×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

working stress vs. limit state design

working stress vs. limit state design

working stress vs. limit state design

(OP)
Is it still possible to perform an assessment to DNV using working stress design?  I understand that the new code DNV-OS-C101 uses limit state design instead.

I am looking at lifting of a component.  These are the factors that I have come up with:

Using the working stress design method:
- 1.2 DAF
- 1.35 consequence factor
- 0.8 factor on Von-Mises stress.

Using the limit state design method:
- 1.2 DAF
- 1.3 consequence factor
- 1.3 load factor
- 1.15 material factor

If I combine these factors:

working stress design:
1.2x1.35/0.8 = 2.02

limit state design:
1.2x1.3x1.3x1.15 = 2.3

For the assessment I had in mind, it would appear to be advantageous to use the older working state design as it allows more onerous stresses.  I am aware that I am being overly simplistic in my comparison and would welcome your comments.
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

RE: working stress vs. limit state design

DNV being Norwegian will tend towards limit state design as opposed to working stress and they dont mention working stress approaches in their documents.  However, I dont think there is anything against using a working stress approach.  Certainly some of the people at my work use it in conjunction with DNV codes, they just leave out the load factor.

Your comparison is not quite correct as the limit state is compared against the design resistance (around 0.9 x yield)where your working stress is checked against (0.4-0.75 x yield)

Other factors I include are:
Contingency on base weight of 1.1 from ISO 19901-5
Reserve Factor 1.05
Skew Factor 1.25 if not included in a physical model.

Does C101 cover lifting operations?  I always took it to be structural steel design.  I tend to use the DNV Rules for Marine Operations for lifting

RE: working stress vs. limit state design

(OP)
Thanks for your help Ussuri.  I now feel more confident about using either approach.  I was worried that the working stress method may no longer be acceptable.

You are correct, the lifting operations are covered in the DNV rules for planning and execution of marine operations.

The assessment is for a ~130Te reel.  I have built an FE model and am considering several loadcases, including lifting.

RE: working stress vs. limit state design

And the americans still tend to use working stress.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close