Search

Stiffened plates are the most common structural units used in different structural applications ranging from buildings and bridges to ships and offshore structures. The present paper aiming at investigating the influence of using Y-stiffeners profile instead of conventional stiffeners on the load carrying capacity of ship deck panels under vertical hull girder bending moment. ANSYS (Release 15.0) nonlinear finite element software was used to verify the ultimate strength results obtained from applying the International Association Classification Societies-Common Structural Rules (IACS-CSR) on both conventional and novel deck panels. The developed numerical model with conventional stiffeners profile was validated in a good agreement with a benchmark study results included in the International Ship Structures Committee (ISSC). Furthermore, both analytical and numerical simulation results were in good agreement that demonstrates the capability of using IACS-CSR for designing the new stiffeners profile in practical applications. In comparison with the conventional stiffeners profile, the proposed Y-stiffeners resulted in a considerable increase in the panel safety margin to weight (area) ratio and higher ultimate strength. Moreover, the numerical simulations provided that implementing the Y-stiffeners profile can also rise the first yielding stress point of the structural response with nearly the same strain absorption in comparison with T-stiffeners profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, four three-node triangular finite element models which can readily be incorporated into the standard finite element program framework are devised via a multi-field variational functional for the bounded plane Helmholtz problem. In the models, boundary and domain fields are independently assumed. The former is constructed by nodal interpolation and the latter comprises nonsingular solutions of the Helmholtz equation. The equality of the two fields are enforced along the element boundary. Among the four devised models, the most accurate one is 1/3 to 1/2 less erroneous than the conventional single-field model in most examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]