Computational studies of hull-superstructure interaction were carried out using one-, two-and three-dimensional finite element analyses. Simplification of the original three-dimensional cases to one- and two-dimensional ones was undertaken to reduce the data preparation and computer solution times in an extensive parametric study. Both the one- and two-dimensional models were evaluated from numerical and experimental studies of the three-dimensional arrangements of hull and superstructure. One-dimensional analysis used a simple beam finite element with appropriately changed sections properties at stations where superstructures existed. Two-dimensional analysis used a four node, first order quadrilateral, isoparametric plane elasticity finite element, with a corresponding increase in the grid domain where the superstructure existed. Changes in the thickness property reflected deck stiffness. This model was essentially a multi-flanged beam with the shear webs representing the hull and superstructure sides, and the flanges representing the decks One-dimensional models consistently and uniformly underestimated the three-dimensional behaviour, but were fast to create and run. Two-dimensional models were also consistent in their assessment, and considerably closer in predicting the actual behaviours. These models took longer to create than the one-dimensional, but ran in very much less time than the refined three-dimensional finite element models Parametric insights were accomplished quickly and effectively with the simplest model and processor, but two-dimensional analyses achieved closer absolute measure of the displacement behaviours. Although only static analysis with simple loading and support conditions were presented, it is believed that similar benefits would be found for other loadings and support conditions. Other engineering components and structures may benefit from similarly judged simplification using one- and two-dimensional models to reduce the time and cost of preliminary design.
Fractional Statistics of Charge Carriers in the One- and Two-Dimensional t-J Model: A Hint for the Cuprates?