ABSTRACT

Typically, the dominant load for the design of planing hulls is slamming, while sailing fast at head seas. Slamming is a violent fluid-structure interaction, where dynamics, hydro-elasticity, and nonlinearity are important. Considering these effects in a rational design may reduce the scantlings as compare to design by rules. This research verifies our rational design method, published recently. For this verification, we designed a special research boat, which has one rules-designed side and one rational-design side, with 20% thinner plates and double stiffeners spacing, which make hydro-elasticity significant. Comparison of critical stresses between rules-design, our rational-design, and measurements shows: For the heavy side (rules-design) rules, rational, and trials show similar stresses, so both rules and rational are applicable; however for the light side (rational-design), rules dramatically over assess the stresses, while rational and trials are similar. We therefore expect this study to advance the design of more efficient boats.

摘要

通常，滑行船体设计的主要载荷是砰击，同时在大浪中快速航行。砰击是一种剧烈的流固耦合，其中动力学、水弹性和非线性非常重要。与规则设计相比，在合理设计中考虑这些影响可能会减少尺寸。这项研究验证了我们最近发表的合理设计方法。为了这次验证，我们设计了一艘特殊的研究船，它有一个规则设计的一面和一个合理设计的一面，板薄20%，加劲肋间距加倍，使水弹性显着。规则设计、我们的理性设计和测量之间的临界应力比较表明： 对于重边（规则设计）规则，理性和试验显示相似的应力，因此规则和理性都适用；然而，对于较轻的一面（理性设计），规则大大超过了评估压力，而理性和试验是相似的。因此，我们希望这项研究能够推进更高效船只的设计。