THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI

FASCICLE XI SHIPBUILDING, ISSN 1221-4620

2004

Method for the generation of the boundary condition

for a balanced Finite Element Model

Dr.-Ing. Marius Popa

Hull Drawings Approval Engineer - Germanischer Lloyd Romania

ABSTRACT
The scope of this paperwork is to propose a method for the achieving of the static
equilibrium of the forces loading a Finite Element Model.
Due to the specificity of the authors’ interest the work is focused mainly on FE Models
used for ship’s structure analyze.
The basic assumption is that a tool for the generation of the unitary sectional forces on
the nodes of the model end sections is available.
The method provides a practical way to compute the “loads factor” for a.m. unitary
sectional forces in order to balance the forces on the model.

Hull Structures S.8.8 “Direct calculation of bottom

1. Introduction
Boundary conditions are necessary to be used in order
to solve a Finite Element Model.
Up to now the common boundary conditions were the
suppressing or the prescribing of the rotations or the
displacements of the nodes.
In general - in case of prescribing of the
displacements of the nodes - specially on boundary
sections nodes – the values prescribed are first
computed as results of other large but rough models.
Unfortunately this means a double effort: once for the
analyze / generation / computation / results
interpretation of the large – rough model and twice
for the analyze / generation / computation / results
interpretation of the “in detail model”.
In case of suppressing the nodes displacements were
supported or constrained based on the model
peculiarities as geometry / structure / loads. As an
example a seldom case of FEM structure / loads
peculiarity is the symmetry. However the boundary
conditions resulted from this type of assumption are
not all the time realistic. In general the symmetry
assumption is made for models that could be
considered as regular parts of regular structures (as in
case of bulk carriers cargo area). Other assumption
made in this situation is that this model could be
analyzed distinct to general longitudinal bending of
the hull. The results of these computations are so
called “local stresses” or “second order stresses”. In
order to have a complete analyze of the structure
these stresses are to be superpose with the
longitudinal strength stresses as “first order stresses”
(see Germanischer Lloyd Rules for Seagoing Ships –
structure”).
This model is not proper for analyzing the cargo areas
that couldn’t be considered as homogenous divided or
in the case when the model is considered to carry also
the global longitudinal strength.
Other possibility to have more realistic boundary
conditions is to use a balanced model. In this case the
boundary condition consist of forces loading the
boundary nodes. Only in few nodes – not necessary
on boundary sections have to be suppressed in order
to have a consistent model equations system. These
nodes are usually located in the neutral areas and
spring elements element are used in order to
suppressed the displacements. In a proper balanced
model the forces resulted in spring elements have to
be close to zero in the range of numeric rounding
error of the loads.
As it is known the difficulty in this third possibility is
to obtain the proper and as far is possible realistic
loading situation for the boundary nodes.
As is already stated the scope of this work is to
propose a method able to solve this aspect.
2. Mathematical model
The object of the examination is a part of ship’s hull
which will be nominated further as model.
It is assumed that the ship’s hull is in static
equilibrium. The scope of this study is to find a
method to achieve the static equilibrium for the model
too.
It is assumed that the stresses resulted from the action
of a force loading the model are in linear relation to
the corresponding force so the model is assumed
linear.

5
FASCICLE XI THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI
It is assumed that the model is a coarse Finite
Element Model. It is assumed too that the in case of a
coarse model our interest is for the average values of
the stresses so the effect of the stress distribution
along the supporting width could be ignored.
The model is load by an external force noted E. This
force is generated by own weight, cargo or ballast
loads or external water pressure (static pressures or
dynamic pressures). The general force E has 6
components Ek with k= 1…6.
The model is separated from the ship’s hull which is
in static equilibrium. Stress will occur on model’s
transversal ends in order to achieve equilibrium.
It is assumed that the stress distribution are linear
superposition of classical beam theory stress
distributions as uniform distribution for axial forces,
linear distribution for bending moments or Saint-
Venant theory stress distribution for torsion. The
stress distributions are noted Sij with i= 1…2 (aft /
fore end) and j= 1..6 (spatial directions).
According to the beam theories each classic stress
distribution could be computed taking into account a
general force and end section geometric
characteristics. The generalized forces are noted Fij
(i= 1…2, j= 1…6) and could be observed further as
unknown values to be computed instead of the stress
distributions Sij.
In order to achieve static equilibrium the resultant
sum of all generalized forces loading the model has to
be null irrespective of the reference point.
The choosing of reference point is arbitrary but has
to take into account the numerical aspects in order to
decrease the dimension of the values computed
during the mathematical operations. In this way also
the accumulation of the numerical errors could be
reduced.
However the final sum results of the equilibrium
equation could not be mathematical null. According
to author experience - in general is a very small
values - at least 6 numerical orders less than the other
variable involved. Few displacements restrictions are
necessary still necessary in order to solve the FEM
numerical system.
In general these restrictions are imposed as spring
elements in a limited number of nodes. For a usual
vertical bending – local loads superposition problem
the author choose 4 nodes as far as possible close to
the neutral axis of expected main stress distributions
(see example).
The spring elements will carry the residual
equilibrium forces. Practically these forces are cvasi-
null and represent possible numeric errors
accumulated during approximations and mathematic
computations.
Due to this fact the values of the forces in these
spring elements are a good indicator of the
equilibrium method efficiency.
In order to build the equilibrium equations related to
the origin point each generalized force could be
reduced to a 6 elements vector.
6
Each force Fij j= 1…3 could be reduced to vector
Fijk where Fijj=Fij; Fijk=0 j= 1…3 k= 1...3 and k≠j
and Fijk k = 4..6 is the moment of Fij in relation to
the origin point and the direction k.
For the moments Fij j= 4…6 the 6 elements vector is
Fijj=Fij; Fijk=0 j= 4…6 k= 1...6 and k≠j.
Using the 6 elements vectors reductions to origin
point the equilibrium equations became:
[1] Fijk = E k with k= 1…6
i =1..2 j =1..6
Theoretical this system is a diagonal system.
However from authors practical experience resulted
that as a result of the accumulation of possible
numerical errors the exact diagonal form is not
achieved in all cases. The explanations for the
occurrence of these residual values will be provided
further – see comment for below point 4.
However the residual values are in general few
dimensional order less than the main values (basically
the diagonal line values) so these terms became
extremely small during pivoting step.
For solving this system the author propose following
steps:
1) The end forces Fij could be normalized using
standard values (or unit values) noted Fij0 so
Fij= lij*Fij0. The unknown values are now lij
which are known as load factors. Fij0 represent
an arbitrary values for the generalized end force
Fij. These values have to be choose in such a way
to minimize the numerical errors occurring
solving a.m. system in which the unknown values
are defined above as load factors lij.
2) The standard end forces F0ij are transformed in
classic stress distributions on end section i. The
relation between F0ij and the stress distribution is
linear.
3) The standard stress distribution is reduced as
forces in end section nodes. Taking into account
the assumptions for coarse model The stress
reduction is based on the stress in node observed
as average stress and the area of the elements
which are in incidence to the node. The relation
between F0ij and each force in nodes is linear
too.
4) The nodal force distribution due generalized
force F0ij could now be reduced in relation to
origin point to a 6 elements vector F0ijk k= 1…6.
Please observe the comments on F0ijk on the
end of the paragraph.
5) The equilibrium equation [1] became now:
[2] F 0ijk * l ij = E k where k= 1…6
i =1..2 j =1..6
The system [2] has to be solve taking into account the
unknown values the load factors lij i= 1...2 / j= 1…6.
 THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI
Comments on point 4
Theoretically the 6 elements vector F0ijk has to have
following form:
- for j= 1…3 (stress distribution due to the unit end
forces)
F0ijk = 0 for k≠j, k= 1…3; F0ijj= F0ij
F0ijk = the moment of F0ij related to origin
point and direction k
- for j= 4…6 (stress distribution due to the unit end
moments)
F0ijk = 0 for k= 1…3
F0ijk = 0 for k≠j, k= 4…6; F0ijj= F0ij
However according to the authors practical
experience some terms which theoretical have to be
null are not. This situation is a result of the hypothesis
regarding the stress distribution reduction to the
forces on nodes (closely related to the coarse model
assumptions).
According to the classic theories the sum of the stress
distributions are null on the directions other than the
direction of the generalized forces which generate
them:
[3] σdA = 0 where
C which are “a priory” assumed as without significant
C is the section, σ is the stress, dA is the elementary
area from section C where is located the stress σ.
For the purpose of the computation of formula [3] are
used numerical approximations as:
[4] σ mi *∆A i = 0 where
i
i is the node from the section C, σmi is the stress in
node i assumed as average stress, ∆Ai is haft of the
element areas which are incident in the a.m. node.
The non null values are errors which occur from the
numerical computation of formula [3] using
numerical formula similar to [4].
The steps proposed above are a possibility. As an
alternative the steps could be as follows:
1. Forces normalization by standard – unit ends
forces: Fij= lij*F0ij.
2. The standard unit end forces are reduced to the
origin point: F0ij= (F0ijk) k= 1…6.
3. The equilibrium system [2] is solve taking into
account the loads factors lij as unknown values.
4. The end forces Fij are computed as lij*F0ij
5. The end forces Fij are transformed in standard
stress distributions.
6. The standard stress distributions are transformed
in nodal loads in order to be included in the
Finite Element Model.
As could be observed the numerical errors are
transferred into the step 5 and are introduced in
equilibrium equations on the end of the balancing
process.
In this way all the numerical errors are residual values
in equilibrium equations. These residual values – as
residual generalized forces – are transferred in the
7
FASCICLE XI
spring elements requested by the solving of FEM
system.
The residual forces in spring elements could
compromise the stress distribution in areas nearby
spring elements - situation which is not
recommended.
3. Solving the equilibrium system
The equilibrium system [2] could be transformed in:
[5] ( l 1 j * F01 jk + l 2 j * F02 jk ) = E k , k= 1…6
j =1...6
The system has 6 equations and 12 unknown values –
load factors - l1j, l2j j= 1…6 and couldn’t be solve
without the reduction of the unknown values to 6
(initial conditions).
The easiest possibility to solve the system is to
assume that the end load factors corresponding to the
same direction j are equal – l1j= l2j.
This assumption could be accepted for the direction
influence on the study. For example in case of a
model which is in study for vertical general bending
this hypothesis could be made for the directions 1
(axial force - thrust), 4 (torsion) and 6 (bending
around vertical axis – horizontal bending). Basically
this assumption could be made in all cases for
direction 1 – axial forces. However for the study of a
heeled model or for the study of a model in
transverse wave this assumption for directions 4 and 6
could not be made anymore.
Other possibility is use for one end and for a direction
an already known values for the end force. In this
situation the best example for this possibility is the
study of the vessel in still water condition. The still
water vertical bending moment (BM) and the still
water sheare force could be achieved from the
computation of the loading case.
In general the initial conditions which are used for a
study could be a combination of the hypothesis
above. The problem of the system equation solving is
open for further comments. The author is open to
receive such comments or suggestions.
4. Example - Description
As example is presented a computation for a long mid
ship area in still water condition. In this situation the
main aspects are related to the general strength –
vertical longitudinal bending.
The Finite Element Model was generated and solved
using Germanischer Lloyd Computer Aid Design
software Poseidon - official version 4.0.
FASCICLE XI THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI

In order to make easiest any further checks a very The box has transversal rings (web frames) at each 2a
simple box structure was considered. spacing and transversal watertight bulkheads at each
The dimensions of the box are: L= 100.0 m / B= 10.0 10th frame (Frames 0, 10, 20, … 90, 100).
m / H= 10.0 m / CB= 1.0 The transversal section topology consist of followings
This box has the normal frame spacing of a= 1.0 m. elements: shell / main deck / a central line
In this assumptions a frame numbering could be longitudinal bulkhead and a double side longitudinal
assigned assuming Frame 0 at longitudinal ordinate bulkhead.
x= 0.0 m. The most forward frame is Frame 100 at x= From the same reason as above a very simple
100.0 m. structure was modeled. Following two pictures are
relevant.

Fig. 1 – Box structure – simple frame / web frame and transversal bulkhead

Fig. 2 – Loading scheme

S h e a r F o rc e [k N ]

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-2 0 0 0 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101
-4 0 0 0
-6 0 0 0
-8 0 0 0
-1 0 0 0 0

B e n d i n g M o m e n t [k N m ]

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101
-2 0 0 0 0
-4 0 0 0 0

-6 0 0 0 0
-8 0 0 0 0

-1 0 0 0 0 0
-1 2 0 0 0 0

-1 4 0 0 0 0
-1 6 0 0 0 0

-1 8 0 0 0 0
-2 0 0 0 0 0

Fig. 3 – Still water Shear Force (SF - kN) and Bending moment (BM- kNm)

8
THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FASCICLE XI

The actual sectional characteristics are: Wbottom =
2.299 m3 and Wdeck = 2.340 m3.
The box is loaded according to the loading scheme in
Fig. 2. The fluid is assumed to have a density of 1.019
t/m2 and the draught achieved in still water is 4.05 m.
The still water bending moment and shear force
distribution are in accordance to Fig. 3. For the
middle area the extreme BM value is –198751 kNm.
For this value the expected longitudinal bending
stresses for bottom and deck are 86.5 N/mm2
respectively -84.9 N/mm2.
A Finite Element Model was generated by Poseidon
between Fr. 14 and 86. For aft and fore end
transversal sections (Fr. 14 and Fr. 86) the boundary
condition “2 – unit force / St. Venant unit force / unit
moment ” was used. According to Poseidon user’s
manual the “2” boundary condition means:
Quote
Nodal forces in separate load groups acting on the
hull cross-section according to the stress distribution
for the relevant direction. For the XX-direction nodal
forces according to St.Vernant torsional stress
distribution are calculated.
Unquote.
According to the mathematic model below the
boundary conditions generated on ends by Poseidon
are equivalent to the standard unit forces noted F0ij, i=
1...2, j= 1…6.
For a better understanding the Figures 4 shows the
nodal loads of the unit forces on global directions 3, 4
and 5 for aft end (vertical forces – shear / torsion and
general longitudinal bending).
Thirteen global load cases (GLC) were generated.
First twelve load cases are the standard unit forces
assumed with load factor 1.
Last load case are the external loads - in this case the
still water pressure and the “cargo” load – the static
pressure of the fluid in tanks.
The Poseidon FEM solver provide the sum of the
forces on the spatial direction for all load cases. This
sums are show in table 1:

Fig. 4 – Nodal loads generated by the standard units loads on the directions 3, 4 and 5

GLC Foce [kN] Moment [kNm]

No. x y z xx yy zz
1 10003.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 50505.7 0.0
2 0.0 -10196.4 0.0 50170.8 -0.6 -142749.8
3 0.0 0.0 -10064.7 2.6 140906.0 0.3
4 0.0 0.4 1.0 -6498.7 -13.6 5.1
5 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 101282.4 0.0
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -100867.6
7 10003.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 50505.7 0.0
8 0.0 -10196.4 0.0 50171.0 -3.9 -876891.5
9 0.0 0.0 -10064.7 2.6 865564.0 1.8
10 0.0 0.4 1.0 -6498.7 -83.4 31.6
11 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 101282.4 0.0
12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -100867.6
13 0.0 0.0 -10985.7 0.0 549282.5 0.0

Table 1 – Sum of the forces for the Standard End Unit Forces and External Forces

The values in table 1 are the terms of the system [2]. equation for each of the 6 directions. For the row k,
The rows in table are the terms of the equilibrium k= 1..6 the first 6 values are the terms F01jk. The
9
FASCICLE XI THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI
next 6 values are F02jk and the last value is the
component of the external force on direction k – Ek.
As could be observed the system matrix is not exactly
diagonal. In this example for direction 4 and 5
(torsion and vertical moment) some residual forces
are achieved. In case of direction 4 (torsion) the
residual forces are generating also residual moment
on directions 5 and 6.
However dimension of the residual is at least 3rd order
less that the dimension of the main term of the
equilibrium equation.
For solving the equilibrium system followings initial
condition are used:
- Direction 1 – axial force - trust: equal load
factors l11=l21. The still water condition
assume that the influence of the trust force is
not significant so the possible axial forces
are extremely small.
- Direction 2 – lateral force: equal load factors
l12=l22. The still water condition assume
that the model has transversal symmetry as
geometry and load so the lateral force is null.
In this situation the equal load factors
assumption has no influence on the model
behavior.
- Direction 3 – vertical forces – shear force:
the value on the aft end is assumed known
from the analyze of the still water load case.
F13= -5572 kN according to SF distribution.
- Direction 4 – torsion: equal load factors
l13=l23. The still water condition assume
that the model has transversal symmetry as
geometry and load so the torsion moment is
null. In this situation the equal load factors
assumption has no influence on the model
behavior.
- Direction 5 – vertical bending moment: the
value on the aft end is assumed known from
the analyze of the still water load case. F15=
-39004 kN according to BM distribution.
- Direction 6 – horizontal bending moment:
equal load factors l16=l26. The still water
condition assume that the model has
transversal symmetry as geometry and load
so the horizontal bending moment is null. In
this situation the equal load factors
Fig. 6-1 – Deformation – View on top
10
assumption has no influence on the model
behavior.
Solving the equilibrium equation system the load
factors are achieved.
The final Global Load Case is the combination of the
Standard End Units Forces multiplied with the load
factors computed above and the external loads (load
factor 1.0).
For this case the equilibrium equations are cvasi-null.
Only residual values of 0.4 and 0.9 kNm are
achieved for the directions 5 and 6 but these residual
values are considered extremely small in relation to
the forces involved.
In order to solve the FEM system spring elements are
introduced in 4 nodes.
Fig. 5 – Spring elements
The nodes are located in the mid area of the model –
Fr. 49 and Fr. 51 - as far is possible in the neutral axis
of the main loads. In the example model two nodes
are on side close to the vertical bending neutral axis -
loaded with springs on vertical displacement. Other
two nodes are on bottom and main deck close to the
center line - loaded with springs on axial and lateral
displacements.
Running the FEM the forces in spring elements are
maximum 0.1 kN for x direction and 1.1 kN for y and
z direction. These forces are the result of the residual
moments indicated above.
5. Example - results
As results the deformed view and the general stress
map will be presented.
THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FASCICLE XI

Fig. 6-2 – Deformations – Lateral view

Fig. 6-3 – Deformation – General view

Fig. 6-4 – Deformation – General view / the model is not hide

11
 FASCICLE XI THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI

Fig. 7-1 – Stress – Equivalent Von Misses Stresses – Deck and Longitudinal bulkhead in CL

Fig. 7-2 – Stress – Equivalent Von Misses Stresses – Bottom and Shell

Ordinary elements – as far as possible not affected by
the local stresses were selected for the comparison to
general longitudinal bending stress as where
computed previous for the midship area The stresses
in main deck in a average element area. The
longitudinal stresses determined for main deck are
about -77 … -82 N/mm2 – estimated -85 N/mm2 For
bottom the stresses are about +89…+93 N/mm2 –
estimated 86.5 N/mm2.
The difference are about 3 … 8 N/mm2 which means
maximum 10%.
The differences between theoretical longitudinal
bending stresses and computed longitudinal stresses
are due to the increased participation of the lower
flange material.
Due the water load – assumed as uniformly
distributed load - the effective width of the bottom
longitudinal is usually assumed greater than the
effective width of the unloaded main deck
longitudinal.
In actual case this assumption justify the increased
participation of the material of the lower flange.

12
 THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FASCICLE XI

Fig. 8-1 – Stresses parallel to longitudinal direction – View on top - deck

Fig. 9-2 – Stresses – Paralel to longitudinal direction - bottom

6. References 7. Abstract
Scopul lucrarii este de a propune o
Germanischer Lloyd Rules – Chapter 1 - Guidelines for Strength metoda practica de echilibrare statica a
Analyses of Ship Structures with the Finite Element Method, fortelor care actioneaza asupra unui
Volume V. - Analysis Techniques, Part 1 – Strength and Stability –
, Edition 2001 Model de Element Finit
Germanischer Lloyd - Poseidon Help, Poseidon Revision 4.0 – Datorita interesului specific al autorului
august 2004 metodata este prezentata pentru un Model
de Elemente Finite specific analizelor
Paper received at 15.09.2004 structurilor navale.
13
 FASCICLE XI THE ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI

Se presupune de la inceput ca se dispune Metoda ofera o cale practica pentru calcularea

de o unealta (un algoritm automatizat sau “factorilor de incarcare” pentru fortele unitarea
un software) prin care pot fi calculate / sectionale mai sus numite – astfel incat sa se
generate fortele nodale pe sectiunile de obtina echilibrarea fortelor care actioneaza
capat ale modelului – datorate asupra modelui.
solicitarilor unitare de baza (forta si
moment unitary pentru toate cele sase
directii spatiale).

Fig. 9-1 – Main Stress – View on top - deck

Fig. 9-2 – Main Stress – View on side – shell

14