Boat Design Forums  |  Boat Design Directory  |  Boat Design Gallery  |  Boat Design Book Store  |  Thanks to Our Site Sponsors

Go Back   Boat Design Forums > Design > Class Societies
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-25-2009, 09:44 PM
apfelsaft apfelsaft is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rep: 10 Posts: 4
Location: UK/Poland
ISO top hat second moment of area

hi,

Does any one know how to calculate second moment of area and for top hat section? I follow ISO 12215:5 rules, i don’t know what assumptions are made in ISO, my results for standard sections are different than those in table from ISO.
Attached Thumbnails
ISO top hat second moment of area-top_hat_section.jpg  ISO top hat second moment of area-top_hat_table.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-25-2009, 10:45 PM
Ad Hoc Ad Hoc is offline
Naval Architect
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Rep: 1776 Posts: 2,692
Location: Japan
Can you give the results you get and the results by the ISO table.

This may help in ascertaining where your error, if any, actually is.

You should also take a standard section Tee from any aluminium catalogue. Run the calc again, and compare with the value given in the catalogue and see if your results are the same. This will indicated where, if any, your errors may be.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-25-2009, 11:45 PM
Alik's Avatar
Alik Alik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Rep: 1020 Posts: 1,893
Location: Thailand
1. In ISO they use weight of stiffener laminate instead of thickness of stiffener laminate. I would suggest ISO tables assume that 450g of CSM gives 1mm of thickness in structure, but this can be source of difference. Try to compare with tables in Larsson's 'Principles of Yacht Design', they have used thickness there.

2. The approach for steel/alloy beams does not work for real life composite stiffeners (works only with stiffeners built completely of CSM). Composites possess different strength for tension and compression, so effective SM should be obtained by reduction/increase of geometric SM considering tension/compression properties of stretched/compressed parts of stiffener.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-25-2009, 11:54 PM
Ad Hoc Ad Hoc is offline
Naval Architect
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Rep: 1776 Posts: 2,692
Location: Japan
Alik

When a structural member is in either tension or compression how does one determine this? By calculating the section modulus of the section from its geometry.

You are saying you know in advance whether a section is going to experience tension or compression before you have calculated any values. This does not make sense. Notwhistanding this fact, how do you ascertain the magnitude of the compression....from the section modulus!

The geometry defines how the structure behaves. The "thicknesses" enables one to calculate the section modulus and then finally the material dictates whether the behaviour is within acceptable limits or not.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-26-2009, 12:03 AM
Alik's Avatar
Alik Alik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Rep: 1020 Posts: 1,893
Location: Thailand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ad Hoc View Post
Alik

When a structural member is in either tension or compression how does one determine this? By calculating the section modulus of the section from its geometry.
It is easy - check geometrical SM only and estimate neutral axis. This axis defines tension and compression areas. Then, make next approximation assuming tension properties for stretched areas and compression properties for compressed areas.

This is standard approach to calculate hull girder for boats, so we can use it for complex stiffeners. For local strength, most of stiffeners experinece tension at top side, compression at hull plate side.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-26-2009, 07:45 AM
apfelsaft apfelsaft is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rep: 10 Posts: 4
Location: UK/Poland
Important thing is that stiffener thickness is given. You can see it on attache pictures. Stiffeneras laminate is mat with glass content equal 30%, tghe same with assosiating plate.

for my calculations:
A1,A2,A3 – areas of square sections, like on Picture.
y1,y2,y3 – distance between reference axis and centre of each square
yn1,yn2,yn3 – distance between neutral axis and centre of each square
I1,I2,I3 – second moment of inertia around axis parallel to reference, and coincidence with centre of each square.
Attached Thumbnails
ISO top hat second moment of area-section.jpg  ISO top hat second moment of area-equations.jpg  
Attached Files
File Type: xls top_hat.xls (28.5 KB, 228 views)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-26-2009, 09:02 AM
Ad Hoc Ad Hoc is offline
Naval Architect
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Rep: 1776 Posts: 2,692
Location: Japan
apfelsaft

You haven't shifted the calculated "I" (your column X and Y) to the "I" about the neutral axis!
The ISO "I" is about the neutral axis, hence the "Ina" notation.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-26-2009, 09:30 AM
apfelsaft apfelsaft is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rep: 10 Posts: 4
Location: UK/Poland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ad Hoc View Post
apfelsaft

You haven't shifted the calculated "I" (your column X and Y) to the "I" about the neutral axis!
The ISO "I" is about the neutral axis, hence the "Ina" notation.
I havaent calcualted "I" around reference axis, results are around neutral axis. I used Parallel Axis Theorem (Ii=I+A*y^2, Ii- second moment of area around i-axis, I - second moment of area between axis considence with centroid, and i-axis, they have to be parallel)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-26-2009, 09:41 AM
Alik's Avatar
Alik Alik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Rep: 1020 Posts: 1,893
Location: Thailand
2apfelsaft
I just checked couple of numbers in ISO tables using my Excel spreadsheet for top hat beam - results are same. Find mistake in Your calculations.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-26-2009, 10:24 AM
apfelsaft apfelsaft is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rep: 10 Posts: 4
Location: UK/Poland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alik View Post
2apfelsaft
I just checked couple of numbers in ISO tables using my Excel spreadsheet for top hat beam - results are same. Find mistake in Your calculations.
I know that there is mistake between my spreadsheet and ISO, but I don’t know were, I don’t know what is wrong in my understanding of this calculations this is the reason why I started this thread. So it will be useful for if someone could explain me how to do this properly.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-27-2009, 03:22 PM
terhohalme's Avatar
terhohalme terhohalme is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Rep: 478 Posts: 484
Location: Kotka, Finland
When you calculate I3 of the web, you should use tw instead of tw/2 as a width of the web. You really don't need that cos-term, this is inaccurate due to the laminate anyway. Check also your calculation of neutral axel, use the outer surface of the plate as a reference.
__________________
Only shared knowledge can grow.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Top hat stringer without core foam shippro Materials 3 08-20-2007 04:43 PM
Need help with moment of area-westlawn course Scottg Boat Design 5 07-17-2006 08:11 PM
Straw hat foil cruising! Richard Hillsid Boat Design 0 06-06-2006 05:32 PM
Top Hat with Carbon or E-Glass UD's Boa Boat Design 2 06-09-2004 07:49 AM
sail area to lateral area ratios Ian Boat Design 5 04-07-2004 06:39 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999 - 2012 Boat Design Net