flat vs convex surfaces

I would expect that there is a spreadsheet available somewhere that puts those equations to work based on parameters filled in a form?

 

how naive of me to ask before doing a search. Sorry for the bother. Then a follow up question is what is the "best" one?

 

What are the ones that you have detected?

 

jaque mate en un movimiento. ;-)

 

@lucdekeyser ??? gambito de rey.

 

I think you meant stiffness, not strength? A flat panel will generally take more load before breaking than a curved one, if it is able to flex to absorb some of the load. For example, the bow decks of the cargo proa windward hulls will never be walked on, submerged or loaded once the boat is in the water. So they are a couple of layers of 400 gsm glass, no core. However, when the boat is on the hard, they are the easiest access to the hull. When stood on, they flex a lot but don't break. If they were curved, they would crack and break.

 

Not correct. Go to your fridge, take out an egg.

 

Analysis of Plates in Axial Compression | Engineering Library https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/analysis-of-plates-axial-compression-air-force-stress-manual
This is a pretty concise explanation and will provide you with the formulas to determine specific stresses/deflections for EACH piece of your proposed flat

There are quite a few parameters to decide on deflection and or stress. The size of the plate, the thickness of the plate, the curvature if it is curved , the edge conditions of the plate, ie fixed or simple.
An obvious come back might be is that the edges are fixed. While they may be fixed by welding, the formulas refer to fixed as being that the member that the edges are fixed to will not deform under load and change the
calculated stresses

You had mentioned that you want an ease of build and promoted a plan that flat is better and would take less "talented welders" and less time.

From a fabrication standpoint ( and this comment is not backed by looking at your particular plans) the multifaceted flat panel sketch seems to me to be much more labor intensive than single long developable panels
such as post #43. It is not difficult to create curved inside scantlings.

 

I have always considered that the panels of a ship, in general, were subjected to loads perpendicular to its plane. Maybe I was wrong

 

Thank you for the reference

you mean the flat panel sketch in post #61 ?

 

I

If you look at the tables, it appears that when they discuss axial, they are speaking about loads perpendicular to the plane. They show various loading across the face in one of the tables

 

@Barry I'm sorry, I didn't read it carefully and there's no doubt that I misinterpreted it. I have read something about buckling which, in our panels, is not usually a concern and I have drawn the wrong conclusion. My fault, sorry.

 

If you want to see a practical example of a flat vs curved surface, they are common in road construction. Compare the thickness of the slab plus the girders of a small bridge to the thin sheet metal construction of a pipe culvert. Arch construction has been used for millennia (Roman engineers perfected the semi-circular arch) to create light structures that use a fraction of the material of a post and beam construction.

 

Would upside down models have application in NA?

 

Delos just released a walk through of their aluminium catamaran that had just been flipped over to continue the built.
I take this to be current state-of-art. It has all the curves one would expect.
Beyond laser precutting the sheets of metal in a multitude of pieces to shape further and weld together, there is little room to find ways to lower the load of skilled labor. All the other aspects of the fit out will have to accommodate with the multitude of irregular shapes. All mostly by skilled hands.
It is hard to accept that there a compromise with more simple shapes would not have a relevant impact on the workload.