4.7 Article

Structural Analysis of a Barge Midship Section Considering the Still Water and Wave Load Effects

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse9010099

关键词

barge design; finite element method; Lloyd’ s Register rules; midship section; stiffened panels; structural analysis; von mises stress; wave load

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structural analysis of the barge midship section takes into account the effects of cargo, weight, and wave loads to ensure the structural safety of the barge.
Structural failures in the barge midship sections can cause operational delay, sinking, cargo loss and environmental damage. These failures can be generated by the barge and cargo weights, and wave load effects on the midships sections. These load types must be considered in the design of the barge midship sections. Here, we present the structural analysis of a barge midship section that has decreased up to 36.4% of its deck thickness caused by corrosion. This analysis is developed using finite element method (FEM) models that include the barge and cargo weights, and wave load effects. The FEM models regarded three cargo tanks in the midship section, containing the main longitudinal and transverse structural elements. In addition, the hull girder section modulus and the required deck thickness of the barge were calculated using Lloyd's Register rules. These rules were applied to estimate the permissible bending stresses at deck and bottom plates under sagging and hogging conditions, which agreed well with those of the FEM models. Based on FEM models, the maximum compressive normal stress and von Mises stress of the hull girder structure were 175.54 MPa and 215.53 MPa, respectively. These stress values do not overcome the yield strength (250 MPa) of the barge material, allowing a safe structural behavior of the barge. The structural modeling of the barge midship section can predict its structural behavior under different sagging and hogging conditions, considering the cargo, weight and wave loads.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据