PSI - Issue 52

Muhammad Raihan Firdaus et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 309–322 M.R. Firdaus et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

316

8

ducted on the front bulkhead, rear bulkhead, and spar components are showcased in Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10, respectively.

Fig. 7. Load application for static test.

Figure 8 visually presents that the static simulation on the Full Shell model has the highest stress outcome at the front bulkhead region. On the other hand, the simulation modeled with the Full Solid method generates the least stress magnitude at the same front bulkhead region. Accordingly, both the Multi-stage Multi-scale and Concurrent Multi-scale models provide the stress outcome that falls in between the Full Shell model and the Full Solid model results. In Figure 9, a similar trend of outcomes is discovered from four di ff erent modeling methodologies as shown in Figure 8. At the rear bulkhead, the Full Shell simulation yields the highest stress result, while the Full Solid simulation produces the lowest stress outcome. Additionally, the stress results of the multi-stage multi-scale and concurrent multi scale models are found to lie between those of the Full Shell and Full Solid models. Upon static load, the course of the simulation outcomes at the spar component presents the same state as that of the front bulkhead and the rear bulkhead components, as visually outlined in Figure 10. In this regard, the results of the Full Shell model and the Full Solid model exhibit a contrast in terms of the highest and the lowest stress outcomes, respectively. Furthermore, the multi-stage multi-scale and the concurrent multi-scale methods yield stress outcomes that lie between those obtained using the aforementioned methods. These findings reveal a consistent pattern wherein the full shell modelling method consistently yields the highest stress results across all designated locations. Conversely, the full solid approach demonstrates the lowest stress values. Furthermore, the multi-stage multi-scale and the concurrent multi-scale modelling methods manifest stress values that fall within the range established by the aforementioned approaches. However, upon closer inspection, the concurrent multi-scale modelling exhibits a slightly higher stress magnitude when compared with the multi-stage multi-scale method. During the hydrodynamic impact simulation, the load exerted upon the float structure is primarily attributed to the hydrodynamic force generated as a result of the float’s interaction with the water surface, up to a specific depth. This phenomenon is visually depicted in Figure 11, where the float structure is observed to pierce through the water surface and traverse a distinct depth owing to the given initial velocity of 10 m / s in the negative Y-axis direction. Under the assumption of an ideal vertical impact scenario, the float structure is suitably constrained to exclusively undergo translational motion along the Y-axis trajectory. The stress outcomes acquired from the dynamic simulations observed on the front bulkhead, rear bulkhead, and spar components are showcased in Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14, respectively. A noteworthy observation emerges 3.2. Hydrodynamic Impact Simulation