize the material as elastic-perfectly
plastic, Fig. 3. The moment-curvature relation
or the load-deflection curve then is linear until the
extreme fiber stress reaches the yield stress, sv.
Until the corresponding value of initial yield
moment, svbM/6, is exceeded the stress distribu-
tion across the section is linear. As the load is in-
creased, the stress distribution alters as shown in
Fig. 4. The rate of deflection increases and the
curve asymptotically approaches the limit m o m e n t
value, M0 = sybh2/4. The approach is seen to be
quite rapid even for a rectangular cross section.
For a W F or an I-section, the moment-carrying
capacity lies almost entirely in the flanges so t h a t
the initial yield m o m e n t is a much greater fraction
of the limit m o m e n t and the curve comes very
close to the two limiting lines, the elastic inclined
AND LIMITATIONS
(o)
A c
z~ ~ L
ql' 124
( b ) ELASTIC
AT A AND AT B
Mo
3_
( d ) PLASTIC HINGE
AT A, R AND C
Mo •
t_
FXG. 5 UNIFORM LOAD ON FIXED-ENDED BEAM
line, curvature = M/E1, and the horizontal limit
m o m e n t line M = M0. I t is proper, therefore, in
treating problems of bending to approximate the
moment-curvature relation b y two lines in the
same Way as the stress-strain diagram is simpli-
fied, Fig. 3 . The sandwich b e a m or plate in which
the core takes shear and all the moment-carrying
capacity is in thin top and b o t t o m metal sheets
comes very close to the ideal picture.
An actual b e a m will have high residual stresses
distributed over the cross section. In the cooling
process in manufacture, tension is produced on the
inside and compression on the outside of a solid
section. When a bending m o m e n t is applied
initial yield in compression will come much earlier
because at the extreme fiber on the compression
side the applied stress adds to the residual stress.
However, b y the time the curvature is b u t a few
times the m a x i m u m elastic value only a v e r y small
trace of the residual pattern remains. I t is ob-
vious t h a t the limit m o m e n t itself cannot be af-
fected no m a t t e r how large the residual stresses
m a y be at the start. I t is also clear t h a t a n y dis-
tribution of thermal stress is washed out b y the
subsequent plastic deformation.
The small significance of first yield of a stable
structure has been discussed previously and is
apparent in Fig. 4. To explore this point further,
consider next a fixed-ended b e a m under uniform
load q per unit length, Fig. 5(a). I t is in such
problems of static indeterminacy t h a t the distinc-
tion between elastic and plastic analysis becomes
large and of great importance in structural design.
As is well known, the end moments are twice the
center m o m e n t in the elastic range. F r o m con-
siderations of s y m m e t r y and statics alone the sum
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
\S.EE.
SEE
FIG 5c
ELASTIC
8
FIG. 6 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR IDEAL
SANDWICH BEAM
of the end and center m o m e n t at all times m u s t be
qL2/8. The elastic deflection 6 is qL4/384E[, Fig.
6. As the load is increased the extreme fiber at
each end will reach yield first.
Suppose now t h a t the b e a m is an ideal sandwich
or the extreme case o f a W F - b e a m with all its mo-
ment-carrying capacity in the outer fibers. T h e
limit m o m e n t M0 then is reached at each end at a
load q given b y qL2/12 = Mo, Fig. 5(c). With
further increase in q, the ends will rotate as plastic
hinges with a constant resisting m o m e n t M0. The
rest of the b e a m remains elastic and the new load-
deflection line therefore m u s t have the same slope
as t h a t of a simply supported b e a m or five times
the initial slope, Fig. 6. The increment of deflec-
tion A8 is related to the increment of load Aq b y
5 AqL4/E I
A~ = ~-4
When the m o m e n t at the center reaches M0, a
plastic hinge forms there. No additional load can
be carried and the b e a m collapses. T h e limit
load q* is determined b y the static equilibrium
condition q'L2~8 = 2M0. Now it is clear for this
problem t h a t q* can be calculated without paying
the slightest attention to the intermediate stages
of loading.
A rectangular b e a m with the same limit-moment
v a l u e M0 as the ideal sandwich b e a m has a far
more complicated stress history. As for any beam
of constant cross section, when load is increased,
the yield point is reached first at the extreme fiber
at each end. The rectangular cross section then
requires 50 per cent more m o m e n t to form a plastic
hinge. Therefore just as in Fig. 4, no break in the
curve of load versus deflection will occur as load is
increased. As shown in Fig. 7, the plastic region
spreads at the ends and eventually a plastic region
starts at the center. Finally the central region
spreads until there are effectively plastic hinges at
AND LIMITATIONS 175
v
FIG. 7 DEVELOPMENT OF PLASTIC ZONES IN FIXED
BEAM OF RECTANGULAR CROSS SECTION
the center and at the ends. As in Fig. 4, the
approach to the collapse condition is asymptotic but
the limit load is reached for all practical purposes
at a small multiple of the elastic compone~,t.of de-
flection. The limit load q* once again is independ-
ent of the details of the p a t h b y which it is
reached and is still given b y
q'L2~8 = 2Mo
or
q, 16Mo 4s~bh 2
L2 - L2 . . . . . . . . . . [1]
as contrasted with the value at first yield
qL~212 = svbh~/6
or
2s~bh2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2]
q~ = _ L2
T h e ratio of the load-carrying capacity to the load
at which calculations show the yield stress first is
reached is two to one.
Experimental load-deflection curves for fixed
beams of rectangular cross section exhibit the in-
fluences of residual stress and of work-hardening
which have been ignored in this discussion. T h e y
demonstrate clearly, however, t h a t the limit load
computed is a good value to use for load-carrying
capacity of an ordinary b e a m if excessive deflec-
tion is to be avoided and the distance between the
ends cannot be depended upon to remain com-
pletely fixed.
If the supports A and B of the b e a m of Fig. 5(a)
were not at the same level, and if the ends permit-
ted some rotation, the m o m e n t diagrams of Figs.
5(b) and 5(c) would be distorted badly. However,
no m a t t e r w h a t the initial conditions and the end
details, if the connections of the b e a m to the sup-
port at A and B are strong enough to withstand the
176 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

limit m o m e n t M0, the m o m e n t diagram of Fig. 5(d)

still is valid at collapse. T h e moments continually
adjust themselves b u t cannot exceed the limit mo-
ment. Collapse cannot occur until M0 is reached
at all three of the cross sections A, B, and C. The
limit load of this stable structure is seen to be in-
dependent of support deflections and rotations and
of residual and assembly stresses.
Much point has been made of the need for a
stable structure if the limit loads as computed are
to have meaning. The b e a m already considered
indicates the reason. Suppose it to have end
/ /~"',ACTU A L MEMBER

DEFLECTION
connections which are very flexible and so allow
considerable rotation. In the first stage of load- FIG. 8 BUCKLING IN PLASTIC RANGE
ing the numerical value of the m o m e n t at the
center of the span then might well be much larger
than the end moments. Suppose further t h a t the
b e a m is an I - b e a m without lateral supports.
When the flange becomes plastic at the center of
the span, lateral buckling becomes a serious threat
even fox;short beams. The load-deflection curve
for a b e a m with absolutely zero initial twist might
look as shown in Fig. 8. After t~ae b e a m has
reached the buckling load B, as the deflection in-
creases the load drops off. The load m a y increase
again after an excessive deflection has been
reached. Perfectly straight beams are not pos-
sible, however. With very small initial crooked-
ness and the usual high initial cooling stresses, the
load-deflection curve will peak at a considerably" syA '4

lower load than would be computed for buckling of

a perfectly straight beam. - •

A s t u d y b y Zickel and Drucker of eccentrically

loaded steel columns (1) 3 indicated t h a t for beam-
columns which twist as they fail, failure was immi-
nent as soon as the stress produced b y axial force
and m o m e n t reached the yield stress in any part of
the flange. Initial eccentricities and subsequent
deflections Were included in the computations.
Similar conclusions were drawn b y Hill and Clark
for beam-column sections of aluminum (2).
I t is necessary therefore to provide adequate
lateral support for beams and to use sections which
avoid local buckling and permit the needed plastic
hinge rotations to take place at the limit moment.
Studies at Lehigh show t h a t the ratios of thickness
to width of flange of almost all I and WF-struc-
tural steel sections are safe i n t h i s respect (3).
The general problem of plastic buckling is very
troublesome both theoretically and in practical
design (4, 5). Under compressive load the
changes in the geometry or configuration of the
structure tend to have a weakening effect. When-
ever bracing or stiffening permits the structure to
develop fully plastic action, the limit loads are a
t Numbers in parentheses refer to the Bibliography at the end of
the paper.
FIG. 9 STRENGTHENING EFFECT OF CONSTRAINT
AGAINST INWARD MOTION OF A AND B, FIG. 5
suitable basis f o r design. -Whenever ,adequate. '
support cannot be provided, limit-analysis calcu-
lations m a y be misleading. T h e limit load can be
approached b y prestressing or poststressing a steel
structure to put enough initial tension in compres-
sion members.
F o r t u n a t e l y there is a bright side to the picture
as well. Changes in geometry under load can be
helpful instead of harmful (6, 26). Again the beam
of Fig. 5 can be used to illustrate the basic action.
Suppose the end supports hold the b e a m fixed in
horizontal position as well as in orientation. Sup-
pose further t h a t the span-to-depth ratio is very
large. The b e a m then has little bending strength
or stiffness and acts more like a string than a beam.
As soon as a small deflection is produced the load
is carried primarily b y tension in the "string" pro-
vided the end connections can take the large force
applied. As yielding proceeds the string sags
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
more and more, Fig. 9, and so is able to carry
higher and higher loads in accordance with t h e
suspension-cable formula, approximately
(s~A)~ = qL2/S
or
q = 8svA~/L 2 -- 8svbh~/L 2 ....... [3]
I n this formula, ~ is the sag or total deflection, A
is the cross-sectional area of the beam-string.
The result is approximate because the m a x i m u m
tension acts at the cable support and not at the
center. For small sag compared to span this dif-
ference is negligible. C o m p a r i n g Equation [3]
with Equation [1], it is seen t h a t for a deflection of
half the depth of beam, ~ = h / 2 , the string load-
carrying capacity equals the limit load.
The deeper the b e a m the more i m p o r t a n t the
bending resistance and very likely the smaller the
allowable deflection as a fraction of the thickness
and the more relevant the limit analysis answer.
No m a t t e r how deep the beam, however, the string
effect eventually becomes dominant as the load is
increased, Fig. 9.
Whether the limit load in bending or string load
should be employed in design depends upon the
situation. For design against a catastrophe of
small probability a string load or combined bend-
ing and string load seems proper even for moder-
ately deep beams. Again the proviso m u s t be
added about the end connections, and interme-
diate splices as well, being strong enough. Riveted
connections are likely to be more deficient in this
respect than welded connections b u t their strength
too m a y help in an emergency. Interior spans of
rolled beams continuous over supports automati-
cally have sufficient end and interior strength.
As H a y t h o r n t h w a i t e (6) has suggested, it m a y well
be worth while to take some care in detailing to be
able to count on this added resistance to complete
failure.
As stated at the beginning of the section, the be-
havior of beams provides an excellent guide for the
behavior of all structures. These more general
aspects of structural design and analysis will be
treated in the following sections.
THE THEOREMS OF LIMIT ANALYSIS
A more general t r e a t m e n t of structures requires
a s t a t e m e n t of the limit theorems of D r u c k e r ,
Greenberg, and Prager and some corollaries (7).
T h e y are remarkably simple and in accord with
intuition. First it can be shown t h a t for a struc-
ture composed of elastic-perfectly plastic material,
Fig. 3, when changes in geometry are neglected,
as in most elastic.solutions :
Collapse occurs under constant load and at con-
AND LIMITATIONS 177
s t a n t stress; plastic strains only take place.
The theorems are then
I (Lower Bound). If an equilibrium distribu-
tion of stress can be found which balances the
applied load and is everywhere below yield or at
yield, the structure will not collapse or will just be
at the point of collapse.
I I (Upper Bound). T h e structure will collapse
if there is any compatible pattern of plastic defor-
mation for which the rate at which the external
forces do work exceeds the rate of internal dissipa-
tion.
Theorem I reaffirms our faith in the material to
adjust itself to carry the applied load if at all pos-
sible. I t gives lower bounds on, or safe values of,
the limit or collapse loading. The m a x i m u m
lower bound is the limit load itself. Theorem I I
is a formal statement of the fact t h a t if a p a t h of
failure exists the structure will not stand up. I t
gives upper bounds on, or tmsafe values of the
limit or collapse loading. The minimum upper
bound is the limit load itself. I t is rare t h a t exa.ct
limit loads can be found for problems of practical
importance with their complicated geometry of in-
dividual parts and complete structures. T h e two
theorems then enable bracketing the answer
closely enough for practical engineering pur-
poses.
As the lower bound theorem permits a n y distri-
bution of stress satisfying equilibrium and the
boundary conditions, it m u s t be true t h a t within
the limitation of no effect of change in geometry :
Residual, thermal, or initial stresses .or deflec-
tions do not influence the limit load.
Also addition of (weightless) material cannot
result in a lower limit load.
And increasing the yield strength in any region
cannot weaken the structure.,
M a n y other theorems and corollaries have been
stated and most are listed in the references at the
end of the Bibliography. T h e apparently in-
verted form of the statements as in the last two
corollaries is essential. I t is not necessarily true,
for example, t h a t increasing the yield strength in
one region will strengthen the structure.
The theorems will be illustrated first b y return-
ing to the uniformly loaded fixed-ended b e a m of
Fig. 5. The parabolic m o m e n t diagram of Fig.
5(d) satisfies equilibrium and is everywhere at or
below yield. F r o m lower bound Theorem I,
therefore the distributed load q* given b y Equa-
tion [1 ] is below or at most equal to the collapse or
limit load. In this simple problem, there is no
need to proceed further. Clearly, a higher load
than q* cannot be balanced b y any distribution of
moments which nowhere exceeds M0. The max-
178 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

Q~ 3Mo .P/

~
h
L
2
.L
"1- 2
L -___.

Mo
(a)

h8
0..-

Qh~p/2 IP/2
(b) (c)

(d)

-~o ,,q=p, ~P=SMo/h

Mo
V Mo~L.~p
•
lip
t_~p3
(f) P=Q=SMo/h, L=4h
FzG. 10 EQUILIBRIUM DIAGRAMS AND COLLAPSB MECHANISMS

i m u m lower bound has been found and is the limit
load itself. This static or lower-bound approach
is convenient and sufficient for beams and also for
frames without sidesway. When sidesway is per-
mitted the upper bound or deformation pattern or
mechanism approach is more convenient. A con-
vincing demonstration requires examples which
are too elaborate for inclusion here. T h e reader
is referred to the work of Symonds and Neal (8)
and the books of Baker, H e y m a n , and H o m e and
of Neal. T h e elementary and somewhat artificial
problem of Fig. 10 does indicate the main points,
however. One foot of the rigid frame is fixed the
other is hinged and the loads P and Q are pre-
sumed to produce bending stresses which are large
compared with the axial stresses they induce so
t h a t the interaction problem (1, 2) can be ignored.
The limit m o m e n t for the columns of height h is
d e s i g n a t e d as M0. The limit m o m e n t for the
b e a m of length L is taken for illustration as 3M0.
Suppose now t h a t P and Q are given. Will the
structure collapse? Fig. 10(b) indicates the start
of an equilibrium approach with the m o m e n t dia-
gram superposed on the applied force and reaction
picture. The b e a m is considered as simply sup-
ported at its ends and the left column is shown as
a cantilever with an end force Q. F r o m limit
Theorem I if _PL/4is less than 3M0 and Qh is less
than M0 the structure will not collapse. I t does
not follow, of course, t h a t the structure will col-
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
lapse should either of the maximum moments for
this particular equilibrium solution represented by
the moment diagrams exceed the limit moment.
The moment diagrams as drawn ignore continuity
at the junction of beam and column and certainly
can be improved upon. On the other hand, if a
mechanism picture of possible plastic deformation
at collapse is sketched as in Fig. lO(c)"and the rate
at which P and Q do work exceeds the rate of dis-
sipation in the plastic hinges the structure will col-
lapse. Hinges are shown in the column rather
than the beam at the junction of the beam and
each column because the weaker of the two ob-
viously will govern at the joint. Equating ex-
ternal work in the small virtual displacement 0,
QhO, to the internal dissipation in the columns
MoO + MoO + MoO = 3MoO
shows that Q*, the limiting value of Q, cannot ex-
ceed 3Mo/h
Q* <_ 3Mo/h . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The local collapse picture for the beam, Fig. 10(d)
similarly requires P*¢L/2 to be no more than
M09 + (3M0)(2~) + M09 = 8M09
or
P* < 16MolL . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Should P equal or exceed _P* or Q equal or ex-
ceed Q* the structure would be unable to carry the
loads. Although true, it is not possible at this
point to say that the upper bounds in Inequality
[4] and Inequality [5 ] are the limit loads themselves
for P and Q acting separately. Furthermore, it
would be unlikely that the structure could carry
the maximum values of both P and Q together.
All other possible collapse mechanisms must be in-
vestigated as wellto be certain that the minimum
upper bound has been found. A little study dis-
closes that only one real possibility remains. Fig.
10(e) shows this combination of sidesway, Fig.
10(c) and beam collapse, Fig. 10(d) in which the
hinge at the right-hand beam-column junction has
been eliminated. The right angle between column
and beam remains 90 deg. For this mechanism,
it is necessary that the external work POL/2 +
QhO, be less than the internal dissipation, MoO +
M0(20) + 3M0(20), if collapse is to be avoided.
The loads are therefore limited b y
P*L +'2O*h <_ lSM0 . . . . . . . . .
Different answers are obtained for different
ratios of _P to Q and L to h. If Q is zero, for ex-
ample, the least upper bound is given b y Inequality
[5] and the beam collapses as a fixed-ended beam
AND LIMITATIONS 179
with end moments M0 as limited b y the columns.
If P is zero, Inequality [4] governs and collapse is
by sidesway with the left column taking 2~ of Q
and the fight column 1/~. If P = Q then
P * or Q* < 18Mc/(L + 2h) . . . . . . . [7]
For L < 4h, sidesway Inequality [4] still governs,
for L > 4h [7] governs because it gives the least
upper bound. The equilibrium picture and mo-
ment diagram for the transition case of L = 4h is
shown in Fig. 10(f). For smaller L the moment
at the center of the beam at collapse is less than the
limit moment "3M0 and the central plastic hinge
disappears, Fig. 10 (c).: . For larger L the moment at
the right end of the beam at eollapse is less than
the limiting value for. the column Mo, and the
right-end plastic hinge disappears, Fig. 10(e).
The advantages of the limit approach over an
elastic solution are obvious from this simple ex-
ample. First of all the limit answers are of direct
[4] engineering significance because good estimates of
load-carrying capacity are obtained. The elastic
solution gives a nominal elastic stress distribution
which is of little real importance in most applica-
tions. In the second place the limit answers can
be found with a minimum of calculation for quite
elaborate structures in contrast to. the fairly
lengthy elastic procedure.
[5]
Two-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEMS
M a n y problems of interest to ship designers re-
quire consideration of a biaxial or two-dimensional
state of stress. Sheets and plates pierced by
various openings are in this category. The limit
theorems already stated are valid for two and
three-dimensional stress distributions as well as
for beams and frames. I t is necessary, however,
to define the term "below yield" more precisely
and also to determine t h e rate of dissipation in a
usable form.
Any number of yield criteria are permissible
within the framework of ideal or perfect plasticity.
Each has an associated stress-strain relation which
approximates to some degree the physical behavior
of a structural metal. The difference in detail is
very large and of considerable importance from the
fundamental point of view of material behavior
(9). For the determination of load-carrying ca-
pacity or of design, however, the differences are of
minor importance. A choice can be made, there-
[6] fore, on the basis of convenience of solution and
not on physical grounds. For this reason the
maximum shearing-stress criterion of Tresca is
employed most often. F i g . l 1 shows the familiar
hexagon for a two-dimensional principal stress
plot. Each point on' the hexagon represent s a
180 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND LIblITATIONS

limiting state of biaxial stress for which the max-

imum shear stress [al]/2, {¢2!/2, or ](~ -- ~2)1/2 is a
constant, k. The yield stress in tension or com-
E,'l
pression is s~ = 2k. The horizontal a n d vertical
sides al or ~2 = ± 2k represent states of stress for
which the third principal stress o3 = 0 is the alge-
braically largest or least and the plane of maxi-
m u m shearing stress is at 45 deg to the el, ~2-plane.
The inclined sides ~1 - ~2 = ± 2k represent states
of stress for which ~3 is the intermediate principal
stress. Points inside the hexagon represent states
of stress below yield. The concept of a yield
stress thus is replaced b y the concept of a yield
_( '
curve or b y a yield surface for a more general state
of stress. I
The theory of perfect plasticity associates a
plastic strain increment vector A@ with each Fro. 11 MAXIMUM SHE~U~ING-STRESS(TRESCA) CRi-
point of the .yield surface. If plastic-strain co- TERION AND ASSOCIATED PLASTIC-STRAIN INCREMENTS
ordinates are superposed on the stress co-ordinates
as in Fig. 11, the plastic-strain-increment vector is
normal to the yield surface at a smooth point
and lies between adjacent normals at a corner (10).
For example, if ~1 = su = 2 k and ~2 is positive but
less than 2 k the normal points in the positive it1
directioli. This means t h a t the plastic-strain in-
crement Ae2~ = 0, there is no plastic straining in the
direction of the intermediate principal stress a2.
As the plastic volume change is zero,
A~I v + A~2~ + A~3v = 0 ELLIPSE

the plastic extension in the direction of Vl is

balanced b y a plastic contraction in the va-diree- v

tion (perpendicular to the plane of ~1 and a2).

I t can be shown t h a t in general for the m a x i m u m
FIG. 12 COMPARISON OF MISES AND TRESCA
shearing-stress criterion, the dissipation of energy
per unit of volume is

D = sv[A@lm.x = 2kIA@ t . . . . . . . . [8a] tion pattern accounts in p a r t for the usefulness of

and m a y be written
k I A~,v [m.= for plane strain . . . . . . .
where IA@i~.. is the magnitude of the m a x i m u m
principal strain increment
A~a~, A~2~ or A~3~, and [ ATP]rnsx
is the magnitude of the m a x i m u m shear strain
under plane-strain conditions only. The dissipa-
tion Equation [8] is determined uniquely b y the
plastic strain although the state of stress corre-
sponding to a given plastic-strain increment is not
unique on the flat faces of the yield surface nor is
the plastic-strain increment direction unique at a
corner.
The simple form of Equation [8], the relation
between the yield stress in shear and in tension,
and the prominence of simple shear as a deforma-
the Tresca criterion.
Load-carrying capacity is determined from the
[8b] lower-bound point of view b y the region enclosed
b y the yield surface and from the upper-bound
point of view b y the dissipation. Therefore the
difference between limit loads determined b y the
Tresea and the Mises criteria as drawn in Fig. 12
will not exceed 8 per cent. R e m e m b e r i n g t h a t
perfect plasticity is a strong idealization of actual
stress-strain relations, this difference is not large.
Furthermore most structural metals seem to have
yield curves lying between the two so t h a t the
error in using the m a x i m u m shearing stress is not
at all significant for reasonably isotropic metals.
A P P L I C A T I O N TO H O L E P A T T E R N S AND
R E I N F O R C E M E N T AROUND O P E N I N G S (11-13)
A plate or sheet of widtla b and of thickness t
with a central hole of width d pulled in its plane b y
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS 181

IP ~p
III/11II/I/111 ' /1/1////H/I/ / .LL Z
'I I

,
A:J.
I i
H/I/1/1/1/////// II 'IIIIIIIIIG

(a) ~¢ (c)
T

1 (b)
FIG. 13 STRESS AND SLIDING DEFORMATION FIELDS.

rigid grips provides a good b u t trivial starting
point for a discussion of useful stress and deforma-
tion fields. Fig. 13(a) shows an equilibrium field
composed of two strips of simple tension at the
yield stress in tension sv, separated b y a zero stress
field. F r o m limit theorem I therefore the limit or
collapse load is at least sv times the net area taken
through the hole (b - d)t. Fig. 13(b) shows a sym-
metric deformation pattern of 45 deg sliding in the
plane. J u s t as for frictional sliding, the dissipa-
tion per unit area of shear surface is the m a x i m u m
shear stress k times the a m o u n t of slip, ~v/2.
Equating external work to internal d~ssipation
or
P = 2k(b - d ) t = sy(b - d)t ......
is greater t h a n or equal to the limit load from limit
theorem II. As this upper bound answer coin-
cides with the lower bound, Equation [9] is the
correct value of the limit load. The correctness
of the answer is in no way evidence of the correct-
ness of either the stress or the deformation fields.
Certainly, the discontinuity of longitudinal,stress
from sv to zero although it does not violate equi-
librium will not be the actual stress distribution.
Also, the in-the-plane slip field is only one of m a n y
possible fields. For example, the out-of-the-plane
sliding of Fig. 13(C) gives the same upper bound
and therefore correct answer for t h e i i m i t load.
More elaborate examples of hole patterns and of
stress and deformation fields are provided in refer-
ence (13). I t is worth noting here t h a t holes at
different fore-and-aft locations m a y have a cumu-
lative weakening effect as in Fig. 14. T h e strips
of simple tension of Fig. 14(a) and the unsym-
metric slip pattern of Fig. 14(b), (c) show the
limit load to be sv(b - d - D ) t .
Openings c a n be and often are reinforced to
bring the structure back to full strength. Again
an oversimplified example will be used for illustra-
[9]
tion. Fig. 15 shows a sheet under uniform ten-
sion far away from the opening. T h e opening
E F G H removes a tension area of td where t is the
thickness of the sheet or plating. Reinforcement
along the edges E l i and F G m u s t provide at least
this tension area if the structure is to have a col-
lapse load equal to the yield stress in tension times
182 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

///////////////
I -L
7
Yl o s~ iOl s 8~

8-.
8~
, II
I I
I I I:
~ld i~- ~O~ ~b----~
II I/IIIIIII IIII/

FIO. 14 BOTHHOLESWEAKEN; - P * = Su (b -- d -- D)t

Sy Sy Sy Sy

• r
T sy

~,A = td
-g
E F

~-- d ------~

"~ 6

V
b
(a) (b)
F I G . 15 :EXAMPLE OF R E I N F O R C E M E N T OF O P E N I N G E F G H FOR F U L L S T R E N G T H

the gross area Of the original sheet. Suppose for
simplicity of analysis t h a t semi-circular reinforc-
ing rings E T F and G V H , Fig. 15(a), are to be used
in addition and t h a t they are thin and so unable to
carry appreciable bending moment. A stress dis-
tribution which satisfies two-dimensional equi-
librium with no bending m o m e n t in the reinforce-
m e n t is indicated in Fig. 15(a) : simple tension sv
in the main sheet outside the reinforcing ring,
transverse compression s~ inside and uniform
tension svtd/2 in t h e ring (corresponding to a ring
under constant interior pressure s#). Transverse
stiffening m a y be needed for the sheet in the com-
pression region if d / t is large. T h e reinforcement
is of constant cross section td/2 and it is assumed
t h a t the yield stress in the sheet can be transferred
to the reinforcement, which also is stressed to su
over its entire cross section, without violating
yield anywhere. In general this t r e a t m e n t of this
essentially three-dimensional problem as though
it were two-dimensional needs further s t u d y al-
though it is commonly employed in nominally
elastic analysis and design. Also, reinforcement
on one side only as is ordinarily required b y prac-
tical considerations cannot be as efficient as the
symmetrical placement implicitly assumed in the
previous discussion.
If the sheet material inside the ring is incapable
of taking compression a parabolic segment of rein-
forcement E T F Fig. 15(b) needs no strength in
bending (just as a uniformly loaded cable). The
area needed at T is less than at E or F and a rein-
forcing strut E F is essential to carry the inward
"cable" pull at E and at F. Again the reinforce-
m e n t along E l i and FG m u s t have an area of at
least t d / 2 each. A s t u d y of more conventional
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
~--- a ----~
A B
a12
t boundary conditions. Consider, for example, the
b-o "
+ -
a/2
± FD, FC. The work done b y the external force is
0 C
48/a
FIG. 16 POSSIBLE COLLAPSE MECHANISM
FOR UNIFORMLY LOADED RECTANGULAR
PLATE
reinforcement along the boundary of the opening,
which m u s t depend upon its bending strength, is
contained in references (11) and (12).
No m a t t e r how economical the placement of
material m a y be, it is clear t h a t t h e reinforcement
along E l i and FG has the same volume as the
material removed, EFGH. Bringing the structure
back to full strength of necessity requires a heavier
structure than the solid or unpierced sheet. I t
may, of course, be impractical or unnecessary to
reinforce for full strength. The disadvantage of
h e a v y reinforcement lies outside the province of
limit analysis. T h e unavoidably higher elastic
stress-concentration factors m a y be troublesome
if fatigue or brittle failure is a possibility. The
advantage of a reduction in main plate thickness
is twofold. In addition to the saving of material,
the likelihood of brittle-fracture initiation and
propagation is reduced.
PLATES AND SHELLS UNDER TRANSVERSE LOADING
A plate under transverse or lateral loading also
presents a two-dimensional problem. Bending
moments and shears carry the load in essentially
the same manner as for a b e a m b u t in two instead
of one dimension. M o m e n t - c u r v a t u r e relations
are an extension of Fig. 4. Again, in limit analy-
sis and design the actual curve is idealized as two
straight lines similar to Fig. 3. T h e yield criterion
for m o m e n t in a plate of thickness t is then exactly
the same as for stress, Figs. 11 and 12, with the
limit m o m e n t per unit length, M0 = svt2/4, re-
placing sv.
Limit theorems I and I I apply with stress fields
interpreted as m o m e n t fields. As for eomplieated
AND LIMITATIONS 185
frames with sidesway, good upper bounds are
easier to obtain than good lower bounds. The
rupture-line method of Johansen (14) uses simple
deformation pallterns and so gives upper bounds
on the limit loading for all shapes of plate and
simply supported rectangular plate a X b of Fig.
16 under uniformly distributed load p per unit
area. The deformation pattern shown consists
solely of the rupture lines or folds, AE, BE, EF,
the pressure times the volume between the dis-
placed plate and the original flat surface. As the
triangular regions AEB, CFD, and the trapezoidal
regions BEFC, A E F D move as rigid planes, no
dissipation of energy takes place in them. There
is also no dissipation on the simply supported
boundary, ABCD. The internal dissipation per
unit length of rupture line is given b y M0, or
svF/4 for the Tresca criterion, times the angle
between t-he planes at the fold. This angle is
4~/a for E F and 2%/2~/a for the others. There-
fore from limit theorem I I
P l 1 a2~ + 31 a(b -- a)~ 1
=M0 4 (b - a) + 4 X 2,X/~ a
gives an upper bound on p* the limit value of p or
p*a 2 (1 + b/a) 8(1 + a/b)
< 24- __~ = [10]
Mo = 3b/a 1 - a/3b " '
When b is very large compared with a, the plate
is essentially a simply supported b e a m of length a
and Inequality [10] becomes p*a~/Mo =< 8. From
statics the m a x i m u m m o m e n t per unit length at
mid-span is the familiar pa2/8 and equating this to
M0 gives pa~/Mo = 8 as a lower bound from
limit theorem I. As upper and lower bounds coin-
cide, p* = 8Mo/a 2 is the correct result in this
trivial statically determinate case. In general a
parabolic m o m e n t distribution in the direction
parallel to A B with m a x i m u m value M0 at mid-
span and zero at the ends AD and BC is a permis-
sible equilibrium field as is a similar parabolic
m o m e n t distribution parallel to AD." Each cor-
responds to a uniform load on a simple span,
p - 8Mo/a ~ and p = 8Mo/b ~, respectively. T h e
sum of the two m o m e n t fields also does not exceed
yield. Therefore the sum of the two loads
8Mo/a ~ + 8Mo/b 2, is a lower bound on p*, or
P'a2 > 8 1+ [11]
M0 ' ~ .........
For a square, a = b and the limit load is bounded
b y Inequalities [10] and [11] as
184 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
16 < p * a : / M o ~ 24 . . . . . . . . .
Wide a p a r t as limits such as these are, they can be
obtained with very little effort and often will
suffice for an immediate practical answer. I t is
the lower bound in Equation [12] which is much
too low a n d which can be increased easily b y tak-
ing slightly more elaborate equilibrium stress
fields. Elastic solutions when available are use-
ful as they do satisfy equilibrium and so provide a
lower bound when the m a x i m u m m o m e n t is re-
stricted to M0 and the m a x i m u m algebraic dif-
ference between principal moments likewise is
restricted to M0, in analogy to Fig. 11.
Just as the string effect takes over load-carrying
capacity of a b e a m whose ends are held from mov-
ing inward, Fig. 9, m e m b r a n e action predominates
in a thin plate. Except for l o n g rectangular
plates which behave like beams, a plate develops
large m e m b r a n e stress due to deflection whether
or not the supports are immovable (26).
Ship plate is thin in comparison with the span
length and is continuous over its supports so t h a t
deflections small compared with the span will de-
velop strong m e m b r a n e action. Very little work
has been done on rectangular plates but more is
now under way. Much more has been accom-
plished with circular plates and some typical
results b y Onat and H a y t h o r n t h w a i t e (15) are
shown in Fig. 17. Plates can take pressures
enormously higher than those they have been de-
signed for without a complete failure. P e r m a n e n t
deformations will remain but the ship can proceed
with safety.
In the foregoing, elements of ship structures have
been discussed. However, a ship is not really a
collection of beams, frames, and plates. I t is a
complicated shell structure most of which acts as
a unit. The complete analysis of shells of such
great complexity will always be an impossibility
in the elastic range. The far greater simplicity of
limit analysis offers hope for plastic design but the
subject is young and few solutions have been
found as yet. A circular cylindrical shell with a
concentrated ring or a band of pressure was
solved first (16). I t does have direct beating on
the three-dimensional aspects of the problem of
the circular reinforcement for full strength, Fig.
15(a). In the two-dimensional equilibrium solu-
tion already discussed, the plate applies a narrow
band of pressure sv of length equal t o plate thick-
ness t to the semi-circular reinforcements E T F or
G V H each of which is actually a cylindrical shell
of thickness h and radius R = d / 2 . The band of
pressure m a y be idealized here as a concentrated
ring of pressure s~t per unit of circumferential
length. For the ring of pressure, the effective
AND LIMITATIONS
[12]
p I--- O
D/h = 20
I
0 ! I
i 8/h 2
FIG. 17 EXPERIMENTALLOAD DEFLECTIOI~ CURVES FOR
PLATES SHOWING STRONG MEMBRANE EFFECT (15)
length of an infinitely long shell (16) is
L = 1.82v/Rh ............ [14]
In other terms, within this idealization the value
of the force per unit of circumferential length
which can be applied to the shell s~t is limited b y
h
sv ~ 1.82%/Rh = svt
Therefore
h 3 = 0.3t~R . . . . . . . . . . . . . [15]
is the minimum thickness of any reinforcement no
m a t t e r how large its dimension in the direction
perpendicular to the plate. A cross-sectional
area of t d / 2 as indicated in Fig. 15(a) is, as stated
previously, on the low side because three-dimen-
sional plate-and-shell action was ignored.
More recent work on shells has broadened the
application of plasticity to axially symmetric
problems of shells of revolution and work-harden-
ing also has been taken into account (17). Con-
centrated forces and locally applied pressure,.
which are of so much interest, still are in the pre-
liminary s t u d y stage.
DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
The ultimate aim is to take the outline of the
ship as sketched on the basis of hydrodynamics and
propulsion and then design the structure directly
taking into account the loading, the cargo require-
ments, access openings, and so on. Although far
from possible now, progress has been made and is
continuing. T h e greater the familiarity of ship
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
Mo
I
I.,1--.- 0
INP
:h b----I
to)
I costly to supply the moment capacity M0 at the
NPo (b)
lF=s~A (c)
t the moment capacity at the left end can be zero.
tO]
Mo [ I ~
FIG. 18 'I)ESIGN PROBLEM FOR A PROPPED CANTILEVER
designers with plastic-design methods the more
quickly a substantial fraction of the ultimate ob-
jective will be reached.
Again an almost trivial example will help to
make the process clear and illustrate the great free-
dom of choice. Fig. 18 shows a propped canti-
lever beam supported at one end with a tension
rod and loaded b y a concentrated force t'. The
problem is to design the rod and the beam to carry
P with a factor of safety of N on load under the
assumption that the beam weight is negligible.
Suppose the costs of fabrication make a beam of
constant cross section desirable although it will use
more material than one of variable cross section.
One solution, indicated in the moment diagram of
Fig. 18(b), is to leave out the supporting rod and
d~sign the beam as a cantilever with limit moment
Mo = N P a . This m a y well be best if there is con-
siderable difficulty and expense involved in sup-
porting the right end of the beam. If, however,
support is easy, the supporting force F can be
chosen arbitrarily within wide limits. In terms
of the yield Stress sv and the cross-sectional area A,
F < sAy. I t should then be best to set F = svA
and to equalize the numerical value of the bending
moment at the load and at, the fixed end
Mo = Fb = N P a -- F(a + b)
or
NPa
F = svA a + 2b
AND LIMITATIONS 185
Fig 18(c), (d). Therefore
A = N P a / s v ( a + 2b) = Mo/svb
Mo = N P a b / ( a + 2b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . [16]
is the answer under these conditions which requires
the least value of rod area A and limit moment,
M0. A larger value of the rod area A than
Mo/svb will not increase F because the beam will
collapse first. Should it be impossible o r too
fixed end, an increase in the maximum F through
an increase in A will permit reduction in the mo-
ment at the left end. For
F(a + b) = N P a or A = N P a / s v ( a + b)
The required limit moment/1//0 = Fb then will be
larger than Equation [16] in the ratio (a + 2b)/
(a + b).
The design procedure just outlined dates back
to the days before analysis. No consideration at
all is given to the elastic response. The flexural
rigidity E1 of the beam and the spring constant
A E / L of the rod wllich determine the distribution
of load in the elastic regime, have no influence on
the load-carrying capacity of the structure. The
structure is told how it can carry the load prior to
failure just as in medieval and R o m a n design.
All such designs are safe if the prescription can be
followed. The best design is chosen on supple-
mental grounds. I t m a y minimize cost, or maxi-
mize aesthetic value, or conserve scarce material,
or follow any additional criterion set forth.
Elastic considerations often do enter in the
sense that too flexible a structure m a y be Undesir-
able or the possibility of fatigue must be mini-
mized. In all cases a good plastic design should
behave well in the elastic range in which it ordi-
narily will function.
The rigid frame of Fig. 10 when looked at as a
design problem offers even more possibilities than
the propped beam and demonstrates t h a t a safe
design m a y be oversafe. Call the limit moment
needed for the beam MoB and for the left and right
columns M0cL and Mocn. If following Fig. 10(b),
considering P and Q each as already N times the
design loads, MoB is taken as P L / 4 and M0c~ as
Qh the structure will be safe according to limit
theorem I. The right column serves as a prop
• which, in the equilibrium picture of Fig. 10(b), ex-
erts a force of P / 2 upward on the beam. Clearly,
however, a structure width these values of limit
moment can carry more load than _P and Q be-
cause advantage has not been taken of continuity.
For the special case of P = Q and L = 4h Fig
10(30 is a design which will just coUapse
186 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

P
P ~ o
M = 2 P h y [ ~ 0h (a)
._L Moo= 2 Ph, 0
MoCL= 2Ph
t ~ 2h. :i= 2h MoCR= 0
P
.~=Ph/2 M Ph (b)
" ph ~ ' p ~ ='-2
M =2 " ~ / ' ~ i MoB = Ph/2

2 5P/2 " ~P'~i M°CL= Ph

Ph ~p/ . P/2 MocR: Ph/2

p M=P.-~
h (c)
- 5
Moot= MoCL= MoOR= { Ph

P:V
FIG. 19 DIRECTDESIGNS,P IS N TIMES WORKINGLOAD. (See also Fig. 10(f): ~/0B =
Ph, M0cL = M0cn = 1/3 Ph)

M0cL = Moca = Mo = P h / 3 , MoB = 3M0 = P h T h e result can also be obtained from statics alone
b y e q u a t i n g the numerical values of the m o m e n t at
M a n y other designs are permissible and some are
the foot of the left column, at the junction of left
shown in Fig. 19 with an equilibrium-moment dia-
g r a m superposed. Fig. 19(a) is a cantilever. Fig. column and b e a m and at the censer of the beam
19(b) gives the lightest constant-section b e a m Mo = H h - - 21/[o = V 2 h ' + M o - - H h
possible because the end m o m e n t s are the maxi-
and from s u m m a t i o n of m o m e n t s about the hinged
m u m fully fixed m o m e n t s for the beam. T h e left-
base
h a n d column is heavier t h a n the b e a m and the
r i g h t - h a n d column because it m u s t supply b o t h the V4h + M ~ - - P h - P 2 h = 0
inward t h r u s t of 2°/2 at its base for the fixed end giving
m o m e n t 20h/2 in the b e a m and also take the hori-
zoiatal force P as a cantilever. Fig. 19(6) is a H h = 2M0, Vh = 2tI0, 5M0 = 3 P h
design, for a frame of c o n s t a n t cross section the same result as using the u p p e r - b o u n d proce-
throughout. Again u p p e r - b o u n d or, deformation dure b u t obtained with a little more trouble.
p a t t e r n techniques are easier t h a n lower b o u n d as Comparison of the several designs is difficult.
will be seen. Collapse m u s t be of the t y p e s h o w n If the sum of the limit m o m e n t times length is
in Fig. 10(e) and the calculation corresponding to chosen as a v e r y rough measure of weight, com-
t h a t preceding E q u a t i o n [6] is external work, parison should be made of the values of the sum
PO2h + 200h, equals internal dissipation
MocLh + MoB4h + A/.focRh
MoO + Mo(20) + M0(20)
Fig. 10(f) has
or 1 PM + Ph4h +
½PM 2
= 4 ~ PM
3 P h = 53//o
or Fig. 19(a) as should be expected, has the high
3 value
Moz~ = MocL = 'M0cR = ~ P h
2 P M + 2Ph2h = 6 P M
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
Fig. 19(b) has the much smaller weight
Ph 2+ 4h + - ~ - = 3 Ph ~
• fatigue is yet to be made. Work-hardening and
and the uniform frame is slightly heavier.
Clearly, from Fig. 19(c), Moor could be taken as
P h / 5 and a stil.1 lighter structure ,would be
obtained.
More general approaches have been made to
minimum-weight design of continuous beams and
frames composed of members of constant cross
section between joints (18). Although in a form
helpful to civil engineers they probably are not di-
rectly useful to a ship designer. .The main point
to keep in mind is that the designer can impose a
possible distribution of stress and design directly.
A start has been made on the general problem of
minimum-weight design for all structures (19).
Applications have been made to symmetric rotat-
ing disks and to circular plates both of which are a
long way from the complexity of a ship. This work
is so recent that it is difficult to say with certainty
that it will provide the key to design. Progress is
bound to be very slow unless many practical de-
signers take a hand and solve problems of interest
to them.
LIMITATIONS OF PLASTIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
I t is desirable to return to the many words of
caution concerning plastic analysis which have
been stated previously and to add some more on
the topics of fatigue, significant geometry change
as in buckling, and brittle fracture.
Fatigue. Certainly fatigue occurring at a high
number of stress cycles does not fall within the
range of conventional plasticity theory. As com-
puted from the theory of elasticity, the stresses
which cause failure are below yield. Limit loads
are far larger than the cyclic loads producing the
initial fatigue cracks and their growth to appreci-
able size.
Nevertheless, plasticity theory m a y have some-
thing worth while to contribute to this problem.
It is probable that fatigue is the result of localized
cyclic or progressive plastic action on a micro-
scopic scale. At grain boundaries and at other
microscopic or submicroscopic imperfections,
stress-concentration factors may well be very high
and the material strength varies widely. Actual
localized stresses are then above yield. Perhaps
fatigue is associated with an excessive amount of
plastic working. A safe stress to use may be one
at which this alternating or progressive plastic de-
formation is limited and the response of the ma-
terial eventually becomes essentially purely
elastic. The question of whether structures under
variable loading do shake down, or cease deform-
AND LIMITATIONS 187
ing plastically, has been studied and the general
theorems of shakedown formulated (20). Quan-
titative application of this microscopic theory to
variations in yield strength within crystals and at
the boundaries will have to be considered.
Buckling. ' T h e troublesome feature of plastic
buckling, Fig. 8, is the drop in load after reaching
the buckling value, B. As plastic action is not
reversible, the material of the structure is not able
to rearrange the stresses to best advantage. This
same phenomenon appears in the elastic buckling
of shells but not in most columns, beams, and
plates. Elastic buckling of these simpler struc-
tural elements is ordinarily associated with a flat
and then a rising load-deflection curve and not
a falling one. Theorems similar to the limit
theorems therefore apply to many problems of
elastic buckling as shown by Masur (21).
In most, but not all structural applications,
buckling is accompanied b y plastic deformation.
The difficulty, therefore, does 'not lie in the as-
sumption of plastic action but rather in the fact
that the plastic analysis is not deep enough.
What to do about buckling in the plastic range is a
cause of real concern as the weakening produced
by change in configuration does not fit in well with
limit analysis' and design methods. A similar
difficulty has always troubled the designer in his
treatment of elastic structures and still remains a
subject for much additional analytical and experi-
mental study.
As may be seen from Fig. 8, the buckling load B
is not realizable in an actual structure or structural
member. The smallest amount of eccentricity of
loading, or inhomogeneity of material, or imper-
fection of geometry causes the maximum load M
to .be appreciably below the buckling load for
many structures and structural elements. In fact
it is questionable whether classical buckling theory
has any relevance to physically obtainable loads
(5). The buckling problem must be replaced' by
the computation of increasing deflection under
load. Although simple enough in concept, the
detailed computations are very elaborate and sub-
ject to much cumulative error.
The strengthening effect so often found in struc-
tures because of geometry change likewise does not
fit in with limit analysis. Ignoring it is on the
safe side and may be the best course of action in
many problems. Taking it into account requires
additional analytical and experimental work
similar to that for-buckling (15). The increasing
stability and strength do make the calculations
less subject to serious error.
Brittle Fracture. Although little has been said
so .far about brittle fracture, it is a specter which
188 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
t type which m a y arise in various guises. Also,
¸slip [ It
nes r" 7
. . . .
l limit load. For example, symmetrical specimens
P* -- Sy Ane t P*> Sy ~ net
(a) (b)
Fzo. 20 AN EXTERNAL NOTCH (b) Is PREFERABLE TO
AN INTERNAL ONE (a)
haunts all designers of outside structures and is an
especial bugaboo of ship designers. ' Ferritic" steels
are prone to brittleness at low temperatures.
M a n y ships develop Cracks of appreciable length
and quite a number have broken in two with a
loud snap. The thicker the plating the greater
the danger with a given composition and treat-
ment of steel. Other size effects also m a y be
present and ships are getting bigger.
Brittleness and ductility are opposites so t h a t it
might seem t h a t limit analysis with its assumption
of infinite ductility is irrelevant to the problem.
To the extent however, t h a t savings can be made
in material, in particular t h a t thinner plating can
be used, limit design m a y enable the use of. better
steel or at least better behaved steel plate. Plas-
ticity in general certainly is relevant because some
plastic action does accompany so-called brittle
failure and roots of notches and similar trouble
spots do go plastic prior to fracture.
Limit considerations themselves are of value in
a number of instances. One danger in particular
must-be avoided. If. at a temperature below.the
appropriate transition the limit load is reached an d
a notch or.flaw is present brittle fracture is to be
expected. Occasional overloads even of short
duration can be catastrophic. If the structure is
not aligned well during construction the relevant
limit load m a y be quite low. At higher tempera-
tures the geometry of the structure can be re-
aligned b y the load and will then carry the over-
load properly. At low temperature it cannot al-
ways make the necessary adjustments and brittle
fracture m a y result.
Furthermore, there are situations where conven-
tional specifications m a y permit the limit load to
be reached for well-constructed structures which
fall outside the range of experience on which the
AND LIMITATIONS
specifications are based. Fig. 14 illustrates one
large pressure vessels designed for low pressures
have some pitfalls.
However, most catastrophic brittle fractures in
full-scale structures apparently cannot be ascribed
to exceeding the limit load. On the other hand,
.
practically all static laboratory tests on virgin
material for the investigation of brittle fracture do
exceed the limit load (22). The values of the load
at which fracture occurs are above but close to the
under tension normally require reaching the yield
stress on the net section. Specimens with bending
and tension or bending alone are mote difficult to
analyze but they too fail at or above the limiting
combination of loads. I m p a c t tests such as the
Charpy are beyond present methods of analysis
but a reasonable guess would be t h a t they too ex-
ceed a limit moment. Localized impact added to
a static stress field (23) does overcome the barrier
to initiation of fracture at static fields below the
limit load. Recently the barrier to initiation for
static tests has been overcome b y prestrain (24) in
a manner which seems to simulate the failure of
ships. The appearance of the fracture including
the very important lack of ductility (no thumb-
nail) at the root of the notch is quite similar.
Failure loads less than 3~ the limit load have been
recorded m a n y times and 1~ the limit load has
been approached for project steel E which is very
prone to brittle fracture.
Plastic analysis is helpful not only in the inter-
pretation of test results but also i n planning an
appropriate specimen. I t can be seen from Fig.
20 t h a t the popular internally notched tensile
specimen, shown schematically, which seems to
resemble a hatch opening in a deck is not as suit-
able as the externally notched (24, 25). The limit
load and plastic-deformation pattern in the plane
for the internally notched specimen are influenced
strongly b y the presence of the free outside edges
which have no analog on the ship. The external
notches require an out-of-plane action and a local
pattern at the notch which is characteristic of the
notch and so corresponds to the prototype action.
Size effects are likely to be less m a r k e d in exter-
nally notched specimens. A discussion of these and
other related aspects of laboratory" testing and
comparison with ship failures is given in (22).
CONCLUSION
This survey of the present status of plastic
analysis and design presents but a, few facts and
techniques of immediate use to the designer of
ships. Emphasis is placed on the plastic and not
the elastic behavior because failure is generally
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND L I M I T A T I O N S
preceded by appreciable plastic deformation and
limit design is far simpler than elastic design.
The main objective of the paper is to convey the
vision of a very bright future along with a most
useful present. Principles already established
analytically and verified experimentally point the
way to direct design of structures as a whole.
Close estimates of the load-carrying capacity of
complicated assemblages are feasible at present.
If enough effort is expended by both academic
staff not versed in naval architecture and by ship
designers, each learning from the other, much of
the present design art and guesswork can be re-
placed by a scientific and straightforward pro-
cedure. As a consequence of a more solid founda-
tion the art should then be able to make signifi-
cant advances.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 "Investigation of Interaction Formula
fa/Fa q- fb/Fb__<l," by J. Zickel and D. C.
Drueker, Brown University Report No. 1 to
Column Research Council, 1951.
2 "Lateral Buckling of Eccentrically Loaded
I- and H-Section Columns," by H. N. Hill and J.
W. Clark, Proceedings of the First U. S. National
Congress of Applied Mechanics, 1951, pp. 407-413;
also, Trans. ASCE, vol. 116; 1951, pp. 1179-1196.
3 "Plastic Design in Structural Steel," by
L. S. Beedle, B. Thurlimann, and R. L. IZetter,
Lecture Notes Summer Course 1955, Lehigh Uni-
versity, American Institute of Steel Construction.
4 "Inelastic Instability and Incremental
Theories of Plasticity," by E. T. Onat and D. C.
Drueker, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, vol.
20, 1953, pp. 181-186.
5 "On the Concept of Stability of Inelastic
Systems," by D. C. Drueker and E. T. Onat,
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, vol. 21, 1954,
Ibp. 543-548.
6 "Beams with Full End Fixity," by R. MI
Haythornthwaite, Engineering, vol. 183, 1957, pp.
110-112.
7 "Extended Limit Design Theorems for Con-
tinuous Media," by D. C. Drucker, H. J. Green-
berg, and W. Prager, Quarterly of Applied Mathe-
matics, vol. 9, January, 1952, pp. 381-389; also,
"The Safety Factor of an Elastic Plastic Body in
Plane Strain," Journal of Applied Mechanics,
Trans. ASME, vol. 73, 1951, pp. 371-378; and
"Limit Design of Beams and Frames," by H. J.
Greenberg and W. Prager, Trans. ASCE, vol. 117,
1952, pp. 447-484.
8 "Recent Progress in the Plastic Methods of
Structural Analysis," by P. S. Symonds and B. G.
Neal, Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 252,
189
1951, pp. 383-407, 469-492; also, "The Rapid
Calculation of the Plastic Collapse Load for a
Framed Structure," Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, vol. 1, part 3, 1952, pp. 58-71.
9 "Stress-Strain Relations in the Plastic Range
of Metals--Experiments and Basic Concepts," by
D. C. Drucker, vol. 1 of Rheology Theory and
Applications, edited by Eirich, Academic Press,
Inc., New York, 1956, Chapter 4, pp. 97-119.
10 "A More Fundamental Approach to Stress-
Strain Relations," by D. C. Drucker, Proceedings
of the First U. S. National Congress of Applied
Mechanics, ASME, 1951, pp. 487-491.
11 "Limit Design of a Full Reinforcement for a
Circular Cutout in a Uniform Slab," by H. J.
Weiss, W. Prager, and P. G. Hodge, Jr., Journal of
Applied Mechanics, Trans. ASME, vol. 74, 1952,
pp. 397-401.
12 "Yield Loads of Slabs With Reinforced
Cutouts," by P. G. Hodge, Jr. and N. Perrone,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Trans. ASME, vol.
79, 1957, pp. 85--92.
13 "Investigation and Limit Analysis of Net
Area in Tension," by W. G. Brady and D. C.
Drucker, Trans. ASCE, vol. 120, 1955, pp. 1133-
1164.
14 "Moments of Rupture in Cross-Reinforced
Slabs," by K. Johansen, Preliminary Publication,
First Congress Int. Association of Bridge and
Structural Engineering, 1932, pp. 277-296; also,
Brudlinieteorier, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1943.
15 "The Load-Carrying Capacity of Circular
Plates at Large Deflection," by E. T. Onat and
R. M. Haythornthwaite, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Trans. ASME, voL 78, 1956, pp. 49-55.
"Report of Static Tests of Circular Mild Steel
Plates," by J. Foulkes and E. T. Onat, Brown
University Report OOR 3172/3 to the Office of
Ordnance Research, 1955.
1 6 "Limit Analysis of Cylindrical Shells under
Axially-Symmetric Loading," by D. C. Drucker,
Proceedings of the First Midwest Conference on
Solid Mechanics, Urbana, Ill., 1953, pp. 158-163.
17 "The Plastic Collapse of Cylindrical Shells
under Axially-Symmetric Loading," by E. T.
Onat, Quarterly ot Applied Mathematics, vol. 13,
1955, pp. 63-72:
"Rigid-Plastic Analysis of Symmetrically
Loaded Cylindrical Shells," by P. G. Hodge, Jr.,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Trans. ASME, vol.
76, 1954, pp. 336-342.
"Limit Analysis of Shells of Revolution," by
E. T. Onat and W. Prager, Proceedings Konink-
lijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschap-
pen, series.B, vol. 57, 1954, pp. 534-~548..
"Limit Analysis of Symmetrically Loaded Thin
190 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND L I M I T A T I O N S
Shells of Revolution," by D. C. Drucker and R. T.
Shield, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Trans.
ASME, vol. 80, 1958.
18 "Minimum Weight Design of a Portal
Frame," by W. Prager, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics Div., Proc. ASCE, vol. 82, Paper 1073.
"Minimum Weight Design and the Theory of
Plastic Collapse," by J. Foulkes, Quarterly of
Applied Mathematics, vol. 10, January, 1953, pp.
347-358.
"The Minimum Weight Design of Structural
Frames," Proceedings of the Royal Society, series
A, vol. 223, 1954, pp. 482-494.
"Plastic Design of Plane Frames for Minimum
Weight," by J. Heyman, Structural Engineer, vol.
31, 1953, pp. 125-129.
"The Automatic Design of Structural Frames,"
by R. K. Livesley, Quarterly Journal of Mechanics
and Applied Mathematics, vol. 9, 1956, pp. 257-278.
19 "Design for Minimum Weight," by D. C.
Drucker and R. T. Shield, Proceedings of the
Ninth International Congress of Applied Mechan-
ics, Brussels, Belgium, 1956.
"Bounds on Minimum Weight Designs," Quar-
terly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 15, 1957.
20 "Uber die Bemessung statisch unbestimm-
ter Stahltragwerke unter Berficksichtignng des
elastischplastischen Verhaltens des Baustoffes,"
by H. Bleich, Bauingenieur, vol. 13, 1932, pp.
261-267.
"Der Spannungzustand eines Hencky-Mises'-
chert Kontinuums bei ver~derlicher Belastung,"
by E. Melan, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Wien, vol. 147, 1938, pp. 73-87.
"Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Structures Sub-
jected to Loads Vary!rig Arbitrarily between Pre-
scribed Limits," by P. S. Symonds and W. Prager,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Trans. ASME, vol.
72, 1950, pp. 315-324.
"Plastic Collapse and Shakedown Theorems for
Structures of Strain-Hardening Material," by B.
G. Neal, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, vol.
17, 1950, pp. 297-307.
"A New General Theorem on Shakedown of
Elastic-Plastic Structures," by W. T. Koiter, Pro-
ceedings Koniklijke Nederlandsehe Akademie van
Wetenschappen, series B, vol. 59, 1956, pp. 24-34.
"The Effect of Variable Repeated Loads in the
Plastic Theory of Structures," by M. R. Horne,
Research, Engineering Structures Supplement
(Colston Papers 2) Academic Press and Butter-
worth Scientific Publications, 1949, pp. 141-151.
21 "An Extended Upper Bound Theorem on
t h e Ultimate Loads of Buckled Redundant
Trusses," by E. F. Masur, Quarterly of Applied
Mathematics, vol. 14~ 1956, pp. 315-317; also, vol.
11,385~392. ~ 423.
22 "An Evaluation of Current Knowledge of
the Mechanics of Brittle Fracture," by D. C.
Drucker, Report SSC-69, Ship Structure Commit-
tee, 1954.
"The Mechanics of Notch Brittle Fracture,"
by A. A. Wells, Welding Research, vol. 7, 1953, pp.
34r-56r.
23 "Brittle Fracture of Mild Steel," by T. ,S.
Robertson, Engineering, vol. 172, 1951, p. 444;
also Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, vol. 175,
1953, p. 361.
"Studies on the Brittle Failure of Tankage
Steel Plates," by F. J. Feely, Jr., M. S. Northup,
S: R. Kleppe, and M. Gensamer, Welding Journal,
vol. 34, 1955, Research Supplement, pp. 596s-607s.
"Initiation and Propagation of Brittle Fracture
in Structural Steels," by P. P. Puzak, E. W.
Eschbacher, and W. S. Pellini, Welding Journal,
vol. 31, 1952, Research Supplement, pp. 561s-581s.
24 "Brittle Fracture Initiation Tests," by C.
Mylonas, D. C. Drueker, and L. Isberg, Welding
Journal, vol. 36, 1957, Res. Suppl., pp. 9s-17s.
25 "The Fracture of Mild Steel Plate," by
C. F. Tipper, H. M. Stationery Office, London,
England, 1948.
26 "A New Approach to the Design of Plates
to Withstand Lateral Pressure," by J. Clarkson,
Quarterly Transactions institution of Naval
Architects, vol. 98, 1956, pp. 443-463.
References
A few of the books of direct relevance to the
material covered are:
"The Steel Skeleton," by J. F. Baker, M. R.
Home, and J. Heyman, Cambridge University
Press, vo]. 2, 1956.
"Plastic Design of Portal Frames," by J. Hey-
man, Cambridge University Press, 1957.
"The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis,"
by B. G. Neal, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New~
York, N. Y., Chapman & Hall, London, 1956.
"Theory of Perfectly Plastic Solids," by W.
Prager and P. G. Hodge, Jr., John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, N. Y., 1951.
"The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity," by
R. Hill, Oxford University Press, 1950.
"Theory of the Flow and Fracture of Solids," by
A. Nadai, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New
York, N. Y., 1950.
Two review articles also may prove helpful:
"The Theory of Plasticity: A Survey of Recent
Achievements," by W. Prager, (James Clayton
Lecture), Proceedings of The Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, vol. 169, 1955, pp. 41-57.
"Limit Analysis and Design," by D. C. Drucker,
Applied Mechanics Reviews, vol. 7, 1954, pp. 421-
 .PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
Discussion
IklR. JOHN VASTA,Member: The author has pre-
sented a very refreshing point of view on the plas-
tic-design approach to ship structural design.
T h a t he has so clearly pointed out the advantages
and limitations of the principles of limit design, as
these are applied to ship structure, is a tribute to
his keen and unbiased grasp of the subject matter.
The importance of this paper rests on the fact
that the limitations of plastic design are discussed,
as well as the advantages. The three basic limi-
tations which are significant to the ship designer
are that fatigue, buckling, and brittle fracture are
not taken into account properly. A brief dis-
cussion of each of these phenomena is in order.
Brittle fracture is of especially deep concern to
the ship designer. We know that a great deal has
been accomplished in this field in recent years, but
much more needs to be done. I t is fair to say t h a t
in the process of designing the basic structure of a
ship, no specific steps are taken to prevent brittle
fracture. I t is true t h a t more attention is now
given to the selection of steels, the elimination of
geometrical discontinuities where possible, and
the use of better fabrication techniques. HoTc-
ever, these factors are not the ones which govern
the structural design of the hull.
Likewise, as regards fatigue, it must be admitted
that fatigue strength, per se, is not used-as a factor
in ship structural design. Recent studies indi-
cate t h a t perhaps it should be; however, no spe-
cific formulation has yet been developed that is of
assistance to ship designers.
There remains the buckling phenomenon. This
is the key to ship design. I t is the factor which
controls the dimensions of the primary s t r u c t u r e - -
the hull envelope. The author states, "buckling
in the plastic range is a cause of real concern, as
the weakening produced by change in configura-
tion does not fit in well with limit analysis and de-
sign methods." This is, unfortunately, an all too
real and significant limitation.
As we all know, a ship hull is, essentially, a hol-
low box girder, made up Of plates supported by a
grid of longitudinal and transverse framing. A
principal function of the decks and b o t t o m shell
constituting the flanges of this girder is to resist
the longitudinal forces arising from the ship bend-
ing under the action o f the waves. Since these
axial forces alternate from tension to compression
as the ship hogs and sags, it becomes clear t h a t
both flanges of the girder must be designed to re-
sist buckling. Also, the shell sides, which make
up the web of the hull girder, are subjected to
shearing forces. These must be designed properly
AND LIMITATIONS 191
to prevent the formation of shear wrinkles. Thus,
the ship designer is confronted with problems in
elastic and plastic buckl!ng. Certainly he cannot
afford to design a structure which might collapse
or jackknife in service from lack of adequate buck-
ling strength.
So much for the negative side of the problem.
Now let's "accentuate the positive." I would
like to call attention to some specific applications
t h a t have been made of the limit-design approach.
An example of this is the grid work supporting the
flight deck of World W a r I I carriers. When these
ships were built, the airplanes then available were
much smaller and lighter than those of today. I t
was decided to modernize these carriers, and the
question arose as to how much structural rein-
forcement was necessary so t h a t the decks could
accommodate the heavier planes satisfactorily.
.It was important not to impair unnecessarily the
military characteristics of the ship b y the addition
of excessive topside weight. Limit design played
an important part in minimizing the extent of the
structural changes.
There have been two other significant applica-
tions of plastic-design methods to ship design;
one deals with the structural design of submarines,
the other with t h a t of surface ships. In both
cases, the;ugh it is impossible to estimate from cal-
culations alone the ultimate load-carrying capac-
ity of a structure, we partially circumvented this
basic limitation by resorting to experimental re-
search. With the submarine, for example, we
test to destruction structural models which repre-
sent to scale the 'actual design. Thus we arrive at
a realistic factor of safety. If the design tested
does not have the required collapse strength, mod-
ifications are made and new structural models are
tested until the desired standard is reached. This
trial-and-error approach is not ideal, but as ex-
perience is gained it is possible to reduce signifi-
cantly the number of trials. In the absence of a
reliable limit-design theory applicable to an ex-
ternally loaded stiffened shell, the experimental
approach is the only one upon which the designer
can rely.
For the surface-ship problem, the experimental
approach is not as direct as with the submersible.
The reason is that, whereas with the submarine we
know precisely the collapse depth to which we are
designing, the surface ship m a y encounter an in-
finite number of wave configurations. We resort
to a design approach which, though not precise,
gives us a reasonable method for assessing the ul-
timate load-carrying capacity of the hull strength.
 192 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
This approach makes use of the principle t h a t the
ship's girder is as strong as its flanges are in com-
pression. The problem resolves itself, therefore,
to relating the ultimate compressive strength of
the elemental deck and b o t t o m panels to the max-
i m u m bending m o m e n t which the midship section
can resist. T o assess more accurately the ulti-
m a t e load-carrying capacity of a ship's hull in
bending, we need experimental data on the ulti-
m a t e compressive strength of panels. This in-
formation already exists for panels of proportions
found in longitudinally framed hulls. For the
more common structure of merchant hulls, which
feature transverse framing, such experimental
data are not yet available b u t information is being
collected through research on the "Buckling
Strength of Hull Structures," sponsored b y the
Society Research Panel S-9.
I am in complete agreement with the author in
• his conclusion t h a t much progress can be made to-
ward more accurate estimates of the load-carrying
capacity of ship structures if the ship designer and
those in the academic field will join forces. This
paper is a timely one. I believe it has succeeded
in making clear t h a t the design of ship structures
should be based to a greater extent on their load-
carrying capacity, rather than on the conven-
tional stress approach.
MR. DONALD P. COURTSAL,Associate Member:
There are two items t h a t this writer believes could
be added to this excellent survey of the work t h a t
has been done in the field of plastic design. In a
paper entitled " T h e o r y of Limit Design" given be-
fore the American Society of Civil Engineers in
1940, J. A. Van DenBroeck considered the effect
of several complete reversals of a uniformly dis-
tributed limit load on a beam fixed at both ends.
When such a b e a m is initially loaded to its limit
load, a certain amount of permanent deformation
takes place. After being completely unloaded,
this beam will still have a residual bending mo-
ment. If the beam is now loaded to its limit load
in the opposite direction, another plastic deforma-
tion, greater than the initial one, results. These
deformations are cumulative so t h a t only a rela-
tively few repetitions m a y create a dangerous situ-
ation. If a complete reversal of load is possible,
therefore, the sum of the positive and negative
loadings should not exceed the m a x i m u m elastic
loading.
In a n y problem where plastic-design methods
are used, the factor of safety applied probably
would be such t h a t the stress would never exceed
the elastic limit. If the effects of load reversal are
as outlined b y Mr. Van DenBroeck, however, an
awareness of these effects should lead to a choice of
AND LIMITATIONS
a more conservative factor of safety in a problem
where such a reversal is possible.
The second item to be considered enlarges on a
point which the author mentions. The theory of
limit design ignores strain-hardening and the au-
thor has stated t h a t some strain-hardening prob-
ably occurs when a fnaterial deforms plastically.
In a paper entitled " T h e o r y of Inelastic Bending
with Reference to Limit Design," presented before
the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1948,
Alexander Hrennikoff pointed out t h a t it is not the
plastic p a r t of the stress-strain curve, or at least
not this part alone, which makes possible a favor-
able distribution of moments in the region beyond
the elastic limit. The length and steepness of the
strain-hardening portion of this curve also must be
favorable, as they are in the case of medium steel.
Perhaps the author can tell us if Mr. Hrennikoff's
observations on the strain-hardening properties of
a material prohibit the application of the princi-
ples of limit design to materials such as other alloy
steels and aluminum?
MR. O. LOURt~NSO,4 Visitor: The author is to be
congratulated for his fine presentation of a very
difficult problem. I t is gratifying to know t h a t
a t t e m p t s are being made to introduce plastic
analysis to ship's structures.
Several single and multiple bent structures, con-
sisting of the elements presented in the paper, have
P=30 k
(~=ZO k 20' 20'
~ Mp
, 40'
5
FIG. 21
been successfully designed b y plastic analysis.
For buildings these designs have indicated t h a t
this m e t h o d is simpler than the elastic method,
converges rapidly and shows a saving in weight.
Plastic analysis presents a clearer picture of struc-
tural behavior which is of prime importance to the
designer. Stress patterns due to residual stresses,
erection stresses and welding stresses although
present in most structures, are not apparent from
an elastic analysis. T h e m a x i m u m utilization of
the ductility of steel, as is done in plastic analysis,
presents therefore a more rational basis for design.
Gibbs and Cox, Inc., New York, N.Y.
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS 195

¢ L/z CL_I
L,~/_/?-
.C eL/z /-¢

Beam Mechanism Panel Mechanism Combined Mecho,nlsm

- FIG. 22

An elementary example will serve to illustrate 313.3 '-~ X 12"/f = 99.8 cu in.
the speed and simplicity, of plastic analysis versus $1~ r e q u i r e d = 33~/in3 X 1.14
elastic analysis and at the same time give an indi- Use 18 W F 55 (SM = 98.2 cu in.) (considered
cation of the weight that may be Saved. Let us within allowable limits)
take a simple bent with dimensions and applied
loads as shown in Fig. 21. Elasfic Analysis. Any one of several methods
This frame is 3 times redundant and has 5 possi- can be used to compute the behavior of the structure
ble plastic hinges. From the simple rule of plastic elastically (slope deflection, strain energy, moment
analysis there then exist 5 - 3 = 2 basic mecha- distribution, and so on) and since these are famil-
nisms; one beam mechanism and one panel mecha- iar methods they are not shown. The designer is
nism, Fig. 22. aware of the time involved in the analysis of a rigid
bent with fixed bases and, therefore, can make the
Mechanism (a) necessary comparison readily.
L The maximum moment elastically equals 195 '-k.
P ¢ ~ = M~C-F M~ X 2 C + M ~ ¢ = 4MpC
195 '-~ X 12
SM required = 20k/in 3 - 117.0 cu in.
I p _ 8Mp
L Use 21 W F 62 (SM = 126.4 cu in.)

Mechanism (b) Weight saved --- 62 lb/f - 55 l b / f -- 7 l b / f

L Although the foregoing example indicates the

Q+ = M. C + M.C'+ M.C + M.C + 4M.C economy of plastic analysis, some deterents to the
method still exist. A great deal of work has been
8M~ 24M~ ~ " done both experimentally and theoretically with
Q- ~- o r P ~6L -- - - shapes and structures of steel which are common
to building design. Unfortunately this does not
Mechanism (a + b) apply to all ship's structures.
The author and other investigators in this field
QC L + PC L M~¢ + 2M~¢ + 2MpC have formulated methods of analysis for individual
structural components. Undoubtedly, there are
+ = 6M.C m a n y instances in ship design where individual
12M~ components can be analyzed by means of plastic
Q-FP- L analysis as outlined. However, ship elements are
seldom isolated components. If the interaction
5/3P- 12M~ of adjacent structural elements is to be taken into
L account the problem becomes extremely complex.
p = 36Mp _ 7.2My _ lowest value Vibrations, repeated loads, impact loads, and so
5L L , on, are continuous influences on ship structures.
These factors have barely been touched upon in
Therefore it is the collapse mechanism. the field of plastic analysis. Consequently, a
a~ = 33,000 psi, shape factor = 1.14, great deal yet remains to be done before reasonable
load factor = 1.88 collapse loads can be computed. In the designs
which have been concluded to date, the ratio of the
PL _.30k X 1.88 X 40' = 313.3, k working load to collapse load has been well es-
M~- 7.2 7:2 tablished. Working loads for the more complex
194 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
ship components are still a m a t t e r of precedent
rather than accurate knowledge. Consequently,
there yet remains for the naval architect the task
of computing properly loads and load factors to be
used in plastic analysis.
The shortcomings which exist at present, such
as accuracy of loads, interaction problems, deflec-
tion-stability procedures, and so on, should not
stand as deterrents to the initiation of the develop-
m e n t of satisfactory analysis b y plastic methods.
A t t e m p t s should be made to analyze those por-
tions of ship structureswhich are contained within
the limitations imposed b y presently available
methods. Only in this way can we realize the
factors which are still lacking for a complete solu-
tion.
I t is to the benefit of the ship designer to incor-
porate methods of analysis which can indicate as
close as possible existing stress conditions. Plas-
tic analysis eventually will give the designer the
assurance that the stress pattern derived will be
the correct one.
I t is, therefore, recommended t h a t this Society's
Ship Structure Committee investigate the poten-
tial application of plastic analysis to ship design.
REAR ADMIRAL K. K. COWART, USCG, Council
J/[ember: I congratulate the author for achieving
a number of firsts.
I am reasonably confident t h a t he is the first
t o present a paper on plastic-design methods be-
fore this Society. Also, he is the first visitor in
m a n y years, if not the first, to address us on
structural design matters.
I cannot say t h a t I followed, or was able to fol-
low, every thread of the author's thought. How-
ever, one of the encouraging things about the
paper is the fact that even a person like myself
does not get entirely lost but rather is so carefully
and skillfully led along t h a t interest continues.
I t is encouraging to have a new philosophy for
the design of structural members of ships. We
are beginning to believe t h a t the loads applied to a
ship will soon be predicted with greater confidence
and greater reality. The people who design
structures to meet those loads must move forward
with comparable speed. I do not suggest t h a t this
paper gives the only approach or the best ap-
proach, but it has been presented clearly and
forcefully and it will be a sharp competitor.
I note in the bibliography some references to
Ship Structure Committee research work. I t is a
pleasure to have the author still working on our
team and I a m pleased to see t h a t his work with
t h e - S h i p Structure Committee has helped to
stimulate his interest in ships.
In the last paragraph the author states his very
AND LIMITATIONS
excellent o b j e c t i v e - - t o convey to the naval archi-
tect that plastic design has a most useful present
along with a very bright future. He has suc-
ceeded in carrying out this objective , I am sure.
I t is then suggested t h a t individuals in the aca-
demic field not especially versed in naval architec-
ture would do well to work with the ship designers.
I wish to second t h a t as an excellent suggestion.
Those of us who sometimes look rather narrowly
at ships often cannot see the wake for the bubbles.
The author along with m a n y other such very high
caliber men can help us to a broader view through
their growing interest in ships. T h e y already
have made excellent contributions. Let us en-
courage their interest and active s u p p o r t .
MR. EDWARD M. [V[AcCUTCHEON, JR., Member:
For years the theoretical design of ships' hulls and
other structures has been monopolized b y elastic-
ity concepts. Elasticity has become the fasci-
nating pied piper of the structural world. Dras-
tic structural failures have jarred the confidence of
structures designers but it has taken more t h a n 10
years for us to adjust ourselves to a real suspicion
of elasticity analysis as the basic approach to
structural design. During these 10 years we have
gradually accepted the realization t h a t elasticity
fails to explain the real performance of a ship
structure under unidirectional loading.
Part of this reluctance to doubt the adequacy of
conventional design procedures stems from the
lack of substitute methods in which the designer
would have greater confidence. This paper de-
scribes limit design through plasticity analysis and
shows how it m a y be applied to ship structures.
These concepts are not new and they are not pana-
ceae, but there has been a recent reawakening.
This reawakening has been accompanied b y much
full-scale structural testingwhich has demonstrated
t h a t plasticity design methods are extremely
realistic when applied to structures of certain
types subject to unidirectional loading. The au-
thor points out t h a t the method fails to be realis-
tic when fatigue, plastic buckling or brittle frac-
ture are likely. This is not an apology because
elasticity analysis suffers from the same diffi-
culties. Plasticity design might be said to take us
one more step toward realism.
Actually limit design and plastic performance
have been a part of ship design for m a n y years.
Perhaps we are discussing only the formalization
and christening of an old m e m b e r of our family.
For instance the scantlings of oiltight bulkheads
are heavier t h a n those of subdivision bulkheads.
W h y is this so? Because tests to destruction were
made years ago and the actual limit of perform-
ance was o b s e r v e d . . S u b d i v i s i o n bulkheads are
 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
emergency safety devices and a greater risk is jus-
tified because of this and because loading from one
side only is expected. On the other hand oiltight
bulkheads sustain loads in normal service and in
m a n y cases the service loads occur on one side,
then on the other. A second example is the de-
sign practice on naval vessels. The weightwise
o p t i m u m elastic structure is seldom used. W h y ?
Because stiffeners are beefed-up to increase sur-
vival in the plastic range through the control of
plastic buckling. Finally it m a y be said t h a t the
rules of the classification societies are more em-
pirical t h a n theoretical because they are based
largely on a systematized.analysis of service fail-
ures. Thus these rules are really founded on a
form of limit design. Furthermore the criteria
are mainly reflections of plastic performance.
Limit design through plasticity analysis is forc-
ing its way into ship design somewhat faster than
we realize. One reason for this, obviously, is the
a d v a n c e m e n t of limit-design techniques. TheSe
a r e two other reasons however. The author
points out t h a t two of the shortcomings of limit
design in the plastic range are plastic buckling and
brittle fracture. The first reason which is hasten-
ing the introduction of plasticity design is that
some investigators, such as Beedle, Thurlimann
and Ketter at Lehigh, have succeeded in defining
and confirming simple cases of plastic buckling.
The second reason is that the introduction of
tougher steels into ship's hull structures m a y have
relegated brittle fractures to history.
Checking m a n y of the specific applications of
_plasticity design by physical tests m a y be nec-
essary to establish confidence prior to general ac-
ceptance. This should be less costly than the
myriads of tests to confirm elastic theory. One
reason is t h a t the required measurements appear
to be fewer and simpler to make. Another reason
is t h a t most structural tests of the past were car-
ried to failure and much can be learned from anal-
ysis of data from these earlier tests. For example
a series of tests was made at the David Taylor
Model Basin on diaphrams of various proportions.
These tests were carried well out into the plastic
•range and elaborate deformation records were kept.
The validity of the "plates and shells" approach
of the paper could be tested against the records of
the D T M B tests.
Plasticity analysis and limit design are here to
stay. T h e y represent a real step in bridging the
gap between m a n ' s theory and N a t u r e ' s laws. I
am convinced that this is the avenue which we
shall follow in-extrapolating our ship-design capa-
bilities into t h e larger and faster ships of the
future.
AND LIMITATIONS 195
PROF. J. HARVEY EVANS, Member: This paper
on plastic design methods is admirably fair in
pointing out the limitations of the methods as well
as their advantages. There should be no impres-
sion created t h a t here is a new approach which su-
percedes all others. As the author states, the
methods are still unsuitable for handling the buck-
ling problem. Energy-absorption methods are
better qualified to deal with the evaluation of
brittle fracture, although it appears that the ideal-
ized stress-strain curve assumed for limit-design
purposes should simplify determination of energy-
absorption estimates also. T h e r e will still re-
main the need for elastic theories in consideration
of fatigue as a mode of failure and, in addition,
wherever deflection becomes the criterion of de-
sign.
Nevertheless a large area of usefulness remains
within the capabilities of plastic-design methods
and their simplicity and disposition to provide
"safe side" results make them most attractive,
quite apart f r o m the rightness of the design phi-
losophy to prescribe design solutions based on the
ultimate load-carrying potential of the structure.
In m a n y cases there is even the absolute necessity
of resorting to ultimate-load design in order to ob-
tain any solution whatever. Whether we recog-
nize it as such or not, the design Of riveted joints
has always been on this basis because of the im-
possibility in the elastic range of predicting the ac-
tual stress situation in individual rivets, or in rows
of rivets, especially with variations in the con-
ditions surrounding the punching of holes and
driving the rivets, loading to obvious differences ok"
initial stress in the unloaded structure.
Probably the best place to consider plastic-de-
sign methods in ship structures is with bulkheads.
No ship-structure loading is without dynamic
components but bulkhead loadings have long been
assumed static with reasonable success. With
this assumption, the water-pressure loadings on
them are as well defined in distribution and mag-
nitude as any a ship is subject to. Components of
load other than the principal one due to the lateral
load are also so small as to be relatively insignifi-
cant. Except for tanker and double-bott0m t a n k
bulkheads the loading is unidirectional and in
m a n y cases is applied only a few times in the life of
the structure. Fatigue is hardly a factor. Clark-
son in his I N A paper of 1956 has given solutions
for plastic design of the plating at least for the
extreme panel ratios of infinity and l. To the
structural designer is left the analysis of the
stiffeners b u t the principles are already in hand
and are presented in essence in this paper.
The paper is in fact an excellent s u m m a r y of
196 PLASTIC DESIGN METHODS--ADVANTAGES
the state of plastic-design t e c h n i q u e and a fine
index to the best papers.and other source materials
to complete the background in specific areas as
necessary.
Finally, it is apparent that the plastic-design
methods described are not limited to materials
which exhibit a plateau on the stress-strain curve
so familiar ill mild steel. However, for a material
with a smooth transition from elastic to plastic
ranges and for which the yield strength, as con-
ventionally defined, is very close to the ultimate
strength, it appears that some modification to the
safety factor or yield-strength definition is in order.
AUTHOR'S CLOSURE
DR. D. C. DRUCKER: The contributions of the
discussers toward clarification of the proeedure.s
and concepts of limit analysis and design are most
welcome along with the encouraging words of
Admiral Cowart.
As Mr. Vasta states so clearly, the buckling
problem requires much additional experimental
•and theoretical study. The designer must keep
the danger of buckling in mind and compute or
estimate the buckling strength of his structure.
He must always remember that the ship does not
know whether the basis of the design calculations
are elastic or plastic. When failure involves
plastic action, elastic buckling loads, no matter
how carefully determined, will be irrelevant. Fig.
8 of the paper illustrates the possibility of the
actual load-carrying capacity M being appreciably
below the elastic buckling load.
Mr. Courtsal refers to the important work of
Van den Broeck and of Hrennikoff. I t is true that
the "shakedown" problem of reversed plastic de-
formation or continuing alternating deformation
must be considered (20). I t is rare, however,
that many repetitions of peak loads are en-
countered which produce alternating plastic ac-
AND LIMITATIONS
tion in large regions of structures. Low cycle
fatigue may, nevertheless, play a significant role
in the brittle fracture of ships.
Strain-hardening does not prohibit the applica-
tion of limit design to structures of alloy steel or
aluminum. Provided the ductility is sufficient, an
approximating perfectly plastic stress-strain curve
can be fitted to the material and limit theory can
be employed. In fact, experimental results with
aluminum alloys are often in better agreement
with limit theory than experiments with carbon
steel because strain-hardening is less severe when
it occurs. Results of tests in reference (13) are
quite convincing in. this respect. Professor
Evan's comment on the factor of safety is most
relevant in this connection.
The example provided by Mr. Lourenso is a
clear demonstration of the ease of plastic analysis.
Two peripheral points he discusses do call for
c~lditional comment. One is that, in general, a
lapse mechanism which gives the collapse load
need not be the collapse mechanism, Fig. 13.
The other is that although assemblages of struc-
tural elements are indeed difficult to analyze, pres-
ently available techniques of limit analysis do
offer l:easonable hope of success in cases where
elastic stresses are far beyond the reach of cal-
culation.
Mr. MaeCutcheon in picturesque language
states forcefully the fact t h a t ship designers ac-
tually are using limit concepts and procedures.
Professor Evans seconds this conclusion and points
out the need for elastic analysis in problems where
fatigue or vibration are important. This is not
in contradiction to Mr. MacCutcheon's, "Elastic-
ity has become the fascinating pied piper of the
structural world."
In conclusion the author would like to express
his appreciation to the members of the Society for
the opportunity to discuss so fully these problems
of mutual interest.