PSI - Issue 52

Muhammad Raihan Firdaus et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 309–322

318

10

M.R. Firdaus et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

Fig. 10. Maximum stress due to static load at spar from each modelling methods.

Step time = 0.0000s

Step time = 0.0375 s

Step time = 0.0750 s

Step time = 0.1125 s

Step time = 0.1500 s

(a)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(b)

Step time = 0.1875 s

Step time = 0.2250 s

Step time = 0.2625 s

Step time = 0.3000 s

(i)

(f)

(g)

(h)

Fig. 11. State of float structure water penetration under loading condition at step time of (a) 0 s, (b) 0.0375 s, (c) 0.0750 s, (d) 0.1125 s, (e) 0.1500 s, (f) 0.1875 s, (g) 0.2250 s, (h) 0.2625 s, (i) 0.3000 s.

and concurrent multi-scale models yield stress outcomes that fall within the intermediary range, bridging the gap between the Full Shell and Full Solid models. Moving to Figure 13, an intriguing parallel can be observed, reflecting the trend observed in Figure 12. At the rear bulkhead, the Full Shell model once again exhibits the highest stress outcome, while the Full Solid model consistently yields the lowest result. Similarly, akin to the findings in Figure 12, the simulations employing the multi-stage multi scale and concurrent multi-scale methods produce stress outcomes that fall within the intermediate range, e ff ectively bridging the gap between the aforementioned methodologies. Next on Figure 14, an intriguing similarity emerges between the stress outcomes observed in the spar component and the preceding two components. Once again, the Full Shell model prominently showcases the highest stress result, while the Full Solid model consistently presents the lowest outcome. Remarkably, a confluence of findings is also evident within the stress magnitude over time data obtained from the multi-stage multi-scale and concurrent multi-