Page 465 - Marine Structural Design
P. 465

Chapter 24 Random Variables and Unceriaing Analysis                    44 1

                    Corrosion, wear and fatigue cracks, which involve “time-dependent strength”
                 It should be noted that all of the above involve physical uncertainties in the materials used or
                 in the methods of ship construction. Uncertainties may also arise from methods of calculating
                 structural responses, including the effect of boundary conditions, and variability in physical
                 behavior of materials and structures.
                 The subjective uncertainties required judgement and include (Mansour and Faulkner, 1974):
                    Shear lag and other shear effects (considered negligible).
                    Major discontinuities; openings, superstructures.
                    Torsional and distortional warping.
                    “Poisson’s ratio” effects, especially at transverse bulkheads and diaphragms.
                    Stress redistribution arising from changes in stiffness due to deformations, inelasticity, or
                    both.
                    Gross-panel  compression nonlinearities; effective width,’ inelasticity, residual stresses and
                    shake-out effects (considered negligible).
                 Other subjective uncertainties not mentioned in the above are residuary strength after ultimate
                 strength of global panel, which may significantly affect ultimate strength and its variability.

                 24.6  References

                 1.  Ang, A.H.4 and Tang, W.  (1975,  1984), “Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning
                    and Design”,  Volume I & II, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
                 2.  Benjamin, J. and Allin Cornell, C., (1970),  “Probability, Statistics and Decision for Civil
                    Engineers”,  McGraw-Hill, Inc.
                 3.  Mansour,  A.E.  (1972),  “Probiblastic  Design  Concept  in  Ship  Structural  Safety  and
                    Reliability”, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 80, pp. 64-97.
                 4.  Mansour, A and Faulkner, D.  (1973),  “On Applying the Statistical Approach to Extreme
                    Sea Loads and Ship Hull Strength”, RTNA Trans., Vol.  115, pp. 277-313.
                 5.  Mansour, A.  E.,  et a1  (1997),  “Assessment of Reliability of Ship Structures”, SSC-398.
                    Ship Structures Committee.
                 6.  Melchers, R.E. (1999),  “Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction”, 2”d Edition, John
                    Wiley & Sons Ltd.
                 7.  Nikolaidis,  E.  and  Kaplan,  P.,  (1991),  “Uncertainties  in  Stress  Analysis  on  Marine
                    Structures”, Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-363.
                 8.  Nikolaidis, E. and Hughes, O.F.,  Ayyub, B.M.,  and White, G.J.  (1993),  “A Methodology
                    for  Reliability  Assessment  of  Ship  Structures”,  Ship  Structures  Symposium  93.
                    SSC/SNAME, Arlington, VA, pp H1-H10.
                 9.  Stiansen,  S.G.,  Mansour,  A.E.,  Jan,  H.Y.  and  Thayamballi,  A.  (1980),  “Reliability
                    Methods in Ship Structures”, J. of RINA.
                 10. Thoft-Christensen, P.  and  Baker, M.J., (1982),  “Structural Reliability,  23eory  and  its
                    Applications”,  Springer-Verlag.
   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470