Structural Safety, 5 (1988) 17-34

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

17

UNCERTAINTY MODELLING IN PLATE BUCKLING

C. Guedes Soares
Shipbuilding Engineering Program, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Lisbon (IST), 1096 Lisbon (Portugal)

ABSTRACT

A brief account is given of the basic principles of uncertainty modelling with first-order second-moment methods. The main features of the behaviour of plates subjected to compressive loads are considered and various prediction methods are compared. The governing parameters of plate behaviour are used to construct probabilistic models for the laboratory test situation, for the analysis and for the design of plates. The uncertainty of the strength predictions is quantified in the different cases. Special attention is given to the implications of problem formulation and to the methodology of uncertainty modelling.

1. INTRODUCTION

Probabilistic methods have an increasingly more widespread use in engineering design because of their ability to quantify the uncertain quantities that are present. The description of the uncertainty in design is usually concentrated in one uncertainty measure which is determined using reliability methods. These methods are now relatively well developed for the types of applications that have been considered in the field of ship structures. It appears that at present the applications are lying somewhat behind the possibilities which the available theory already offers. In the field of ship structures various applications have already been implemented [1,2] but their main objective seems to be the illustration of the potentialities of reliability theory. Whenever the emphasis is on constructing realistic models and on obtaining quantitative results for practical use, the careful modelling of the uncertainty sources relevant to each problem becomes a major consideration. Such detailed analysis has been less frequently found in the literature. In the recent past, the author has studied various aspects of uncertainty modelling of the load variables relevant to ship structural design [3], having in mind its applicability to code calibration [4]. The present work represents a continuation of that effort, being the initiation of a
* Presented at the First International Symposium on Ship's Reliability, Varna, Bulgaria, September 1985. 0167-4730/88/$03.50 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

18 corresponding study dealing now with the strength parameters that influence ship structural design. Plates are the main structural components in ship structures. Their buckling strength is especially important because it involves unstable behaviour and influences the safety of the hull girder. This work considers the different aspects involved in the uncertainty modelling of the buckling strength of a plate element. Ivanov and Rousev [5] presented one of the few existing studies of plate buckling strength from a probabilistic viewpoint. They took into account the uncertainty of material properties and of plate geometry, including initial imperfections and they extracted some conclusions about the relative importance of the different variables. This work follows a similar approach but considers in more detail the various possible cases of uncertainty modelling as well as additional parameters that contribute to the buckling strength of a plate.

2. UNCERTAINTY MODELLING The prediction of plate strength can be required in different situations. In all of them the basic theory of mechanics used to predict the strength is the same, the type of loading or of boundary conditions being the relevant differences. As concerns uncertainty modelling, different situations can bring new variables to the problem, leading to distinct formulations. Probably the two most clear differences arise between the analysis and the design situations. When analysing a plate, its environment is relatively well defined as concerns the boundaries, loading, geometry and material properties. Uncertainties may still exist about the quantification of those parameters, as, for example, one may not be certain of the degree of restraint that the supports are providing to the edges of the plate. However, because the conditions are defined, it is possible to use experimental or theoretical methods to decrease the uncertainty through further studies. In the above example one would analyse the rigidity of the plate supports. Design aims at providing the plate with enough strength to resist the loads likely to occur during its lifetime. Therefore, design involves a higher level of uncertainty than analysis, that is, in addition to the uncertainty involved in the prediction of plate strength for a given set of conditions, there is also the lack of knowledge about which set of conditions has to be considered. Furthermore, this uncertainty cannot be reduced by further studies because it involves events that will occur only at a future time. In any situation different types of uncertainties are generally present and can be included in the formulation. There are fundamental uncertainties, also called inherent, objective or physical, which represent the nature of the process under study. Examples of this type are the variability of the wind or the waves at one location and the variability of material properties and plate dimensions which result from a manufacturing process. Strength predictions are made by using theories based on the principles of mechanics. However, different theories can be used to study the same problem. The differences between them are at the level of the assumptions on which they are based, of the approximations taken during the computations and even of the number of parameters accounted for. When various strength theories are used to make predictions for the same problem, different results are usually obtained. The differences between the predictions give an indication of the uncertainty involved in the modelling processes. On the other hand, one given theory has different degrees of accuracy when applied to different types of problems, in that some of them

19 involve conditions that are closer to the theoretical assumptions than others. This type of uncertainty is called the model uncertainty although some authors prefer to call it subjective uncertainty. It is important to note that often the more complex theoretical models do not lead to less uncertainty. Although more accurate, they can be more uncertain because they involve a larger number of variables, some of which may be very uncertain. A different type of variability, which is called statistical is the one related with the estimation of the uncertainty in specific quantities, independent of whether they represent fundamental or modelling uncertainties. The statistical parameters are estimated from samples of a given population; the uncertainty of the predictions depends on the size of the samples and on the estimation technique adopted. A complete analysis of uncertainty must include all types of the uncertainties. Therefore, it is specific of the problem formulated and of the mechanical theory used in strength modelling. In this study special attention will be given to the influence that problem formulation has on the development of the uncertainty model and even on the quantification of the uncertain parameters. Uncertainty will be handled by first-order second-moment methods, which are based on linear approximations to the functional relations and on a representation of the uncertain quantities by their two lowest statistical moments [2-5]. Thus, the mean of a function f of several parameters x, is given by the value of the function at the mean value of the variables: f(x,)=f(Y,), i = 1, 2 , . . . , n (1)

The variance of the function is given by: (2)

i=1 j = l

where p,j, the correlation coefficient between x~ and x j, is equal to one when i is equal to j, and o~ is the standard deviation of x i. The uncertainty is characterized by o! or by the coefficient of variation (cov) which is given by:

= ol//(x,)

(3)

3. PREDICTION OF PLATE BUCKLING STRENGTH To decide which variables to include in an analysis of uncertainty of the plate buckling predictions, it is necessary to identify all the factors that influence plate strength and to quantify them. A detailed review of the methods of analysis and their results is given in Ref. [6], while in Ref. [7] the main features of plate buckling strength are summarized. The buckling strength and post-buckling behaviour of plates is mainly governed by their slenderness, aspect ratio, initial imperfections, residual stresses, boundary conditions and type of loading. The slenderness indicates whether a plate will buckle in an elastic, elasto-plastic or fully plastic fashion, each of which with its own particularities.

20 The aspect ratio of the plate has to do with the number of half waves in which it buckles; the plate strength is a function of that ratio. In general, slender plates have a tendency to buckle in a number of half waves of length close to the plate width. Thus each buckled zone can be idealized as a plate element with an aspect ratio of one. However, with the occurrence of plastic deformations, which are more likely in stocky plates, the aspect ratio of the buckled areas tends to be smaller, approaching values of 0.7 and 0.8 [8]. The aspect ratio is closely related with the effect of initial imperfections. The plate strength is significantly reduced by imperfections that have a shape equal to the fundamental buckling mode, that is, a shape corresponding to half waves with a length equal to that of the elemental buckled area mentioned above. The other shapes of imperfections may have a tendency to strengthen the plates, although leading to a steeper post-buckling unloading [9]. The ship plates tend to exhibit imperfections whose shape is dominated by the first buckling mode (one half wave). Thus, plates of higher aspect ratio can have their strength increased by the initial imperfections. Recently it has been established [10] that the presence of localized imperfections can affect the plate strength as much as the global unfavourable shapes of equal amplitude. The amplitude of the initial imperfections also influences the plate strength, reducing it with increasing amplitude, in the case of square plates. Plates of larger aspect ratio are on the average less sensitive to the amplitude because its effect on strength depends also on the shape of the imperfections, strengthening the plate in some cases and weakening it on others. Because the effect of initial imperfections depends on the aspect ratio and on the imperfection's shape and amplitude, the latter of which are largely uncertain quantities, it may be appropriate to have a strength model that does not account explicitly for the influence of these parameters. In this case the variability of the initial imperfections will be a major cause of the model uncertainty of the method. This has been the basic philosophy adopted by Faulkner [11] who advocates a strength model that predicts the uniaxial compressive strength ~ of a plate simply supported in the four edges by an expression independent of initial deflections: ou 2 q~- oo - X 1 X2 (4)

(b/t) oo~%/E is

where ~_, o is the ultimate load carrying capacity, % is the yield stress of the material, X = the plate slenderness, b is the plate width, t its thickness and E is the Young modulus of the material. This expression can be multiplied by reduction factors that account for the effects of residual stresses and of combined loading, as considered in Section 4.2. Ivanov and Rousev [5], on the other hand, explicitly accounted for the amplitude of initial deflections 3o( = Wo/t ) in their formulation:
= 1 1 + ( 0 . 3 x + 0.08) o

(5)

Yet another approach is the one of Carlsen [12], which deals explicitly with both initial deflections and weld-induced residual stresses:
=

(21 0.9t(1
X2

1 - -if-

2,, t

(6)

where ~t is the width of the zone of tension residual stresses at the plate's edges.

21

1.0-

\.\

Fig. 1. Simply supported plate strength predicted by the methods of Faulkner (F), Ivanov and Rousev (I, R) and Carlsen (C). To compare the predictions of the three methods it is necessary to ensure that the last two refer to the same conditions used in the derivation of the first method, that is, no residual stresses (7 = 0) and average initial deflections. An expression for the amplitude of initial deflections is obtained by using the average between the coefficients of proportionality obtained from the proposals of Faulkner [11] and A n t o n i o u [13]: 80 - w - 0.11 ~k 2 t (7)

where w 0 is the transverse displacement. Introducing eqn. (7) in eqns. (5) and (6) yields the curves indicated in Fig. 1. Some differences are apparent although the discrepancies are not large. As regards the methodology of uncertainty modelling, which is a major concern in this work, it is indifferent which m e t h o d to use. Hereafter the method of Faulkner will be adopted to illustrate the particularities of uncertainty modelling in plate buckling. Extensions to include the effect of residual stresses, b o u n d a r y conditions and combined loading will be considered in the next section.

4. UNCERTAINTY MODELS FOR PLATE BUCKLING

To show clearly the various existing levels of uncertainty, it is convenient to study three problems: the analysis of a plate specimen in a laboratory test, the analysis of a plate element in a structure and the design of such a plate. In all three cases the material properties of the plate may be more or less uncertain, depending on whether one uses their nominal values or the actual ones as determined from tests. However, it is more likely to conduct material tests when one deals with laboratory specimens than when one considers the plate elements that compose a structure. In a laboratory test one can say that the plate geometry is known as well as the residual stresses and initial deflections which will be close to zero unless artificially created. The support

22

conditions involve small uncertainty and the load distribution and intensity is usually carefully controlled. Going from the plate in a laboratory test to the plate in a structure brings additional uncertainties. The plate is generally welded to the rest of the structure implying that it will have weld-induced deformations and residual stresses. Their distribution and magnitude depend on the details of the welding procedure, such as the type of joint, type of welding, number and sequence of weld passes, to name some of the parameters. Apart from the possibility of varying the welding procedure, the weld-induced deformations and residual stresses created by the same welding procedure in a series of identical plates will exhibit some variability, which can be larger or smaller depending on factors such as the degree of automation of the welding. Thus, the degree of uncertainty in the weld-induced defects depends on whether one is dealing with one specific plate element which has all the actual welding parameters controlled and which even allows the imperfections to be measured or whether one deals with any one of many similar plate elements in the structure. In this case it is necessary to use nominal values instead of actual values, introducing additional uncertainties. The plate element in a structure also has less well defined support conditions, load distribution and load intensity because these quantities depend now on the overall behaviour of the structure. They are in fact the result of the interaction between the global structural behaviour and the local plate response. The degree of this interaction, which varies with structure, is dependent on the relative contribution that the plate gives to the structure. The design problem is basically the analysis of a plate at a random point in the lifetime of the structure. In this case, history effects must be considered, bringing a new level of uncertainty. The operation of the structure during part of its lifetime may change the pattern of residual stresses, of permanent deformations, of support conditions and consequently of load distribution on the plate element. The geometry of the plate may also change due to effects such as corrosion. Additional complications may arise from the presence of fatigue cracks that initiate at the weldings and that will affect the rigidity of the supports and their load transmission capability. Normally the material properties will remain unchanged unless unexpected conditions such as very high temperatures occur. Design requires the probabilistic representation of the time variation of the referred parameters as well as of the load intensity [3]. In this work, only the variation of the strength variables will be considered. In any of the three problems considered the non-dimensional plate slenderness is a governing parameter. To quantify its uncertainty it is necessary to consider its four independent variables, that is, the thickness t and width b of the plate, and the yield stress o0 and Young modulus E of the material. Typical values for the coefficient of variation (cov) of t and b are 0.04 and 0.01 respectively [14]. The uncertainties of % and E depend on whether one is considering one batch of plates from one steel mill or batches from different mills. In the last case the representative values of the cov of oo and E are 0.10 and 0.06, respectively [15,3]. The variability of o0 within one batch is around 0.07 or 0.08. The uncertainty of X, according to second-moment methods is obtained from eqn. (2):

v =v'2+v +Y+T+EE
i :gj

--

PijViVj

i, j = 1-4

(8)

where x~ represents any of the four independent variables.

23 TABLE 1 Uncertainty (cov) of the basic variables Variables Same batch Different batches t 0.04 b 0.01 oo 0.08 0.10 E 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07

TABLE 2 Relative contribution of the different variables to the variance of the slenderness 2, Variables Same batch Different batches t 0.31 0.43 b 0.02 0.03 oo 0.49 0.43 E 0.18 0.11

The variables are expected to be statistically independent except for o0 and E, which may be correlated because they are both material properties. However, no information about the magnitude of this correlation could be found in the literature. Neglecting the correlation, Vx becomes 0.07 and 0.06 when using the above values, as summarized in Table 1. The relative contribution of each parameter uncertainty to the variance of X, that is, the relative value of the terms in eqn. (8), are indicated in Table 2. It can be concluded that b need not be treated as an uncertain quantity and that o0 and t give the main contributions to the variance of ~. This observation emphasizes the fact that the relative importance of the variables cannot be determined only on the basis of their cov, since for example in the case of the same batch, t and E have the same cov of 0.04 although their contribution to the uncertainty of X is 31% and 18%, respectively. For different batches, both t and o0 have a contribution of 43% despite their different cov (0.04 and 0.10).

4.1 The laboratory situation

In the laboratory situation one deals typically with a series of experiments conducted often in different laboratories, which report the nominal or actual values of the plate dimensions, material properties and measured ultimate load carrying capacity. One example of this case is the series of tests used by Faulkner [11] to evaluate his theoretical proposal (eqn. 4). He used about 90 test results from simply supported flat plates under uniaxial compression. The tests showed some spreading about the equation predictions, the bounds of which he considered to represent three standard deviations to each side of the mean. For a normally distributed error this implies that 99% of the values are within the bounds. However, about 7% of his points were outside the limits so that it seems more appropriate to consider that interval as corresponding to 3.6 instead of 6 standard deviations. With this interpretation, the total uncertainty of q~ proposed by Faulkner is scaled up to yield: 1,I, = 0.083 V,=0.033X for for 2~~< 2.5 X> 2.5 (9a) (9b)

24

The variability should be the result of the uncertainty in the governing parameters and of the model uncertainty. Following second-moment methods, (eqn. 2), the fundamental uncertainty Vf is given by: (10) where X is the nominal value at which the uncertainty is calculated. The model uncertainty can be represented by an uncertain quantity q~m with unit mean value defined as:

~=~m(~ k

1 2)

(11)

In this case the total uncertainty of ~ at the nominal value X is given by:

V*2 = [[ 2(1 - X) ]2V2 + (2X_ 1)

V2

(12)

where Vm is the cov of ~m and it was assumed that the model uncertainty is independent of X. From eqns. (12) and (9) the value of the model uncertainty can be derived. Figure 2 indicates how the fundamental and model uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty when Vx is assumed equal to 0.07. It can be observed that accounting for the uncertainty in the basic parameters leads to a cov between 0.03 and 0.06, which is only part of the observed variability of the tests. The residual coefficient of variation is atributed to the model uncertainty, which takes values between 0.06 and 0.10. It accounts for the additional sources of uncertainty that are not explicitly considered in the model, that is, small initial imperfections and residual stresses as well as experimental errors. Of these, the first are probably the most important, so that the model uncertainty can be interpreted as a measure of the effect of initial imperfections. It should be observed that the model uncertainty has a minimum value at X = 2.5 indicating that it could be represented by some quadratic function of X, in which case the correlation
%

10

-10

.8

- 08

-06

@ -,O&

/
iI t t

//
i
2.0

-.02
I
30

10

Fig. 2. Mean plate strength (q~), fundamental (Vf), model (Vm) and total (V,) uncertainty in laboratory tests.

25

coefficient PmX becomes small and the assumption of statistical independence made in eqn. (12) is justified. If one uses the actual values of ~ instead of their nominal values, the uncertainty of X is zero and eqn. (9) represents only the model uncertainty (see eqn. 12). This is, thus, one way of assessing the model uncertainty of any theoretical method. This approach has been used in Ref. [7] to assess the model uncertainty of various methods of stiffened plate design for compressive loads. It is interesting to note that the values obtained ranged from 0.07 to 0.12 depending on the method; these values are only slightly higher than what is indicated in Fig. 2 for the plate element. The extension of Faulkner's method to the stiffened plate case showed a global model uncertainty (over all X values considered) of 0.12. 4.2 The analysis situation In this case the plate element will be considered to be part of an as-built structure. The emphasis on "as built" is necessary to discard all the effects that arise during operation and that will be dealt with under the design situation. To be connected to the rest of the structure, the plate needs to be welded, introducing residual stresses and initial deflections. The junctions between the plate and the structure constitute boundary conditions that are between the ideal cases of simple supports, considered in Section 4.1, and clamped supports. Finally, the plate will be subjected, in many cases, to a more complicated load pattern than the uniaxial compression considered in Section 4.1. These three types of effects will now be addressed. 4.2.1 Effect of welding Welding induces permanent deflections and residual stresses in the plate elements. Faulkner [11] accounts explicitly only for the effect of residual stresses by reducing the isolated plate strength to become: c) = '~b -- '~echr where '~b is given by eqn. (4) and the new factors are: (13)

Et ( 14-52 )2
~e = 1.0
o r

for for

0 <X < 2.69 ), > 2.69

(14a) (14b) (15)

~br=

27/
--

Oo (b/t)-

where E t is the tangent modulus of elasticity and or is the residual stress. The functions ~,r and q'r represent the effect of inelastic deformations and of residual stresses, which are assumed to be tensile yielding (%) in a width of ~/t along the plate edges, and compressive (Or) in the central (b - 2~t) region. Faulkner [11] considered that ~7 takes values from 4.5 to 6.0 for as-welded ships although Somerville et al. [16] have also measured some lower values. Adopting Faulkner's suggestion and considering that the referred interval represents the limits that are two standard deviations away from the mean, one can describe ~ by 77 = 5.25 Vn = 0.07 (16a,b)

26 <b
10"

v< D
-.10

8"

-08

- .06

A.

O~

2"

-.02

,!o

~'o

~!o
residual stresses and fundamental uncertainty in the last case

Fig. 3. Mean plate strength without (~b) and with ( )

To determine the uncertainty of q~ one must take into account that both q~b and ~E are functions of X and that q'r is a function of t and b which are independent variables of X. This implies that the expression for the variance of if, which is a fundamental type of uncertainty, will contain several cross products in addition to the usual sum of squares:
2 al(X -

a2)

kEeP,
+ 4d& r

+ 4~bEdpr

-- -- a3--X4]2(/

Vt2 + V#)

[al(~ a2 )

a,--X4]~(~
a3 + )k4

nt-

.-[-

dpEt~r
1 --2-~t/b

)2
V~ (17)

where a 1 = 2, a 2 = 1 and a 3 = 52.4. It should be noted that this expression does not account for any correlation that may exist between o and E or between 7/ and any of the other variables. The effect of the residual stresses in decreasing the plate strength can be seen in Fig. 3

Vi 2

5-

r'
10

I
20

ib

30

Fig. 4. Relative contribution of each variable to the fundamental uncertainty of ,~ (eqns. 13-14).

27

together with the fundamental uncertainty of q~ predicted by eqns. (14)-(17), for the values of cov from Table 1 (diff. batches). The results show that the residual stresses reduce the plate's carrying capacity by an amount that increases with )~. This reflects the fact that slender plates buckle mainly in an elastic fashion. The fundamental uncertainty of the predictions is greater in the intermediate range of )~, corresponding to elastic-plastic buckling, where it takes values between 0.05 and 0.10. These values should be compared with 0.03 and 0.06, which were the corresponding values obtained for the laboratory situation (Fig. 2). The relative contribution of each variable to the total uncertainty is indicated in Fig. 4. It is clear that the most important variable is o0, that b can be neglected and that the other three variables have similar weight although varying with )~. Comparing these results with Table 2 shows a change in the relative importance of t and o0 which was similar there.
4.2.2 Effect of boundary conditions

As the plate element is part of a more complex structure, its boundaries are not often as free as the simple support conditions that have been considered up to now. In many cases the edges are relatively restrained from transverse displacement and somewhat forced to remain straight, although with some freedom to in-plane displacements. When the plates are adjacent to heavy stiffeners or to longitudinal bulkheads, the degree of restraint can be high and the boundary conditions may be close to the clamped situation. Faulkner [11] proposed a series of expressions: 2.5 q'b-- ~ q~e= 1.5625 ~2 for for 0<X<3.5 )~ >1 3.5 (18)

( 25.24Xz ) 2 159.2+X4

(19a) (19b)

~E = 1

which should substitute eqns. (4) and (14) when using eqn. (13) to predict the buckling strength of clamped plates. The fundamental uncertainty is in this case given by eqn. (17) with a, = 2.5, a 2 = 1.5625 and a 3 = 159.2. It can be considered that in the general case the plate strength will lie between the predictions for the simply supported and the clamped plate. Thus, a bayesian viewpoint can be adopted to determine the plate strength as the weighted average of the predictions for the two limiting situations: q' =P~s + (1 -p)q,~ (20) where the subscripts s and c stand for simple supported and clamped and the constant p varies between one and zero. The value of p represents the degree of belief that the pinned boundary conditions are a more realistic model than the clamped conditions. The uncertainty of this prediction is given by:
O2 =p20s 2 + (1 - - p ) 2 0 2 + 2p(1-P)OsOcPsc

(21)

where os and oc are obtained from eqn. (17) and Psc represents the correlation coefficient between q~c and q~s.This correlation is expected to be high because both expressions depend on the same geometrical and material properties of the plate.

28 ,::b
I0" \.\ -12 l/ "\ ~. -09
-06

v~
15

/ 2 P

?, I!0 2!0 &O Fig. 5. Simply supported plate mean strength (~ks),mixed supports plate mean strength (~) and uncertainty without (Vl) and with support uncertainty (V2), and with model uncertainty (V3).

03

The formulation can be further generalized by considering that the coefficient p is also an uncertain quantity characterized by a mean ~ and a standard deviation %. Then the uncertainty of ff becomes: o~ =~2Osz + (1 - ~)202 + 2~(1 -~)OsOc& c + (~s - ~c)2o2 (22)

with the assumption that p is statistically independent of the other variables. To show some illustrative results (Fig. 5) p was considered to be 0.50 and the correlation coefficient p~ was set equal to one. The curves show that, except for the stocky plates, the clamped conditions provide an increased strength relative to the simply supported case. Figure 5 also indicates the uncertainty of ~ both excluding (Va) and including (V2) the effect of the uncertainty of p (eqns. 21 and 22), which was assumed to be V = 0.20. e It can be observed that V1 exhibits a trend similar to that of V, for the simply supported plate (Fig. 3). It even takes similar quantitative values (from 0.03 to 0.07), showing that the cov's of the clamped plate are not too different from the ones of the simple supported case. The curve of Vz, which includes the uncertainty of p, is almost parallel to V1, being higher by about 0.02. This is a relatively small value if one takes in consideration the higher value of 0.20 that was atributed to Vp. It is possible to develop yet another probabilistic model to represent the effect of the boundary conditions, as an alternative to eqn. (20). The plate strength can be predicted on the basis of the pinned plate strength qSs, affected by a bias 4'be which represents the effect of the boundary conditions:
= ,t,s,q,,,o (23)

In this case ePbc is an uncertain quantity with a mean value that is a function of p and X, as results from eqns. (20) and (23). Its variance is derived by eqn. (22). A simpler model can also be used, making q~bc only a function of p, in which case ffbc takes the mean value of the ratio ~/~s obtained for different values of X. The uncertainty of ck in this case is given by:
V~2 = Vs 2 -.F V2c (24)

29 neglecting any correlation. Since the value of Vs that results from eqn. (17) is similar to V1 and V2 from eqns. (21) and (22), the increased uncertainty of q) due to the model uncertainty Vb is the counterpart of the simplicity of the model. In the case of p being equal to 0.5, ~bc can be described by a mean value of 1.1 and a cov of 0.07. Figure 5 shows the cov (V3) that is obtained from eqn. (24) for these values. There is an average increase of 0.03 over V2, and V3 now lies in the range 0.07-0.12. It is interesting to note that even in the most uncertain cases, the cov of q, has an upper limit of only 0.10 to 0.12, despite the uncertainty of several initial parameters being 0.10 and even higher.
4.2.3 Effect o! combined loading

Another consequence of considering one plate element included in a larger structure is that often the loading will not be exclusively uniaxial. Some degree of biaxial compression may be present as well as shear loading and bending due to lateral pressure. The effect of these additional loads is complex and not yet completely clarified. Besides the parameters considered in the previous section, the effect of these loads will also depend on the loading sequence and aspect ratio of the plate. The common approach to deal with this case is to use interaction formulas, several of which are collected in Ref. [7]. To illustrate a possible approach, the proposal of Harding and Dowling [17] will be adopted here because it involves all possible types of loads: o~ + -+

bJ

;u

= 1

(25)

where o x and Oy indicate the axial stresses, o b the bending stress, ~- the shear stress and the subscript u stands for the ultimate carrying capacity. This expression implies that in the presence of all types of loads, the uniaxial load carrying capacity will be decreased by a factor q)L: ~ = ~u~L where q~u is the uniaxial load carrying capacity given by eqns. (13), (20) or (23) and: qbL --= [(l -- qb~-- qb2bd)2-- *2] (26)

1 2[
=

l--(~u)2--(~bu]

ob:12
J

Oyu

where q,, q)bd and q,y are the terms in parentheses in the second expression. The three new q)'s can be treated as uncertain and their effects on the uncertainty of q)L and of q) can be determined by applying eqn. (2). It must be noted that despite the existing lack of accurate descriptions of the effect of combined loading and of its governing parameters, strength predictions are not much affected whenever the load is predominantly uniaxial. For example, in the case of having all the three q)'s in eqn. (27) being equal to 0.1 or to 0.2, the resulting values of q)L are 0.97 and 0.90, respectively, showing that the uniaxial strength is decreased by 10% at most.

4.3 The design situation

In this case one is interested in having a plate element that is capable of resisting the most adverse situation that is likely to occur during its utilization. Thus the problem can be divided in

30 two aspects: (i) the definition of the design parameters, i.e., the worst combination of values that is still likely to occur; and (ii) the analysis of plate strength for those values of the parameters. The latter is the same as the problem of Section 4.2 although the values of the parameters may be different. The definition of the design situation is to a great extend a load combination study [3]. However the strength variables that may change with time will be considered here, e.g. the case of thickness changes due to corrosion, of the reduction of weld-induced residual stresses due to the shake-out produced by the alternate loading of the hull, and of the permanent local deformations created by overloads and shocks occurring during operation of the structure. The increased permanent deflections can have a noticeable effect since the local imperfections can be as detrimental as the global ones [10]. This cannot not be accounted for explicitely by the method used to illustrate the uncertainty modelling concepts. The shake-out of the residual stresses appears as a decrease of the value of ~/ which is now expected to vary between 3 and 4.5 following Faulkner [11]. Accordingly, 77 will be described by: = 3.75 Vn = 0 . 1 0 (28)

instead of by eqn. (16). The distinct problem brought by the design situation is the modelling of the effect of corrosion in decreasing the initial plate thickness t at a rate of k mm per unit time. The plate thickness t K after a time t, is given by:
t~: = t - k t ,

(29)

Ships are surveyed regularly and their plating is replaced whenever its thickness becomes smaller than a certain limiting value, which will be assumed here to be 75% of the initial thickness. Because the surveys are done at discrete time intervals, it may happen that a plate element which has an adequate thickness at a survey may be thinner than the 75% limit when substituted at the next survey. On the other hand, the useful lifetime of the plate may finish when its thickness is 80% of the initial value to avoid the previous situation. Thus, although the limit value for substitution of the plate may be well established, the actual thickness of the plate when discarded will vary to both sides of that value. The actual values of this variability can be determined from a statistical analysis of survey data. The important point to keep in mind is that the plate elements will have lifetimes of uncertain durations. In designing, one wants the plate to exhibit enough strength to resist the unfavourable loads that occur at a random point in time. This point is assumed to occur anywhere along the plate's lifetime with equal probability. The plate's lifetime can be derived from eqn. (29) by equating t~ to the limit value of 0.75t:
t L = 0.25t/k

(30)

If the design point t d is uniformly distributed between zero and t L, its probability density function is given by: f(td) =
1/t e

(31)

having a mean of 0.5 t e and a cov of 0.577. The expected value of the plate thickness at the design point can be determined by introducing the mean value of t a in eqn. (29): ?x = ? - k ? d = 0.875? (32)

31
v
-15

10-

.8-

-.12

6-

.09

/
d l .2iI t!

/
I

,,

-.06

-.03

Fig. 6. Mean value and cov of the design strength (~d) and the analysis strength (t~a) of a simply supported plate. where use was made of eqn. (1). It is important to observe that in this first-order formulation the mean plate thickness resulted independent of the corrosion rate k, depending only on the limiting thickness for plate substitution and, obviously, on the initial thickness. The uncertainty of the plate thickness, as determined by second-moment methods results in: t'~ 0.875 ] + 0.---~-~) ( V~ + V2) (33)

where the uncertainty of the corrosion rate k now also contributes to the cov of t K. Considering the two extreme cases of 0 and 0.40 for the cov of the corrosion rate and adopting V, = 0.04 and V, = 0.577, results in the values of 0.09 and 0.11 for the cov of t/. Therefore, the effect of corrosion can be summarised by stating that it decreases the expected plate thickness and increases its uncertainty. For the present assumptions the mean was decreased by 12.5% and the uncertainty increased from 0.04 to 0.10. The smaller thickness considered in the design situation increases the plate slenderness, decreasing its "laboratory strength" (eqn. 4). It also increases the effect of the residual stresses but the decrease in the mean value of , / d u e to the shake-out of the residual stresses more than compensates the thickness effect, decreasing the total influence of the residual stresses. The smaller slenderness of the plate also delays the onset of plasticity, increasing thus the value of fie- The net effect of these changes relative to the analysis situation is indicated in Fig. 6. The results indicate that in the design situation there is a decrease in the mean strength and an increase in the uncertainty. Both changes contribute to decreasing the characteristic value of which is taken as the mean minus a certain number of standard deviations. The results for the design as well as for the analysis case deal only with fundamental uncertainty. However, a more realistic assessment should include also the effect of the model uncertainty. The one that was derived from laboratory tests in Section 4.1, (eqns. 11 and 12) is, strictly speaking, applicable only to q~b in eqn. (13). However, it is probably similar to the one that would be derived for clamped plates and even for plates with residual stresses and initial deflections, as indicated by the stiffened-plate results of Ref. [7]. The effect of the model uncertainty t~m will affect the previous predictions fff by:
t~ = ~bf~bm

(34)

32

and the total uncertainty will be given by: V~= V,2 + V~ (35)

where 4~f is given by eqn. (13) or (20) and Vf results from eqns. (17), (22) or (33). Assuming that the values of q~m and Vm derived for simply supported plates are applicable to the analysis and design cases, eqn. (35) predicts that V~, the total cov, becomes 0.10 to 0.12 in the analysis situation, as compared to 0.05 to 0.09 of Vf (Va in Fig. 6). In the design situation the fundamental uncertainty (Vd in Fig. 6) is increased from 0.10-0.15 to 0.12-0.17 due to the inclusion of model uncertainty.

5. C O N C L U S I O N S Various aspects of uncertainty modelling of steel plates under predominantly compressive stresses have been considered. Special attention was given to the presentation of the methodology of uncertainty modelling and to the effect that different problem formulations have on the development of the uncertainty models. The strength model that has been used to illustrate the concepts does not account explicitely for the effects of initial deflections. All the other parameters that influence plate strength have been included in the analysis. In all cases the plate width was found to have negligible influence on the strength uncertainty. In the case of the isolated plate, the thickness and the yield stress contributed each about 40% of the total variance while the rest was due to the Young modulus. For the analysis of a plate element, o0 contributed 50% of the total variance, while t, E and ~/were responsable for about 17% each. In the design situation the contribution of t increased to about 32% and ,/ became negligible. For the plate element the fundamental strength uncertainty was found to be a function of plate slenderness, being larger for ~ between 1.5 and 2.5 and decreasing for small and large Ms. In the unfavourable region the cov of 4~ was between 0.05 and 0.09 for the analysis situation, increasing to 0.10 to 0.15 in the design case. Combining model with fundamental uncertainties leads to covs of 0.10 to 0.12 in the analysis situation and of 0.12 to 0.17 in the design case.

6. NOTATION b E Et k P
t

td t~
tL t,

plate width Young modulus of elasticity tangent modulus of elasticity corrosion rate uncertain parameter (eqn. 20) plate thickness time of the design point thickness decreased by corrosion lifetime of the plate time variable

33

cov of i (see subscripts) cov derived from eqns. (21) and (20) cov derived from eqns. (22) and (20) coy given by eqn. (24) v. coy of t, amplitude of maximum initial deflection w0 non-dimensional imperfection ( = Wo/t ) 80 width of residual stresses in plate thicknesses plate slenderness ( = (b/t)~o/E) correlation coefficient between variables i and j Pij bending stress due to lateral pressure 0b ultimate stress % yield stress Oo residual stress Or (~x, (,y stresses in x and y direction standard deviation of variable i (see subscripts) oi 'r shear stress plate strength in the model considered plate strength due to variable i (see subscripts) isolated plate strength (eqns. 4 and 18) +b ePE effect of plastic deformation effect of combined loads ep~ uniaxial strength

v/

Subscripts In general, subscripts refer to the variable defined previously except in the cases defined above and in the following:
f bc bd c s u r fundamental boundary condition bending clamped simply supported ultimate residual

7. REFERENCES
1 A.E. Mansour, Probabilistic design concepts in ship structural safety and reliability, Trans. Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar. Eng., 80 (1972) 64-97. 2 D. Faulkner and J.A. Sadden, Toward a unified approach to ship structural safety, Trans. R. Inst. Nav. Archit., 121 (1979) 1-38. 3 C. Guedes Soares, Probabilistic models for load effects in ship structures, Report No. UR-84-38, Division of Marine Structures, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 1984. 4 C. Guedes Soares and T. Moan, Uncertainty analysis and code calibration of the primary load effects in ship structures, in: I. Konishi, A.H.-S. Ang and M. Shimozuka (Eds.), Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Structural Safety and

34 Reliability (ICOSSAR'85), Kobe, Japan, May 1985, Int. Assoc. for Structural Safety and Reliability, New York, NY, 1985, Vol. III, pp. 501-512. L.D. Ivanov and S.G. Rousev, Statistical estimation of reduction coefficient of ship's hull plates with initial deflections, Nav. Archit., (4) (1979) 158-160. C. Guedes Soares, Survey of methods of prediction of the compressive strength of stiffened plates, Report No. MK/R57, Division of Marine Structures, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway, August, 1981. C. Guedes Soares and T.H. Soreide, Behaviour and design of stiffened plates under predominantly compressive loads, Int. Shipbuild. Prog., 30 (1983) 13-27. Y. Ueda and T. Yao, Ultimate strength of a rectangular plate under thrust with consideration of the effects of initial imperfections due to welding, Trans. J. Weld. Res. Inst. of Osaka University, 8 (2) (1979) 97-104. M. Kmiecik, Behaviour of axially loaded simply supported long rectangular plates having initial deformations, Report No. R84, Ship Research Institute, Trondheim, Norway, 1971. R.S. Dow and C.S. Smith, Effects of localized imperfections on compressive strength of long rectangular plates, J. Constr. Steel Res., 4 (1984) 51-76. D. Faulkner, A review of effective plating for use in the analysis of stiffened plating in bending and compression, J. Ship Res., 19 (1975) 1-17. C.A. Carlsen, Simplified collapse analysis of stiffened plates, Norw. Marit. Res., 7 (4) (1977) 20-36. A.C. Antoniou, On the maximum deflection of plating in newly built ships, J. Ship Res., 24 (1980) 31-39. E.P. Wierzchowski, Statistical investigation of the sectional dimensions of ship structural members, Res. Report No. 018-BR/BW3-71, Ship Design and Research Center, Gdansk, Poland, 1971. T.V. Galambos and M.K. Ravindra, Properties of steel for use in LRFD, J. Struct. Div. Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng., 104 (1978) 1459-1468. W.L. Sommerville, J.W. Sawn and J.D. Clarke, Measurements of residual stresses and distorsions in stiffened panels, J. Strain Anal., 12 (1977) 107-116. J.E. Harding and P.J. Dowling, The basis of the proposed new design rules for the strength of web plates and other panels subject to complex edge loading, in: Stability Problems in Engineering Structures and Components, Applied Science Publishers, London, 1979, pp. 355-376.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17