5.2K views

Uploaded by api-26548846

- Preliminary Ship Design
- Ship Design Procedure Booklet
- Design Report of a ship
- Scantling Calculation 1031
- Ship Structural Design
- Scantling Calculation
- Midship
- 7109539-General-Arrangement.pdf
- Geometry of Ships - Letcher
- Ship Design and Construction - Robert Taggart
- Design Guide for Ship Structural Details
- Estimation of MainDimensions
- 093977366XStrength of Ships
- Ship Design - Main Dimensions
- 21306 Marine Design
- Ship Design Construction
- Ship Design Method
- Design of Ship Hull Structures-A Practical Guide for Engineers.pdf
- ShipStructuralDesign
- ScantLing Calculation

You are on page 1of 76

Chapter 18

Analysis and Design of Ship Structure

I(x) geometric moment of inertia (beam sec-

For specific symbols, refer to the definitions contained in tion x)

the various sections. L length of the ship

ABS American Bureau of Shipping M(x) bending moment at section x of a beam

BEM Boundary Element Method MT(x) torque moment at section x of a beam

BV Bureau Veritas p pressure

DNV Det Norske Veritas q(x) resultant of sectional force acting on a

FEA Finite Element Analysis beam

FEM Finite Element Method T draft of the ship

IACS International Association of Classifica- V(x) shear at section x of a beam

tion Societies s,w (low case) still water, wave induced component

ISSC International Ship & Offshore Structures v,h (low case) vertical, horizontal component

Congress w(x) longitudinal distribution of weight

ISOPE International Offshore and Polar Engi- θ roll angle

neering Conference ρ density

ISUM Idealized Structural Unit method ω angular frequency

NKK Nippon Kaiji Kyokai

PRADS Practical Design of Ships and Mobile

Units,

18.2 INTRODUCTION

RINA Registro Italiano Navale

SNAME Society of naval Architects and marine The purpose of this chapter is to present the fundamentals

Engineers of direct ship structure analysis based on mechanics and

SSC Ship Structure Committee. strength of materials. Such analysis allows a rationally based

a acceleration design that is practical, efficient, and versatile, and that has

A area already been implemented in a computer program, tested,

B breadth of the ship and proven.

C wave coefficient (Table 18.I) Analysis and Design are two words that are very often

CB hull block coefficient associated. Sometimes they are used indifferently one for

D depth of the ship the other even if there are some important differences be-

g gravity acceleration tween performing a design and completing an analysis.

18-1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-2 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Analysis refers to stress and strength assessment of the entific, powerful, and versatile method for their structural

structure. Analysis requires information on loads and needs design

an initial structural scantling design. Output of the structural But, even with the development of numerical techniques,

analysis is the structural response defined in terms of stresses, design still remains based on the designer’s experience and

deflections and strength. Then, the estimated response is on previous designs. There are many designs that satisfy the

compared to the design criteria. Results of this comparison strength criteria, but there is only one that is the optimum

as well as the objective functions (weight, cost, etc.) will solution (least cost, weight, etc.).

show if updated (improved) scantlings are required. Ship structural analysis and design is a matter of com-

Design for structure refers to the process followed to se- promises:

lect the initial structural scantlings and to update these scant-

lings from the early design stage (bidding) to the detailed • compromise between accuracy and the available time to

design stage (construction). To perform analysis, initial de- perform the design. This is particularly challenging at

sign is needed and analysis is required to design. This ex- the preliminary design stage. A 3D Finite Element

plains why design and analysis are intimately linked, but Method (FEM) analysis would be welcome but the time

are absolutely different. Of course design also relates to is not available. For that reason, rule-based design or

topology and layout definition. simplified numerical analysis has to be performed.

The organization and framework of this chapter are based • to limit uncertainty and reduce conservatism in design, it

on the previous edition of the Ship Design and Construction is important that the design methods are accurate. On the

(1) and on the Chapter IV of Principles of Naval Architec- other hand, simplicity is necessary to make repeated de-

ture (2). Standard materials such as beam model, twisting, sign analyses efficient. The results from complex analy-

shear lag, etc. that are still valid in 2002 are partly duplicated ses should be verified by simplified methods to avoid errors

from these 2 books. Other major references used to write this and misinterpretation of results (checks and balances).

chapter are Ship Structural Design (3) also published by • compromise between weight and cost or compromise

SNAME and the DNV 99-0394 Technical Report (4). between least construction cost, and global owner live

The present chapter is intimately linked with Chapter cycle cost (including operational cost, maintenance, etc.),

11 – Parametric Design, Chapter 17 – Structural Arrange- and

ment and Component Design and with Chapter 19 – Reli- • builder optimum design may be different from the owner

ability-Based Structural Design. References to these optimum design.

chapters will be made in order to avoid duplications. In ad-

dition, as Chapter 8 deals with classification societies, the

present chapter will focus mainly on the direct analysis 18.2.1 Rationally Based Structural Design versus

methods available to perform a rationally based structural Rules-Based Design

design, even if mention is made to standard formulations There are basically two schools to perform analysis and de-

from Rules to quantify design loads. sign of ship structure. The first one, the oldest, is called

In the following sections of this chapter, steps of a global rule-based design. It is mainly based on the rules defined

analysis are presented. Section 18.3 concerns the loads that by the classification societies. Hughes (3) states:

are necessary to perform a structure analysis. Then, Sections In the past, ship structural design has been largely empir-

18.4, 18.5 and 18.6 concern, respectively, the stresses and ical, based on accumulated experience and ship perform-

deflections (basic ship responses), the limit states, and the fail- ance, and expressed in the form of structural design codes

ures modes and associated structural capacity. A review of or rules published by the various ship classification soci-

the available Numerical Analysis for Structural Design is per- eties. These rules concern the loads, the strength and the

formed in Section 18.7. Finally Design Criteria (Section design criteria and provide simplified and easy-to-use for-

18.8) and Design Procedures (Section 18.9) are discussed. mulas for the structural dimensions, or “scantlings” of a

Structural modeling is discussed in Subsection 18.2.2 and ship. This approach saves time in the design office and,

more extensively in Subsection 18.7.2 for finite element analy- since the ship must obtain the approval of a classification

sis. Optimization is treated in Subsections 18.7.6 and 18.9.4. society, it also saves time in the approval process.

Ship structural design is a challenging activity. Hence

Hughes (3) states: The second school is the Rationally Based Structural

Design; it is based on direct analysis. Hughes, who could

The complexities of modern ships and the demand for be considered as a father of this methodology, (3) further

greater reliability, efficiency, and economy require a sci- states:

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-3 4/28/03 1:30 PM

There are several disadvantages to a completely “rulebook” Hopefully, in 2002 this is no longer true. The advantages

approach to design. First, the modes of structural failure of direct analysis are so obvious that classification societies

are numerous, complex, and interdependent. With such include, usually as an alternative, a direct analysis procedure

simplified formulas the margin against failure remains un- (numerical packages based on the finite element method,

known; thus one cannot distinguish between structural ad- see Table 18.VIII, Subsection 18.7.5.2). In addition, for new

equacy and over-adequacy. Second, and most important, vessel types or non-standard dimension, such direct proce-

these formulas involve a number of simplifying assump- dure is the only way to assess the structural safety. There-

tions and can be used only within certain limits. Outside fore it seems that the two schools have started a long merging

of this range they may be inaccurate. procedure. Classification societies are now encouraging and

For these reasons there is a general trend toward direct contributing greatly to the development of direct analysis

structural analysis. and rationally based methods. Ships are very complex struc-

tures compared with other types of structures. They are sub-

Even if direct calculation has always been performed,

ject to a very wide range of loads in the harsh environment

design based on direct analysis only became popular when

of the sea. Progress in technologies related to ship design

numerical analysis methods became available and were cer-

and construction is being made daily, at an unprecedented

tified. Direct analysis has become the standard procedure

pace. A notable example is the fact that the efforts of a ma-

in aerospace, civil engineering and partly in offshore in-

jority of specialists together with rapid advances in com-

dustries. In ship design, classification societies preferred to

puter and software technology have now made it possible to

offer updated rules resulting from numerical analysis cali-

analyze complex ship structures in a practical manner using

bration. For the designer, even if the rules were continuously

structural analysis techniques centering on FEM analysis.

changing, the design remained rule-based. There really were

The majority of ship designers strive to develop rational and

two different methodologies.

optimal designs based on direct strength analysis methods

using the latest technologies in order to realize the

shipowner’s requirements in the best possible way.

When carrying out direct strength analysis in order to

Design Load

verify the equivalence of structural strength with rule re-

Direct Load Analysis quirements, it is necessary for the classification society to

clarify the strength that a hull structure should have with

Stress Response respect to each of the various steps taken in the analysis

Study on Ocean Waves

in Waves

process, from load estimation through to strength evalua-

Structural analysis by

Effect on

whole ship model

tion. In addition, in order to make this a practical and ef-

Wave Load Response operation

fective method of analysis, it is necessary to give careful

Response function Stress response consideration to more rational and accurate methods of di-

of wave load function

rect strength analysis.

Based on recognition of this need, extensive research

Short term Design Short term

estimation estimation

has been conducted and a careful examination made, re-

Sea State

garding the strength evaluation of hull structures. The re-

Long term Long term

sults of this work have been presented in papers and reports

estimation estimation regarding direct strength evaluation of hull structures (4,5).

The flow chart given in Figure 18.1 gives an overview

Nonlinear influence of the analysis as defined by a major classification society.

Design wave Wave impact load

in large waves

Note that a rationally based design procedure requires

that all design decisions (objectives, criteria, priorities, con-

Structural response analysis straints…) must be made before the design starts. This is a

Modeling technique Direct structural Investigation on major difficulty of this approach.

analysis corrosion

Yield Buckling Ultimate Fatigue General guidance on the modeling necessary for the struc-

strength strength strength strength

tural analysis is that the structural model shall provide re-

Figure 18.1 Direct Structural Analysis Flow Chart sults suitable for performing buckling, yield, fatigue and

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-4 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Structural drawings, to ensure that all dimensioning loads are correctly included.

mass description and A flow chart of strength analysis of global model and sub

loading conditions.

models is shown in Figure 18.2.

Structural model

Hydrodynamic/static

including necessary

loads

18.2.3 Preliminary Design versus Detailed Design

load definitions

Verification For a ship structure, structural design consists of two dis-

of model/

loads tinct levels: the Preliminary Design and the Detailed De-

sign about which Hughes (3) states:

Verified structural Load transfer to

model structural model The preliminary determines the location, spacing, and scant-

Verification lings of the principal structural members. The detailed de-

of load

transfer sign determines the geometry and scantlings of local structure

Sub-models to be (brackets, connections, cutouts, reinforcements, etc.).

Structural analysis used in structural

analysis Preliminary design has the greatest influence on the

Verification structure design and hence is the phase that offers very

of response

large potential savings. This does not mean that detail de-

Transfer of sign is less important than preliminary design. Each level

displacements/forces Yes is equally important for obtaining an efficient, safe and re-

to sub-model?

liable ship.

During the detailed design there also are many bene-

No

fits to be gained by applying modern methods of engi-

Figure 18.2 Strength Analysis Flow Chart (4) neering science, but the applications are different from

preliminary design and the benefits are likewise different.

Since the items being designed are much smaller it is

possible to perform full-scale testing, and since they are

vibration assessment of the relevant parts of the vessel. This

more repetitive it is possible to obtain the benefits of mass

is done by using a 3D model of the whole ship, supported

production, standardization and so on. In fact, production

by one or more levels of sub models.

aspects are of primary importance in detail design.

Several approaches may be applied such as a detailed

Also, most of the structural items that come under de-

3D model of the entire ship or coarse meshed 3D model sup-

tail design are similar from ship to ship, and so in-service

ported by finer meshed sub models.

experience provides a sound basis for their design. In fact,

Coarse mesh can be used for determining stress results

because of the large number of such items it would be in-

suited for yielding and buckling control but also to obtain

efficient to attempt to design all of them from first princi-

the displacements to apply as boundary conditions for sub

ples. Instead it is generally more efficient to use design

models with the purpose of determining the stress level in

codes and standard designs that have been proven by ex-

more detail.

perience. In other words, detail design is an area where a

Strength analysis covers yield (allowable stress), buck-

rule-based approach is very appropriate, and the rules that

ling strength and ultimate strength checks of the ship. In ad-

are published by the various ship classification societies

dition, specific analyses are requested for fatigue (Subsection

contain a great deal of useful information on the design of

18.6.6), collision and grounding (Subsection 18.6.7) and

local structure, structural connections, and other structural

vibration (Subsection 18.6.8). The hydrodynamic load

details.

model must give a good representation of the wetted sur-

face of the ship, both with respect to geometry description

and with respect to hydrodynamic requirements. The mass

model, which is part of the hydrodynamic load model, must

ensure a proper description of local and global moments of

18.3 LOADS

inertia around the global ship axes. Loads acting on a ship structure are quite varied and pecu-

Ultimate hydrodynamic loads from the hydrodynamic liar, in comparison to those of static structures and also of

analysis should be combined with static loads in order to other vehicles. In the following an attempt will be made to

form the basis for the yield, buckling and ultimate strength review the main typologies of loads: physical origins, gen-

checks. All the relevant load conditions should be examined eral interpretation schemes, available quantification proce-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-5 4/28/03 1:30 PM

dures and practical methods for their evaluation will be sum- Loads, defined in order to be applied to limited struc-

marized. tural models (stiffened panels, single beams, plate panels),

generally are termed local loads.

The distinction is purely formal, as the same external

18.3.1 Classification of Loads forces can in fact be interpreted as global or local loads. For

18.3.1.1 Time Duration instance, wave dynamic actions on a portion of the hull, if

Static loads: These are the loads experienced by the ship in described in terms of a bi-dimensional distribution of pres-

still water. They act with time duration well above the range sures over the wet surface, represent a local load for the hull

of sea wave periods. Being related to a specific load con- panel, while, if integrated over the same surface, represent

dition, they have little and very slow variations during a a contribution to the bending moment acting on the hull

voyage (mainly due to changes in the distribution of con- girder.

sumables on board) and they vary significantly only during This terminology is typical of simplified structural analy-

loading and unloading operations. ses, in which responses of the two classes of components

Quasi-static loads: A second class of loads includes are evaluated separately and later summed up to provide

those with a period corresponding to wave actions (∼3 to the total stress in selected positions of the structure.

15 seconds). Falling in this category are loads directly in- In a complete 3D model of the whole ship, forces on the

duced by waves, but also those generated in the same fre- structure are applied directly in their actual position and the

quency range by motions of the ship (inertial forces). These result is a total stress distribution, which does not need to

loads can be termed quasi-static because the structural re- be decomposed.

sponse is studied with static models.

Dynamic loads: When studying responses with fre- 18.3.1.3 Characteristic values for loads

quency components close to the first structural resonance Structural verifications are always based on a limit state

modes, the dynamic properties of the structure have to be equation and on a design operational time.

considered. This applies to a few types of periodic loads, Main aspects of reliability-based structural design and

generated by wave actions in particular situations (spring- analysis are (see Chapter 19):

ing) or by mechanical excitation (main engine, propeller).

• the state of the structure is identified by state variables

Also transient impulsive loads that excite free structural vi-

associated to loads and structural capacity,

brations (slamming, and in some cases sloshing loads) can

• state variables are stochastically distributed as a func-

be classified in the same category.

tion of time, and

High frequency loads: Loads at frequencies higher than

• the probability of exceeding the limit state surface in the

the first resonance modes (> 10-20 Hz) also are present on

design time (probability of crisis) is the element subject

ships: this kind of excitation, however, involves more the

to evaluation.

study of noise propagation on board than structural design.

Other loads: All other loads that do not fall in the above The situation to be considered is in principle the worst

mentioned categories and need specific models can be gen- combination of state variables that occurs within the design

erally grouped in this class. Among them are thermal and time. The probability that such situation corresponds to an

accidental loads. out crossing of the limit state surface is compared to a (low)

A large part of ship design is performed on the basis of target probability to assess the safety of the structure.

static and quasi-static loads, whose prediction procedures This general time-variant problem is simplified into a

are quite well established, having been investigated for a time-invariant one. This is done by taking into account in

long time. However, specific and imposing requirements the analysis the worst situations as regards loads, and, sep-

can arise for particular ships due to the other load cate- arately, as regards capacity (reduced because of corrosion

gories. and other degradation effects). The simplification lies in

considering these two situations as contemporary, which in

18.3.1.2 Local and global loads general is not the case.

Another traditional classification of loads is based on the When dealing with strength analysis, the worst load sit-

structural scheme adopted to study the response. uation corresponds to the highest load cycle and is charac-

Loads acting on the ship as a whole, considered as a terized through the probability associated to the extreme

beam (hull girder), are named global or primary loads and value in the reference (design) time.

the ship structural response is accordingly termed global or In fatigue phenomena, in principle all stress cycles con-

primary response (see Subsection 18.4.3). tribute (to a different extent, depending on the range) to

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-6 4/28/03 1:30 PM

damage accumulation. The analysis, therefore, does not re- resultant force along the vertical axis of the section (con-

gard the magnitude of a single extreme load application, but tained in the plane of symmetry), indicated as vertical re-

the number of cycles and the shape of the probability dis- sultant force qV; another force in the normal direction, (local

tribution of all stress ranges in the design time. horizontal axis), termed horizontal resultant force qH and a

A further step towards the problem simplification is rep- moment mT about the x axis. All these actions are distrib-

resented by the adoption of characteristic load values in uted along the longitudinal axis x.

place of statistical distributions. This usually is done, for Five main load components are accordingly generated

example, when calibrating a Partial Safety Factor format for along the beam, related to sectional forces and moment

structural checks. Such adoption implies the definition of a through equation 1 to 5:

single reference load value as representative of a whole x

probability distribution. This step is often performed by as-

signing an exceeding probability (or a return period) to each

VV (x) = ∫ q V (ξ) dξ [1]

0

variable and selecting the correspondent value from the sta-

x

tistical distribution.

The exceeding probability for a stochastic variable has

M V (x) = ∫ VV ( ξ ) dξ [2]

the meaning of probability for the variable to overcome a 0

given value, while the return period indicates the mean time x

to the first occurrence. VH (x) = ∫ q H (ξ ) dξ [3]

Characteristic values for ultimate state analysis are typ- 0

ically represented by loads associated to an exceeding prob- x

ability of 10–8. This corresponds to a wave load occurring,

on the average, once every 108 cycles, that is, with a return

M H (x) = ∫ VH ( ξ ) dξ [4]

0

period of the same order of the ship lifetime. In first yield-

ing analyses, characteristic loads are associated to a higher x

exceeding probability, usually in the range 10–4 to 10–6. In M T (x) = ∫ m T (ξ) dξ [5]

fatigue analyses (see Subsection 18.6.6.2), reference loads 0

are often set with an exceeding probability in the range 10–3

Due to total equilibrium, for a beam in free-free condi-

to 10–5, corresponding to load cycles which, by effect of both

tions (no constraints at ends) all load characteristics have

amplitude and frequency of occurrence, contribute more to

zero values at ends (equations 6).

the accumulation of fatigue damage in the structure.

These conditions impose constraints on the distributions

On the basis of this, all design loads for structural analy-

of qV, qH and mT.

ses are explicitly or implicitly related to a low exceeding

probability. VV (0) = VV (L) = M V (0) = M V (L) = 0

VH (0) = VH (L) = M H (0) = M H (L) = 0 [6]

18.3.2 Definition of Global Hull Girder Loads M T (0) = M T (L) = 0

The global structural response of the ship is studied with Global loads for the verification of the hull girder are ob-

reference to a beam scheme (hull girder), that is, a mono- tained with a linear superimposition of still water and wave-

dimensional structural element with sectional characteris- induced global loads.

tics distributed along a longitudinal axis. They are used, with different characteristic values, in

Actions on the beam are described, as usual with this different types of analyses, such as ultimate state, first yield-

scheme, only in terms of forces and moments acting in the ing, and fatigue.

transverse sections and applied on the longitudinal axis.

Three components act on each section (Figure 18.3): a

18.3.3 Still Water Global Loads

Still water loads act on the ship floating in calm water, usu-

ally with the plane of symmetry normal to the still water

surface. In this condition, only a symmetric distribution of

hydrostatic pressure acts on each section, together with ver-

tical gravitational forces.

If the latter ones are not symmetric, a sectional torque

Figure 18.3 Sectional Forces and Moment mTg(x) is generated (Figure 18.4), in addition to the verti-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-7 4/28/03 1:30 PM

cal load qSV(x), obtained as a difference between buoyancy At an even earlier stage of design, parametric formula-

b(x) and weight w(x), as shown in equation 7 (2). tions can be used to derive directly reference values for still

water hull girder loads.

q SV (x) = b(x) − w(x) = gA I (x) − m(x)g [7]

Common reference values for still water bending mo-

where AI = transversal immersed area. ment at mid-ship are provided by the major Classification

Components of vertical shear and vertical bending can Societies (equation 8).

be derived according to equations 1 and 2. There are no hor- C L2 B (122.5 − 15 C B ) (hogging)

izontal components of sectional forces in equation 3 and ac- Ms [ N ⋅ m ] =

C L2 B ( 45.5 + 65 C B ) (sagging)

[8]

cordingly no components of horizontal shear and bending

moment. As regards equation 5, only mTg, if present, is to

where C = wave parameter (Table 18.I).

be accounted for, to obtain the torque.

The formulations in equation 8 are sometimes explicitly

reported in Rules, but they can anyway be indirectly de-

18.3.3.1 Standard still water bending moments

rived from prescriptions contained in (6, 7). The first re-

While buoyancy distribution is known from an early stage

quirement (6) regards the minimum longitudinal strength

of the ship design, weight distribution is completely defined

modulus and provides implicitly a value for the total bend-

only at the end of construction. Statistical formulations, cal-

ing moment; the second one (7), regards the wave induced

ibrated on similar ships, are often used in the design de-

component of bending moment.

velopment to provide an approximate quantification of

Longitudinal distributions, depending on the ship type,

weight items and their longitudinal distribution on board.

are provided also. They can slightly differ among Class So-

The resulting approximated weight distribution, together

cieties, (Figure 18.5).

with the buoyancy distribution, allows computing shear and

bending moment.

18.3.3.2 Direct evaluation of still water global loads

Classification Societies require in general a direct analysis

of these types of load in the main loading conditions of the

ship, such as homogenous loading condition at maximum

draft, ballast conditions, docking conditions afloat, plus all

other conditions that are relevant to the specific ship (non-

homogeneous loading at maximum draft, light load at less

than maximum draft, short voyage or harbor condition, bal-

last exchange at sea, etc.).

The direct evaluation procedure requires, for a given

loading condition, a derivation, section by section, of ver-

tical resultants of gravitational (weight) and buoyancy

forces, applied along the longitudinal axis x of the beam.

Figure 18.4 Sectional Resultant Forces in Still Water

To obtain the weight distribution w(x), the ship length is

subdivided into portions: for each of them, the total weight

and center of gravity is determined summing up contributions

from all items present on board between the two bounding

sections. The distribution for w(x) is then usually approxi-

(a) mated by a linear (trapezoidal) curve obtained by imposing

300 ≤ L <350 m 10.75

Figure 18.5 Examples of Reference Still Water Bending Moment Distribution

350 ≤ L 10.75 – [(300 – L)/150]3/2

(10). (a) oil tankers, bulk carriers, ore carriers, and (b) other ship types

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-8 4/28/03 1:30 PM

ery, outfitting) but also the distribution of the various com-

ponents of the deadweight (cargo, ballast, consumables).

Ship types like bulk carriers are more exposed to uncer-

tainties on the actual distribution of cargo weight than, for

example, container ships, where actual weights of single

containers are kept under close control during operation.

In addition, model uncertainties arise from neglecting the

longitudinal components of the hydrostatic pressure (Fig-

ure 18.7), which generate an axial compressive force on the

Figure 18.6 Weight Distribution Breakdown for Full Load Condition hull girder.

As the resultant of such components is generally below

the neutral axis of the hull girder, it leads also to an addi-

tional hogging moment, which can reach up to 10% of the

total bending moment. On the other hand, in some vessels

(in particular tankers) such action can be locally counter-

balanced by internal axial pressures, causing hull sagging

Figure 18.7 Longitudinal Component of Pressure moments.

All these compression and bending effects are neglected

in the hull beam model, which accounts only for forces and

moments acting in the transverse plane. This represents a

source of uncertainties.

Another approximation is represented by the fact that

buoyancy and weight are assumed in a direction normal to

the horizontal longitudinal axis, while they are actually ori-

ented along the true vertical.

This implies neglecting the static trim angle and to consider

an approximate equilibrium position, which often creates the

need for a few iterative corrections to the load curve qsv(x) in

order to satisfy boundary conditions at ends (equations 6).

In a vessel with a multihull configuration, in addition to

Figure 18.8 Multi-hull Additional Still Water Loads (sketch) conventional still water loads acting on each hull consid-

ered as a single longitudinal beam, also loads in the trans-

versal direction can be significant, giving rise to shear,

the correspondence of area and barycenter of the trapezoid bending and torque in a transversal direction (see the sim-

respectively to the total weight and center of gravity of the plified scheme of Figure 18.8, where S, B, and Q stand for

considered ship portion. shear, bending and torque; and L, T apply respectively to

The procedure is usually applied separately for differ- longitudinal and transversal beams).

ent types of weight items, grouping together the weights of

the ship in lightweight conditions (always present on board)

and those (cargo, ballast, consumables) typical of a load- 18.3.4 Wave Induced Global Loads

ing condition (Figure 18.6). The prediction of the behaviour of the ship in waves repre-

sents a key point in the quantification of both global and

18.3.3.3 Uncertainties in the evaluation local loads acting on the ship. The solution of the seakeep-

A significant contribution to uncertainties in the evaluation ing problem yields the loads directly generated by external

of still water loads comes from the inputs to the procedure, pressures, but also provides ship motions and accelerations.

in particular those related to quantification and location on The latter are directly connected to the quantification of in-

board of weight items. ertial loads and provide inputs for the evaluation of other

This lack of precision regards the weight distribution for types of loads, like slamming and sloshing.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-9 4/28/03 1:30 PM

In particular, as regards global effects, the action of waves cation societies provide a statistically based reference values

modifies the pressure distribution along the wet hull sur- for the vertical component of wave-induced bending moment

face; the differential pressure between the situation in waves MWV, expressed as a function of main ship dimensions.

and in still water generates, on the transverse section, ver- Such reference values for the midlength section of a ship

tical and horizontal resultant forces (bWV and bWH) and a with unrestricted navigation are yielded by equation 10 for

moment component mTb. hog and sag cases (7) and corresponds to an extreme value

Analogous components come from the sectional result- with a return period of about 20 years or an exceeding prob-

ants of inertial forces and moments induced on the section ability of about 10–8 (once in the ship lifetime).

by ship’s motions (Figure 18.9).

190 C L2 B C B (hog)

The total vertical and horizontal wave induced forces on M WV [ N ⋅ m ] = [10]

the section, as well as the total torsional component, are −110 C L B ( C B + 0 . 7 ) (sag)

2

found summing up the components in the same direction

(equations 9). Horizontal Wave-induced Bending Moment: Similar for-

mulations are available for reference values of horizontal

q WV (x) = b WV (x) − m(x)a V (x) wave induced bending moment, even though they are not

q WH (x) = b WH (x) − m(x)a H (x) [9] as uniform among different Societies as for the main verti-

cal component.

m TW (x) = m Tb (x) − I R (x) θ

In Table 18.II, examples are reported of reference val-

where IR(x) is the rotational inertia of section x. ues of horizontal bending moment at mid-length for ships

The longitudinal distributions along the hull girder of hor- with unrestricted navigation. Simplified curves for the dis-

izontal and vertical components of shear, bending moment tribution in the longitudinal direction are also provided.

and torque can then be derived by integration (equations 1 Wave-induced Torque: A few reference formulations are

to 5). given also for reference wave torque at midship (see ex-

Such results are in principle obtained for each instanta- amples in Table 18.III) and for the inherent longitudinal

neous wave pressure distribution, depending therefore, on distributions.

time, on type and direction of sea encountered and on the

ship geometrical and operational characteristics. 18.3.4.2 Static Wave analysis of global wave loads

In regular (sinusoidal) waves, vertical bending moments A traditional analysis adopted in the past for evaluation of

tend to be maximized in head waves with length close to wave-induced loads was represented by a quasi-static wave

the ship length, while horizontal bending and torque com- approach. The ship is positioned on a freezed wave of given

ponents are larger for oblique wave systems. characteristics in a condition of equilibrium between weight

and static buoyancy. The scheme is analogous to the one de-

18.3.4.1 Statistical formulae for global wave loads scribed for still water loads, with the difference that the wa-

Simplified, first approximation, formulations are available terline upper boundary of the immersed part of the hull is

for the main wave load components, developed mainly on no longer a plane but it is a curved (cylindrical) surface. By

the basis of past experience. definition, this procedure neglects all types of dynamic ef-

Vertical wave-induced bending moment: IACS classifi- fects. Due to its limitations, it is rarely used to quantify wave

loads. Sometimes, however, the concept of equivalent static

wave is adopted to associate a longitudinal distribution of

Class Society MWH [N ⋅ m]

BV (9) RINA (10) 1600 L2.1 TCB

DNV (11) 220 L9/4(T + 0.3B)CB

NKK (12) 320 L2C T L − 35 / L

Figure 18.9 Sectional Forces and Moments in Waves

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-10 4/28/03 1:30 PM

2700 LB 2 T ( C W − 0 . 5 )

2

]

e 0 .14 0 . 5

+ 0 .1 0 .13 −

D T

(e = vertical position of shear center)

250 − 0 . 7 L 3

190 LB 2 C 2W 8.13 −

BV RINA

125

pressures to extreme wave loads, derived, for example, from Φr = radiation component due to the ship motions in calm

long term predictions based on other methods. water

ΦFK = excitation component, due to the incident wave

18.3.4.3 Linear methods for wave loads (undisturbed by the presence of the ship): Froude-

The most popular approach to the evaluation of wave loads Krylov

is represented by solutions of a linearized potential flow Φd = diffraction component, due to disturbance in the wave

problem based on the so-called strip theory in the frequency potential generated by the hull

domain (13).

The theoretical background of this class of procedures This subdivision also enables the de-coupling of the ex-

is discussed in detail in PNA Vol. III (2). citation components from the response ones, thus avoiding

Here only the key assumptions of the method are pre- a non-linear feedback between the two.

sented: Other key properties of linear systems that are used in

the analysis are:

• inviscid, incompressible and homogeneous fluid in irro-

tational flow: Laplace equation 11 • linear relation between the input and output amplitudes,

and

∇2Φ = 0 [11] • superposition of effects (sum of inputs corresponds to

where Φ = velocity potential sum of outputs).

• 2-dimensional solution of the problem When using linear methods in the frequency domain,

• linearized boundary conditions: the quadratic compo- the input wave system is decomposed into sinusoidal com-

nent of velocity in the Bernoulli Equation is reformu- ponents and a response is found for each of them in terms

lated in linear terms to express boundary conditions: of amplitude and phase.

— on free surface: considered as a plane corresponding The input to the procedure is represented by a spectral

to still water: fluid velocity normal to the free surface representation of the sea encountered by the ship. Responses,

equal to velocity of the surface itself (kinematic con- for a ship in a given condition, depend on the input sea char-

dition); zero pressure, acteristics (spectrum and spatial distribution respect to the

— on the hull: considered as a static surface, corre- ship course).

sponding to the mean position of the hull: the com- The output consists of response spectra of point pres-

ponent of the fluid velocity normal to the hull surface sures on the hull and of the other derived responses, such

is zero (impermeability condition), and as global loads and ship motions. Output spectra can be

used to derive short and long-term predictions for the prob-

• linear decomposition into additive independent compo- ability distributions of the responses and of their extreme

nents, separately solved for and later summed up (equa- values (see Subsection 18.3.4.5).

tion 12).

Despite the numerous and demanding simplifications at

Φ = Φs + ΦFK + Φd + Φr [12] the basis of the procedure, strip theory methods, developed

since the early 60s, have been validated over time in sev-

where:

eral contexts and are extensively used for predictions of

Φs = stationary component due to ship advancing in calm wave loads.

water In principle, the base assumptions of the method are

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-11 4/28/03 1:30 PM

sponses and low speed of the ship. m ny = ∫ ω n S y (ω)dω [13]

0

In practice, the field of successful applications extends

far beyond the limits suggested by the preservation of re- This information is the basis of the spectral method,

alism in the base assumptions: the method is actually used whose theoretical framework (main hypotheses, assump-

extensively to study even extreme loads and for fast ves- tions and steps) is recalled in the following.

sels. If the stochastic process representing the wave input to

the ship system is modeled as a stationary and ergodic

18.3.4.4 Limits of linear methods for wave loads Gaussian process with zero mean, the response of the sys-

Due to the simplifications adopted on boundary conditions tem (load) can be modeled as a process having the same char-

to linearize the problem of ship response in waves, results acteristics.

in terms of hydrodynamic pressures are given always up to The Parseval theorem and the ergodicity property es-

the still water level, while in reality the pressure distribu- tablish a correspondence between the area of the response

tion extends over the actual wetted surface. This represents spectrum (spectral moment of order 0: m0Y) and the vari-

a major problem when dealing with local loads in the side ance of its Gaussian probability distribution (14). This al-

region close to the waterline. lows expressing the density probability distribution of the

Another effect of basic assumptions is that all responses Gaussian response y in terms of m0Y (equation 14).

at a given frequency are represented by sinusoidal fluctua-

e (

tions (symmetric with respect to a zero mean value). A con- 1 − y 2 / 2 m 20 Y )

f Y (y) = [14]

sequence is that all the derived global wave loads also have 2π m0Y

the same characteristics, while, for example, actual values

of vertical bending moment show marked differences be- Equation 14 expresses the distribution of the fluctuating

tween the hogging and sagging conditions. Corrections to response y at a generic time instant.

account for this effect are often used, based on statistical From a structural point of view, more interesting data

data (7) or on more advanced non-linear methods. are represented by:

A third implication of linearization regards the super- • the probability distribution of the response at selected

imposition of static and dynamic loads. Dynamic loads are time instants, corresponding to the highest values in each

evaluated separately from the static ones and later summed zero-crossing period (peaks: variable p),

up: this results in an un-physical situation, in which weight • the probability distribution of the excursions between

forces (included only in static loads) are considered as act- the highest and the lowest value in each zero-crossing

ing always along the vertical axis of the ship reference sys- period (range: variable r), and

tem (as in still water). Actually, in a seaway, weight forces • the probability distribution of the highest value in the

are directed along the true vertical direction, which depends whole stationary period of the phenomenon (extreme

on roll and pitch angles, having therefore also components value in period Ts, variable extrTsy).

in the longitudinal and lateral direction of the ship.

This aspect represents one of the intrinsic non-lineari- The aforementioned distributions can be derived from

ties in the actual system, as the direction of an external input the underlying Gaussian distribution of the response (equa-

force (weight) depends on the response of the system itself tion 14) in the additional hypotheses of narrow band re-

(roll and pitch angles). sponse process and of independence between peaks. The first

This effect is often neglected in the practice, where lin- two probability distributions take the form of equations 15

ear superposition of still water and wave loads is largely fol- and 16 respectively, both Rayleigh density distributions (see

lowed. 14).

The distribution in equation 16 is particularly interest-

18.3.4.5 Wave loads probabilistic characterization ing for fatigue checks, as it can be adopted to describe stress

The most widely adopted method to characterize the loads ranges of fatigue cycles.

in the probability domain is the so-called spectral method,

p p2

used in conjunction with linear frequency-domain methods fP ( p) = exp − [15]

for the solution of the ship-wave interaction problem. m0 2m0

From the frequency domain analysis response spectra

Sy(ω) are derived, which can be integrated to obtain spec- r r2

fR ( r ) = exp − [16]

tral moments m n of order n (equation 13). 4m0 8m 0

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-12 4/28/03 1:30 PM

period Ts (short term extreme) can be modeled by a Pois-

son distribution (in equation 17: expression of the cumula-

tive distribution) or other equivalent distributions derived

from the statistics of extremes.

1

( )

F extrTs p = exp −

2 ∂

m2

m0

exp −

2

p2

m0 Ts [17]

butions. Figure 18.10 Short-term Distributions

It is interesting to note that all the mentioned distribu-

tions are expressed in terms of spectral moments of the re-

sponse, which are available from a frequency domain

solution of the ship motions problem. of significant wave heights and mean periods. Such scatter

The results mentioned previously are derived for the diagrams are catalogued according to sea zones, such as

period Ts in which the input wave system can be consid- shown in Figure 18.11 (the subdivision of the world atlas),

ered as stationary (sea state: typically, a period of a few and main wave direction. Seasonal characteristics are also

hours). The derived distributions (short-term predictions) available.

are conditioned to the occurrence of a particular sea state, The process described in equation 18 can be termed de-

which is identified by the sea spectrum, its angular distri- conditioning (that is removing the conditioning hypothesis).

bution around the main wave direction (spreading func- The same procedure can be applied to any of the variables

tion) and the encounter angle formed with ship advance studied in the short term and it does not change the nature

direction. of the variable itself. If a range distribution is processed, a

To obtain a long-term prediction, relative to the ship life long-term distribution for ranges of single oscillations is

(or any other design period Td which can be described as a obtained (useful data for a fatigue analysis).

series of stationary periods), the conditional hypothesis is If the distribution of variable extrTsy is de-conditioned, a

to be removed from short-term distributions. In other words, weighed average of the highest peak in time Ts is achieved.

the probability of a certain response is to be weighed by the In this case the result is further processed to get the distri-

probability of occurrence of the generating sea state (equa- bution of the extreme value in the design time Td. This is

tion18). done with an additional application of the concept of sta-

tistics of extremes.

n

∑ F ( y S i ) ⋅ P(S i )

In the hypothesis that the extremes of the various sea

F(y) = [18] states are independent from each other, the extreme on time

i= 1 Td is given by equation 19:

where:

( ) [ ( )]

Td/Ts

F extrTd y = F extrTs y [19]

F(y) = probability for the response to be less than value

y (unconditioned). where F(extrTdy) is the cumulative probability distribution

F(ySi) = probability for the response to be less than value for the highest response peak in time Td (long-term extreme

y, conditioned to occurrence of sea state Si (short distribution in time Td).

term prediction).

P(Si) = probability associated to the i-th sea state.

n = total number of sea states, covering all combi- 18.3.4.6 Uncertainties in long-term predictions

nations. The theoretical framework of the above presented spectral

method, coupled to linear frequency domain methodolo-

Probability P(Si) can be derived from collections of sea data gies like those summarized in Subsection 18.3.4.3, allows

based on visual observations from commercial ships and/or the characterization, in the probability domain, of all the

on surveys by buoys. wave induced load variables of interest both for strength

One of the most typical formats is the one contained in and fatigue checks.

(15), where sea states probabilities are organized in bi-di- The results of this linear prediction procedure are af-

mensional histograms (scatter diagrams), containing classes fected by numerous sources of uncertainties, such as:

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-13 4/28/03 1:30 PM

• sea description: as above mentioned, scatter diagrams Contrary to strength verifications of the hull girder, which

are derived from direct observations on the field, which are nowadays largely based on ultimate limit states (for ex-

are affected by a certain degree of indetermination. ample, in longitudinal strength: ultimate bending moment),

In addition, simplified sea spectral shapes are adopted, checks on local structures are still in part implicitly based

based on a limited number of parameters (generally, bi- on more conservative limit states (yield strength).

parametric formulations based on significant wave and In many Rules, reference (characteristic) local loads, as

mean wave period), well as the motions and accelerations on which they are

• model for the ship’s response: as briefly outlined in Sub- based, are therefore implicitly calibrated at an exceeding

section 18.3.4.3, the model is greatly simplified, partic- probability higher than the 10–8 value adopted in global load

ularly as regards fluid characteristics and boundary strength verifications.

conditions.

Numerical algorithms and specific procedures adopted

for the solution also influence results, creating differences 18.3.6 External Pressure Loads

even between theoretically equivalent methods, and Static and dynamic pressures generated on the wet surface

• the de-conditioning procedure adopted to derive long of the hull belong to external loads. They act as local trans-

term predictions from short term ones can add further verse loads for the hull plating and supporting structures.

uncertainties.

18.3.6.1 Static external pressures

Hydrostatic pressure is related through equation 20 to the

18.3.5 Local Loads vertical distance between the free surface and the load point

As previously stated, local loads are applied to individual (static head hS).

structural members like panels and beams (stiffeners or pri-

mary supporting members). pS = ρghS [20]

They are once again traditionally divided into static and In the case of the external pressure on the hull, hS cor-

dynamic loads, referred respectively to the situation in still responds to the local draft of the load point (reference is

water and in a seaway. made to design waterline).

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-14 4/28/03 1:30 PM

18.3.6.2 Dynamic pressures nal velocities can arise in the longitudinal and/or transver-

The pressure distribution, as well as the wet portion of the sal directions, producing additional pressure loads (slosh-

hull, is modified for a ship in a seaway with respect to the ing loads).

still water (Figure 18.9). Pressures and areas of application If pitch or roll frequencies are close to the tank reso-

are in principle obtained solving the general problem of nance frequency in the inherent direction (which can be

ship motions in a seaway. evaluated on the basis of geometrical parameters and fill-

Approximate distributions of the wave external pressure, ing ratio), kinetic energy tends to concentrate in the fluid

to be added to the hydrostatic one, are adopted in Classifi- and sloshing phenomena are enhanced.

cation Rules for the ship in various load cases (Figure 18.12). The resulting pressure field can be quite complicated

and specific simulations are needed for a detailed quantifi-

cation. Experimental techniques as well as 2D and 3D pro-

18.3.7 Internal Loads—Liquid in Tanks cedures have been developed for the purpose. For more

Liquid cargoes generate normal pressures on the walls of details see references 16 and 17.

the containing tank. Such pressures represent a local trans- A further type of excitation is represented by impacts that

versal load for plate, stiffeners and primary supporting mem- can occur on horizontal or sub-horizontal plates of the upper

bers of the tank walls. part of the tank walls for high filling ratios and, at low fill-

ing levels, in vertical or sub-vertical plates of the lower part

18.3.7.1 Static internal pressure of the tank.

For a ship in still water, gravitation acceleration g gener- Impact loads are very difficult to characterize, being re-

ates a hydrostatic pressure, varying again according to equa- lated to a number of effects, such as: local shape and ve-

tion 20. The static head hS corresponds here to the vertical locity of the free surface, air trapping in the fluid and

distance from the load point to the highest part of the tank, response of the structure. A complete model of the phe-

increased to account for the vertical extension over that nomenon would require a very detailed two-phase scheme

point of air pipes (that can be occasionally filled with liq- for the fluid and a dynamic model for the structure includ-

uid) or, if applicable, for the ullage space pressure (the pres- ing hydro-elasticity effects.

sure present at the free surface, corresponding for example Simplified distributions of sloshing and/or impact pres-

to the setting pressure of outlet valves). sures are often provided by Classification Societies for struc-

tural verification (Figure 18.14).

18.3.7.2 Dynamic internal pressure

When the ship advances in waves, different types of mo-

tions are generated in the liquid contained in a tank on-

board, depending on the period of the ship motions and on

the filling level: the internal pressure distribution varies ac-

cordingly.

In a completely full tank, fluid internal velocities rela-

tive to the tank walls are small and the acceleration in the

fluid is considered as corresponding to the global ship ac-

celeration aw.

Figure 18.12 Example of Simplified Distribution of External Pressure (10)

The total pressure (equation 21) can be evaluated in terms

of the total acceleration aT, obtained summing aw to grav-

ity g.

The gravitational acceleration g is directed according to

the true vertical. This means that its components in the ship

reference system depend on roll and pitch angles (in Fig-

ure 18.13 on roll angle θr).

pf = ρaThT [21]

In equation 21, hT is the distance between the load point

and the highest point of the tank in the direction of the total

acceleration vector aT (Figure 18.13)

If the tank is only partially filled, significant fluid inter- Figure 18.13 Internal Fluid Pressure (full tank)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-15 4/28/03 1:30 PM

18.3.7.3 Dry bulk cargo the flat part of the hull and the water free surface, presence

In the case of a dry bulk cargo, internal friction forces arise and extension of air trapped between fluid and ship bottom

within the cargo itself and between the cargo and the walls and structural dynamic behavior (18,19).

of the hold. As a result, the component normal to the wall While slamming probability of occurrence can be stud-

has a different distribution from the load corresponding to ied on the basis only of predictions of ship relative motions

a liquid cargo of the same density; also additional tangen- (which should in principle include non-linear effects due to

tial components are present. extreme motions), a quantification of slamming pressure

involves necessarily all the other mentioned phenomena

and is very difficult to attain, both from a theoretical and

18.3.8 Inertial Loads—Dry Cargo experimental point of view (18,19).

To account for this effect, distributions for the components From a practical point of view, Class Societies prescribe,

of cargo load are approximated with empirical formulations for ships with loading conditions corresponding to a low fore

based on the material frictional characteristics, usually ex-

pressed by the angle of repose for the bulk cargo, and on

the slope of the wall. Such formulations cover both the static

and the dynamic cases.

In the case of a unit cargo (container, pallet, vehicle or other)

the local translational accelerations at the centre of gravity

are applied to the mass to obtain a distribution of inertial

forces. Such forces are transferred to the structure in dif-

ferent ways, depending on the number and extension of con-

tact areas and on typology and geometry of the lashing or

supporting systems.

Generally, this kind of load is modelled by one or more

concentrated forces (Figure 18.15) or by a uniform load ap-

plied on the contact area with the structure.

The latter case applies, for example, to the inertial loads

transmitted by tyred vehicles when modelling the response Figure 18.14 Example of Simplified Distributions of Sloshing and Impact

of the deck plate between stiffeners: in this case the load is Pressures (11)

distributed uniformly on the tyre print.

18.3.9.1 Slamming and bow flare loads

When sailing in heavy seas, the ship can experience such

large heave motions that the forebody emerges completely

from the water. In the following downward fall, the bottom

of the ship can hit the water surface, thus generating con-

siderable impact pressures.

The phenomenon occurs in flat areas of the forward part

of the ship and it is strongly correlated to loading condi-

tions with a low forward draft.

It affects both local structures (bottom panels) and the

global bending behaviour of the hull girder with generation

also of free vibrations at the first vertical flexural modes for

the hull (whipping).

A full description of the slamming phenomenon involves

a number of parameters: amplitude and velocity of ship mo- Figure 18.15 Scheme of Local Forces Transmitted by a Container to the

tions relative to water, local angle formed at impact between Support System (8)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-16 4/28/03 1:30 PM

draft, local structural checks based on an additional exter- the stern region, thus generating an exciting force for the

nal pressure. structure.

Such additional pressure is formulated as a function of A second effect is due to axial and non axial forces and

ship main characteristics, of local geometry of the ship moments generated by the propeller on the shaft and trans-

(width of flat bottom, local draft) and, in some cases, of the mitted through the bearings to the hull (bearing forces).

first natural frequency of flexural vibration of the hull girder. Due to the negative dynamic pressure generated by the

The influence on global loads is accounted for by an ad- increased angle of attack, the local pressure on the back of

ditional term for the vertical wave-induced bending mo- blade profiles can, for any rotation angle, fall below the

ment, which can produce a significant increase (15% and vapor saturation pressure. In this case, a vapor sheet is gen-

more) in the design value. erated on the back of the profile (cavitation phenomenon).

A phenomenon quite similar to bottom slamming can The vapor filled cavity collapses as soon as the angle of at-

occur also on the forebody of ships with a large bow flare. tack decreases in the propeller revolution and the local pres-

In this case dynamic and (to a lesser extent) impulsive pres- sure rises again over the vapor saturation pressure.

sures are generated on the sides of V-shaped fore sections. Cavitation further enhances pressure fluctuations, be-

The phenomenon is likely to occur quite frequently on cause of the rapid displacement of the surrounding water

ships prone to it, but with lower pressures than in bottom volume during the growing phase of the vapor bubble and

slamming. The incremental effect on vertical bending mo- because of the following implosion when conditions for its

ment can however be significant. existence are removed.

A quantification of bow flare effects implies taking into All of the three mentioned types of excitation have their

account the variation of the local breadth of the section as main components at the propeller rotational frequency, at

a function of draft. It represents a typical non-linear effect the blade frequency, and at their first harmonics. In addi-

(non-linearity due to hull geometry). tion to the above frequencies, the cavitation pressure field

Slamming can also occur in the rear part of the ship, contains also other components at higher frequency, related

when the flat part of the stern counter is close to surface. to the dynamics of the vapor cavity.

Propellers with skewed blades perform better as regards

18.3.9.2 Springing induced pressure, because not all the blade sections pass si-

Another phenomenon which involves the dynamic response multaneously in the region of the stern counter, where dis-

of the hull girder is springing. For particular types of ships, turbances in the wake are larger; accordingly, pressure

a coincidence can occur between the frequency of wave ex- fluctuations are distributed over a longer time period and

citation and the natural frequency associated to the first peak values are lower.

(two-node) flexural mode in the vertical plane, thus pro- Bearing forces and pressures induced on the stern counter

ducing a resonance for that mode (see also Subsection by cavitating and non cavitating propellers can be calculated

18.6.8.2). with dedicated numerical simulations (18).

The phenomenon has been observed in particular on Great

Lakes vessels, a category of ships long and flexible, with com- 18.3.9.4 Main engine excitation

paratively low resonance frequencies (1, Chapter VI). Another major source of dynamic excitation for the hull

The exciting action has an origin similar to the case of girder is represented by the main engine. Depending on

quasi-static wave bending moment and can be studied with general arrangement and on number of cylinders, diesel en-

the same techniques, but the response in terms of deflec- gines generate internally unbalanced forces and moments,

tion and stresses is magnified by dynamic effects. For re- mainly at the engine revolution frequency, at the cylinders

cent developments of research in the field (see references firing frequency and inherent harmonics (Figure 18.16).

16 and 17). The excitation due to the first harmonics of low speed

diesel engines can be at frequencies close to the first natu-

18.3.9.3 Propeller induced pressures and forces ral hull girder frequencies, thus representing a possible cause

Due to the wake generated by the presence of the after part of a global resonance.

of the hull, the propeller operates in a non-uniform incident In addition to frequency coincidence, also direction and

velocity field. location of the excitation are important factors: for exam-

Blade profiles experience a varying angle of attack dur- ple, a vertical excitation in a nodal point of a vertical flex-

ing the revolution and the pressure field generated around ural mode has much less effect in exciting that mode than

the blades fluctuates accordingly. the same excitation placed on a point of maximum modal

The dynamic pressure field impinges the hull plating in deflection.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-17 4/28/03 1:30 PM

FWiT (equation 22), and a moment MWiz about the vertical

axis (equation 23), all applied at the center of gravity.

where:

φWi = the angle formed by the direction of the wind rela-

tive to the ship

CMz(φWi), CFL(φWi), CFT(φWi) are all coefficients depending

Figure 18.16 Propeller, Shaft and Engine Induced Actions (20)

on the shape of exposed part of the ship and on

angle φWi

AWi = the reference area for the surface of the ship exposed

to wind, (usually the area of the cross section)

In addition to low frequency hull vibrations, components VWi = the wind speed

at higher frequencies from the same sources can give rise

to resonance in local structures, which can be predicted by The empirical formulas in equations 22 and 23 account

suitable dynamic structural models (18,19). also for the tangential force acting on the ship surfaces par-

allel to the wind direction.

Current: The current exerts on the immersed part of the

18.3.10 Other Loads hull a similar action to the one of wind on the emerged part

18.3.10.1 Thermal loads (drag force). It can be described through coefficients and

A ship experiences loads as a result of thermal effects, which variables analogous to those of equations 22 and 23.

can be produced by external agents (the sun heating the Waves: Linear wave excitation has in principle a sinu-

deck), or internal ones (heat transfer from/to heated or re- soidal time dependence (whose mean value is by definition

frigerated cargo). zero). If ship motions in the wave direction are not con-

What actually creates stresses is a non-uniform temper- strained (for example, if the anchor chain is not in tension)

ature distribution, which implies that the warmer part of the the ship motion follows the excitation with similar time de-

structure tends to expand while the rest opposes to this de- pendence and a small time lag. In this case the action on

formation. A peculiar aspect of this situation is that the por- the mooring system is very small (a few percent of the other

tion of the structure in larger elongation is compressed and actions).

vice-versa, which is contrary to the normal experience. If the ship is constrained, significant loads arise on the

It is very difficult to quantify thermal loads, the main mooring system, whose amplitude can be of the same order

problems being related to the identification of the temper- of magnitude of the stationary forces due to the other actions.

ature distribution and in particular to the model for con- In addition to the linear effects discussed above, non-lin-

straints. Usually these loads are considered only in a ear wave actions, with an average value different from zero,

qualitative way (1, Chapter VI). are also present, due to potential forces of higher order, for-

mation of vortices, and viscous effects. These components

18.3.10.2 Mooring loads can be significant on off-shore floating structures, which

For a moored vessel, loads are exerted from external actions often feature also complicated mooring systems: in those

on the mooring system and from there to the local sup- cases the dynamic behavior of the mooring system is to be

porting structure. The main contributions come by wind, included in the analysis, to solve a specific motion prob-

waves and current. lem. For common ships, non-linear wave effects are usu-

Wind: The force due to wind action is mainly directed in ally neglected.

the direction of the wind (drag force), even if a limited com- A practical rule-of-thumb for taking into account wave

ponent in the orthogonal direction can arise in particular sit- actions for a ship at anchor in non protected waters is to in-

uations. The magnitude depends on the wind speed and on crease of 75 to 100% the sum of the other force components.

extension and geometry of the exposed part of the ship. The Once the total force on the ship is quantified, the ten-

action due to wind can be described in terms of two force sion in the mooring system (hawser, rope or chain) can be

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-18 4/28/03 1:30 PM

derived by force decomposition, taking into account the integrated according to equations 1 and 2 to derive vertical

angle formed with the external force in the horizontal and/or shear and bending moment.

vertical plane.

qVL(x) = w(x) – bL(x) – fC(x) [26]

18.3.10.3 Launching loads This computation is performed for various intermediate

The launch is a unique moment in the life of the ship. For positions of the cradle during the launching in order to check

a successful completion of this complex operation, a num- all phases. However, the most demanding situation for the

ber of practical, organizational and technical elements are hull girder corresponds to the instant when pivoting starts.

to be kept under control (as general reference see Reference In that moment the cradle force is concentrated close to

1, Chapter XVII). the bow, at the fore end of the cradle itself (on the fore pop-

Here only the aspect of loads acting on the ship will be pet, if one is fitted) and it is at the maximum value.

discussed, so, among the various types of launch, only those A considerable sagging moment is present in this situ-

which present peculiarities as regards ship loads will be ation, whose maximum value is usually lower than the de-

considered: end launch and side launch. sign one, but tends to be located in the fore part of the ship,

End Launch: In end launch, resultant forces and motions where bending strength is not as high as at midship.

are contained in the longitudinal plane of the ship (Figure Furthermore, the ship at launching could still have tem-

18.17). porary openings or incomplete structures (lower strength)

The vessel is subjected to vertical sectional forces dis- in the area of maximum bending moment.

tributed along the hull girder: weight w(x), buoyancy bL(x) Another matter of concern is the concentrated force at

and the sectional force transmitted from the ground way to the fore end of the cradle, which can reach a significant per-

the cradle and from the latter to the ship’s bottom (in the centage of the total weight (typically 20–30%). It represents

following: sectional cradle force fC(x), with resultant FC). a strong local load and often requires additional temporary

While the weight distribution and its resultant force internal strengthening structures, to distribute the force on

(weight W) are invariant during launching, the other distri- a portion of the structure large enough to sustain it.

butions change in shape and resultant: the derivation of Side Launch: In side launch, the main motion compo-

launching loads is based on the computation of these two nents are directed in the transversal plane of the ship (see

distributions. Figure 18.19, reproduced from reference 1, Chapter XVII).

Such computation, repeated for various positions of the The vertical reaction from ground ways is substituted in

cradle, is based on the global static equilibrium s (equa- a comparatively short time by buoyancy forces when the ship

tions 24 and 25, in which dynamic effects are neglected: tilts and drops into water.

quasi static approach). The kinetic energy gained during the tilting and drop-

ping phases makes the ship oscillate around her final posi-

BT + FC – W = 0 [24]

xB BT + xF FC – xW W = 0 [25]

where:

W, BT, FC = (respectively) weight, buoyancy and cradle

force resultants

xW, xB, xF = their longitudinal positions

In a first phase of launching, when the cradle is still in

contact for a certain length with the ground way, the buoy- Figure 18.17 End Launch: Sketch

ancy distribution is known and the cradle force resultant

and position is derived.

In a second phase, beginning when the cradle starts to

rotate (pivoting phase: Figure 18.18), the position xF cor-

responds steadily to the fore end of the cradle and what is

unknown is the magnitude of FC and the actual aft draft of

the ship (and consequently, the buoyancy distribution).

The total sectional vertical force distribution is found as

the sum of the three components (equation 26) and can be Figure 18.18 Forces during Pivoting

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-19 4/28/03 1:30 PM

tion at rest. The amplitude of heave and roll motions and Governing equations for the problem are given by con-

accelerations governs the magnitude of hull girder loads. servation of momentum and of energy. Within this frame-

Contrary to end launch, trajectory and loads cannot be stud- work, time domain simulations can evaluate the magnitude

ied as a sequence of quasi-static equilibrium positions, but of contact forces and the energy, which is absorbed by struc-

need to be investigated with a dynamic analysis. ture deformation: these quantities, together with the response

The problem is similar to the one regarding ship mo- characteristics of the structure (energy absorption capacity),

tions in waves, (Subsection 18.3.4), with the difference that allow an evaluation of the damage penetration (21).

here motions are due to a free oscillation of the system due Grounding: In grounding, dominant effects are forces and

to an unbalanced initial condition and not to an external ex- motions in the vertical plane.

citation. As regards forces, main components are contact forces,

Another difference with respect to end launch is that developed at the first impact with the ground, then friction,

both ground reaction (first) and buoyancy forces (later) are when the bow slides on the ground, and weight.

always distributed along the whole length of the ship and From the point of view of energy, the initial kinetic en-

are not concentrated in a portion of it. ergy is (a) dissipated in the deformation of the lower part

of the bow (b) dissipated in friction of the same area against

18.3.10.4 Accidental loads the ground, (c) spent in deformation work of the ground (if

Accidental loads (collision and grounding) are discussed soft: sand, gravel) and (d) converted into gravitational po-

in more detail by ISSC (21). tential energy (work done against the weight force, which

Collision: When defining structural loads due to colli- resists to the vertical raising of the ship barycenter).

sions, the general approach is to model the dynamics of the In addition to soil characteristics, key parameters for the

accident itself, in order to define trajectories of the unit(s) description are: slope and geometry of the ground, initial

involved. speed and direction of the ship relative to ground, shape of

In general terms, the dynamics of collision should be the bow (with/without bulb).

formulated in six degrees of freedom, accounting for a num- The final position (grounded ship) governs the magni-

ber of forces acting during the event: forces induced by pro- tude of the vertical reaction force and the distribution of

peller, rudder, waves, current, collision forces between the shear and sagging moment that are generated in the hull

units, hydrodynamic pressure due to motions. girder. Figure 18.20 gives an idea of the magnitude of

Normally, theoretical models confine the analysis to grounding loads for different combinations of ground slopes

components in the horizontal plane (3 degrees of freedom) and coefficients of friction for a 150 000 tanker (results of

and to collision forces and motion-induced hydrodynamic simulations from reference 22).

pressures. The latter are evaluated with potential methods In addition to numerical simulations, full and model

of the same type as those adopted for the study of the re- scale tests are performed to study grounding events (21).

sponse of the ship to waves.

As regards collision forces, they can be described dif-

ferently depending on the characteristics of the struck ob-

ject (ship, platform, bridge pylon…) with different

combinations of rigid, elastic or an elastic body models.

Figure 18.19 Side Launch (1, Chapter XVII) Figure 18.20 Sagging Moments for a Grounded Ship: Simulation Results (22)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-20 4/28/03 1:30 PM

When dealing with the characterization of a set of loads Three-dimensional extensions of linear methods are avail-

acting simultaneously, the interest lies in the definition of able; some non-linear methods have also 3-D features, while

a total loading condition with the required exceeding prob- in other cases an intermediate approach is followed, with

ability (usually the same of the single components). This boundary conditions formulated part in 2D, part in 3D.

cannot be obtained by simple superposition of the charac-

teristic values of single contributing loads, as the probabil- 18.3.12.2 Body boundary conditions

ity that all design loads occur at the same time is much lower In linear methods, body boundary conditions are set with

than the one associated to the single component. reference to the mean position of the hull (in still water).

In the time domain, the combination problem is ex- Perturbation terms take into account, in the frequency or in

pressed in terms of time shift between the instants in which the time domain, first order variations of hydrodynamic and

characteristic values occur. hydrostatic coefficients around the still water line.

In the probability domain, the complete formulation of Other non-linear methods account for perturbation terms

the problem would imply, in principle, the definition of a of a higher order. In this case, body boundary conditions

joint probability distribution of the various loads, in order are still linear (mean position of the hull), but second order

to quantify the distribution for the total load. An approxi- variations of the coefficients are accounted for.

mation would consist in modeling the joint distribution Mixed or blending procedures consist in linear methods

through its first and second order moments, that is mean val- modified to include non-linear effects in a single compo-

ues and covariance matrix (composed by the variances of nent of the velocity potential (while the other ones are treated

the single variables and by the covariance calculated for linearly). In particular, they account for the actual geome-

each couple of variables). However, also this level of sta- try of wetted hull (non-linear body boundary condition) in

tistical characterization is difficult to obtain. the Froude-Krylov potential only. This effect is believed to

As a practical solution to the problem, empirically based have a major role in the definition of global loads.

load cases are defined in Rules by means of combination More evolved (and complex) methods are able to take

coefficients (with values generally ≤ 1) applied to single properly into account the exact body boundary condition

loads. Such load cases, each defined by a set of coefficients, (actual wetted surface of the hull).

represent realistic and, in principle, equally probable com-

binations of characteristic values of elementary loads. 18.3.12.3 Free surface boundary conditions

Structural checks are performed for all load cases. The Boundary conditions on free surface can be set, depending

result of the verification is governed by the one, which turns on the various methods, with reference to: (a) a free stream

out to be the most conservative for the specific structure. at constant velocity, corresponding to ship advance, (b) a

This procedure needs a higher number of checks (which, on double body flow, accounting for the disturbance induced

the other hand, can be easily automated today), but allows by the presence of a fully immersed double body hull on

considering various load situations (defined with different the uniform flow, (c) the flow corresponding to the steady

combinations of the same base loads), without choosing a advance of the ship in calm water, considering the free sur-

priori the worst one. face or (d) the incident wave profile (neglecting the inter-

action with the hull).

Works based on fully non-linear formulations of the free

surface conditions have also been published.

18.3.12 New Trends and Load Non-linearities

A large part of research efforts is still devoted to a better 18.3.12.4 Fluid characteristics

definition of wave loads. New procedures have been pro- All the methods above recalled are based on an inviscid

posed in the last decades to improve traditional 2D linear fluid potential scheme.

methods, overcoming some of the simplifications adopted Some results have been published of viscous flow mod-

to treat the problem of ship motions in waves. For a com- els based on the solution of Reynolds Averaged Navier

plete state of the art of computational methods in the field, Stokes (RANS) equations in the time domain. These meth-

reference is made to (23). A very coarse classification of ods represent the most recent trend in the field of ship mo-

the main features of the procedures reported in literature is tions and loads prediction and their use is limited to a few

here presented (see also reference 24). research groups.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-21 4/28/03 1:30 PM

18.4 STRESSES AND DEFLECTIONS • Stresses in the plating of stiffened panel under lateral

pressure may have different origins (σ2 and σ2*). For a

The reactions of structural components of the ship hull to stiffened panel, there is the stress (σ2) and deflection of

external loads are usually measured by either stresses or the global bending of the orthotropic stiffened panels,

deflections. Structural performance criteria and the associ- for example, the panel of bottom structure contained be-

ated analyses involving stresses are referred to under the gen- tween two adjacent transverse bulkheads. The stiffener

eral term of strength. The strength of a structural component and the attached plating bend under the lateral load and

would be inadequate if it experiences a loss of load-carry- the plate develops additional plane stresses since the

ing ability through material fracture, yield, buckling, or plate acts as a flange with the stiffeners. In longitudinally

some other failure mechanism in response to the applied framed ships there is also a second type of secondary

loading. Excessive deflection may also limit the structural stresses: σ2* corresponds to the bending under the hy-

effectiveness of a member, even though material failure drostatic pressure of the longitudinals between trans-

does not occur, if that deflection results in a misalignment verse frames (web frames). For transversally framed

or other geometric displacement of vital components of the panels, σ2* may also exist and would correspond to the

ship’s machinery, navigational equipment, etc., thus ren- bending of the equally spaced frames between two stiff

dering the system ineffective. longitudinal girders.

The present section deals with the determination of the • A double bottom behaves as box girder but can bend lon-

responses, in the form of stress and deflection, of structural gitudinally, transversally or both. This global bending in-

members to the applied loads. Once these responses are duces stress (σ2) and deflection. In addition, there is also

known it is necessary to determine whether the structure is

adequate to withstand the demands placed upon it, and this

requires consideration of the different failure modes asso-

ciated to the limit states, as discussed in Sections 18.5 and

18.6

Although longitudinal strength under vertical bending

moment and vertical shear forces is the first important

strength consideration in almost all ships, a number of other

strength considerations must be considered. Prominent

amongst these are transverse, torsional and horizontal bend-

ing strength, with torsional strength requiring particular at-

tention on open ships with large hatches arranged close

together. All these are briefly presented in this Section. More

detailed information is available in Lewis (2) and Hughes

(3), both published by SNAME, and Rawson (25). Note

that the content of Section 18.4 is influenced mainly from

Lewis (2).

The structural response of the hull girder and the associ-

ated members can be subdivided into three components

(Figure 18.21).

Primary response is the response of the entire hull, when

the ship bends as a beam under the longitudinal distribution

of load. The associated primary stresses (σ1) are those, which

are usually called the longitudinal bending stresses, but the

general category of primary does not imply a direction.

Secondary response relates to the global bending of stiff-

ened panels (for single hull ship) or to the behavior of dou- Figure 18.21 Primary (Hull), Secondary (Double Bottom and Stiffened Panels)

ble bottom, double sides, etc., for double hull ships: and Tertiary (Plate) Structural Responses (1, 2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-22 4/28/03 1:30 PM

the σ2* stress that corresponds to the bending of the lon- tect deals principally with beam theory, plate theory, and

gitudinals (for example, in the inner and outer bottom) combinations of both.

between two transverse elements (floors).

Tertiary response describes the out-of-plane deflection 18.4.2 Basic Structural Components

and associated stress of an individual unstiffened plate panel Structural components are extensively discussed in Chap-

included between 2 longitudinals and 2 transverse web ter 17 – Structure Arrangement Component Design. In this

frames. The boundaries are formed by these components section, only the basic structural component used exten-

(Figure 18.22). sively is presented. It is basically a stiffened panel.

Primary and secondary responses induce in-plane mem- The global ship structure is usually referred to as being

brane stresses, nearly uniformly distributed through the plate a box girder or hull girder. Modeling of this hull girder is

thickness. Tertiary stresses, which result from the bending the first task of the designer. It is usually done by model-

of the plate member itself vary through the thickness, but ing the hull girder with a series of stiffened panels.

may contain a membrane component if the out-of-plane de- Stiffened panels are the main components of a ship. Al-

flections are large compared to the plate thickness. most any part of the ship can be modeled as stiffened pan-

In many instances, there is little or no interaction be- els (plane or cylindrical).

tween the three (primary, secondary, tertiary) component This means that, once the ship’s main dimensions and

stresses or deflections, and each component may be com- general arrangement are fixed, the remaining scantling de-

puted by methods and considerations entirely independent velopment mainly deals with stiffened panels.

of the other two. The resultant stress, in such a case, is then The panels are joined one to another by connecting lines

obtained by a simple superposition of the three component (edges of the prismatic structures) and have longitudinal

stresses (Subsection 18.4.7). An exception is the case of and transverse stiffening (Figures 18.23, 24 and 36).

plate (tertiary) deflections, which are large compared to the

thickness of plate. • Longitudinal Stiffening includes

In plating, each response induces longitudinal stresses, — longitudinals (equally distributed), used only for the

transverse stresses and shear stresses. This is due to the design of longitudinally stiffened panels,

Poisson’s Ratio. Both primary and secondary stresses are — girders (not equally distributed).

bending stresses but in plating these stresses look like mem-

brane stresses. • Transverse Stiffening includes (Figure 18.23)

In stiffeners, only primary and secondary responses in- — transverse bulkheads (a),

duce stresses in the direction of the members and shear — the main transverse framing also called web-frames

stresses. Tertiary response has no effect on the stiffeners. (equally distributed; large spacing), used for longi-

In Figure 18.21 (see also Figure 18.37) the three types of re- tudinally stiffened panels (b) and transversally stiff-

sponse are shown with their associated stresses (σ1, σ2, σ2* ened panels (c).

and σ3). These considerations point to the inherent sim-

plicity of the underlying theory. The structural naval archi-

18.4.3 Primary Response

18.4.3.1 Beam Model and Hull Section Modulus

The structural members involved in the computation of pri-

mary stress are, for the most part, the longitudinally contin-

uous members such as deck, side, bottom shell, longitudinal

bulkheads, and continuous or fully effective longitudinal

primary or secondary stiffening members.

Elementary beam theory (equation 29) is usually uti-

lized in computing the component of primary stress, σ1, and

deflection due to vertical or lateral hull bending loads. In

assessing the applicability of this beam theory to ship struc-

tures, it is useful to restate the underlying assumptions:

• the beam is prismatic, that is, all cross sections are the

same and there is no openings or discontinuities,

Figure 18.22 A Standard Stiffened Panel • plane cross sections remain plane after deformation, will

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-23 4/28/03 1:30 PM

beam deflects.

• transverse (Poisson) effects on strain are neglected.

• the material behaves elastically: the elasticity modulus

in tension and compression is equal.

• Shear effects and bending (stresses, strains) are not cou-

pled. For torsional deformation, the effect of secondary

shear and axial stresses due to warping deformations are

neglected.

Since stress concentrations (deck openings, side ports,

etc.) cannot be avoided in a highly complex structure such

as a ship, their effects must be included in any comprehen-

sive stress analysis. Methods dealing with stress concen- Figure 18.24 Behavior of an Elastic Beam under Shear Force and Bending

trations are presented in Subsection 18.6.6.3 as they are

Moment (2)

linked to fatigue.

The elastic linear bending equations, equations 27 and

28, are derived from basic mechanic principle presented at

Figure 18.24. Hull Section Modulus: The plane section assumption to-

EI (∂2w/∂x2) = M(x) [27] gether with elastic material behavior results in a longitudi-

nal stress, σ1, in the beam that varies linearly over the depth

or of the cross section.

EI (∂4w/∂x4) = q(x) [28] The simple beam theory for longitudinal strength cal-

culations of a ship is based on the hypothesis (usually at-

where: tributed to Navier) that plane sections remain plane and in

w = deflection (Figure 18.24), in m the absence of shear, normal to the OXY plane (Figure

E = modulus of elasticity of the material, in N/m2 18.24). This gives the well-known formula:

I = moment of inertia of beam cross section about a

p p2

horizontal axis through its centroid, in m4 fP ( p) = exp − [29]

M(x) = bending moment, in N.m m0 2m0

q(x) = load per unit length in N/m

where:

= ∂V(x)/∂x

= ∂2M(x)/∂x2 M = bending moment (in N.m)

= EI (∂4w/∂x4) σ = bending stress (in N/m2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-24 4/28/03 1:30 PM

I = Sectional moment of Inertia about the neutral axis ordinates of the section-moduli curve yields stress values,

(in m4) and by using both the hogging and sagging moment curves

c = distance from the neutral axis to the extreme mem- four curves of stress can be obtained; that is, tension and com-

ber (in m) pression values for both top and bottom extreme fibers.

SM = section modulus (I/c) (in m3) It is customary, however, to assume the maximum bend-

ing moment to extend over the midship portion of the ship.

For a given bending moment at a given cross section of Minimum section modulus most often occurs at the loca-

a ship, at any part of the cross section, the stress may be ob- tion of a hatch or a deck opening. Accordingly, the classi-

tained (σ = M/SM = Mc/I) which is proportional to the dis- fication societies ordinarily require the maintenance of the

tance c of that part from the neutral axis. The neutral axis midship scantlings throughout the midship four-tenths

will seldom be located exactly at half-depth of the section; length. This practice maintains the midship section area of

hence two values of c and σ will be obtained for each sec- structure practically at full value in the vicinity of maximum

tion for any given bending moment, one for the top fiber shear as well as providing for possible variation in the pre-

(deck) and one for the bottom fiber (bottom shell). cise location of the maximum bending moment.

A variation on the above beam equations may be of im- Lateral Bending Combined with Vertical Bending: Up to

portance in ship structures. It concerns beams composed of this point, attention has been focused principally upon the ver-

two or more materials of different moduli of elasticity, for tical longitudinal bending response of the hull. As the ship

example, steel and aluminum. In this case, the flexural rigid- moves through a seaway encountering waves from directions

ity, EI, is replaced by ∫A E(z) z2 dA, where A is cross sec- other than directly ahead or astern, it will experience lateral

tional area and E(z) the modulus of elasticity of an element bending loads and twisting moments in addition to the ver-

of area dA located at distance z from the neutral axis. The tical loads. The former may be dealt with by methods that

neutral axis is located at such height that ∫A E(z) z dA = 0. are similar to those used for treating the vertical bending

Calculation of Section Modulus: An important step in loads, noting that there will be no component of still water

routine ship design is the calculation of the midship section bending moment or shear in the lateral direction. The twist-

modulus. As defined in connection with equation 29, it in- ing or torsional loads will require some special consideration.

dicates the bending strength properties of the primary hull Note that the response of the ship to the overall hull twisting

structure. The section modulus to the deck or bottom is ob- loading should be considered a primary response.

tained by dividing the moment of inertia by the distance The combination of vertical and horizontal bending mo-

from the neutral axis to the molded deck line at side or to ment has as major effect to increase the stress at the ex-

the base line, respectively. treme corners of the structure (equation 30).

In general, the following items may be included in the

calculation of the section modulus, provided they are con-

tinuous or effectively developed:

• deck plating (strength deck and other effective decks).

(See Subsection 18.4.3.9 for Hull/Superstructure Inter-

action).

• shell and inner bottom plating,

• deck and bottom girders,

• plating and longitudinal stiffeners of longitudinal bulk-

heads,

• all longitudinals of deck, sides, bottom and inner bot-

tom, and

• continuous longitudinal hatch coamings.

and compression are assumed to act as part of the hull girder.

Theoretically, a thorough analysis of longitudinal strength

would include the construction of a curve of section moduli

throughout the length of the ship as shown in Figure 18.25.

Dividing the ordinates of the maximum bending-moments

curve (the envelope curve of maxima) by the corresponding Figure 18.25 Moment of Inertia and Section Modulus (1)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-25 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Mv Mh an element of side shell or deck plating may, in general be

σ= + [30]

( v v ) ( h ch )

I c I subject to two other components of stress, a direct stress in

the transverse direction and a shearing stress.

where Mv, Iv, cv, and Mh, Ih, ch, correspond to the M, I, c This figure illustrates these as the stress resultants, de-

defined in equation 29, for the vertical bending and the hor- fined as the stress multiplied by plate thickness.

izontal bending respectively. The stress resultants (N/m) are given by the following

For a given vertical bending (Mv), the periodical wave expressions:

induced horizontal bending moment (Mh) increases stresses,

Nx = t σx and Ns = t σs stress resultants, in N/m

alternatively, on the upper starboard and lower portside, and

on the upper portside and lower starboard. This explains N = t τ shear stress resultant or shear flow, in N/m

why these areas are usually reinforced.

where:

Empirical interaction formulas between vertical bend-

ing, horizontal bending and shear related to ultimate strength σx, σs = stresses in the longitudinal and transverse direc-

of hull girder are given in Subsection 18.6.5.2. tions, in N/m2

Transverse Stresses: With regards to the validity of the τ = shear stress, in N/m2

Navier Equation (equation 29), a significant improvement t = plate thickness, in m

may be obtained by considering a longitudinal strength

In many parts of the ship, the longitudinal stress, σx, is

member composed of thin plate with transverse framing.

the dominant component. There are, however, locations in

This might, for example, represent a portion of the deck

which the shear component becomes important and under

structure of a ship that is subject to a longitudinal stress σx,

unusual circumstances the transverse component may, like-

from the primary bending of the hull girder. As a result of

wise, become important. A suitable procedure for estimat-

the longitudinal strain, εx, which is associated with σx, there

ing these other component stresses may be derived by

will exist a transverse strain, εs. For the case of a plate that

considering the equations of static equilibrium of the ele-

is free of constraint in the transverse direction, the two

ment of plating (Figure 18.26). The static equilibrium con-

strains will be of opposite sign and the ratio of their ab-

ditions for a plate element subjected only to in-plane stress,

solute values, given by | εs / εx | = ν, is a constant property

that is, no plate bending, are:

of the material. The quantity ν is called Poisson’s Ratio and,

for steel and aluminum, has a value of approximately 0.3. ∂Nx / ∂x + ∂N / ∂s = 0 [33-a]

Hooke’s Law, which expresses the relation between stress

∂Ns / ∂x + ∂N / ∂x = 0 [33-b]

and strain in two dimensions, may be stated in terms of the

plate strains (equation 31). This shows that the primary re- In these equations, s, is the transverse coordinate meas-

sponse induces both longitudinal (σx) and transversal ured on the surface of the section from the x-axis as shown

stresses (σs) in plating. in Figure 18.26.

For vessels without continuous longitudinal bulkheads

εx = 1/E ( σx – v σS)

[31]

εS = 1/E ( σS – ν σx)

As transverse plate boundaries are usually constrained

(displacements not allowed), the transverse stress can be

taken, in first approximation as:

σs = ν σx [32]

Equation 32 is only valid to assess the additional stresses

in a given direction induced by the stresses in the perpen-

dicular direction computed, for instance, with the Navier

equation (equation 29).

The simple beam theory expressions given in the preced-

ing section permit evaluation the longitudinal component

of the primary stress, σx. In Figure 18.26, it can be seen that Figure 18.26 Shear Forces (2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-26 4/28/03 1:30 PM

(single cell), having transverse symmetry and subject to a of the shear flows at two locations lying on a plane cutting

bending moment in the vertical plane, the shear flow dis- the cell walls will still be given by equation 34, with m(s)

tribution, N(s) is then given by: equal to the moment of the shaded area (Figure 18.28).

However, the distribution of this sum between the two com-

N (s) =

V(x) ponents in bulkhead and side shell, requires additional in-

m (s) [34]

I(x) formation for its determination.

and the shear stress, τ , at any point in the cross section is: This additional information may be obtained by con-

sidering the torsional equilibrium and deflection of the cel-

V(x).m(s) lular section. The way to proceed is extensively explained

t(s) = (in N / m 2 ) [35] in Lewis (2).

t(s) I(x)

where: 18.4.3.3 Shear stress associated with torsion

V(x) = total shearing force (in N) in the hull for a given In order to develop the twisting equations, we consider a

section x closed, single cell, thin-walled prismatic section subject

s only to a twisting moment, MT, which is constant along the

m(s) = ∫o t ( s ) z ds, in m , is the first moment (or moment

3

length as shown in Figure 18.29. The resulting shear stress

= of area) about the neutral axis of the cross sectional may be assumed uniform through the plate thickness and

area of the plating between the origin at the cen- is tangent to the mid-thickness of the material. Under these

terline and the variable location designated by s. circumstances, the deflection of the tube will consist of a

This is the crosshatched area of the section shown twisting of the section without distortion of its shape, and

in Figure 18.26 the rate of twist, dθ/dx, will be constant along the length.

t(s) = thickness of material at the shear plane

I(x) = moment of inertia of the entire section

The total vertical shearing force, V(x), at any point, x,

in the ship’s length may be obtained by the integration of

the load curve up to that point. Ordinarily the maximum

value of the shearing force occurs at about one quarter of

the vessel’s length from either end.

Since only the vertical, or nearly vertical, members of

the hull girder are capable of resisting vertical shear, this

shear is taken almost entirely by the side shell, the contin-

uous longitudinal bulkheads if present, and by the webs of

any deep longitudinal girders.

The maximum value of τ occurs in the vicinity of the

neutral axis, where the value of t is usually twice the thick-

ness of the side plating (Figure 18.27). For vessels with con- Figure 18.27 Shear Flow in Multicell Sections (1)

tinuous longitudinal bulkheads, the expression for shear

stress is more complex.

Shear Flow in Multicell Sections: If the cross section of

the ship shown in Figure 18.28 is subdivided into two or

more closed cells by longitudinal bulkheads, tank tops, or

decks, the problem of finding the shear flow in the bound-

aries of these closed cells is statically indeterminate.

Equation 34 may be evaluated for the deck and bottom

of the center tank space since the plane of symmetry at

which the shear flow vanishes, lies within this space and

forms a convenient origin for the integration. At the

deck/bulkhead intersection, the shear flow in the deck di-

vides, but the relative proportions of the part in the bulk-

head and the part in the deck are indeterminate. The sum Figure 18.28 Shear Flow in Multicell Sections (2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-27 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Now consider equilibrium of forces in the x-direction for 18.4.3.4 Twisting and warping

the element dx.ds of the tube wall as shown in Figure 18.29. Torsional strength: Although torsion is not usually an im-

Since there is no longitudinal load, there will be no longi- portant factor in ship design for most ships, it does result

tudinal stress, and only the shear stresses at the top and bot- in significant additional stresses on ships, such as container

tom edges need be considered in the expression for static ships, which have large hatch openings. These warping

equilibrium. The shear flow, N = tτ, is therefore seen to be stresses can be calculated by a beam analysis, which takes

constant around the section. into account the twisting and warping deflections. There

The magnitude of the moment, MT, may be computed can also be an interaction between horizontal bending and

by integrating the moment of the elementary force arising torsion of the hull girder. Wave actions tending to bend the

from this shear flow about any convenient axis. If r is the hull in a horizontal plane also induce torsion because of the

distance from the axis, 0, perpendicular to the resultant shear open cross section of the hull, which results in the shear cen-

flow at location s: ter being below the bottom of the hull. Combined stresses

due to vertical bending, horizontal bending and torsion must

MT = ∫ r N ds = N ∫ r ds = 2 NΩ [36] be calculated.

In order to increase the torsional rigidity of the contain-

Here the symbol indicates that the integral is taken en- ership cross sections, longitudinal and transverse closed

tirely around the section and, therefore, Ω (m2) is the area box girders are introduced in the upper side and deck struc-

enclosed by the mid-thickness line of the tubular cross sec- ture.

tion. The constant shear flow, N (N/m), is then related to From previous studies, it has been established that spe-

the applied twisting moment by: cial attention should be paid to the torsional rigidity distri-

N = τ. t = MT /2Ω [37] bution along the hull. Usually, toward the ship’s ends, the

section moduli are justifiably reduced base on bending. On

For uniform torsion of a closed prismatic section, the the contrary the torsional rigidity, especially in the forward

angle of torsion is: hatches, should be gradually increased to keep the warping

MT .L stress as small as possible.

θ= (in radians) [38] Twisting of opened section: A lateral seaway could in-

G Ip

duce severe twisting moment that is of the major importance

where: for ships having large deck openings. The equations for the

twist of a closed tube (equations 36 to 38) are applicable

MT = Twisting moment (torsion), in N.m only to the computation of the torsional response of closed

L = Length of the girder, in m thin-walled sections.

Ip = Polar Inertia, in m4 The relative torsional stiffness of closed and open sec-

G = E/2(1+ν), the shear Modulus, in N/m2 tions may be visualized by means of a very simple example.

Consider two circular tubes, one of which has a longi-

tudinal slit over its full length as in Figure 18.30. The closed

tube will be able to resist a much greater torque per unit an-

gular deflection than the open tube because of the inability

of the latter to sustain the shear stress across the slot. The

twisting resistance of the thin material of which the tube is

composed provides the only resistance to torsion in the case

Figure 18.29 Torsional Shear Flow (2). Figure 18.30 Twist of Open and Closed Tubes (2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-28 4/28/03 1:30 PM

of the open tube without longitudinal restraint. The resist- The angle between a deck beam and side frame tends to

ance to twist of the entirely open section is given by the St. open on one side and to close on the other side at the top

Venant torsion equation: and reverses its action at the bottom. The effect of the con-

centration of stiff and soft sections results in a distortion pat-

MT = G.J ∂θ/∂x (N.m) [39]

tern in the ship deck that is shown in Figure 18.31. The term

where: snaking is sometimes used in referring to this behavior and

relates to both twisting and racking.

∂θ/∂x = twist angle per unit length, in rad./m, which can be

approximated by θ/L for uniform torsion and uni-

18.4.3.6 Effective breadth and shear lag

form section.

An important effect of the edge shear loading of a plate

J = torsional constant of the section, in m4

s member is a resulting nonlinear variation of the longitudi-

= 1/3 ∫0 t 3 ds for a thin walled open section nal stress distribution (Figure 18.32). In the real plate the

n longitudinal stress decreases with increasing distance from

∑ b i t 3i for a section composed of n different

1 the shear-loaded edge, and this is called shear lag. This is

=

3 in contrast to the uniform stress distribution predicted in

i =1

= plates (bi= length, ti = thickness) the beam flanges by the elementary beam equation 29. In

many practical cases, the difference from the value pre-

If warping resistance is present, that is, if the longitudi- dicted in equation 29 will be small. But in certain combi-

nal displacement of the elemental strips shown in Figure nations of loading and structural geometry, the effect referred

18.30 is constrained, another component of torsional re- to by the term shear lag must be taken into consideration

sistance is developed through the shear stresses that result if an accurate estimate of the maximum stress in the mem-

from this warping restraint. This is added to the torque given ber is to be made. This may be conveniently done by defin-

by equation 39. ing an effective breadth of the flange member.

In ship structures, warping strength comes from four The ratio, be/b, of the effective breadth, be, to the real

sources: breadth, b, is useful to the designer in determining the lon-

1. the closed sections of the structure between hatch open- gitudinal stress along the shear-loaded edge. It is a function

ings,

2. the closed ends of the ship,

3. double wall transverse bulkheads, and

4. closed, torsionally stiff parts of the cross section (lon-

gitudinal torsion tubes or boxes, including double bot-

tom, double side shell, etc.).

Racking is the result of a transverse hull shape distortion and

is caused by either dynamic loads due to rolling of the ship

or by the transverse impact of seas against the topsides. Trans-

verse bulkheads resist racking if the bulkhead spacing is close

enough to prevent deflection of the shell or deck plating in Figure 18.31 Snaking Behavior of a Container Vessel (2).

its own plane. Racking introduces primarily compressive and

shearing forces in the plane of bulkhead plating.

With the usual spacing of transverse bulkheads the ef-

fectiveness of side frames in resisting racking is negligible.

However, when bulkheads are widely spaced or where the

deck width is small in way of very large hatch openings,

side frames, in association with their top and bottom brack-

ets, contribute significant resistance to racking. Racking in

car-carriers is discussed in Chapters 17 and 34.

Racking stresses due to rolling reach a maximum in a

beam sea each time the vessel completes an oscillation in

one direction and is about to return. Figure 18.32 Shear Lag Effect in a Deck (2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-29 4/28/03 1:30 PM

of the external loading applied and the boundary conditions w = k ( M L2/EI ) [41]

along the plate edges, but not its thickness. Figure 18.33

where the dimensionless coefficient k may be taken, for first

gives the effective breadth ratio at mid-length for column

approximation, as 0.09 (2).

loading and harmonic-shaped beam loading, together with

Actual deflection in service is affected also by thermal

a common approximation for both cases:

influences, rigidity of structural components, and work-

be k L manship; furthermore, deflection due to shear is additive to

= [40]

the bending deflection, though its amount is usually rela-

b 6 b

tively small.

The results are presented in a series of design charts, The same influences, which gradually increase nominal

which are especially simple to use, and may be found in design stress levels, also increase flexibility. Additionally,

Schade (26). draft limitations and stability requirements may force the

A real situation in which such an alternating load dis- L/D ratio up, as ships get larger. In general, therefore, mod-

tribution may be encountered is a bulk carrier loaded with ern design requires that more attention be focused on flex-

a dense ore cargo in alternate holds, the remainder being ibility than formerly.

empty. No specific limits on hull girder deflections are given in

An example of the computation of the effective breadth the classification rules. The required minimum scantlings

of bottom and deck plating for such a vessel is given in however, as well as general design practices, are based on

Chapter VI of Taggart (1), using Figure 18.33. a limitation of the L/D ratio range.

It is important to distinguish the effective breadth (equa-

tion 40) and the effective width (equations 54 and 55) pre- 18.4.3.8 Load diffusion into structure

sented later in Subsection 18.6.3.2 for plate and stiffened The description of the computation of vertical shear and

plate-buckling analysis. bending moment by integration of the longitudinal load dis-

tribution implies that the external vertical load is resisted

18.4.3.7 Longitudinal deflection directly by the vertical shear carrying members of the hull

The longitudinal bending deflection of the ship girder is ob- girder such as the side shell or longitudinal bulkheads. In a

tainable from the appropriate curvature equations (equa- longitudinally framed ship, such as a tanker, the bottom

tions 27 and 28) by integrating twice. A semi-empirical pressures are transferred principally to the widely spaced

approximation for bending deflection amidships is: transverse web frames or the transverse bulkheads where

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-30 4/28/03 1:30 PM

they are transferred to the longitudinal bulkheads or side one-third). Further details on the design considerations for

shell, again as localized shear forces. Thus, in reality, the deckhouses and superstructures may be found in Evans (27)

loading q(x), applied to the side shell or the longitudinal and Taggart (1).

bulkhead will consist of a distributed part due to the direct In addition to the overall bending, local stress concentra-

transfer of load into the member from the bottom or deck tions may be expected at the ends of the house, since here the

structure, plus a concentrated part at each bulkhead or web structure is transformed abruptly from that of a beam consist-

frame. This leads to a discontinuity in the shear curve at the ing of the main hull alone to that of hull plus superstructure.

bulkheads and webs. Recent works achieved in Norwegian University of Sci-

ence & Technology have shown that the vertical stress dis-

18.4.3.9 Hull/superstructure interaction tribution in the side shell is not linear when there are large

The terms superstructure and deckhouse refer to a structure openings in the side shell as it is currently the case for upper

usually of shorter length than the entire ship and erected decks of passenger vessels. Approximated stress distribu-

above the strength deck of the ship. If its sides are coplanar tions are presented at Figure 18.35. The reduced slope, θ,

with the ship’s sides it is referred to as a superstructure. If for the upper deck has been found equal to 0.50 for a cata-

its width is less than that of the ship, it is called a deckhouse. maran passenger vessel (28).

The prediction of the structural behavior of a super-

structure constructed above the strength deck of the hull

has facets involving both the general bending response and 18.4.4 Secondary Response

important localized effects. Two opposing schools of thought In the case of secondary structural response, the principal

exist concerning the philosophy of design of such erections. objective is to determine the distribution of both in-plane

One attempts to make the superstructure effective in con-

tributing to the overall bending strength of the hull, the other

purposely isolates the superstructure from the hull so that

it carries only localized loads and does not experience

stresses and deflections associated with bending of the main

hull. This may be accomplished in long superstructures

(>0.5Lpp) by cutting the deckhouse into short segments by

means of expansion joints. Aluminum deckhouse con-

struction is another alternative when the different material

properties provide the required relief.

As the ship hull experiences a bending deflection in re-

sponse to the wave bending moment, the superstructure is

forced to bend also. However, the curvature of the super-

structure may not necessarily be equal to that of the hull but

depends upon the length of superstructure in relation to the

hull and the nature of the connection between the two, es-

pecially upon the vertical stiffness or foundation modulus

of the deck upon which the superstructure is constructed.

The behavior of the superstructure is similar to that of a Figure 18.34 Three Interaction Levels between Superstructure and Hull (1)

beam on an elastic foundation loaded by a system of nor-

mal forces and shear forces at the bond to the hull.

The stress distributions at the midlength of the super-

structure and the differential deflection between deckhouse z

and hull for three different degrees of superstructure effec- σr (z) =θ .σ(z)

( I )z

tiveness are shown on Figure 18.34. Passenger deck

The areas and inertias can be computed to account for σ (z) = M

shear lag in decks and bottoms. If the erection material dif- Neutral axis

fers from that of the hull (aluminum on steel, for example) x

the geometric erection area Af and inertia If must be reduced

according to the ratio of the respective material moduli; that Figure 18.35 Vertical Stress Distribution in Passenger Vessels having Large

is, by multiplying by E (aluminum)/E (steel) (approximately Openings above the Passenger Deck

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-31 4/28/03 1:30 PM

and normal loading, deflection and stress over the length foundation theory, 3) grillage theory (intersecting beams), and

and width dimensions of a stiffened panel. Remember that 4) the finite element method (FEM).

the primary response involves the determination of only the Orthotropic plate theory refers to the theory of bending

in-plane load, deflection, and stress as they vary over the of plates having different flexural rigidities in the two or-

length of the ship. The secondary response, therefore, is thogonal directions. In applying this theory to panels hav-

seen to be a two-dimensional problem while the primary ing discrete stiffeners, the structure is idealized by assuming

response is essentially one-dimensional in character. that the structural properties of the stiffeners may be ap-

proximated by their average values, which are assumed to

18.4.4.1 Stiffened panels be distributed uniformly over the width or length of the

A stiffened panel of structure, as used in the present con- plate. The deflections and stresses in the resulting contin-

text, usually consists of a flat plate surface with its attached uum are then obtained from a solution of the orthotropic

stiffeners, transverse frames and/or girders (Figure 18.36). plate deflection differential equation:

When the plating is absent the module is a grid or grillage

of beam members only, rather than a stiffened panel. ∂4w ∂4w ∂4w

a1 + a2 + a3 = p (x,y) [42]

In principle, the solution for the deflection and stress in ∂x 4 ∂x ∂y

2 2 ∂y 4

the stiffened panel may be thought of as a solution for the

response of a system of orthogonal intersecting beams. where:

A second type of interaction arises from the two-di- a1, a2, a3 = express the average flexural rigidity of the or-

mensional stress pattern in the plate, which may be thought thotropic plate in the two directions

of as forming a part of the flanges of the stiffeners. The plate w(x,y) = is the deflection of the plate in the normal di-

contribution to the beam bending stiffness arises from the rection

direct longitudinal stress in the plate adjacent to the stiff- p(x,y) = is the distributed normal pressure load per unit

ener, modified by the transverse stress effects, and also from area

the shear stress in the plane of the plate. The maximum sec-

ondary stress may be found in the plate itself, but more fre- Note that the behavior of the isotropic plate, that is, one

quently it is found in the free flanges of the stiffeners, since having uniform flexural properties in all directions, is a spe-

these flanges are at a greater distance than the plate mem- cial case of the orthotropic plate problem. The orthotropic

ber from the neutral axis of the combined plate-stiffener. plate method is best suited to a panel in which the stiffen-

At least four different procedures have been employed for ers are uniform in size and spacing and closely spaced. It

obtaining the structural behavior of stiffened plate panels has been said that the application of this theory to cross-

under normal loading, each embodying certain simplifying stiffened panels must be restricted to stiffened panels with

assumptions: 1) orthotropic plate theory, 2) beam-on-elastic- more than three stiffeners in each direction.

An advanced orthotropic procedure has been imple-

mented by Rigo (29,30) into a computer-based scheme for

the optimum structural design of the midship section. It is

based on the differential equations of stiffened cylindrical

shells (linear theory). Stiffened plates and cylindrical shells

can both be considered, as plates are particular cases of the

cylindrical shells having a very large radius. A system of

three differential equations, similar to equation 42, is es-

tablished (8th order coupled differential equations). Fourier

series expansions are used to model the loads. Assuming

that the displacements (u,v,w) can also be expanded in sin

and cosine, an analytical solution of u, v, and w(x,y) can be

obtained for each stiffened panel.

This procedure can be applied globally to all the stiff-

ened panels that compose a parallel section of a ship, typ-

ically a cargo hold.

This approach has three main advantages. First the plate

Figure 18.36 A Stiffened Panel with Uniformly Distributed Longitudinals, 4 bending behavior (w) and the inplane membrane behavior

Webframes, and 3 Girders. (u and v) are analyzed simultaneously. Then, in addition to

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-32 4/28/03 1:30 PM

the flexural rigidity (bending), the inplane axial, torsional, water outside the ship or liquid or dry bulk cargo within.

transverse shear and inplane shear rigidities of the stiffen- Such a loading is normal to and distributed over the surface

ers in the both directions can also be considered. Finally, of the panel. In many cases, the proportions, orientation, and

the approach is suited for stiffeners uniform in size and location of the panel are such that the pressure may be as-

spacing, and closely spaced but also for individual mem- sumed constant over its area.

bers, randomly distributed such as deck and bottom gird- As previously noted, the deflection response of an

ers. These members considered through Heaviside functions isotropic plate panel is obtained as the solution of a special

that allow replacing each individual member by a set of 3 case of the earlier orthotropic plate equation (equation 42),

forces and 2 bending moment load lines. Figure 18.36 shows and is given by:

a typical stiffened panel that can be considered. It includes

∂4w ∂4w ∂ 4 w p (x,y)

uniformly distributed longitudinals and web frames, and +2 2 2 + = [44]

three prompt elements (girders). ∂x 4 ∂x ∂y ∂y 4 D

The beam on elastic foundation solution is suitable for a

panel in which the stiffeners are uniform and closely spaced where:

in one direction and sparser in the other one. Each of these E t3

D = plate flexural rigidity

members is treated individually as a beam on an elastic foun- 12(1 − ν )

dation, for which the differential equation of deflection is, = Et3 / 12(1 – ν)

t = the uniform plate thickness

∂4w p(x,y) = distributed unit pressure load

EI + k w = q (x) [43]

∂x 4

Appropriate boundary conditions are to be selected to

where: represent the degree of fixity of the edges of the panel.

w = is the deflection Stresses and deflections are obtained by solving this equa-

I = is sectional moment of inertia of the longitudinal tion for rectangular plates under a uniform pressure distri-

stiffener, including adjacent plating bution. Equation 44 is in fact a simplified case of the general

k = is average spring constant per unit length of the one (equation 42).

transverse stiffeners Information (including charts) on a plate subject to uni-

q(x) = is load per unit length on the longitudinal member form load and concentrated load (patch load) is available

in Hughes (3).

The grillage approach models the cross-stiffened panel

as a system of discrete intersecting beams (in plane frame), 18.4.5.2 Local deflections

each beam being composed of stiffener and associated ef- Local deflections must be kept at reasonable levels in order

fective plating. The torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel for the overall structure to have the proper strength and

and the Poisson ratio effect are neglected. The validity of rigidity. Towards this end, the classification society rules may

modeling the stiffened panel by an intersecting beam (or gril- contain requirements to ensure that local deflections are not

lage) may be critical when the flexural rigidities of stiffen- excessive.

ers are small compared to the plate stiffness. It is known Special requirements also apply to stiffeners. Tripping

that the grillage approach may be suitable when the ratio brackets are provided to support the flanges, and they should

of the stiffener flexural rigidity to the plate bending rigid- be in line with or as near as practicable to the flanges of struts.

ity (EI/bD with I the moment of inertia of stiffener and D Special attention must be given to rigidity of members under

the plate bending rigidity) is greater than 60 (31) otherwise compressive loads to avoid buckling. This is done by pro-

if the bending rigidity of stiffener is smaller, an Orthotropic viding a minimum moment of inertia at the stiffener and as-

Plate Theory has to be selected. sociated plating.

The FEM approach is discussed in detail in section 18.7.2.

18.4.6 Transverse Strength

18.4.5 Tertiary Response Transverse strength refers to the ability of the ship struc-

18.4.5.1 Unstiffened plate ture to resist those loads that tend to cause distortion of the

Tertiary response refers to the bending stresses and deflec- cross section. When it is distorted into a parallelogram shape

tions in the individual panels of plating that are bounded by the effect is called racking. We recall that both the primary

the stiffeners of a secondary panel. In most cases the load bending and torsional strength analyses are based upon the

that induces this response is a fluid pressure from either the assumption of no distortion of the cross section. Thus, we

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-33 4/28/03 1:30 PM

see that there is an inherent relationship between transverse than comparative purposes. Ideally, the entire ship hull or

strength and both longitudinal and torsional strength. Cer- at least a limited hold-model should be modeled. See Sub-

tain structural members, including transverse bulkheads and section 18.7.2—Structural Finite Element Models (Figure

deep web frames, must be incorporated into the ship in order 18.57).

to insure adequate transverse strength. These members pro-

vide support to and interact with longitudinal members by

transferring loads from one part of a structure to another. 18.4.7 Superposition of Stresses

For example, a portion of the bottom pressure loading on In plating, each response induces longitudinal stresses, trans-

the hull is transferred via the center girder and the longitu- verse stresses and shear stresses. These stresses can be cal-

dinals to the transverse bulkheads at the ends of theses lon- culated individually for each response. This is the traditional

gitudinals. The bulkheads, in turn, transfer these loads as way followed by the classification societies. With direct

vertical shears into the side shell. Thus some of the loads analysis such as finite element analysis (Subsection 18.7.2),

acting on the transverse strength members are also the loads it is not always possible to separate the different responses.

of concern in longitudinal strength considerations. If calculated individually, all the longitudinal stresses

The general subject of transverse strength includes ele- have to be added. Similar cumulative procedure must be

ments taken from both the primary and secondary strength achieved for the transverse stresses and the shear stresses.

categories. The loads that cause effects requiring transverse At the end they are combined through a criteria, which is

strength analysis may be of several different types, de- usually for ship structure, the von-Mises criteria (equation

pending upon the type of ship, its structural arrangement, 45).

mode of operation, and upon environmental effects. The standard procedure used by classification societies

Typical situations requiring attention to the transverse considers that longitudinal stresses induced by primary re-

strength are: sponse of the hull girder, can be assessed separately from

the other stresses. Classification rules impose through al-

• ship out of water: on building ways or on construction

lowable stress and minimal section modulus, a maximum

or repair dry dock,

longitudinal stress induced by the hull girder bending mo-

• tankers having empty wing tanks and full centerline tanks

ment.

or vice versa,

On the other hand, they recommend to combined stresses

• ore carriers having loaded centerline holds and large

from secondary response and tertiary response, in plating

empty wing tanks,

and in members. These are combined through the von Mises

• all types of ships: torsional and racking effects caused

criteria and compared to the classification requirements.

by asymmetric motions of roll, sway and yaw, and

Such an uncoupled procedure is convenient to use but

• ships with structural features having particular sensitiv-

does not reflect reality. Direct analysis does not follow this

ity to transverse effects, as for instance, ships having

approach. All the stresses, from the primary, secondary and

largely open interior structure (minimum transverse bulk-

tertiary responses are combined for yielding assessment.

heads) such as auto carriers, containers and RO-RO ships.

For buckling assessment, the tertiary response is discarded,

As previously noted, the transverse structural response as it does not induce in-plane stresses. Nevertheless the lat-

involves pronounced interaction between transverse and eral load can be considered in the buckling formulation

longitudinal structural members. The principal loading con- (Subsection 18.6.3). Tertiary stresses should be added for

sists of the water pressure distribution around the ship, and fatigue analysis.

the weights and inertias of the structure and hold contents. Since all the methods of calculation of primary, sec-

As a first approximation, the transverse response of such a ondary, and tertiary stress presuppose linear elastic behav-

frame may be analyzed by a two-dimensional frame re- ior of the structural material, the stress intensities computed

sponse procedure that may or may not allow for support by for the same member may be superimposed in order to ob-

longitudinal structure. Such analysis can be easily performed tain a maximum value for the combined stress. In performing

using 2D finite element analysis (FEA). Influence of lon- and interpreting such a linear superposition, several con-

gitudinal girders on the frame would be represented by elas- siderations affecting the accuracy and significance of the re-

tic attachments having finite spring constants (similar to sulting stress values must be borne in mind.

equation 43). Unfortunately, such a procedure is very sen- First, the loads and theoretical procedures used in com-

sitive to the spring location and the boundary conditions. puting the stress components may not be of the same ac-

For this reason, a three-dimensional analysis is usually per- curacy or reliability. The primary loading, for example, may

formed in order to obtain results that are useful for more be obtained using a theory that involves certain simplifica-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-34 4/28/03 1:30 PM

tions in the hydrodynamics of ship and wave motion, and will not always be immediately obvious, but must be found

the primary bending stress may be computed by simple by considering the combined stress effects at a number of

beam theory, which gives a reasonably good estimate of the different locations and times.

mean stress in deck or bottom but neglects certain localized The nominal stresses produced from the analysis will be

effects such as shear lag or stress concentrations. a combination of the stress components shown in Figures

Second, the three stress components may not necessar- 18.21 and 18.37.

ily occur at the same instant in time as the ship moves

through waves. The maximum bending moment amidships, 18.4.7.1 von Mises equivalent stress

which results in the maximum primary stress, does not nec- The yield strength of the material, σyield, is defined as the

essarily occur in phase with the maximum local pressure measured stress at which appreciable nonlinear behavior

on a midship panel of bottom structure (secondary stress) accompanied by permanent plastic deformation of the ma-

or panel of plating (tertiary stress). terial occurs. The ultimate strength is the highest level of

Third, the maximum values of primary, secondary, and stress achieved before the test specimen fractures. For most

tertiary stress are not necessarily in the same direction or shipbuilding steels, the yield and tensile strengths in ten-

even in the same part of the structure. In order to visualize sion and compression are assumed equal.

this, consider a panel of bottom structure with longitudinal The stress criterion that must be used is one in which it

framing. The forward and after boundaries of the panel will is possible to compare the actual multi-axial stress with the

be at transverse bulkheads. The primary stress (σ1) will act material strength expressed in terms of a single value for

in the longitudinal direction, as given by equation 29. It will the yield or ultimate stress.

be nearly equal in the plating and the stiffeners, and will be For this purpose, there are several theories of material

approximately constant over the length of a midship panel. failure in use. The one usually considered the most suitable

There will be a small transverse component in the plating, for ductile materials such as ship steel is referred to as the

due to the Poison coefficient, and a shear stress given by von Mises Theory:

equation 35. The secondary stress will probably be greater

( )

1

in the free flanges of the stiffeners than in the plating, since σ e = σ 2x + σ 2y − σ x σ y + 3 τ 2 2

[45]

the combined neutral axis of the stiffener/plate combina-

tion is usually near the plate-stiffener joint. Secondary Consider a plane stress field in which the component

stresses, which vary over the length of the panel, are usu- stresses are σx, σy and τ. The distortion energy states that

ally subdivided into two parts in the case of single hull struc-

ture. The first part (σ2) is associated with bending of a panel

of structure bounded by transverse bulkheads and either the

side shell or the longitudinal bulkheads. The principal stiff-

eners, in this case, are the center and any side longitudinal

girders, and the transverse web frames. The second part,

(σ2*), is the stress resulting from the bending of the smaller

panel of plating plus longitudinal stiffeners that is bounded

by the deep web frames. The first of these components (σ2),

as a result of the proportions of the panels of structure, is

usually larger in the transverse than in the longitudinal di-

rection. The second (σ2*) is predominantly longitudinal.

The maximum tertiary stress (σ3) happens, of course, in the

plate where biaxial stresses occur. In the case of longitudi-

nal stiffeners, the maximum panel tertiary stress will act in

the transverse direction (normal to the framing system) at

the mid-length of a long side.

In certain cases, there will be an appreciable shear stress

component present in the plate, and the proper interpreta-

tion and assessment of the stress level will require the res-

olution of the stress pattern into principal stress components.

From all these considerations, it is evident that, in many

cases, the point in the structure having the highest stress level Figure 18.37 Definition of Stress Components (4)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-35 4/28/03 1:30 PM

failure through yielding will occur if the equivalent von states. A more elaborate description of the failure modes and

Mises stress, σe, given by equation 45 exceeds the equiva- methods to assess the structural capabilities in relation to

lent stress, σο, corresponding to yielding of the material test these failure modes is available in Subsection 18.6.1.

specimen. The material yield strength may also be expressed Classically, the different limit states were divided in 2

through an equivalent stress at failure: σ0 = σyield (= σy). major categories: the service limit state and the ultimate

limit state. Today, from the viewpoint of structural design,

18.4.7.2 Permissible stresses (Yielding) it seems more relevant to use for the steel structures four

In actual service, a ship may be subjected to bending in the types of limit states, namely:

inclined position and to other forces, such as those, which

1. service or serviceability limit state,

induce torsion or side bending in the hull girder, not to men-

2. ultimate limit state,

tion the dynamic effects resulting from the motions of the

3. fatigue limit state, and

ship itself. Heretofore it has been difficult to arrive at the

4. accidental limit state.

minimum scantlings for a large ship’s hull by first princi-

ples alone, since the forces that the structure might be re- This classification has recently been adopted by ISO.

quired to withstand in service conditions are uncertain. A service limit state corresponds to the situation where

Accordingly, it must be assumed that the allowable stress the structure can no longer provide the service for which it

includes an adequate factor of safety, or margin, for these was conceived, for example: excessive deck deflection, elas-

uncertain loading factors. tic buckling in a plate, and local cracking due to fatigue.

In practice, the margin against yield failure of the struc- Typically they relate to aesthetic, functional or maintenance

ture is obtained by a comparison of the structure’s von Mises problem, but do not lead to collapse.

equivalent stress, σe, against the permissible stress (or al- An ultimate limit state corresponds to collapse/failure,

lowable stress), σ0, giving the result: including collision and grounding. A classic example of ul-

timate limit state is the ultimate hull bending moment (Fig-

σe ≤ σ0 = s1 × σy [46]

ure 18.46). The ultimate limit state is symbolized by the

where: higher point (C) of the moment-curvature curve (M-Φ).

Fatigue can be either considered as a third limit state or,

s1 = partial safety factor defined by classification societies,

classically, considered as a service limit state. Even if it is

which depends on the loading conditions and method

also a matter of discussion, yielding should be considered

of analysis. For 20 years North Atlantic conditions

as a service limit state. First yield is sometimes used to as-

(seagoing condition), the s1 factor is usually taken be-

sess the ultimate state, for instance for the ultimate hull

tween 0.85 and 0.95

bending moment, but basically, collapse occurs later. Most

σy = minimum yield point of the considered steel (mild

of the time, vibration relates to service limit states.

steel, high tensile steel, etc.)

In practice, it is important to differentiate service, ulti-

For special ship types, different permissible stresses may mate, fatigue and accidental limit states because the partial

be specified for different parts of the hull structure. For ex- safety factors associated with these limit states are gener-

ample, for LNG carriers, there are special strain require- ally different.

ments in way of the bonds for the containment system, which

in turn can be expressed as equivalent stress requirements.

For local areas subjected to many cycles of load rever- 18.5.1 Basic Types of Failure Modes

sal, fatigue life must be calculated and a reduced permissi- Ship structural failure may occur as a result of a variety of

ble stress may be imposed to prevent fatigue failure (see causes, and the degree or severity of the failure may vary

Subsection 18.6.6). from a minor esthetic degradation to catastrophic failure re-

sulting in loss of the ship. Three major failure modes are

defined:

18.5 LIMIT STATES AND FAILURE MODES 1. tensile or compressive yield of the material (plasticity),

2. compressive instability (buckling), and

Avoidance of structural failure is the goal of all structural

3. fracture that includes ductile tensile rupture, low-cycle

designers, and to achieve this goal it is necessary for the de-

fatigue and brittle fracture.

signer to be aware of the potential limit states, failure modes

and methods of predicting their occurrence. This section Yield occurs when the stress in a structural member ex-

presents the basic types of failure modes and associated limit ceeds a level that results in a permanent plastic deforma-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-36 4/28/03 1:30 PM

tion of the material of which the member is constructed. This ocean structures is of such a nature that the cyclical stresses

stress level is termed the material yield stress. At a some- may be of a relatively low level during the greater part of

what higher stress, termed the ultimate stress, fracture of the time, with occasional periods of very high stress levels

the material occurs. While many structural design criteria caused by storms. Exposure to such load conditions may

are based upon the prevention of any yield whatsoever, it result in the occurrence of low-cycle fatigue cracks after an

should be observed that localized yield in some portions of interval of a few years. These cracks may grow to serious

a structure is acceptable. Yield must be considered as a serv- size if they are not detected and repaired.

iceability limit state. Concerning brittle fracture, small cracks suddenly begin

Instability and buckling failure of a structural member to grow and travel almost explosively through a major por-

loaded in compression may occur at a stress level that is sub- tion of the structure. The term brittle fracture refers to the

stantially lower than the material yield stress. The load at fact that below a certain temperature, the ultimate tensile

which instability or buckling occurs is a function of mem- strength of steel diminishes sharply (lower impact energy).

ber geometry and material elasticity modulus, that is, slen- The originating crack is usually found to have started as a

derness, rather than material strength. The most common result of poor design or manufacturing practice. Fatigue

example of an instability failure is the buckling of a simple (Subsection 18.6.6) is often found to play an important role

column under a compressive load that equals or exceeds in the initiation and early growth of such originating cracks.

the Euler Critical Load. A plate in compression also will The prevention of brittle fracture is largely a matter of ma-

have a critical buckling load whose value depends on the terial selection and proper attention to the design of struc-

plate thickness, lateral dimensions, edge support conditions tural details in order to avoid stress concentrations. The

and material elasticity modulus. In contrast to the column, control of brittle fracture involves a combination of design

however, exceeding this load by a small margin will not and inspection standards aimed toward the prevention of

necessarily result in complete collapse of the plate but only stress concentrations, and the selection of steels having a

in an elastic deflection of the central portion of the plate away high degree of notch toughness, especially at low tempera-

from its initial plane. After removal of the load, the plate tures. Quality control during construction and in-service in-

may return to its original un-deformed configuration (for spection form key elements in a program of fracture control.

elastic buckling). The ultimate load that may be carried by In addition to these three failure modes, additional modes

a buckled plate is determined by the onset of yielding at some are:

point in the plate material or in the stiffeners, in the case of

• collision and grounding, and

a stiffened panel. Once begun, yield may propagate rapidly

• vibration and noise.

throughout the entire plate or stiffened panel with further

increase in load. Collision and Grounding is discussed in Subsection

Fatigue failure occurs as a result of a cumulative effect 18.6.7 and Vibration in Subsection 18.6.8. Vibration as well

in a structural member that is exposed to a stress pattern al- as noise is not a failure mode, while it could fall into the

ternating from tension to compression through many cy- serviceability limit state.

cles. Conceptually, each cycle of stress causes some small

but irreversible damage within the material and, after the

accumulation of enough such damage, the ability of the 18.6 ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURAL

member to withstand loading is reduced below the level of CAPACITY

the applied load. Two categories of fatigue damage are gen-

erally recognized and they are termed high-cycle and low- 18.6.1 Failure Modes Classification

cycle fatigue. In high-cycle fatigue, failure is initiated in The types of failure that may occur in ship structures are

the form of small cracks, which grow slowly and which generally those that are characteristic of structures made up

may often be detected and repaired before the structure is of stiffened panels assembled through welding. Figure 18.38

endangered. High-cycle fatigue involves several millions presents the different structure levels: the global structure,

of cycles of relatively low stress (less than yield) and is typ- usually a cargo hold (Level 1), the orthotropic stiffened

ically encountered in machine parts rotating at high speed panel or grillage (Level 2) and the interframe longitudi-

or in structural components exposed to severe and prolonged nally stiffened panel (Level 3) or its simplified modeling:

vibration. Low-cycle fatigue involves higher stress levels, the beam-column (Level 3b). Level 4 (Figure 18.44a) is the

up to and beyond yield, which may result in cracks being unstiffened plate between two longitudinals and two trans-

initiated after several thousand cycles. verse frames (also called bare plate).

The loading environment that is typical of ships and The word grillage should be reserve to a structure com-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-37 4/28/03 1:30 PM

posed of a grid of beams (without attached plating). When — plate induced failure (buckling)

the grid is fixed on a plate, orthotropic stiffened panel seems — stiffener induced failure (buckling or yielding)

to the authors more adequate to define a panel that is or- Mode IV and V: Instability of stiffeners (local buck-

thogonally stiffened, and having thus orthotropic properties. ling, tripping—Figure 18.44c)

The relations between the different failure modes and Mode VI: Gross Yielding

structure levels can be summarized as follows: • Level 4: Buckling collapse of unstiffened plate (bare

plate, Figure 18.44a).

• Level 1: Ultimate bending moment, Mu, of the global

structure (Figure 18.46). To avoid collapse related to the Mode I, a minimal rigid-

• Level 2: Ultimate strength of compressed orthotropic ity is generally imposed for the transverse frames so that an

stiffened panels (σu), interframe panel collapse (Mode III) always occurs prior to

overall buckling (Mode I). It is a simple and easy constraint

σu = min [σu (mode i)], i = I to VI,

to implement, thus avoiding any complex calculation of

the 6 considered failure modes. overall buckling (mode I).

• Level 3: Note that the failure Mode III is influenced by the buck-

Mode I: Overall buckling collapse (Figure 18.44d), ling of the bare plate (elementary unstiffened plate). Elas-

Mode II: Plate/Stiffener Yielding tic buckling of theses unstiffened plates is usually not

Mode III: Pult of interframe panels with a plate-stif considered as an ultimate limit state (failure mode), but

ener combination (Figure 18.44b) using a beam-col- rather as a service limit state. Nevertheless, plate buckling

umn model (Level 3b) or an orthotropic model (Level (Level 4) may significantly affect the ultimate strength of

3), considering: the stiffened panel (Level 3).

Sources of the failures associated with the serviceabil-

ity or ultimate limit states can be classified as follows:

Service limit state

• Upper and lower bounds (Xmin≤X≤Xmax): plate thick-

ness, dimensions of longitudinals and transverse stiff-

eners (web, flange and spacing).

• Maximum allowable stresses against first yield (Sub-

section 18.4.7)

• Panel and plate deflections (Subsections 18.4.4.1 and

18.4.5.2), and deflection of support members.

• Elastic buckling of unstiffened plates between two lon-

gitudinals and two transverse stiffeners, frames or bulk-

heads (Subsection 18.6.3),

• Local elastic buckling of longitudinal stiffeners (web

and flange). Often the stiffener web/flange buckling does

not induce immediate collapse of the stiffened panel as

tripping does. It could therefore be considered as a serv-

iceability ultimate limit state. However, this failure mode

could also be classified into the ultimate limit state since

the plating may sometimes remain without stiffening

once the stiffener web buckles.

• Vibration (Sub-ection 18.6.8)

• Fatigue (Sub-ection 18.6.6)

Ultimate limit state (Subsection 18.6.4).

• Overall collapse of orthotropic panels (entire stiffened

Figure 18.38 Structural Modeling of the Structure and its Components plate structure),

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-38 4/28/03 1:30 PM

including torsional-flexural (lateral-torsional) buckling As explained in Subsection 18.5.1 yield occurs when the

of stiffeners (also called tripping). stress in a structural component exceeds the yield stress.

It is necessary to distinguish between first yield state and

18.6.1.2 Frame failure modes fully plastic state. In bending, first yield corresponds to the

Service limit state (Subsection 18.4.6). situation when stress in the extreme fiber reaches the yield

• Upper and lower bounds (Xmin ≤ X ≤ Xmax), stress. If the bending moment continues to increase the yield

• Minimal rigidity to guarantee rigid supports to the in- area is growing. The final stage corresponds to the Plastic

terframe panels (between two transverse frames). Moment (Mp), where, both the compression and tensile sides

• Allowable stresses under the resultant forces (bending, are fully yielded (as shown on Figure 18.47).

shear, torsion) Yield can be assessed using basic bending theory, equa-

tion 29, up to complex 3D nonlinear FE analysis. Design

— Elastic analysis, criteria related to first yield is the von Mises equivalent

— Elasto-plastic analysis. stress (equation 45).

• Fatigue (Subsection 18.6.6) Yielding is discussed in detail in Section 18.4.

18.6.3 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Plates

• Frame bucklings: These failures modes are considered

A ship stiffened plate structure can become unstable if ei-

as ultimate limit states rather than a service limit state.

ther buckling or collapse occurs and may thus fail to per-

If one of them appears, the assumption of rigid supports

form its function. Hence plate design needs to be such that

is no longer valid and the entire stiffened panel can reach

instability under the normal operation is prevented (Figure

the ultimate limit state.

18.44a). The phenomenon of buckling is normally divided

— Buckling of the compressed members, into three categories, namely elastic buckling, elastic-plas-

— Local buckling (web, flange). tic buckling and plastic buckling, the last two being called

inelastic buckling. Unlike columns, thin plating buckled in

18.6.1.3 Hull Girder Collapse modes the elastic regime may still be stable since it can normally

Service limit state sustain further loading until the ultimate strength is reached,

even if the in-plane stiffness significantly decreases after the

• Allowable stresses and first yield (Subsection 18.4.3.1),

inception of buckling. In this regard, the elastic buckling of

• Deflection of the global structure and relative deflec-

plating between stiffeners may be allowed in the design,

tions of components and panels (Subsection 18.4.3.7).

sometimes intentionally in order to save weight. Since sig-

Ultimate limit state nificant residual strength of the plating is not expected after

buckling occurs in the inelastic regime, however, inelastic

• Global ultimate strength (of the hull girder/box girder).

buckling is normally considered to be the ultimate strength

This can be done by considering an entire cargo hold or

of the plate.

only the part between two transverse web frames (Sub-

The buckling and ultimate strength of the structure de-

section 18.6.5). Collapse of frames is assumed to only

pends on a variety of influential factors, namely geomet-

appear after the collapse of panels located between these

ric/material properties, loading characteristics, fabrication

frames. This means that it is sufficient to verify the box

related imperfections, boundary conditions and local dam-

girder ultimate strength between two frames to be pro-

age related to corrosion, fatigue cracking and denting.

tected against a more general collapse including, for in-

stance, one or more frame spans. This approach can be

18.6.3.1 Direct Analysis

un-conservative if the frames are not stiff enough.

In estimating the load-carrying capacity of plating between

• Collision and grounding (Subsection 18.6.7), which is

stiffeners, it is usually assumed that the stiffeners are sta-

in fact an accidental limit state.

ble and fail only after the plating. This means that the stiff-

A relevant comparative list of the limit states was de- eners should be designed with proper proportions that help

fined by the Ship Structure Committee Report No 375 (32). attain such behavior. Thus, webs, faceplates and flanges of

the stiffeners or support members have to be proportioned

so that local instability is prevented prior to the failure of

plating.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-39 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Four load components, namely longitudinal compres- σB = critical buckling strength (that is, τB for

sion/tension, transverse compression/tension, edge shear and shear stress)

lateral pressure loads, are typically considered to act on ship σF = σY for

4 normal stress

plating between stiffeners, as shown in Figure 18.39, while = σY √3 for shear stress

the in-plane bending effects on plate buckling are also some- σY = material yield stress

times accounted for. In actual ship structures, lateral pres-

In ship rules and books, equation 47 may appear with

sure loading arises from water pressure and cargo weight.

somewhat different constants depending on the structural

The still water magnitude of water pressure depends on the

proportional limit assumed. The above form assumes a struc-

vessel draft, and the still water value of cargo pressure is de-

tural proportional limit of a half the applicable yield value.

termined by the amount and density of cargo loaded.

For axial tensile loading, the critical strength may be

These still water pressure values may be augmented by

considered to equal the material yield stress (σY).

wave action and vessel motion. Typically the larger in-plane

Under single types of loads, the critical plate buckling

loads are caused by longitudinal hull girder bending, both

strength must be greater than the corresponding applied

in still water and in waves at sea, which is the source of the

stress component with the relevant margin of safety. For

primary stress as previously noted in Subsection 18.4.3.

combined biaxial compression/tension and edge shear, the

The elastic plate buckling strength components under

following type of critical buckling strength interaction cri-

single types of loads, that is, σxE for σxav, σyE for σyav and

terion would need to be satisfied, for example:

τE for τav, can be calculated by taking into account the re-

c

lated effects arising from in-plane bending, lateral pressure, σ xav

c

σ xav σ yav σ yav τ av

c

−α + + τ ≤ η B [48]

cut-outs, edge conditions and welding induced residual σ xB σ xB σ yB σ yB B

stresses.

The critical (elastic-plastic) buckling strength compo- where:

nents under single types of loads, that is, σxB for σxav, σyB

ηB = usage factor for buckling strength, which is typically

for σyav and τB for τav, are typically calculated by plasticity

the inverse of the conventional partial safety factor.

correction of the corresponding elastic buckling strength

ηB = 1.0 is often taken for direct strength calculation, while

using the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula, namely:

it is taken less than 1.0 for practical design in accor-

σ E for σ E ≤ 0.5 σ F dance with classification society rules.

σB = σF [47] Compressive stress is taken as negative while tensile

σ F 1 − 4 σ for σ E > 0.5 σ F

stress is taken as positive and α = 0 if both σxav and σyav are

E

compressive, and α = 1 if either σxav or σyav or both are ten-

where: sile. The constant c is often taken as c = 2.

Figure 18.40 shows a typical example of the axial mem-

σE = elastic plate buckling strength brane stress distribution inside a plate element under pre-

dominantly longitudinal compressive loading before and

after buckling occurs. It is noted that the membrane stress

distribution in the loading (x) direction can become non-

uniform as the plate element deforms. The membrane stress

distribution in the y direction may also become non-uni-

form with the unloaded plate edges remaining straight, while

no membrane stresses will develop in the y direction if the

unloaded plate edges are free to move in plane. As evident,

the maximum compressive membrane stresses are developed

around the plate edges that remain straight, while the min-

imum membrane stresses occur in the middle of the plate

element where a membrane tension field is formed by the

plate deflection since the plate edges remain straight.

With increase in the deflection of the plate keeping the

edges straight, the upper and/or lower fibers inside the mid-

Figure 18.39 A Simply Supported Rectangular Plate Subject to Biaxial dle of the plate element will initially yield by the action of

Compression/tension, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads bending. However, as long as it is possible to redistribute

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-40 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Figure 18.41 Possible Locations for the Initial Plastic Yield at the Plate Edges

(Expected yield locations, T: Tension, C: Compression); (a) Yield at longitudinal

mid-edges under longitudinal uniaxial compression, (b) Yield at transverse

mid-edges under transverse uniaxial compression)

compressive loads and transverse mid-edges for transverse

uniaxial compressive loads, as shown in Figure 18.41.

The occurrence of yielding can be assessed by using the

von Mises yield criterion (equation 45). The following con-

ditions for the most probable yield locations will then be

found.

(a) Yielding at longitudinal edges:

Figure 18.40 Membrane Stress Distribution Inside the Plate Element under

Predomianntly Longitudinal Compressive Loads; (a) Before buckling, (b) After The maximum and minimum membrane stresses of equa-

buckling, unloaded edges move freely in plane, (c) After buckling, unloaded tions 49a and 49b can be expressed in terms of applied

edges kept straight stresses, lateral pressure loads and fabrication related ini-

tial imperfections, by solving the nonlinear governing dif-

ferential equations of plating, based on equilibrium and

compatibility equations. Note that equation 44 is the linear

the applied loads to the straight plate boundaries by the differential equation.

membrane action, the plate element will not collapse. Col- On the other hand, the plate ultimate edge shear strength,

lapse will then occur when the most stressed boundary lo- τu , is often taken τu =τB (equation 47, with τB instead of σB).

cations yield, since the plate element can not keep the Also, an empirical formula obtained by curve fitting based

boundaries straight any further, resulting in a rapid increase on nonlinear finite element solutions may be utilized (33).

of lateral plate deflection (33). Because of the nature of ap- The effect of lateral pressure loads on the plate ultimate edge

plied axial compressive loading, the possible yield loca- shear strength may in some cases need to be accounted for.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-41 4/28/03 1:31 PM

and lateral pressure loads, the last being usually regarded

as a given constant secondary load, the plate ultimate

strength interaction criterion may also be given by an ex-

pression similar to equation 48, but replacing the critical

buckling strength components by the corresponding ulti-

mate strength components, as follows:

c

σ xav

c

σ xav σ yav σ yav τ av

c

−α + + τ ≤ η u [50]

σ xu σ xu σ yu σ yu u

where:

α and c = variables defined in equation 48

ηu = usage factors for the ultimate limit state

σxu and σyu = solutions of equation 49a with regard to σxav

and equation 49b with regard to σyav, respec-

tively

In the interest of simplicity, the elastic plate buckling strength

components under single types of loads may sometimes be

calculated by neglecting the effects of in-plane bending or

lateral pressure loads. Without considering the effect of lat-

eral pressure, the resulting elastic buckling strength predic-

tion would be pessimistic. While the plate edges are often

supposed to be simply supported, that is, without rotational Figure 18.42 Compressive Buckling Coefficient for Plates in Compression; for

restraints along the plate/stiffener junctions, the real elastic

5 Configurations (2) (A, B, C, D and E) where Boundary Conditions of Unloaded

buckling strength with rotational restraints would of course

Edges are: SS: Simply Supported, C: Clamped, and F: Free

be increased by a certain percentages, particularly for heavy

stiffeners. This arises from the increased torsional restraint

provided at the plate edges in such cases.

The theoretical solution for critical buckling stress, σB ,

in the elastic range has been found for a number of cases compression (a > b), kc = 4, and for wide plate (a ≤ b) in

of interest. For rectangular plate subject to compressive in- compression, kc = (1 + b2 / a2)2, for simply supported edges.

plane stress in one direction: For shear force, the critical buckling shear stress, τB, can

2 also be obtain by equation 51 and the buckling coefficient

π2E t

σB = kc [51] for simply supported edges is:

12 (1 − ν 2 ) b

kc = 5.34 + 4(b/a)2 [53]

Here kc is a function of the plate aspect ratio, α = a/ b,

the boundary conditions on the plate edges and the type of Figure 18.42 presents, kc, versus the aspect ratio, a/b, for

loading. If the load is applied uniformly to a pair of oppo- different configurations of rectangular plates in compression.

site edges only, and if all four edges are simply supported, For the simplified prediction of the plate ultimate strength

then kc is given by: under uniaxial compressive loads, one of the most common ap-

proaches is to assume that the plate will collapse if the maxi-

m α 2 mum compressive stress at the plate corner reaches the material

kc = + [52] yield stress, namely σx max = σY for σxav or σy max = σY for σyav.

α m

This assumption is relevant when the unloaded edges

where m is the number of half-waves of the deflected plate move freely in plane as that shown in Figure 40(b). Another

in the longitudinal direction, which is taken as an integer approximate method is to use the plate effective width con-

satisfying the condition α = m (m + 1). For long plate in cept, which provides the plate ultimate strength components

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-42 4/28/03 1:31 PM

under uniaxial compressive stresses (σxu and σyu), as fol- compression do not occur simultaneously. For instance,

low: DNV (4) recommends:

= eu and = eu [54] angle associated with σy, τ (buckling control),

σY b σY a

• maximum compression, σy, in a plate field and phase

where aeu and beu are the plate effective length and width at angle associated with σx, τ (buckling control),

the ultimate limit state, respectively. • absolute maximum shear stress, τ, in a plate field and

While a number of the plate effective width expressions phase angle associated with σx, σy (buckling control),

have been developed, a typical approach is exemplified by and

Faulkner, who suggests an empirical effective width (beu /b) • maximum equivalent von Mises stress, σe, at given po-

formula for simply supported steel plates, as follows, sitions (yield control).

• for longitudinal axial compression (34),

In order to get σx and σy, the following stress compo-

1 for β < 1 nents may normally be considered for the buckling control:

b eu σ1 = stress from primary response, and

= c1 c2 [55a]

β − β 2 for β ≥ 1

b σ2 = stress from secondary response (that is, double

bottom bending).

• for transverse axial compression (35), As the lateral bending effects should be normally in-

cluded in the buckling strength formulation, stresses from

a eu 0.9 b 1.9 0.9

= + 1− local bending of stiffeners (secondary response), σ2*, and

a β [55b]

a β2 β2 local bending of plate (tertiary response), σ3, must there-

where: fore not to be included in the buckling control. If FE-analy-

sis is performed the local plate bending stress, σ3, can easily

σY

β= b is the plate slenderness be excluded using membrane stresses.

t E

E = the Young’s modulus

t = the plate thickness 18.6.4 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Stiffened

c1 , c2 = typically taken as c1 = 2 and c2 = 1 Panels

The plate ultimate strength components under uniaxial For the structural capacity analysis of stiffened panels, it is

compressive loads are therefore predicted by substituting presumed that the main support members including longi-

the plate effective width formulae (equation 55a) into equa- tudinal girders, transverse webs and deep beams are de-

tion 54. signed with proper proportions and stiffening systems so

More charts and formulations are available in many that their instability is prevented prior to the failure of the

books, for example, Bleich (36), ECCS-56 (37), Hughes stiffened panels they support.

(3) and Lewis (2). In addition, the design strength of plate In many ship stiffened panels, the stiffeners are usually

(unstiffened panels) is detailed in Chapter 19, Subsection attached in one direction alone, but for generality, the de-

19.5.4.1, including an example of reliability-based design sign criteria often consider that the panel can have stiffen-

and alternative equations to equations 56 and 57. ers in one direction and webs or girders in the other, this

arrangement corresponds to a typical ship stiffened panels

18.6.3.3 Design criteria (Figure 18.43a). The stiffeners and webs/girders are at-

When a single load component is involved, the buckling or tached to only one side of the panel.

ultimate strength must be greater than the corresponding ap- The number of load components acting on stiffened steel

plied stress component with an appropriate target partial panels are generally of four types, namely biaxial loads, that

safety factor. In a multiple load component case, the struc- is compression or tension, edge shear, biaxial in-plane bend-

tural safety check is made with equation 48 against buck- ing and lateral pressure, as shown in Figure 18.43. When the

ling and equation 50 against ultimate limit state being panel size is relatively small compared to the entire structure,

satisfied. the influence of in-plane bending effects may be negligible.

To ensure that the possible worst condition is met (buck- However, for a large stiffened panel such as that in side

ling and yield) for the ship, several stress combination must shell of ships, the effect of in-plane bending may not be

be considered, as the maximum longitudinal and transverse negligible, since the panel may collapse by failure of stiff-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-43 4/28/03 1:31 PM

eners which are loaded by largest added portion of axial different from that of the plate. It is therefore necessary to

compression due to in-plane bending moments. take into account this effect in the structural capacity for-

When the stiffeners are relatively small so that they mulations, at least approximately.

buckle together with the plating, the stiffened panel typi- For analysis of the ultimate strength capacity of stiffened

cally behaves as an orthotropic plate. In this case, the av- panels which are supported by longitudinal girders, trans-

erage values of the applied axial stresses may be used by verse webs and deep beams, it is often assumed that the

neglecting the influence of in-plane bending. When the stiff- panel edges are simply supported, with zero deflection and

eners are relatively stiff so that the plating between stiffen- zero rotational restraints along four edges, with all edges

ers buckles before failure of the stiffeners, the ultimate kept straight.

strength is eventually reached by failure of the most highly This idealization may provide somewhat pessimistic,

stressed stiffeners. In this case, the largest values of the axial but adequate predictions of the ultimate strength of stiffened

compressive or tensile stresses applied at the location of the panels supported by heavy longitudinal girders, transverse

stiffeners are used for the failure analysis of the stiffeners. webs and deep beams (or bulkheads).

In stiffened panels of ship structures, material properties of Today, direct non-linear strength assessment methods

the stiffeners including the yield stress are in some cases using recognized programs is usual (38). The model should

(a)

(a)

(b)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(a) Elastic buckling of plating between stiffeners (serviceability limit state).

(b) Flexural buckling of stiffeners including plating (plate-stiffener combination,

Figure 18.43 A Stiffened Steel Panel Under Biaxial Compression/Tension, mode III).

Biaxial In-plane Bending, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads. (a) Stiffened (c) Lateral-torsional buckling of stiffeners (tripping—mode V).

Panel—Longitudinals and Frames (4), and (b) A Generic Stiffened Panel (38). (d) Overall stiffened panel buckling (grillage or gross panel buckling—mode I).

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-44 4/28/03 1:31 PM

be capable of capturing all relevant buckling modes and with experimental and/or FE analysis are available (43-45).

detrimental interactions between them. The fabrication re- An example of reliability-based assessment of the stiff-

lated initial imperfections in the form of initial deflections ened panel strength is presented in Chapter 19. Formula-

(plates, stiffeners) and residual stresses can in some cases tions of Herzog, Hughes and Adamchack are also discussed.

significantly affect (usually reduce) the ultimate strength of

the panel so that they should be taken into account in the 18.6.4.2 Simplified models

strength computations as parameters of influence. Existing simplified methods for predicting the ultimate

strength of stiffened panels typically use one or more of the

18.6.4.1 Direct analysis following approaches:

The primary modes for the ultimate limit state of a stiffened

• orthotropic plate approach,

panel subject to predominantly axial compressive loads may

• plate-stiffener combination approach (or beam-column

be categorized as follows (Figure 18.44):

approach), and

• Mode I: Overall collapse after overall buckling, • grillage approach.

• Mode II: Plate induced failure—yielding of the plate-

These approaches are similar to those presented in Sub-

stiffener combination at panel edges,

section 18.4.4.1 for linear analysis. All have the same back-

• Mode III: Plate induced failure—flexural buckling fol-

ground but, here, the buckling and the ultimate strength is

lowed by yielding of the plate-stiffener combination at

considered.

mid-span,

In the orthotropic plate approach, the stiffened panel is

• Mode IV: Stiffener induced failure—local buckling of

idealized as an equivalent orthotropic plate by smearing the

stiffener web,

stiffeners into the plating. The orthotropic plate theory will

• Mode V: Stiffener induced failure—tripping of stiffener,

then be useful for computation of the panel ultimate strength

and

for the overall grillage collapse mode (Mode I, Figure

• Mode VI: Gross yielding.

18.44d), (31,46,48).

Calculation of the ultimate strength of the stiffened panel The plate-stiffener combination approach (also called

under combined loads taking into account all of the possi- beam-column approach) models the stiffened panel behav-

ble failure modes noted above is not straightforward, be- ior by that of a single “beam” consisting of a stiffener to-

cause of the interplay of the various factors previously noted gether with the attached plating, as representative of the

such as geometric and material properties, loading, fabri- stiffened panel (Figure 18.38, level 3b). The beam is con-

cation related initial imperfections (initial deflection and sidered to be subjected to axial and lateral line loads. The

welding induced residual stresses) and boundary conditions. torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel, the Poisson ratio ef-

As an approximation, the collapse of stiffened panels is then fect and the effect of the intersecting beams are all neg-

usually postulated to occur at the lowest value among the lected. The beam-column approach is useful for the

various ultimate loads calculated for each of the above col- computation of the panel ultimate strength based on Mode

lapse patterns. III, which is usually an important failure mode that must be

This leads to the easier alternative wherein one calcu- considered in design. The degree of accuracy of the beam-

lates the ultimate strengths for all collapse modes mentioned column idealization may become an important considera-

above separately and then compares them to find the min- tion when the plate stiffness is relatively large compared to

imum value which is then taken to correspond to the real the rigidity of stiffeners and/or under significant biaxial

panel ultimate strength. The failure mode of stiffened pan- loading.

els is a broad topic that cannot be covered totally within this Stiffened panels are asymmetric in geometry about the

chapter. Many simplified design methods have of course plate-plane. This necessitates strength control for both plate

been previously developed to estimate the panel ultimate induced failure and stiffener-induced failure.

strength, considering one or more of the failure modes Plate induced failure: Deflection away from the plate as-

among those mentioned above. Some of those methods have sociated with yielding in compression at the connection be-

been reviewed by the ISSC’2000 (39). On the other hand, tween plate and stiffener. The characteristic buckling

a few authors provide a complete set of formulations that strength for the plate is to be used.

cover all the feasible failure modes noted previously, namely, Stiffener induced failure: Deflection towards the plate as-

Dowling et al (40), Hughes (3), Mansour et al (41,42), and sociated with yielding in compression in top of the stiffener

more recently Paik (38). or torsional buckling of the stiffener.

Assessment of different formulations by comparison Various column strength formulations have been used as

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-45 4/28/03 1:31 PM

common types being the following:

a Y σY

λ= σ =

• Johnson-Ostenfeld (or Bleich-Ostenfeld) formulation, πr E σE

• Perry-Robertson formulation, and

• empirical formulations obtained by curve fitting exper- where:

imental or numerical data. r = radius

4 of gyration

I = inertia, (m4)

will not buckle in the elastic regime and will reach the ulti-

A = cross section of the plate-stiffener combination with full

mate limit state with a certain degree of plasticity. In most

attached plating, (m2)

design rules of classification societies, the so-called John-

t = plate thickness, (m)

son-Ostenfeld formulation is used to account for this behav-

a = span of the stiffeners, (m)

ior (equation 47). On the other hand, in the so-called

b = spacing between 2 longitudinals, (m)

Perry-Robertson formulation, the strength expression as-

sumes that the stiffener with associated plating will collapse Note that A, I, r, ... refer to the full section of the plate-

as a beam-column when the maximum compressive stress in stiffener combination, that is, without considering an ef-

the extreme fiber reaches the yield strength of the material. fective plating.

In empirical approaches, the ultimate strength formula- Figure 18.45 compares the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula

tions are developed by curve fitting based on mechanical (equation 47), the Perry-Robertson formula and the Paik-

collapse test results or numerical solutions. Even if limited Thayamballi empirical formula (equation 56) for on the col-

to a range of applicability (load types, slenderness ranges, umn ultimate strength for a plate-stiffener combination

assumed level of initial imperfections, etc.) they are very varying the column slenderness ratios, with selected initial

useful for preliminary design stage, uncertainty assessment eccentricity and plate slenderness ratios. In usage of the

and as constraint in optimization package. While a vast num- Perry-Roberson formula, the lower strength as obtained

ber of empirical formulations (sometimes called column from either plate induced failure or stiffener-induced fail-

curves) for ultimate strength of simple beams in steel framed ure is adopted herein. Interaction between bending axial

structures have been developed, relevant empirical formu-

lae for plate-stiffener combination models are also available.

As an example of the latter type, Paik and Thayamballi (49)

developed an empirical formula for predicting the ultimate

strength of a plate-stiffener combination under axial com-

pression in terms of both column and plate slenderness ra-

tios, based on existing mechanical collapse test data for the

ultimate strength of stiffened panels under axial compres-

sion and with initial imperfections (initial deflections and

residual stresses) at an average level. Since the ultimate

strength of columns (σu) must be less than the elastic col-

umn buckling strength (σE), the Paik-Thayamballi empiri-

cal formula for a plate-stiffener combination is given by:

σu 1

= [56]

σY 0.995 + 0.936 λ 2 + 0.17 β 2 + 0.188 λ 2 β 2 − 0.067 λ 4

and

σu 1 σ

≤ 2 = E

σY λ σY

with

Figure 18.45 A Comparison of the Ultimate Strength Formulations for

b Y Plate-stiffener Combinations under Axial Compression (η relates to the

β= σ

t E initial deflection)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-46 4/28/03 1:31 PM

compression and lateral pressure can, within the same fail- comprehensive works performed by the Special Task Com-

ure mode (Flexural Buckling—Mode III), leads to three-fail- mittees of ISSC 2000. Yao (51) contains an historical re-

ure scenario: plate induced failure, stiffener induced failure view and a state of art on this matter.

or a combined failure of stiffener and plating (see Chapter Computation of Mu depends closely on the ultimate

19 – Figure 19.11 ). strength of the structure’s constituent panels, and particularly

on the ultimate strength in compressed panels or components.

18.6.4.3 Design criteria Figure 18.46 shows that in sagging, the deck is compressed

The ultimate strength based design criteria of stiffened pan- (σdeck) and reaches the ultimate limit state when σdeck = σu.

els can also be defined by equation 50, but using the corre- On the other hand, the bottom is in tensile and reaches its ul-

sponding stiffened panel ultimate strength and stress timate limit state after complete yielding, σbottom = σ0 (σ0

parameters. Either all of the six design criteria, that is, against being the yield stress).

individual collapse modes I to VI noted above, or a single de- Basically, there exist two main approaches to evaluate

sign criterion in terms of the real (minimum) ultimate strength the hull girder ultimate strength of a ship’s hull under lon-

components must be satisfied. For stiffened panels follow- gitudinal bending moments. One, the approximate analy-

ing Mode I behavior, the safety check is similar to a plate, sis, is to calculate the ultimate bending moment directly

using average applied stress components. The applied axial (Mu, point C on Figure 18.46), and the other is to perform

stress components for safety evaluation of the stiffened panel progressive collapse analysis on a hull girder and obtain,

following Modes II–VI behavior will use the maximum axial both, Mu and the curves M-φ.

stresses at the most highly stressed stiffeners. The first approach, approximate analysis, requires an

assumption on the longitudinal stress distribution. Figure

18.47 shows several distributions corresponding to differ-

18.6.5 Ultimate Bending Moment of Hull Girder ent methods. On the other hand, the progressive collapse

Ultimate hull girder strength relates to the maximum load analysis does not need to know in advance this distribution.

that the hull girder can support before collapse. These loads Accordingly, to determine the global ultimate bending

induce vertical and horizontal bending moment, torsional moment (Mu), one must know in advance

moment, vertical and horizontal shear forces and axial force.

• the ultimate strength of each compressed panel (σu), and

For usual seagoing vessels axial force can be neglected. As

• the average stress-average strain relationship (σ−ε), to

the maximun shear forces and maximum bending moment

perform a progressive collapse analysis.

do not occur at the same place, ultimate hull girder strength

should be evaluated at different locations and for a range of For an approximate assessment, such as the Caldwell

bending moments and shear forces. method, only the ultimate strength of each compressed panel

The ultimate bending moment (Mu) refers to a combined (σu) is required.

vertical and horizontal bending moments (Mv, Mh); the

transverse shear forces (Vv,Vh) not being considered. Then,

the ultimate bending moment only corresponds to one of 18.6.5.1 Direct analysis

the feasible loading cases that induce hull girder collapse. The direct analysis corresponds to the Progressive collapse

Today, Mu is considered as being a relevant design case. analysis. The methods include the typical numerical analy-

Two major references related to the ultimate strength of

hull girder are, respectively, for extreme load and ultimate

strength, Jensen et al (24) and Yao et al (50). Both present

Figure 18.47 Typical Stress Distributions Used by Approximate Methods. (a)

First Yield. (b) Sagging Bending Moment (c) Evans (d) Paik—Mansour (e)

Figure 18.46 The Moment-Curvature Curve (M-Φ) Caldwell Modified (f) Plastic Bending Moment.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-47 4/28/03 1:31 PM

structural Element method (ISUM) and Smith’s method,

which is a simplified procedure to perform progressive col-

lapse analysis.

FEM: is the most rational way to evaluate the ultimate

hull girder strength through a progressive collapse analysis

on a ship’s hull girder. Both material and geometrical non-

linearities can be considered.

A 3D analysis of a hold or a ship’s section is funda-

mentally possible but very difficult to perform. This is be-

cause a ship’s hull is too large and complicated for such kind

of analysis. Nevertheless, since 1983 results of FEM analy- Figure 18.48 The Smith’s Progressive Collapse Method

ses have been reported (52). Today, with the development

of computers, it is feasible to perform progressive collapse

analysis on a hull girder subjected to longitudinal bending (a)

with fine mesh using ordinary elements. For instance, the

investigation committee on the causes of the Nakhodka ca-

sualty performed elastoplastic large deflection analysis with

nearly 200 000 elements (53).

However, the modeling and analysis of a complete hull

girder using FEM is an enormous task. For this reason the

analysis is more conveniently performed on a section of the

hull that sufficiently extends enough in the longitudinal di-

rection to model the characteristic behavior. Thus, a typi-

cal analysis may concern one frame spacing in a whole

compartment (cargo tank). These analyses have to be sup-

plemented by information on the bending and shear loads

that act at the fore and aft transverse loaded sections. Such

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has shown that accuracy is (b)

limited because of the boundary conditions along the trans-

verse sections where the loading is applied, the position of

the neutral axis along the length of the analyzed section and

the difficulty to model the residual stresses.

Idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM): presented in

Subsection 18.7.3.1, can also be used to perform progres-

sive collapse analysis. It allows calculating the ultimate

bending moment through a 3D progressive collapse analy-

sis of an entire cargo hold. For that purpose, new elements

to simulate the actual collapse of deck and bottom plating

are actually underdevelopment.

Smith’s Method (Figure 18.48): A convenient alterna-

tive to FEM is the Smith’s progressive collapse analysis

(54), which consists of the following three steps (55).

into elements),

Step 2: Derivation of average stress-average strain rela-

tionship of each element (σ−ε curve), Figure Figure 18.49 Influence of Element Average Stress-Average Strain Curves

18.49a. (σ−ε) on Progressive Collapse Behavior. (a) Average stress-average strain

Step 3: To perform progressive collapse analysis, Figure relationships of element, and (b) moment-curvature relationship of cross-

18.49b. section.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-48 4/28/03 1:31 PM

In Step 1, the cross-section of a hull girder is divided An interesting well-studied ship that reached its ultimate

into elements composed of a longitudinal stiffener and at- bending moment is the Energy Concentration (63). It fre-

tached plating. In Step 2, the average stress-average strain quently is used as a reference case (benchmark) by authors

relationship (σ−ε) of this stiffener element is derived under to validate methods.

the axial load considering the influences of buckling and Figure 18.49 shows typical average stress-average strain

yielding. Step 3 can be explained as follows: relationships, and the associated bending moment-curva-

ture relationships (M-φ). Four typical σ−ε curves are con-

• axial rigidities of individual elements are calculated using sidered, which are:

the average stress-average strain relationships (σ−ε),

• flexural rigidity of the cross-section is evaluated using Case A: Linear relationship (elastic). The M-φ relationship

the axial rigidities of elements, is free from the influences of yielding and buck-

• vertical and horizontal curvatures of the hull girder are ling, and is linear.

applied incrementally with the assumption that the plane Case B: Bi-linear relationship (elastic-perfectly plastic,

cross-section remains plane and that the bending occurs without buckling).

about the instantaneous neutral axis of the cross-section, Case C: With buckling but without strength reduction be-

• the corresponding incremental bending moments are yond the ultimate strength.

evaluated and so the strain and stress increments in in- Case D: With buckling and a strength reduction beyond

dividual elements, and the ultimate strength (actual behavior).

• incremental curvatures and bending moments of the

cross-section as well as incremental strains and stresses In Case B, where yielding takes place but no buckling,

of elements are summed up to provide their cumulative the deck initially undergoes yielding and then the bottom.

values. With the increase in curvature, yielded regions spread in the

side shell plating and the longitudinal bulkheads towards

Figure 18.48 shows that the σ−ε curves are used to es- the plastic neutral axis.

timate the bending moment carried by the complete trans- In this case, the maximum bending moment is the fully

verse section (Mi). The contribution of each element (dM) plastic bending moment (Mp) of the cross-section and its

depends on its location in the section, and specifically on absolute value is the same both in the sagging and the hog-

its distance from the current position of the neutral axis (Yi). ging conditions.

The contribution will then also depend on the strain that is For Cases C and D, the element strength is limited by

applied to it, since ε = –y φ, where φ is the hull curvature plate buckling, stiffener flexural buckling, tripping, etc. For

and y is the distance from the neutral axis (simple beam as- Case C, it is assumed that the structural components can con-

sumption). The average stress-average strain curve (σ-ε) tinue to carry load after attaining their ultimate strength.

will then provide an estimate of the longitudinal stress (σi) The collapse behavior (M-φ curve) is similar to that of Case

acting on the section. Individual moments about the neu- B, but the ultimate strength is different in the sagging and

tral axis are then summed to give the total bending moment the hogging conditions, since the buckling collapse strength

for a particular curvature φi. is different in the deck and the bottom.

The accuracy of the calculated ultimate bending mo- Case D is the actual case; the capacity of each structural

ment depends on the accuracy of the average stress-aver- member decreases beyond its ultimate strength. In this case,

age strain relationships of individual elements. Main the bending moment shows a peak value for a certain value

difficulties concern the modeling of initial imperfections of the curvature. This peak value is defined as the ultimate

(deflection and welding residual stress) and the boundary longitudinal bending moment of the hull girder (Mu).

conditions (multi-span model, interaction between adjacent Shortcomings and limitations of the Smith’s method re-

elements, etc.). lates to the fact that a typical analysis concerns one frame

Many formulations and methods to calculate these av- spacing of a whole cargo hold and not a complete 3D hold.

erage stress-average strain relationships are available: As simple linear beam theory is used, deviations such

Adamchack (56), Beghin et al (57), Dow et al (58), Gordo as shear lag, warping and racking are thus ignored. This

and Guedes Soares (59,60) and, Yao and Nikolov (61,62). method may be a little un-conservative if the structure is

The FEM can even be used to get these curves (Smith 54). predominantly subjected to lateral pressure loads as well as

For most of the methods, typical element types are: plate axial compression, and if it is not realized that the trans-

element, beam-column element (stiffener and attached plate) verse frames can deflect/fail and significantly affect the stiff-

and hard corner. ened plate structure and hull girder bending capacity.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-49 4/28/03 1:31 PM

18.6.5.2 Simplified models tion equations to predict the ultimate strength. Each load

Caldwell (64) was the first who tried to theoretically eval- component is supposed to act separately. These methods

uate the ultimate hull girder strength of a ship subjected to were reviewed by ISSC (68) and are often formulated as

longitudinal bending. He introduced a so-called Plastic De- equation 57.

sign considering the influence of buckling and yielding of

a b

structural members composing a ship’s hull (Figure 18.47). Mv Mh

+ α =1 [57]

He idealised a stiffened cross-section of a ship’s hull to M vu M hu

an unstiffened cross-section with equivalent thickness. If

buckling takes place at the compression side of bending, where:

compressive stress cannot reach the yield stress, and the fully Mv and Mh = vertical and horizontal bending moments

plastic bending moment (Mp) cannot be attained. Caldwell Mvu and Mhu = ultimate vertical and horizontal bending mo-

introduced a stress reduction factor in the compression side ments

of bending, and the bending moment produced by the reduced a, b and α = empirical constants

stress was considered as the ultimate hull girder strength.

Several authors have proposed improvements for the For instance, Mansour et al (47) proposes a=1, b=2 and

Caldwell formulation (65). Each of them is characterized α= 0.8 based on analysis on one container, one tanker and

by an assumed stress distribution (Figure 18.47). Such meth- 2 cruisers, and Gordo and Soares (60) 1.5<a=b<1.66 and

ods aim at providing an estimate of the ultimate bending α= 1.0 for tankers. Hu et al (69) has proposed similar for-

moment without attempting to provide an insight into the mulations for bulk carriers. Paik et al (70) proposes an em-

behaviour before, and more importantly, after, collapse of pirical formulation that includes the shear forces in addition

the section. The tracing out of a progressive collapse curve to the bending moments.

is replaced by the calculation of the ultimate bending mo-

ment for a particular distribution of stresses. The quality of 18.6.5.3 Design Criteria

the direct approximate method is directly dependent on the For design purpose, the value of the ultimate longitudinal

quality of the stress distribution at collapse. It is assumed bending moment (capability) has to be compared with the

that at collapse the stresses acting on the members that are extreme bending moment (load) that may act on a ship’s hull

in tension are equal to yield throughout whereas the stresses girder. To estimate the extreme bending moment, the most

in the members that are in compression are equal to the in- severe loading condition has to be selected to provide the

dividual inelastic buckling stresses. On this basis, the plas- maximum still water bending moment. Regarding the wave

tic neutral axis is estimated using considerations of bending moment, the IACS unified requirement is a major

longitudinal equilibrium. The ultimate bending moment is reference (71,72), but more precise discussions can be found

then the sum of individual moments of all elements about in the ISSC 2000 report (24).

the plastic neutral axis. To evaluate the ultimate longitudinal strength, various

In Caldwell’s Method, and Caldwell Modified Methods, methods can be applied ranging from simple to complicated

reduction in the capacity of structural members beyond their methods. In 2000, many of the available methods were ex-

ultimate strength is not explicitly taken into account. This amined and assessed by an ISSC’2000 Committee (50). The

may cause the overestimation of the ultimate strength in grading of each method with respect to each capability is

general (Case C, Figure 18.49). quantitatively performed by scoring 1 through 5. The com-

Empirical Formulations: In contrast to all the previous mittee concluded that the appropriate methods should be se-

rational methods, there are some empirical formulations lected according to the designer’s needs and the design

usually calibrated for a type of specific vessels (66,67). Yao stage. That is, at early design stage, a simple method based

et al (50), found that initial yielding strength of the deck on an Assumed Stress Distribution can be used to obtain a

can provide in general a little higher but reasonably accu- rough estimate of the ultimate bending moment. At later

rate estimate of the ultimate sagging bending moment. On stages, a more accurate method such as Progressive Col-

the other hand, the initial buckling strength of the bottom lapse Analysis with calculated σ−ε curves (Smith’s Method)

plate gives a little lower but accurate estimate of the ulti- or ISUM has to be applied.

mate hogging bending moment. These in effect can provide Main sensitive model capability with regards to the as-

a first estimate of the ultimate hull girder moment. sessment of ultimate strength can be ranked in 3 classes, re-

Interactions: In order to raise the problem of combined spectively, high (H), medium (M) and low (L) consequence

loads (vertical and horizontal bending moments and shear of omitting capability (Table 18.IV).

forces), several authors have proposed empirical interac- Based on the different sources of uncertainties (model-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-50 4/28/03 1:31 PM

TABLE 18.IV Sensitivity Factors for Ultimate Strength but they are time consuming and there is large uncertainty

Assessment of Hull Girder. of using simplified methods.

With the introduction of higher tensile steels in hull struc-

Model Capability Impact

tures, at first in deck and bottom to increase hull girder

strength, and later in local structures, the fatigue problem

Plate buckling H

became more imminent. The fatigue strength does not in-

Stiffened plate buckling H crease according to the yield strength of the steel. In fact,

Post buckling behavior H fatigue is found to be independent of the yield strength. The

Plate welding residual stress H higher stress levels in modern hull structures using higher

tensile steel have therefore led to a growing number of fa-

M-φ curve (post collapse prediction) H

tigue crack problems.

Plate initial deflection M To ensure that the structure will fulfill its intended func-

Stiffener initial deflection M tion, fatigue assessment should be carried out for each in-

Stiffener welding residual stress M dividual type of structural detail that is subjected to extensive

Multi-span model (instead of single span) H dynamic loading. It should be noted that every welded joint

(see Figure 19.12 – Chapter 19) and attachment or other form of stress concentration is po-

tentially a source of fatigue cracking and should be indi-

vidually considered.

This section gives an overview of feasible analysis to be

performed. A more complete description of the different fa-

tigue procedures, S-N curves, stress concentration factors,

ing, σ−ε curves, curvature incrementation), the global un-

and so on, are given in: Almar-Naess (73), DNV (4), Fricke

certainty on the ultimate bending moment is usually large

et al (74), Maddox (75), Niemi (76), NRC (77) and Peter-

(55). A bias of 10 to 15% must be considered as acceptable.

shagen et al (78). Reliability-based fatigue procedure is pre-

For intact hull the design criteria for Mu, defined by clas-

sented by Ayyub and Assakkaf in Chapter 19. These authors

sification societies, is given by:

also have contributed to this section.

MS + s1 Mw ≤ s2 MU [58]

18.6.6.2 Basic fatigue theories

where:

Fatigue analyses can be performed based on:

s1 = the partial safety factor for load (typically 1.10)

• simplified analytical expressions,

s2 = the material partial safety factor (typically 0.85)

• more refined analysis where loadings/load effects are

MS = still water moment

calculated by numerical analysis, and

Mw = design wave moment (20 year return period)

• a combination of simplified and refined techniques.`

There are generally two major technical approaches for

18.6.6 Fatigue and Fracture fatigue life assessment of welded joints the Fracture Me-

18.6.6.1 General chanics Approach and the Characteristic S-N Curves Ap-

Design criteria stated expressly in terms of fatigue damage proach.

resistance were in the past seldom employed in ship struc- The Fracture Mechanics Approach is based on crack

tural design although cumulative fatigue criteria have been growth data assuming that the crack initiation already ex-

used in offshore structure design. It was assumed that fa- ists. The initiation phase is not modeled as it is assumed that

tigue resistance is implicitly included in the conventional the lifetime can be predicted only using fracture mechan-

safety factors or acceptable stress margins based on past ics method of the growing cracks (after initiation). The frac-

experience. ture mechanics approach is obviously more detailed than

Today, fatigue considerations become more and more the S-N curves approach. It involves examining crack growth

important in the design of details such as hatch corners, re- and determining the number of load cycles that are needed

inforcements for openings in structural members and so on. for small initial defects to grow into cracks large enough to

Since the ship-loading environment consists in large part cause fractures. The growth rate is proportional to the stress

of alternating loads, ship structures are highly sensitive to range, S (or ∆σ) that is expressed in terms of a stress in-

fatigue failures. Since 1990, fatigue is maybe the most sen- tensity factor, K, which accounts for the magnitude of the

sitive point at the detailed design stage. Tools are available stress, current crack size, and weld and joint details. The

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-51 4/28/03 1:31 PM

basic equation that governs crack growth (79) is known as logN = log (∆A) – m log (∆σ) [62]

the Paris Law is:

where:

da

= C . ( ∆K) m [59] ∆ = fatigue damage ratio (≤ 1)

dN

log(∆A) = intercept of the S-N curve of the Log N axis

where: –1 / m = slope of the S-N curve, (≅3 ≤ m ≤ ≅7)

–

Se= mean of the Miner’s equivalent stress range Se, de-

a = crack size,

fined at Table 18.V

N = number of fatigue cycles (fatigue life),

kS = fatigue stress uncertainty factor

∆K = S.Y(a) . π a , range of stress intensity factor, (Kmax –

∆σ = kS. Se (or the constant amplitude stress range for fail-

– Kmin) ure at N cycles)

C, m = crack propagation parameters, N = fatigue life, or number of loading cycles expected dur-

S = constant amplitude stress range, ing the life of a detail

= ∆σ = σmax – σmin

Y(a) = function of crack geometry. The Miner’s equivalent stress range, Se, can be evalu-

ated based on the models provided in Table 18.V (83). The

Fatigue life prediction based on the fracture mechanics most refined model would start with a scatter diagram of

approach shall be computed according to the following sea-states, information on ship’s routes and operating char-

equation:

1 a da

N=

C . Sm ∫a 0 Ym

[60]

and practical difficulties to define, for instance, the a and ao

crack size. The crack propagation parameter C in this equa-

tion is treated as random variable (80). However, in more

sophisticated models, equation 60 is treated as a stochastic

differential equation and C is allowed to vary during the

crack growth process. State of art on the Fracture Mechan-

ics Approach is available in Niemi (76) and Harris (81).

The characteristic S-N curves approach is based on fa-

tigue test data (S-N curves—Figure 18.50) and on the as-

sumption that fatigue damage accumulation is a linear

phenomenon (Miner’s rule). According to Miner (82) the

total fatigue life under a variety of stress ranges is the

weighted sum of the individual lives at constant stress range

S as given by the S-N curves (Figure 18.50), with each being

weighted according to fractional exposure to that level of

stress range.

The S-N curve approach related mainly to the crack ini-

tiation and a maximum allowable crack size. After, cracks

propagate based on the fracture mechanics concept as shown Figure 18.50 A Typical S-N Curve

in Figure 18.51. The propagation is not explicitly consid-

ered by the S-N curve approach.

Fatigue life strength prediction based on both the S-N

approach and Miner’s cumulative damage shall be evalu-

ated with equation 61 or, in logarithmic form, with equa-

tion 62 (Figure 18.50).

∆A

N= [61] Figure 18.51 Comparison between the Characteristic S-N Curve and Fracture

m

k Sm S e Mechanics Approach

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-52 4/28/03 1:31 PM

acteristics, and use of a ship response computer program to Environmental conditions: The long-term distribution

provide a detailed history of stress ranges over the service of load responses for fatigue analyses may be estimated

life of the ship. For such model, the wave exceedance dia- using the wave climate, represented by the distribution of

gram (deterministic method) and the spectral method (prob- Hs and Ts, representing the sea operation conditions. As

abilistic method) can be employed (Table 18.V). guidance to the choice between these data sets, one should

S-N curves are obtained from fatigue tests and are avail- consider the average wave environment the vessel is ex-

able in different design codes for various structural details pected to encounter during its design life. The world wide

in bridges, ships, and offshore structures. The design S-N sailing routes will therefore normally apply. For shuttle

curves are based on the mean-minus-two-standard-devia- tankers and vessels that will sail frequently on the North At-

tion curves for relevant experimental data (Figure 18.50). lantic, or in other harsh environments, the wave data given

They are thus associated with a 97.6% probability of sur- in accordance with this should be applied. For vessels that

vival. Some classification societies use 90%. will sail in more smooth sailing routes, less harsh environ-

In practice, the actual probabilities of failure associated mental data may be applied. This should be decided upon

with fatigue design lives is usually higher due to uncer- for each case.

tainties associated with the calculated stresses, the various Geometrical imperfections: The fatigue life of a welded

S-N curve correction factors, and the critical value of the joint is much dependent on the local stress concentrations

cumulative fatigue damage ratio, ∆. factors arising from surface imperfections during the fab-

Cumulative damage: The damage may either be calculated rication process, consisting of weld discontinuities and geo-

on basis of the long-term stress range distribution using metrical deviations. Surface weld discontinuities are weld

Weibull parameters (simplified method), or on summation of toe undercuts, cracks, overlaps, incomplete penetration, etc.

damage from each short-term distribution in the scatter dia- Geometrical imperfections are defined as misalignment, an-

gram (probabilistic and deterministic methods, Table 18.V). gular distortion, excessive weld reinforcement and other-

The stress range (S or ∆σ): The procedure for the fa- wise poor weld shapes.

tigue analysis is based on the assumption that it is only nec- Effect of grinding of welds: For welded joints involving

essary to consider the ranges of cyclic principal stresses in potential fatigue cracking from the weld toe an improve-

determining the fatigue endurance. However, some reduc- ment in strength by a factor of at least 2 on fatigue life can

tion in the fatigue damage accumulation can be credited be obtained by controlled local machining or grinding of

when parts of the stress cycle range are in compression. the weld toe. Note that grinding of welds should not be used

Fatigue areas: The potential for fatigue damage is de- as a “design tool”, but rather as a mean to lower the fatigue

pendent on weather conditions, ship type, corrosion level, damage when special circumstances have made it necessary.

location on ship, structural detail and weld geometry and This should be used as a reserve if the stress in special areas

workmanship. The potential danger of fatigue damage will turns out to be larger than estimated at an earlier stage of

also vary according to crack location and number of po- the design.

tential damage points. Fatigue strength assessment shall

normally be carried out for: 18.6.6.3 Stress concentration and hot spot stress

The stress level obtained from a structural analysis, such as

• longitudinal and transverse element in:

FEA, will depend on the fineness of the model. The differ-

— bottom/inner bottom (side), ent analysis models described in Subsection 18.7.2 will

— longitudinal and transverse bulkheads. therefore lead to different levels of result processing in order

to complete the fatigue calculations.

• strength deck in the midship region and forebody, and

In order to correctly determine the stresses to be used in

• other highly stressed structural details in the midship re-

fatigue analyses, it is important to note the definition of the

gion and forebody, like panel knuckles.

different stress categories (Figure 18.52).

Time at sea: Vessel response may differ significantly for Nominal stresses are those, typically, derived from coarse

different loading conditions. It is therefore of major im- mesh FE models. Stress concentrations resulting from the

portance to include response for actual loading conditions. gross shape of the structure, for example, shear lag effects,

Since fatigue is a result of numerous cyclic loads, only the have to be included in the nominal stresses derived from

most frequent loading conditions are included in the fatigue stress analysis.

analysis. These will normally be ballast and full load con- Geometric stresses include nominal stresses and stresses

dition. Under certain circumstances, other loading condi- due to structural discontinuities and presence of attach-

tions may be used. ments, but excluding stresses due to presence of welds.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-53 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Stresses derived from fine mesh FE models are geometric the notch stress. This can be done by multiplication of K-

stresses. Effects caused by fabrication imperfections as mis- factors arising from different causes. The resulting K-fac-

alignment of structural parts, are normally not included in tor to be used for calculation of notch stress is:

FEA, and must be separately accounted for, using, for in-

K = K1 . K2 . K3 . K4 . K5 [65]

stance (equation 65).

Hot spot stress is the greatest value of the extrapolation where:

to the weld toe of the geometric stress distribution imme-

K1 = stress concentration factor due to the gross geometry

diately outside the region affected by the geometry of the

of the detail considered

weld (Figure 18.52).

K2 = stress concentration factor due to the weld geometry

Notch stress is the total stress at the weld toe (hot spot

(notch factor); K2 = 1.5 if not stated otherwise

location) and includes the geometric stress and the stress

K3 = additional stress concentration factor due to eccen-

due to the presence of the weld. The notch stress may be

tricity tolerance

calculated by multiplying the hot spot stress by a stress con-

K4 = additionally stress concentration factor due to angu-

centration factor, or more precisely the theoretical notch

lar mismatch

factor, K2 (equation 65).

K5 = additional stress concentration factor for un-symmet-

FE may be used to directly determine the notch stress.

rical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels, applicable

However, because of the small notch radius and the steep

when the nominal stress is derived from simple beam

stress gradient at a weld, a very fine mesh is needed.

analyses

In practice, the stress concentration factors (K-factors)

may be determined based on fine mesh FE analyses, or, al- Fatigue cracks are assumed to be independent of princi-

ternatively, from the selection of factors for typical details. pal stress direction within 45° of the normal to the weld toe.

The notch stress range governs the fatigue life of a de- Hot spot stress extrapolation procedure: The hot spot

tail. For components other than smooth specimens the notch stress extrapolation procedure (Figure 18.52) is only to be

stress is obtained by multiplication of the nominal stress by used for stresses that are derived from stress concentration

K-factors (equation 63). The K-factors in this document are models (fine mesh). Nominal stresses found from other

thus defined as models should be multiplied with appropriate stress con-

σ notch centration factors (equation 65). The stress extrapolation

K= [63] procedure is specific to each classification societies (74).

σ nominal

Today, there is unfortunately no standard procedure.

The relation between the notch stress range to be used

together with the S-N-curve and the nominal stress range 18.6.6.4 Direct analysis

is Several S-N fatigue approaches exists, they all have ad-

vantages and disadvantages. The different approaches are

S = ∆σ = ∆σ notch = K . ∆σ nominal [64] therefore suitable for different areas. Load effects, accu-

All stress risers have to be considered when evaluating racy of the analysis, computer demands, etc. should be eval-

uated before one of the approaches is chosen.

Full stochastic fatigue analysis: The full stochastic analy-

sis, for example the Spectral Model of Table 18.V, is an

analysis where all load effects from global and local loads,

are included. This is ensured by use of stress concentration

models and direct load transfer to the structural model.

Hence, all stress components are combined using the cor-

rect phasing and without simplifications or omissions of

any stress component.

This method usually will be the most exact for determi-

nation of fatigue damage and will normally be used together

with fine meshed stress concentration models. The method

may, however, not be suitable when non-linearities in the

loading are of importance (side longitudinals). This is es-

pecially the case for areas where wave or tank pressures in

Figure 18.52 Definition of Stress Categories (4) the surface region are of major importance. This is due to

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-54 4/28/03 1:31 PM

TABLE 18.V Commonly Used Expressions for Evaluating tions by use of load/stress ratios, Hi (equation 66). The load

Miner’s Equivalent Stress Range (Se), (83) transfer functions, Hi, normally include the global hull girder

bending sectional forces and moments, the pressures for all

1. Wave Exceedance Diagram (Deterministic Method)

panels of the 3-D diffraction model, the internal tank pres-

nb nb sures.

S em = ∑ f i S im → Se = m ∑ f i S im The stress transfer functions, Hi, are combined to a total

stress transfer function, Hσ, by a linear complex summation

i i

of the different transfer functions (4), as:

Si = stress range

Fi = fraction of cycles in the ith stress block Hσ = ∑ AiHi [66]

nb = number of stress block i

where:

2. Spectral Method (Probabilistic Method) Ai = stress per unit axial force defined as the local stress

(2 2 ) m

Γ + 1

response in the considered detail due to a unit sec-

∑ γ i f i σ im

m

S em = λ ( m ) tional load for load component i.

f0 2 Ησ = total transfer function for the combined local stress,

i

Hi = transfer function for the load component i, that is, axial

λ(m) = rainflow correction force, bending moments, twisting and lateral load.

Γ(.) = gamma function

This approach enables the use of separate load factors on

γι = fraction of time in ith sea-state each load component and thus includes loads non-linearities.

fi = frequency of wave loading in ith sea-state Few load cases have to be analyzed and it is possible to use

σι = RMS of stress process in ith sea-state simplified formulas for the area of interest but errors are eas-

ily made in the combination of stresses, manual definition of

3. Weibull Model for Stress Ranges (Simplified Method) extra load cases may cause errors and simplifications are usu-

ally made in loading. Suitable areas are components where

nb nb geometric stress concentration factors, K1, are available (lon-

S em = ∑ f i S im → S e = m ∑ f i S im gitudinals, plating, cut-outs and standard hopper knuckles)

i i and areas where side pressure is of importance.

Sd = stress range that is exceeded on the average once out of The simplified design wave approach (Weibull Model,

Nd stress cycles Table 18.V) is a simplification to the previous component

based stochastic fatigue analyses. In this simplified ap-

Γ(.) = gamma function

proach, the extreme load response effect over a specified

k = Weibull shape parameter number of load cycles, for example, 104 cycles, is deter-

Nd = total number of stress ranges in design life mined. The resulting stress range, ∆σ, is then representa-

tive for the stress at a probability level of exceedance of

10-4 per cycle. The derived extreme stress response is com-

bined with a calculated Weibull shape parameter, k, to de-

the fact that all load effects result in one set of combined fine the long-term stress range distribution (Table 18.V).

stresses, making it difficult to modify the stress caused by The Weibull shape parameter, k, for the stress response

one of the load effects. should be determined from the long-term distribution of the

The approach is suitable for areas where the stress con- dominating load calculated in the hydrodynamic analysis.

centration factors are unknown (knuckles, bracket and flange This simplified approach only requires the considera-

terminations of main girder, stiffeners subjected to large tion of one load case. It is easy and fast to perform but it

relative deformations). can only be used if one load dominates the response and

the results are very sensitive to selection of design wave.

18.6.6.5 Simplified models Suitable areas concern components where one load is dom-

The stress component based stochastic fatigue analysis: inating the response, that is, deck areas and other areas with-

The idea of the stress component based fatigue analysis is out local loading.

to change the direct load transfer functions calculated from

the hydrodynamic load program into stress transfer func-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-55 4/28/03 1:31 PM

18.6.6.6 Design criteria structures against collision and grounding (85). For the ac-

The standard fatigue design criterion is basically the ex- cidental limit state design, the integrity of a structure can

pected lifetime before that significant damage appears be checked in two steps. In the first step, the structural per-

(cracks). It usually is taken as being 20 years. Then, the de- formance against design accident events will be assessed,

signer’s target is to design structural details for which the while post-accident effects such as likely oil outflow are

fatigue failure happens after, for instance, 20 years. If it evaluated in the second step.

happens before, the fixing cost is very high and induces The primary concern of the accidental limit state design

owner losses. If the first failure only happens after 30 years in such cases is to maintain the water tightness of ship com-

or later, the structural detail scantlings were globally over- partments, the containment of dangerous or pollutant car-

estimated, the hull weight too high and, therefore, that the goes, and the integrity of critical spaces (reactor compart-

owner had lost payload during 20 years. ments of nuclear powered ships or tanks in LNG ships) at

Partial safety factors, additional stress concentration fac- the greatest possible levels, and to minimize the release/out-

tors and the stress extrapolation procedure are typically de- flow of cargo. To facilitate a rescue mission, it is also nec-

fined by the classifications societies. essary keep the residual strength of damaged structures at

a certain level, so that the ship can be towed to safe harbor

or a repair yard as may be required.

18.6.7 Collision and Grounding

18.6.7.1 Present design approaches

18.6.7.3 Simplified models

The OPA 90 and equivalent IMO requirements must be sat-

Since the response of ships in collision or grounding acci-

isfied in structural design of ships carrying dangerous or pol-

dent includes relatively complicated behavior such as crush-

lutant cargoes, for example, chemicals, bulk oil, liquefied

ing, tearing and yielding, existing simplified methods are

gas. The primary requirements are to arrange a double bot-

not always adequate. However, many simplified models

tom of a required minimum height, and double sides of a

useful for predicting accident induced structural damages

required minimum width. In this context, to reduce the out-

and residual strength of damaged ship structures have been

flow of pollutant cargoes in ship collision or grounding ac-

developed and continue to be successfully used. Simplified

cident, OPA 90 and IMO both require that the minimum

models for collision are rather different from those of

vertical height, h, of each double bottom ballast tank or void

grounding since both are different in the nature of the me-

space is not to be less than 2.0 m or B/15 (B = ship’s beam),

chanics involved. As it is impossible to describe them in a

whichever is the lesser, but in no case is the height to be

limited space, valuable references are Ohtsubo et al (86),

less than 1.0 m. OPA and IMO also require that the mini-

and Kaminski et al (39).

mum width, w, of each wing ballast tank or void space is

not to be less than 0.5+DWT/20 000 (m) or w =2.0 (m),

whichever is the lesser, where DWT is the deadweight of 18.6.7.4 Design criteria

the ship in tonnes. In no case is w to be less than 1.0 (m). The structural design criteria for ship collisions and ground-

More detailed information is available in Chapter 29 on Oil ing are based on limiting accidental consequences such as

Tanker. structural damage, fire and explosion, and environmental

pollution, and to make sure that the main safety functions

18.6.7.2 Direct analysis of ship structures are not impaired to a significant extent dur-

To reduce the probability of outflow of hazardous cargo in ing any accidental event or within a certain time period

ship collisions and grounding, the kinetic energy loss dur- thereafter.

ing the accident should be entirely absorbed by damage of Structural performance of a ship against collision or

outer structures, that is, before the inner shell in contact grounding can be measured by:

with the cargo can rupture. Of crucial importance, then, is

• energy absorption capability,

how to arrange or make the scantlings of strength members

• maximum penetration in an accident,

in the implicated ship structures such that the initial kinetic

• spillage amount of hazardous cargo, for example, crude

energy is effectively consumed and the structural perform-

oil, and

ance against an accident will be maximized. For this pur-

• hull girder ultimate strength of damaged ships (Section

pose, the structural crashworthiness of ships in collisions

18.6.5).

and grounding must be analyzed using accurate and efficient

procedures (84). Design acceptance criteria may be based on the follow-

Figure 18.53 shows direct design procedures of ship ing parameters (87):

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-56 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Figure 18.53 Structural Design Procedures of Ships for Collision and Grounding (85)

shell, 18.6.8.1 Present Vibration Design Approaches

• ship speed above which a critical event (breaching of The traditional design methodology for vibration is based on

cargo containment) happens, rules, defined by classification societies. Vibrations are not

• allowable quantity of oil outflow, and explicitly covered by class rules but their prediction is needed

• minimum values of section modulus or ultimate hull to achieve a good design. Ship structures are excited by nu-

girder strength. merous dynamic oscillating forces. Excitation may originate

And the design results must satisfy: within the ship or outside the ship by external forces. Reci-

procating machinery such as large main propulsion diesel

• cargo tanks/holds are not breached in an accident so that produce important forces at low frequency. Pressure fluctu-

there will be no danger of pollution, or ations due to propeller at blade rate frequency induce pres-

• if the cargo tanks are breached, the oil outflow follow- sure variation on the ship’s hull. Varying hull pressures

ing an accident is limited, and/or associated with waves belong also to external excitations. All

• the ship has adequate residual hull girder strength so that these forces can be approximated by a combination of har-

it will survive an accident and will not break apart, min- monic forces. If their frequencies coincide with the structure

imizing a second chance of pollution. eigen frequencies, resonant behavior will happen.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-57 4/28/03 1:31 PM

It is of prime importance to avoid global main hull vi- placement of the surrounding fluid. Therefore imparting ki-

brations. If they do occur, the remedial action will proba- netic energy in the fluid. This phenomenon can be taken

bly be very costly. So, during early design, the hull girder into account for the hull girder modes and frequencies cal-

frequencies must be compared to wave excitation (spring- culation as added mass terms. Various methods can be used

ing risk), and to propeller and engine excitation. Table 18.VI for the determination of added mass term. Lumped mass ap-

gives some typical values of the first hull girder frequen- proach is the simplest one (89) but is only valid for simple

cies in Hz of some ship types. prismatic slender shapes, and for a single mode. Fluid fi-

Hull girder frequencies and modes should be computed nite and semi-infinite elements or boundary integral for-

using approximate empirical formulae (88), simple beam mulation lead to the calculation of more accurate added

models for long prismatic structures (VLCC, container ships, mass matrices (90), especially for complex hull forms and

etc.) associated with lumped added mass models, or using appendices study (rudder). Added mass matrices associated

3D finite element models for complex ships (RO-RO, cruise with 3D finite element model of the structure, allow for an

ship), LNG, and short and non-prismatic structures (tug, accurate determination of hull girder modes and frequen-

catamaran, etc.). cies. Added mass terms may also be needed for the vibra-

tions of tank walls. The corresponding methods and

18.6.8.2 Fluid structure interaction associated software are available for industrial usage (Fig-

Fluid structure interaction is evidenced in the dynamic be- ure 18.54) and numerical simulations are today predictable

havior of ships. As a first approximation, the ship is con- with good accuracy (91). Figure 18.54 shows a fluid-struc-

sidered as a rigid body, for the sea keeping analyses (wave ture coupled FE-model of a 230 m long passenger vessel

induced motions and loads). using 150 000 degrees of freedom.

Wave vibration induced: An early determination of hull A difficult coupled problem is the fluid impact occur-

girder vibration modes and frequencies is important to avoid ring in slamming or due to sloshing in tanks. The local de-

serious problems that would be difficult to solve at a later formation of the impacted shells and plating influences the

stage of the project.

Risk of springing (occurring when first hull girder fre-

quency equals wave encounter frequency) has to be detected

very early. Springing may occur for long and/or flexible

ships and for high speed craft and it increases the number

of cyclic loads contributing to human fatigue. Various meth-

ods to assess the first hull girder frequency can be used at

preliminary design stage.

Engine/propeller vibration induced: Resonance prob-

lems may also appear on small ships like tugs, where hull

girder frequency can be close to the propulsion excitation

(around 7Hz). High vibration levels contribute to human

fatigue and dysfunction, besides the discomfort aspect.

Fluid added mass: Hull girder vibrations induce dis-

Frequencies (in Hertz)

Large

Order Cruise Fast

(mode) ship monohull LNG VLCC Frigate Tug

2 1.5 Hz 2.9 2.0 1.7 3.8 13

3 2.6 Hz — — — 5.8 —

Figure 18.54 Fluid/Structure FE-Model of a Passenger Vessel (Principia

4 3.2 Hz — — — 7.8 —

Marine, France)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-58 4/28/03 1:31 PM

pressures and fluid velocities. Moreover, air trapped in such ious parts of the ship can only be performed by simulation

an impact may have a cushioning effect, softening its sever- in the time domain based on 3D detailed finite element mod-

ity. The numerical simulation of those heavily coupled prob- els (Figure 18.55). The main difficulty is the determination

lems still belongs to the research domain, though its of the time and space dependent slamming forces.

industrial importance for the design of ship structures (92).

18.6.8.4 Simplified models

18.6.8.3 Direct analysis Unfortunately, they are of little use for simplified vibration

Vibration problems are critical for passenger ships with typ- predictions. Beam models associated to database can be

ically a 12-Hertz blade excitation. Ship owners demand very used for an approximate determination of hull girder modes

low vertical velocity levels incabins and public areas (less and frequencies at early stage of the project. Decks zones

than 1.2 mm/s in the 5-25 Hz frequency band). and equipment frequencies may also be estimated by for-

Numerical simulation using 3D finite element models is mulas given by reference books (94).

the only method to predict ship response (including the var- Dedicated software has also been written for the study

ious frequency modes) to pressure fluctuation on the ship of shafting, including journal and bearing stiffness and

hull. Such simulation is now used as a design tool to select whirling effect (95).

appropriate scantlings of decks, location of pillars, detect

possible resonance, and select the number of propeller 18.6.8.5 Design criteria

blades. The main difficulty is to perform this analysis early The most effective way to control vibration resides in the

enough in a very short design cycle. reduction of the excitation. This can be achieved by bal-

Local analyses also have to be performed, based on fi- ancing all forces in reciprocating and rotary machinery and

nite element models to check the potential risk of vibration using special mounts. Hydrodynamic forces can be reduced

of local areas, when local modes can be considered as de- by improving the flow around the propeller and siting it

coupled from global hull girder modes. Decks, superstruc- clear of the hull. Propulsion using pods can dramatically re-

ture, appendices (rudder, radar mast, etc.) can be analyzed duce pressure fluctuations. Excitation frequencies can also

to check scantling and avoid the risk of resonance. be modified by changing the number of propeller blades.

Slamming impacts generate impulsive response of the A good design, ensuring continuity of vertical bulkheads,

hull girder (whipping), which affects comfort and fatigue. avoiding cantilevered and stiff or mass discontinuities, con-

Prediction of stress fluctuations and vibration levels in var- tributes to improving the dynamic behavior of the ship. The

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-59 4/28/03 1:31 PM

second action consists in avoiding resonance by modifica- ular effects in the structural design of a main hull structure.

tion of the hull scantlings, and addition of pillars, in order The general characteristics of container ships are detailed

to increase or lower the eigen frequencies. in Chapter 36 – Container Ships.

Reduction of unavoidable vibration levels can be

achieved for local vibrations by dynamic isolation for equip- 18.6.9.3 Bulk carriers

ments, passive damping solutions (floating floors on ab- Casualty of bulk carriers was very high in the early 1990s.

sorbing material), and dynamic energy absorbers. All these The main reasons were a lack of maintenance, excessive cor-

curative actions are usually difficult, costly, only applica- rosion and fatigue (77). Weak point of these ships is the

ble for local vibrations and nearly impossible for vibrations lower part of the side plate at the junction with the bilge

due to global modes. Local modes determination is diffi- hopper. Now, classification societies are aware about this

cult at early stage of the design mainly due to the uncer- problem and had updated their rules and associated struc-

tainty on mass distribution, non-structural mass (outfitting tural details. The general design practice on bulk carriers is

and equipments) being of the some order of magnitude as detailed in Chapter 33 – Bulk Carriers.

the steelwork part.

18.6.9.4 Passenger vessels

Ship strength analysis is based on a beam model. The com-

18.6.9 Special Considerations plexity of large passenger ships, with a low resistant deck

and wide openings, windows and openings in the side in-

In addition to the considerations for LNG tank, container

duces a much more complex behavior. Rational approach

ship, bulk carrier and passenger vessel, special considera-

is necessary to get a realistic understanding of the flux of

tions are available in Volume II of this book. Moreover,

forces and capture the complex behavior of such ships.

ISSC committees 1997 and 2000 also provide valuable in-

Due to the large openings and discontinuities, racking and

formation on specific ship types, that is, high-speed vessels

stress concentration are two major concerns. For archi-

and ships sailing in ice conditions.

tectural reason, pillars are often omitted in large public

areas (theater, lounge, etc.). Today, 3D FEA is usually car-

18.6.9.1 LNG Tanks ried out to design large passenger vessels (Figures 18.54

General information on such ships is available in Chapter and 18.55). Due to large opening in the side shells, the ver-

32 – Liquefied Gas Carriers. These ships contain usually a tical stress distribution is not linear (Figure 18.35). This

double hull (sides and bottom). Major structural concerns means that the basic beam bending formulation is no valid

deal with the tanks themselves and with their support legs. (equation 29). More general information related to pas-

Dilatation, tightness and thermal isolation are important as- senger vessels is available in Chapter 37 – Passenger Ships

pects. There are several patented concepts: independent and in reference 68.

tanks, membrane tanks, semi-membranes tanks and inte-

gral tanks. Excepted for the integral tanks, the tanks are self- 18.6.9.5 Composite material

supporting and are not essential to the hull strength. When Fiberglass boat building started in the 1960s. Today, de-

supported by legs, these legs require a particular attention. signers are trying to plan composite construction of ships

Integral tanks form a structural part of the ship’s hull and up to 100 meters in length. A comprehensive guide for the

are influenced in the same manner by wave loads. design of ship structures in composites is the Ship Struc-

ture Committee Report SSC-403 of Greene (96). Design

18.6.9.2 Container ships methodology, materiel properties, micro and macro me-

The design of container ships of 5000 and 6000 TEU hav- chanic of composites and failures modes are deeply dis-

ing a beam of 40m has increased the standard torsional prob- cussed.

lem of ships having a large open deck. Torsional strength In addition to the classic failure modes of steel and alu-

and limitation of the equivalent stress (equation 45) at the minum structures presented in Subsection 18.6.1, compos-

hatch corners are the major issues in the evaluation of the ites are subject to specific failure modes.

strength of main hull structure. Use of multicell structures In compression, there are the crimping, skin wrinkling

in side shell and double bottom is recommended. More- and dimpling of the honeycomb cores (Figure 18.56). In

over, the torsional moment distribution must be assessed bending, instead of the traditional first yield bending mo-

with care. ment, for composites, the design limit load corresponds to

As hatch covers are not considered as hull strength mem- the first ply failure.

bers, omission of hatch covers does not impose any partic- The creep behavior and the long-term damage from

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-60 4/28/03 1:31 PM

water, UV and temperature, and their performance in fires sign of fast vessels, for which the structural weight is very

are other specific structural problems of composites. A re- important to reach higher speed (for high speed mono hull,

view of the performance of composite structures is pro- catamaran and trimaran vessels). The good extruding ca-

posed by Jensen et al (98). pability of aluminum alloys has to be enhanced through

scantling standardization. That helps to lower to produc-

18.6.9.6 Aluminum structures tion cost ($/man-hour) and compensate the initial higher

Compared to steel, the reduced specific weight of aluminum material cost of aluminum, which is approximately 3 times

(2.70 kN/m3 for aluminum and 7.70 kN/m3 for steel) is a very higher that mild steel ($/kg).

interesting property for a ship designer. The yield stress of

unwelded aluminum alloys can be comparable to mild steel 18.6.9.7 Corrosion

(235 MPa) but changes drastically from one alloy to an- Corrosion does not present a structural design problem, as

other (125 MPa for ALU 5083-O and 215 MPa for ALU almost all the classification societies base their rules on a

5083-H321). The modulus of elasticity of aluminum alloys net scantling. This means that the thickness to consider in

is one-third of steel. analysis (for empirical formulations up to complex FEA)

The main difficulty for the use of aluminum use deals is the reduced thickness (without corrosion allowance) and

with its mechanical properties after welding. The yield stress not the actual thickness. The difference between the reduced

of aluminum alloys may decrease significantly after weld- thickness and the actual one is usually fixed by the classi-

ing (remains at 125 MPa for fication but can also change according to the owner re-

ALU 5083-O but drop to 140 MPa for ALU 5083-H321). quirements. This is an economic choice and not a structural

The area close to a weld is called Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). problem.

It is characterized by reduced strength properties. HAZ is For bulk carriers, thickness reduction due to corrosion

particularly important to assess the buckling and ultimate is generally assumed to be 5 mm for hold frames and 3 mm

strength of welded components such as beam-column ele- for side shell plating.

ments, stiffened panels, etc.

For marine applications ALU 5083, 5086 and 6061 can

be used. Nevertheless, the mechanical and strength prop-

erties of aluminum change a lot with the alloy composition 18.7 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL

and the production processing. Thus, the alloy selection DESIGN

must be done with care with regard to the yield strength be-

fore and after welding, the welding and extruding capabil- 18.7.1 Motivation for Numerical Analysis

ities, the marine behavior, etc. In most of the cases, a ship is a one of a kind product, even

Fire strength is another concerns when using aluminum if limited series may exist in some cases. The design, study

alloys as it quickly loses its strength when the temperature and production cycle is very short and major decision have

rises. to be taken very early in the project. It is well known that

Despite the aforementioned shortcomings aluminum al- the cost of a late modification is very high and such a situ-

loys will be more extensively use in the future for the de- ation has to be avoided. Also experience-based design can

be an obstacle to the introduction of innovation. Numerical

analysis clearly is needed to improve the design (innova-

tion) but also to control safety margins. Moreover, it gives

access to local and detailed analysis, which is not possible

with simplified methods. The concept of numerical mock up,

used in aerospace and car industry has proven its efficiency.

Shipbuilding is clearly moving in the same direction.

Static and quasi-static analysis represents the traditional

way to perform stress and strength analysis of a ship struc-

ture. Loads are assessed separately of the strength structure

Figure 18.56 Potential Failure Modes of Sandwich Panels (100), (a) Face and, even if their origins are dynamic (flow induced), they

yielding/fracture, (b) Core shear failure, (c-d) Face wrinkling, (e) Buckling, (f) are assumed to be static (do not change with the time). This

Shear crimping, (g) Face dimpling, (h) Local indentation. assumption may be correct for the hydrostatic pressure but

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-61 4/28/03 1:31 PM

not when the dynamic wave loads are changed to static loads • static, fatigue and fracture analysis,

applied on the side plates of the hull. • buckling and ultimate strength analysis,

In the future, even if the assumption of static loads is not • vibration and acoustics analysis, and

verified, static analysis will continue to be performed, as it • vulnerability assessment.

is easier and faster to perform. In addition, tens of experi-

Progress is expected by the utilization of reliability meth-

ence years have shown that they provide accurate results

ods already used in offshore industry, where uncertainties

when stresses and deflections assessment are the main tar-

and dispersions of the loads, geometrical defaults, initial

get (as defined in Section 18.4).

stresses and strains, material properties are defined as sto-

Such analysis is also the standard procedure for fatigue

chastic (non deterministic) data, leading to the calculation

assessment to determine the hot spot stress through fine

of a probability of failure. This philosophy can be applied

mesh FEA.

to fatigue and ultimate strength, but also to dynamic re-

sponse, leading to a more robust design, less sensitive to

18.7.1.2 Dynamic analysis defaults, imperfections, uncertainties and stochastic nature

When problems occur on a ship due to dynamic effects, it of loads. Reliability-based analyses using probabilistic con-

is very often late in the design and building stage and even cept are presented in Chapter 19.

in service, and corrective actions are costly. Simplified meth- In the future, safety aspects related to structural prob-

ods can only predict the first hull girder modes frequencies. lems will also be tackled such as ultimate strength using non-

Numerical finite element based simulation is mature enough linear methods. Collision and grounding damages and

to predict up to second propeller harmonic, the vibration improved design to increase ship safety will be studied by

level, giving a design tool to comply with ISO or ship owner numerical simulation, whereas experimental approach is

requirements. Moreover, possible dynamic problems can nearly impossible and/or too costly. Explicit codes, used in

be detected early enough in the design to allow for correc- car crash simulation (101), will be adapted to specific as-

tive actions. pects of ship structure (size and presence of fluid). In tra-

ditional sea keeping analysis, the ship is considered as a

18.7.1.3 Nonlinearities analysis rigid body. In coupled problems such as slamming situa-

Nonlinear structural analysis is mainly used to analyze buck- tions, this hypothesis is no more valid and a part of the en-

ling, ultimate strength and accidental or extreme situations ergy is absorbed by ship deformation. Hydro-elasticity

(explosions, collisions, grounding, blast). The results of methods (102) aim taking into account the interaction of the

such costly and difficult analysis are often used to calibrate flexible ship structure with the surrounding water. Nonlin-

simplified methods or rules. But they are also very useful ear effects due to bow and aft part of the ship, ship veloc-

to understand possible failure modes and mechanical be- ity, diffraction radiation effects contribute to the complexity

havior under severe loads. of the problem. The simulation of catamaran, trimaran and

fast monohulls behavior need the development of new meth-

ods to take into account the high velocities and the com-

18.7.1.4 Emerging trends

plex 3D phenomena.

Like the automotive and aerospace industry, there is a clear

trend towards the reduction of design cycle time. Numeri-

cal mock up or virtual ship approach (97), especially for one

of a kind product, is clearly a way to achieve this. Required 18.7.2 Finite Element Analysis

computing power is available and will no longer be a con- The main aim of using the finite element method (FEM) in

straint. The first difficulty is to establish an efficient model structural analysis is to obtain an accurate calculation of the

of complex physical problems, associated with increasing stress response in the hull structure. Several types or levels

demand for accuracy. The second difficulty is the manpower of FE-models may be used in the analyses:

needed to prepare and check the models, which will be

• global stiffness model,

solved by the development of integrated solutions for ship

• cargo hold model,

description and modeling (99).

• frame and girder models,

Advances are expected in the field of FE-modeling. The

• local structure models, and

trend is toward one structure description, one model and sev-

• stress concentration models.

eral applications. This is the field for multiphysics and cou-

pling analysis. The base modeling will be re-used and The model or sets of models applied is to give a proper

adapted to perform successively, representation of the following structure:

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-62 4/28/03 1:31 PM

• transverse bulkheads/frames, tural model (coarse mesh) for 4–node elements (finer mesh

• stringers/girders, and divisions may of course be used and is welcomed, specially

• longitudinals or other structural stiffeners. with regard to sub-models):

The finer mesh models are usually referred to as sub- • main model: 1 element between transverse frames/gird-

models. These models may be solved separately by trans- ers; 1element between structural deck levels and mini-

fer of boundary deformations/ boundary forces from the mum three elements between longitudinal bulkheads,

coarser model. This requires that the various mesh models • girders: 3 elements over the height, and

are compatible, meaning that the coarser models have • plating: 1 element between 2 longitudinals.

meshes producing deformations and/or forces applicable as

boundary conditions for the finer mesh models.

Global stiffness model: A relatively coarse mesh that is used

to represent the overall stiffness and global stress distribu-

tion of the primary members of the total hull length. Typi-

cal models are shown in Figure 18.57. The mesh density of Figure 18.57 Global Finite Element Model of Container Vessel Including a 4

the model has to be sufficient to describe deformations and Cargo Holds Sub-model (4).

nominal stresses from the following effects:

• vertical hull girder bending including shear lag effects,

• vertical shear distribution between ship side and bulk-

heads,

• horizontal hull girder bending including shear lag ef-

fects, torsion of the hull girder, and

• transverse shear and bending.

Stiffened panels may be modeled by means of layered

elements, anisotropic elements or frequently by a combi-

nation of plate and beam elements. It is important to have

a good representation of the overall membrane panel stiff-

ness in the longitudinal/transverse directions. Structure not

contributing to the global strength of the vessel may be dis-

regarded; the mass of these elements shall nevertheless be

included (for vibration). The scantling is to be modeled with

reduced scantling, that is, corrosion addition is to be de- Figure 18.58 Cargo Hold Model (Based on the Fine Mesh of the Frame

ducted from the actual scantling. Model), (4)

All girder webs should be modeled with shell elements.

Flanges may be modeled using beam and truss elements.

Web and flange properties are to be according to the real

geometry.

The performance of the model is closely linked to the

type of elements and the mesh topology that is used. As a

standard practice, it is recommended to use 4-node shell or

membrane elements in combination with 2-node beam or

truss elements are used. The shape of 4-node elements

should be as rectangular as possible as skew elements will

lead to inaccurate element stiffness properties. The element

formulation of the 4-node elements requires all four nodes

to be in the same plane. Double curved surfaces should

therefore not be modeled with 4-node elements. 3-node el-

ements should be used instead. Figure 18.59 Frame and Girder Model (Web Frame), (4)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-63 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Cargo hold model: The model is used to analyze the de- centration models are generally very sensitive to element

formation response and nominal stresses of the primary type and mesh size.

members of the midship area. The model will normally Several FEA benchmarks of such structural details were

cover 1/2+1+1/2 cargo hold/tank length in the midship re- performed by ISSC technical committees (68,103). They as-

gion. Typical models are shown in Figure 18.58. sess the uncertainties of different FE packages associated

Frame and girder models: These models are used to an- with coarse and fine mesh models. Variation is usually

alyze nominal stresses in the main framing/girder system around 10% but is sometime much larger.

(Figure 18.59). The element mesh is to be fine enough to This implies that element sizes in the order of the plate

describe stress increase in critical areas (such as bracket thickness are to be used for the modeling. If solid model-

with continuous flange). This model may be included in the ing is used, the element size in way of the hot spot may

cargo hold model, or run separately with prescribed bound- have to be reduced to half the plate thickness in case the

ary deformations/forces. However, if sufficient computer overall geometry of the weld is included in the model rep-

capacity is available, it will normally be convenient to com- resentation.

bine the two analyses into one model.

Local structure analyses are used to analyze stresses in 18.7.2.2. Uncertainties related to FEA

local areas. Stresses in laterally loaded local plates and stiff- An important issue in structural analysis is the verification

eners subjected to large relative deformations between gird- of the analysis. The FEM is basically reliable but many

ers/frames and bulkheads may be necessary to investigate sources of errors can appear, mainly induced by inappro-

along with stress increase in critical areas, such as brack- priate modeling and wrong data. For this reason, different

ets with continuous flanges.

As an example, the areas to model are normally the fol-

lowing for a tanker:

• longitudinals in double bottom and adjoining vertical

bulkhead members,

• deck longitudinals and adjoining vertical bulkhead mem-

bers,

• double side longitudinals and adjoining horizontal bulk-

head members, Figure 18.60 Stiffener Bending Stress with FEM (from left to right: using 1, 2

• hatch corner openings, and or 8 elements), (4)

• corrugations and supporting structure.

The magnitude of the stiffener bending stress included

in the stress results depends on the mesh division and the

element type that is used. Figure 18.60 shows that the stiff-

ener bending stress, using FEM, is dependent on the mesh

size for 4-node shell elements. One element between floors

results in zero stiffener bending. Two elements between

floors result in a linear distribution with approximately zero

bending in the middle of the elements.

Stress concentration models are used for fatigue analy-

ses of details were the geometrical stress concentration is

unknown. A typical detail is presented Figure 18.61.

Local FE analyses may be used for calculation of local

geometric stresses at the hot spots and for determination of

associated K-factors to be used in subsequent fatigue analy-

ses (equation 63). The aim of the FE analysis is normally

not to calculate directly the notch stress at a detail, but to

calculate the geometric stress distribution in the region of

the hot spot. These stresses can then be used either directly

in the fatigue assessment of given details or as a basis for

derivation of stress concentration factors. FE stress con- Figure 18.61 Stress Concentration Model of Hopper Tank Knuckle (4)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-64 4/28/03 1:31 PM

levels of verification of the analysis should be performed ISSC. For instance, Sumi et al (68) presents finite element

in order to ensure trustworthiness of the analysis results. Ver- guidelines and a comprehensive review of the available soft-

ification must be achieved at the following steps: ware. Mesh modeling is discussed in ISSC’2000 by Por-

cari et al (103). Hughes (3) proposes in Chapter VI and VII

• basic input,

of his book published by SNAME an easy way to learn

• assumptions and simplifications made in modeling/

FEM that does not require knowledge of variational calcu-

analysis,

lus or of FEM. The Ship Structure Committee Reports (SSC

• models,

387 and 399) contains also Guideline for FEM (43,104).

• loads and load transfer,

• analysis,

• results, and 18.7.3 Other Numerical Approaches

• strength calculations.

As an alternative to FEA, two other approaches are pre-

One important step in the verification is the understanding sented, namely: the idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM)

of the physics and check of deformations and stress flow and the Boundary Element Method (BEM). Both are gen-

against expected patterns/levels. However, all levels of ver- eral purpose oriented. Many others exist but they are usu-

ification are important in order to verify the results. ally dedicated to a special purpose. For instance, at the

Verifications of structural models: Assumptions and sim- preliminary design stage, the LBR-5 package founded on the

plifications will have to be made for most structural mod- analytical solution of the governing differential equations of

els. These should be listed such that an evaluation of their stiffened plates is a convenient alternative to standard FEA.

influence on the results can be made. Such an approach (30,105) allows structural design opti-

The boundary conditions for the global structural model mization to be performed at the earliest design stage but does

should reflect simple supporting to avoid built in stresses. The not have the capability to perform detailed analysis includ-

fixation points should be located away from areas where ing stress concentration and non-linear analysis.

stresses are of interest. Fixation points are often applied in the

centerline close to the aft and the forward ends of the vessel. 18.7.3.1 Idealized structural unit method (ISUM)

Verification of loads: Inaccuracy in the load transfer from When subjected to extreme or accidental loading, ship struc-

the hydrodynamic analysis to the structural model is among tures can be involved in highly non-linear response associ-

the main error sources in this type of analysis. The load ated with yielding, buckling, crushing and sometimes

transfer can be checked on basis of the structural response rupture of individual structural components. Quite accurate

or on basis on the load transfer itself. solutions of the non-linear structural response can be ob-

Verification of response: The response should be veri- tained by application of the conventional FEM. However,

fied at several levels to ensure correctness of the analysis: a weak feature of the conventional FEM is that it requires

enormous modeling effort and computing time for non-lin-

• global displacement patterns/magnitude,

ear analysis of large sized structures. Therefore, most ef-

• local displacement patterns/magnitude,

forts in the development of new non-linear finite element

• global sectional forces,

methods have focused on reducing modeling and comput-

• stress levels and distribution,

ing times.

• sub-model boundary displacement/forces, and

The most obvious way to reduce modeling effort and

• reaction forces and moments.

computing time is to reduce the number of degrees of free-

dom so that the number of unknowns in the finite element

18.7.2.3 FEM background stiffness equation decreases. Modeling the object structure

Today the finite element method is studied worldwide in uni- with very large sized structural units is perhaps the best way

versities, in mechanical engineering, civil engineering, naval to do that. Properly formulated structural units or super el-

architecture, etc. Hundreds of papers are published yearly. ements in such an approach can then be used to efficiently

Many commercial packages are available including pre and model the actual non-linear behavior of large structural

post processors and many books are published each year on units. The idealized structural unit method (ISUM), which

the subject. Classification Societies also present technical is a type of simplified non-linear FEM, is one of such meth-

reports and guidelines associated with their own direct ods (106). Since ship structures are composed of several

analysis package (Table 18.VIII). different types of structural members such as beams,

It is not the purpose of this chapter to present the FE the- columns, rectangular plates and stiffened panels, it is nec-

ory and a state of art. This topic is reviewed periodically by essary in the ISUM approach to develop various ISUM units

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-65 4/28/03 1:31 PM

for each type of structural member in advance. The non-lin- boundary domain, linear or flat boundary elements may be

ear behavior of each type of structural member is idealized employed so that analytical solutions for the integral equa-

and expressed in the form of a set of failure functions defin- tions can be adopted, while higher degree boundary ele-

ing the necessary conditions for different failures which ments must be used for modeling an integral domain with

may take place in the corresponding ISUM unit, and sets more complex characteristics with the integration gener-

of stiffness matrices representing the non-linear relationship ally needing to be carried out numerically. Figure 18.65

between the nodal force vector and the nodal displacement shows typical FEM and BEM models for analysis of a pres-

vector until the limit state is reached. The ISUM super el- sure vessel (109).

ements so developed are typically used within the frame- Since the publication of an early book on BEM, many

work of a non-linear matrix displacement procedure engineering applications using BEM have been achieved.

applying the incremental method. More recent developments of BEM together with the basic

Figure 18.62 shows a cantilevers box girder and Figures

18.63 and 18.64 show typical FEM and ISUM models for

the non-linear analysis. For a recent state-of-the-art review

on ISUM theory and applications to ship structures, the

reader is referred to Paik and Hughes (107).

With the existing standard ISUM elements, the main dif-

ficulty is that computation of the post-collapse behavior in

the structural elements beyond their ultimate strength as

well as the flexural-torsional collapse behavior of stiffen-

ers is not very successful.

In fact, ISUM elements accommodating post-collapse

behavior have previously been already developed but im- Figure 18.62 Cantilever Box Girder

provements are under development to better accommodate

such behavior (107, 108).

Usage of ISUM is limited to some specific problems and

is not a general-purpose methodology. In contrast to FEM,

for instance, it is necessary to formulate/develop ISUM el-

ements specifically; by including buckling and collapse be-

havior for ultimate strength analysis or by including tearing

and crushing for collision strength analysis. The former type

element cannot be used for the purpose of latter type analy-

sis and vice versa. ISUM is also not adequate for linear

stress analysis.

ISUM is very flexible, new closed form expressions of Figure 18.63 A Typical FEM Model for NonLinear Analysis of the Cantilever

the ultimate strength can be directly utilized by replacing Box Girder

in the existing ISUM element the previous ultimate strength

formulations with the new ones.

In contrast to FEM, the boundary element method (BEM)

is a type of semi-numerical method involving integral equa-

tions along the boundary of the integral domain (or vol-

ume). To solve a problem that involves the boundary integral

equations, BEM typically uses an appropriate numerical in-

tegration technique so that the problem is discretized by di-

viding only the boundary of the integral domain into a

number of segments or boundary elements, while the con-

ventional FEM uses a mesh (finite elements) over the en-

tire domain (or volume), that is, inside as well as its Figure 18.64 A Typical ISUM Model for Nonlinear Analysis of the

boundary. For a specific problem with a relatively simple Cantilever Box Girder

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-66 4/28/03 1:31 PM

idea may be found in Brebbia and Dominguez (109). While the accuracy high. Nevertheless as the required computa-

there are some problem areas to overcome in use of BEM tional times with the BEM is in general significant, BEM

for non-linear analysis, it has been recognized that BEM is may be more appropriate for linear analysis of solids and

a powerful alternative to FEM particularly for problems in- for fluid mechanics problems.

volving stress concentration or fracture mechanics, and for

cases in which the integral domain extends to infinity. For

example, to design the cathodic corrosion protection sys- 18.7.4 Presentation of the Stress Result

tems for ships, offshore structures and pipelines, it has been After performing an analysis, the presentation of the stress

suggested that BEM should be employed, with the region and deformation is very important. It should be based on

of interest extending to infinity. BEM can also be applied stresses acting at the middle of element thickness, exclud-

to problems other than stress or temperature analysis, in- ing plate-bending stress, in the form of ISO-stress contours

cluding fluid flow and diffusion (for example, for fluid- in general. Numerical values should also be presented for

structure interaction, Subsection 18.6.8.2). highly stressed areas or locations where openings are not

Main advantages of BEM are due that very complex ex- included in the model.

pressions of integral equations can be adopted, resulting in The following results should be presented for parts of

higher accuracy of the results. the vessel covered by the global model, such as, cargo hold

In this regard, BEM can be involved in the usage of more model and frame and girder models:

refined mathematical treatment than FEM. However, to cal-

culate the integral equations using BEM, appropriate nu- • deformed shape for each loading condition, Author:

merical techniques should be used, otherwise the integration • In-plane maximum normal stresses (σx and σy) in the Please

results may not be accurate. For most linear problems, lin- global axis system, shear stresses (_) and equivalent von advise

Mises stress (σe) of the following elements: what

ear or flat boundary elements along the boundary of the in-

symbold

tegral domain can be used so that we don’t have to carry — bottom, is

out numerical integration. If analytical solutions are avail- — inner bottom, needed.

able the required computing times will be very small and — deck,

— side shell,

— inner side including hopper tank top,

— longitudinal and transverse bulkheads, and

— longitudinal and transverse girders.

(a)

• Axial stress of free flanges,

• Deformations of supporting brackets for main frames

including longitudinals connected to these when appli-

cable,

• Deformation of supports for longitudinals subject to

large relative deformation when applicable.

For parts of the vessel covered by the local model, the

following stresses are to be presented:

• Equivalent stress of plate/membrane elements,

(b) • Axial stress of truss elements,

• Axial forces, bending moments and shear forces for beam

elements.

Specific Design Stages

Shipbuilding design offices face very challenging situations

(especially for passenger and other complex ships). The

Figure 18.65 A Typical FEM/BEM Model for Analysis of the products are one-of-a-kind or at least on short series and

Pressure Vessel (109). (a) Typical BEM model, and (b) Typical FEM model. the resulting ships are designed and built within two years

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-67 4/28/03 1:31 PM

for 20 to 30 years of operation. Another impact on design 2. Two-dimensional (or almost 2D) geometry-based meth-

activities that is also challenging is that the design overlaps ods: These methods are based on one or more 2D views

the production. To clarify the actual situation, a common of the ship sections. The expected results may be:

view of the design workflow for a commercial ship in the

• Verification of main section scantlings,

shipyard is shown in Table 18.VII.

• Global strength assessment,

• Global vibration levels prediction,

18.7.5.1 Basic design

• Ultimate strength determination, and

The Basic Design is the design activities performed before

• Early assessment of fatigue

order. This phase does not overlap with the production but

is very short and will become the technical basis for the Two main approaches exist:

contract. The shipyard must be sure that no technical prob-

— The main section of the ship is modeled a 2D way

lem will appear later on, to avoid extra costs not included

(including geometry and scantlings) then global, and

in the contract. The structural analysis carried out in this

possibly local, loadings are applied (bending mo-

phase must be as fast as possible because the allocated time

ments, pressures, etc.). All major Classification So-

is short. The most time consuming task for analysis is the

cieties provide today the designer with such tools

data input. The more detailed are the data more accurate the

(Table 18.VIII).

results. There are three kinds of early analysis:

— Various significant sections are described as beam

1. First principles methods: Very simplified geometric rep- cross section properties (areas, inertias, etc.) and then

resentation of the structure. These methods are dedicated the ship is represented by a beam with variable prop-

to an assessment of the global behavior of the ship. They erties on which global loading is applied.

mainly use empirical or semi-empirical formulas.

3. Simple three-dimensional models: These models are use-

ful when a more detailed response is needed. The idea

is to include main surfaces and actual scantlings (or from

TABLE 18.VII Timing of a Design Project the main section when not available) in a 3D model that

can be achieved in one or two weeks. This approach is

Basic Design mainly dedicated to novel ship designs for which the

Concept Design 1 or 2 days feedback is rather small.

Preliminary Design About 1 week

Contract Design Months 18.7.5.2 Production design

Receive Order The most popular method for structural analysis at the pro-

duction design stage remains the Finite Elements Analysis

Production Design

(FEA). This method is commonly used by Shipyards, Classi-

Complete Functional Design 1 or 2 months fication Societies, Research Institutes and Universities. It is

Production Design 6–10 months very versatile and may be applied to various types of analysis:

• global and local strength,

• global and local vibration analysis (natural frequencies

TABLE 18.VIII Classification Society Tools Overview (110) with or without external water, forced response to the

propeller excitation, etc.),

Classification Society Product • ultimate strength, and

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) ABS Safe Hull • detailed stress for local fatigue assessment,

• fatigue life cycle assessment,

Bureau Veritas (BV) VeriSTAR

• analysis of various non-linearities (material, geometry,

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Electronic Rulebook & contact, etc.), and

Nauticus HULL • collision and grounding studies.

Germanisher Lloyd (GL) GL-Rules & POSEIDON

The two main approaches for solving the physical prob-

Korean Register of shipping (KRS) KR-RULES, KR-TRAS

lem are:

Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LR) Rulefinder, ShipRight

1. implicit method is used to solve large problems (both lin-

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK) PrimeShip BOSUN

ear and non linear) with a matrix-based method. This is

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-68 4/28/03 1:31 PM

the favored method for solving global and local linear put material. An academic example of topology op-

strength and vibration problems. But it can also be ap- timization is given on Figure 18.66.

plied to non linear calculations when the time step re-

Weight is the most usual objective function for structure

mains rather large (about 1/10 to 1 second), and

optimization. Minimizing weight is of particular impor-

2. explicit method is mainly used for fast dynamics (as col-

tance in deadweight carriers, in ships required to have a

lision and grounding or explosion) where time step is

limited draft, and in fast fine lined ships, for example, pas-

quite smaller. This method allows using different for-

senger vessels. However, it is well know that the lowest

mulations for structural elements (Lagrangian) and fluid

weight solution is not usually the lowest acquisition cost.

elements (Eulerian).

Today, cost is becoming the usual objective function for op-

One interesting result from research that is being intro- timization (124).

duced today is the reliability approach (see Chapter 19). For the other ship types it is still desirable to minimize

This approach introduces uncertainties within the model steel weight to reduce material cost but only when this can

(non planar plates, residual stresses from welding, dis- be done without increasing labor costs to an extent that ex-

crepancies in the thickness…) to provide the designer with ceeds the saving in material costs. On the other hand, a re-

a level of reliability for a given result instead of a deter- duction in structural labor cost achieved by simplifying

ministic value. construction methods may still be worthwhile even if this

For FEA models, the modeling time is usually assumed is obtained at the expense of increasing the steel weight.

to be 70% of the overall calculation time and results ex- Rigo (105) presents extensive review of ship structure

ploitation 30%. The computation itself is regarded as neg- optimization focusing on scantling optimization. Vander-

ligible (excepted for explicit analysis). So the main efforts plaats (113), and Sen and Yang (114) are standard reference

today are focused on reducing the modeling time. books about optimization techniques. Catley et al (115),

Hughes (3) and Chapter 11 of this book also contain valu-

18.7.6 Optimization able information on structure optimization.

Optimization is a field in which much research has been car-

18.7.6.1 Scantling optimization procedure

ried out over a long time. It is included today in many soft-

A standard optimization problem is defined as follows:

ware tools and many designers are using it. The aim of

optimization is to give the designers the opportunity to • Xi (i = 1, N), the N design variables,

change design variables (such as thickness, number and • F(Xi), the objective function to minimize,

cross section of stiffeners, shape or topology) to design a • Cj(Xi) ≤ CMj (j = 1, M), the M structural and geomet-

better structure for a given objective (lower weight or cost). rical constraints,

Optimization can be performed both at basic and pro- • Xi min ≤ Xi ≤ Xi max upper and lower bounds of the Xi de-

duction design stages: sign variables: technological bounds (also called side

constraints).

• Basic Design: Even with simplified models, the designer

can optimize the scantlings. It can be used for instance

to find out the minimal scantlings for a novel ship for

which the yard have a lack of feedback,

• Production Design: Optimization can be used for three

main purposes:

— Scantlings optimization, which gives the user the

minimum scantlings for a given structure. The num-

ber of longitudinals and the frame spacing for a given

cargo hold/tank can also be optimized (105).

— Shape optimization (111), which uses a given topol-

ogy and scantlings to provide the user the minimum,

required area of material (reducing holes in a plate

for instance), and to improve the hull shape consid-

ering the fluid-structure interaction.

— Topology optimization (112) which uses a given

scantlings and allows the user to find out where to Figure 18.66 Topology Optimization

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-69 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Constraints are linear or nonlinear functions, either ex- ally uses a numeric procedure that consists of replacing the

plicit or implicit of the design variables (XI). These con- implicit function by an explicit approximated function ad-

straints are analytical translations of the limitations that the justed in the vicinity of the initial values of the design vari-

user wants to impose on the design variables themselves or ables (for instance using the first or second order Taylor

to parameters like displacement, stress, ultimate strength, series expansions). This way, the optimization process be-

etc. Note that these parameters must be functions of the de- comes an iterative analysis based on a succession of local

sign variables. approximations of the behavior models.

So it is possible to distinguish: At least one constraint should be defined for each fail-

ure mode and limit state considered in the Subsection 18.6.1.

Technological constraints (or side constraints) that provide

When going from the local to the general (Figure 18.38),

the upper and lower bounds of the design variables. For ex-

there are three types of constraints: 1) constraints on stiff-

ample:

ened panels and its components, 2) constraints on trans-

Xi min = 4mm ≤ Xi ≤ Xi max = 40 mm, verse frames and transversal stiffening, and 3) constraints

on the global structure.

with:

Constraints on stiffened panels (Figure 18.22): Panels

Xi min = a thickness limit dues to corrosion, are limited by their lateral edges (junctions with other pan-

Xi max = a technological limit of manufacturing or assembly. els, AA’ and BB’) either by transverse bulkheads or trans-

verse frames. These panels are orthotropic plates and shells

Geometrical constraints that impose relationships between

supported on their four sides, laterally loaded (bending) and

design variables in order to guarantee a functional, feasi-

submitted, at their extremities, to in-plane loads (compres-

ble, reliable structure. They are generally based on good

sion/tensile and shearing).

practice rules to avoid local strength failures (web or flange

Global buckling of panels (including the local transverse

buckling, stiffener tripping, etc.), or to guarantee welding

frames) must also be considered. Panel supports, in partic-

quality and easy access to the welds. For instance, welding

ular those corresponding to the reinforced frames, are as-

a plate of 30 mm thick with one that is 5 mm thick is not

sumed infinitely rigid. This means that they can distort

recommended. Hence, the constraints can be 0.5 ≤ X2 / X1

themselves significantly only after the stiffened panel col-

≤ 2 with X1, the web thickness of a stiffener and X2, the

lapse.

flange thickness.

Constraints on the transverse frames (Figure 18.23): The

Structural constraints represent limit states in order to avoid frames take the lateral loads (pressure, dead weight, etc.)

yielding, buckling, cracks, etc. and to limit deflection, stress, and are therefore submitted to combined loads (large bend-

etc. These constraints are based on solid-mechanics phe- ing and compression). The rigidity of these frames must be

nomena and modeled with rational equations. Rational equa- assured in order to respect the hypotheses on panel bound-

tions mean a coherent and homogeneous group of analysis ary conditions (undeformable supports).

methods based on physics, solid mechanics, strength and Constraints on the global structure (box girder/hull

stability treatises, etc. and that differ from empirical and girder) (Figure 18.46): The ultimate strength of the global

parametric formulations. Such standard rational structural structure or a section (block) located between two rigid

constraints can limit: frames (or bulkheads) must be considered as well as the

elastic bending moment of the hull girder (against yielding).

• the deflection level (absolute or relative) in a point of the

structure,

• the stress level in an element: σx , σy, and σc = σvon Mises,

• the safety level related to buckling, ultimate resistance, 18.8 DESIGN CRITERIA

tripping, etc. For example: σ /σult ≤ 0.5.

In ship design, the structural analysis phase is concerned

For each constraint, or solid-mechanics phenomenon, with the prediction of the magnitude of the stresses and de-

the selected behavior model is especially important since flections that are developed in the structural members as a

this model fixes the quality of the constraint modeling. These result of the action of the sea and other external and inter-

behavior models can be so complex that it is no longer pos- nal causes. Many of the failure mechanisms, particularly

sible to explicitly express the relation between the param- those that determine the ultimate strength and collapse of

eters being studied (stress, displacement, etc.) and the design the structure, involve non-linear material and structural be-

variables (XI). This happens when one uses mathematical havior that are beyond the range of applicability of the lin-

models (FEM, ISUM, BEM, etc.). In this case, one gener- ear structural analysis procedures in Section 18.4, which are

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-70 4/28/03 1:31 PM

commonly used in design practice. Most of the available The semiprobabilistic method corresponds to the cur-

methods of non-linear structural analysis are briefly intro- rent practice used by codes and the major classifications so-

duced in Sections 18.6 and 18.7. Sometimes, these meth- cieties. Load, strength, dimensions are random parameters

ods are limited in their applicability to a narrow class of but their distribution is basically not known. To overcome

problems. this, partial safety factor are used. Each safety factor cor-

One of the difficulties facing the structural designer is that responds to a load type, failure mode, etc. This is an inter-

linear analysis tools must often be used in predicting the be- mediate step between the deterministic and the full

havior of a structure in which the ultimate capability is gov- probabilistic methods.

erned by non-linear phenomena. This is one of the important

sources of uncertainty related to strength assessment.

After performing an analysis, the adequacy or inade-

18.9 DESIGN PROCEDURE

quacy of the member and/or the entire ship structure must

then be judged through comparison with some kind of cri- It does not seem possible to unify all of the design proce-

terion of performance (Design Criteria). The conventional dures (117-122). They differ from country to country, from

criteria that are commonly used today in ship structural de- shipyard to shipyard and differ between naval ships, com-

sign are usually stated in terms of acceptable levels of stress mercial ships and advanced high-speed catamaran passen-

in comparison to the yield or ultimate strength of the ma- ger vessels. So, as an example of one feasible methodology,

terial, or as acceptable stress levels compared to the criti- the design procedure for commercial vessel such as tanker,

cal buckling strength and ultimate strength of the structural container, and VLCC is selected. It corresponds to the ac-

member. Such criteria are, therefore, intended specifically tual current shipyard procedure.

for the prevention of yielding (hull girder, frames, longitu- This structural design procedure can be defined as fol-

dinals, etc), plate and stiffened plate buckling, plate and lows:

stiffened plate ultimate strength, ultimate strength of hull

• receive general arrangement from the basic design group,

girder, fatigue, collision, grounding, vibration and many

• define structural arrangement based on the general

other failure modes specific to particular vessel types. In-

arrangement,

formation related to the design criteria is given in Section

• determine initial scantling of structural members within

18.6 for each specific failure mode (see also Beghin et al

design criteria (rule-based).,

(116)).

• check longitudinal and transverse strength,

• change the structural arrangement or scantling, and

18.8.1 Structural Reliability as a Design Basis • transfer the structural arrangement and scantling to the

production design group.

Three categories of design methodology are basically avail-

able. They are usually classified as: The structural design can also be classified according to

available design tool:

1. deterministic method,

2. semiprobabilistic method, and • use data of existing ship or past experience—expert sys-

3. full probabilistic method. tem, (1st level)

• use of a structural analysis software like FEM (2nd level)

The deterministic method uses a global safety factor. It

• use optimization software (3rd level)

assumes that loads and strength are fully determined. This

means that no aspect of randomness is considered. Every- The adequacy of the relevant analysis method to use for

thing is assumed to be deterministic. The global safety fac- a specific design stage is discussed in Subsection 18.7.5.

tor is compared to the ratio between the actual strength and Here the discussion concerns the procedure from a design

the required strength. point of view and not from the analysis point of view.

The full probabilistic method is an ideal approach as-

suming that all the randomness can be exactly considered

within a global probabilistic approach. All the actual devel- 18.9.1 Initial Scantling

opment in structural reliability and reliability analysis show At the basic design stage, principal dimensions, hull form,

the huge effort actually done to reach that aims. Chapter 19 double bottom height, location of longitudinal bulkheads and

presents in detail the reliability concept with examples of the transverse bulkheads, maximum still-water bending mo-

reliability-based strength analysis of plates, stiffened pan- ment, etc. have already been determined to meet the owner’s

els, hull girder and fatigue. See also Mansour et al (42). requirements such as deadweight and ship’s speed. Such a

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-71 4/28/03 1:31 PM

parametric design procedure presented in Chapter 11 is rel- creased thickness according to the difference between the

evant for this stage. actual stress and allowable stress. If the difference is small,

For the structural design stage, the structural arrangement it is not necessary to perform a new strength assessment

is carried out to define the material property, plate breadth, and the design may be completed with only small changes.

stiffener spacing, stiffener type, slot type, shape of open- If the difference is large, the design should be drastically

ings, and frame spacing. The initial scantling of longitudi- changed and it will be necessary to analyze the structure

nal members such as plate thickness and section area of again (see previous step in this Subsection).

stiffener can be determined by applying the classification Then, the designer has to check the transverse strength

rules which give minimum required value to meet the bend- by comparing the actual stresses in the transverse frames

ing, shear and buckling strength. As there are usually no suit- with the allowable stresses given by the classification rules.

able rules for the transverse members, the initial scantling The actual stresses such as equivalent stress and shear stress

of transverse members such as height and thickness of web, can be obtained using commercial FEA packages. If the

breadth and thickness of flange are determined by reference stress in some of elements exceeds the allowable stress, the

to similar ships or using empirical shipyard database. designer should increase the initial scantling. These changes

are performed at the third step Structural Design using the

results of the Strength Assessment and by comparison with

18.9.2 Strength Assessment the design criteria.

The purpose of the strength assessment is to validate the ini-

tial design, that is, to evaluate quantitatively the strength ca-

pability of the initial design. This problem was extensively 18.9.3 Structural Design

presented in previous Sections 18.4, 18.5 and 18.6. If all of local scantlings are determined by the rule mini-

In general, the longitudinal members are subjected to mum values, and if the longitudinal strength satisfies the rule

several kinds of stresses in the sea-going condition: pri- strength requirement, the design is completed. But, even if

mary, secondary and tertiary stresses (Subsection 18.4.1). this design is strong enough, it might be too heavy and/or

As all these stresses act simultaneously, the superposition too expensive and it should be refined. In practice, refining

of these stresses should not exceed the allowable equiva- an already feasible design is a difficult task and requires ex-

lent stress given by the classification rules (equations 45 perience. The designer can change the structural arrange-

and 46). ment, especially the dimensions such as frame spacing, and

There are two kinds of strength to design the longitudi- material properties to better fit with the longitudinal strength

nal members. One is the local strength to avoid collapse, requirements. This work has to be done in agreement with

and the other is the longitudinal strength to consider the the basic design team.

collapse of the ships’ hull girder. The local strength is au- Instead of the trial and error procedure discussed above,

tomatically satisfied if the design is based on the classifi- an automatic optimization technique can be used to obtain

cation rules. The hull girder longitudinal strength can be the minimum weight and/or cost for the longitudinal and

assessed with the hull section modulus (SM) at bottom and transverse structural member. The object function(s) can be

deck where the extreme stresses are taken place (equation structural weight and/or fabrication cost, using either a sin-

29). The hull section modulus is calculated easily by using gle object function approach or a multiple objective func-

available software. tion method. The design variables can be longitudinal and

If the hull section modulus at bottom or deck part is big- transverse spacing, deck/bottom scantlings for the longitu-

ger than the required value, this design can be considered dinal and transverse members (web height and thickness,

as finished but this design might be too expensive. If the flange width and thickness). The constraints and limitations

section modulus at the deck or at the bottom is less than the of the optimization process can be the range of each design

required value, the designer should change the initial scant- variable as well as the required hull section modulus and

lings. minimum deck/bottom scantlings for the longitudinal mem-

If the calculated hull section modulus at deck part is less bers, and allowable bending and shear stresses for the trans-

than required, he can increase, step by step, the deck scant- verse members (see Optimization in Subsection 18.7.6).

ling (for example, 0.5 mm for the plate thickness) until the

requirement is satisfied.

The designer also has to modify the scantling (usually 18.9.4 A Generic Design Framework

plate thickness) of transverse members, for which the stress By comparison with the previous standard procedure, Fig-

exceeds the allowable value. The designer estimates the in- ure 18.67 shows a new generic and advanced design method-

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-72 4/28/03 1:31 PM

ology where the performance of the system, the manufac- The system definition module [Y(U,V,W)] is used to

turing process of the system and the associated life cycle build an environmental model [U], a product model [V] and

costs are considered in an integrated fashion (120). De- a process model [W]. The system definition module receives

signing ship structures systems involves achieving simul- operational requirements [Z] such as owner’s requirements.

taneous, though sometimes competing, objectives. The These operational parameters are presumed fixed through-

structure must perform its function while conforming to out the design.

structural, economic and production constraints. The pres- They of course can eventually be changed if no accept-

ent design framework consists of establishing the structural able design is established, but presumably any design would

system and composite subsystems, which optimally satisfy have operational parameters, which would not be sacrificed.

the topology, shape, loading and performance constraints The environmental model [U] includes the still water and

while simultaneously considering the manufacturing or fab- wave loading conditions and the product model [V] con-

rication processes in a cost effective manner. tains the production information, for example. The process

The framework is used within a computerized virtual model [W] is built to consider or define the fabrication se-

environment in which CAD product models, physics-based quence. A translator (simulation based design translator)

models, production process models and cost models are assigns some [Y] model parameters to the simulation pa-

used simultaneously by a designer or design team. The per- rameters [T] and design variables [X].

formance of the product or process is in general judged by These parameters are selected based on the available

some time independent parameter, which is referred to as simulation tools [S] that require specific data ([T],[X] and

a response metric (R). Specifications for the system must time).

be established in terms of these Response Metrics. The for- The simulation module [S(T, X, time)] is used to pro-

mulation of the design problem is thus the same whether duce simulation responses such as Response Metrics [R[S(T,

the product or process systems (or both) are considered. X)]]. The time is needed to consider the dynamic effects and

The general framework consists of a system definition actual dynamic load conditions [U].

module, a simulation module and a design module. The optimum design module includes the Design Cri-

teria, the Design Assessment and the Optimization compo-

nents. The design criteria module provides constraints [G(T,

X, Y, Z)] and objective functions [F(R, T, X, Y, Z)]. These

Operational Requirements

ParametersZ

are used to assess the design through the Design Assess-

ment component of the module (for example R≤G). The

constraints are obtained by considering not only the simu-

System Definition

Model Parameters Y

lation parameters [T] and the design variables [X] but also

Environmental Model Product Model Process Model

the operational requirements [Z] and the system definition

Parameters U ParametersV ParametersW parameter [Y]. Also, the objective function [F] is calculated

using the response metrics [R], the operational requirements

Simulation Based Design Translator

[Z], the system definition parameter [Y] as well as the de-

Simulation Parameters T sign variables [X] and simulation parameters [T].

Design Variables X Based on the results of the Design Assessment (Min(F)

and R≤G) several strategies for the design procedure (iter-

Simulations

Design Criteria

ations) can be followed:

Simulation Response S(T ,X ,time)

Constraints G(T,X,Y,Z)

Response Metrics R [S(T ,X )]

Objective Function F(R,T,X,Y,Z)

• if the object function does not reach its minimum value

or the response metrics do not satisfy the constraints, an

Yes optimization algorithm (steepest descent, dual approach

No Is Design Space Design Assessment

Feasible? Min (F) ?

and convex linearization, evolutionary strategies, etc.) is

R<G ? adopted to find a new set of design variables. Standard

algorithms are presented in (113,114,123):

Optimization

No Conditions Satisfied ?

Steepest Descent — if the optimizer fails to find an improved solution (un-

Convex Linearization

Yes feasible design space), it is required to change the

simulation parameter values [T] and/or design vari-

Yes Redesign? No Stop

ables selection [X] or even to modify the Model Pa-

Figure 18.67 A Generic Design Framework (120) rameters [Y].

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-73 4/28/03 1:31 PM

— otherwise, the design space is feasible, and a change Committee II.2),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan & Berge

of design variable values [X] is performed based on (Eds.), Pergamon, Norway, 1, 1997

the optimizer solution (in other words a new itera- 19. Temarel, P., et al. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC Com-

tion). mittee II.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi

(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000

• if the object function reaches its minimum value and the 20. “Vibration Control in Ships,” A/S. VERITEC Høvik, Nor-

response metrics satisfy the constraints, two alternatives way, 1985

are examined: 21. Kaminski, M.L., et al. “Ultimate Strength (Report of ISSC

Committee III.1),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo &

— change the operational requirements parameters [Z],

Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000

repeat the previous procedure and to compare with 22. Pedersen, P. T., “Ship Grounding and Hull Girder Strength”

other alternative designs, or Marine Structures, 7, 1994

— end the design procedure. 23. Beck R. F. and Reed A. M., “Modern Seakeeping Computa-

tions for Ships” Proc. 23rd Symposium Naval Hydrodynam-

ics Val de Reuil, France, 2000

24. Jensen, J. J. et al., “Extreme Hull Girder Loading,” Report

18.10 REFERENCES of Special Task Committee VI.1 Proc. 14th International Ship

and Offshore Structures Congress, Ohtsubo and Sumi (Edi-

1. Taggart R., Ship Design and Construction, SNAME, New tors), 2: 261–320, 2000

York, 1980 25. Rawson, K. J., Tupper E. C., Basic Ship Theory (Fourth edi-

2. Lewis, E. V., Principles of Naval Architecture (2nd revision), tion), 1 & 2, Longman Scientic & Technical, Essex, UK,

vol.1, SNAME, 1988 1994

3. Hughes O. F., Ship Structural Design: A Rationally -Based, 26. Schade, H. A., “The Effective Breath of Stiffened Plating

Computer-Aided Optimization Approach, SNAME, New Jer- Under Bending Loads,” Transactions SNAME, 61, 1951

sey, 1988 27. Evans, H. J., Ship Structural Design Concepts—Second Cycle,

4. DnV 99–0394, Calculation Procedures for Direct Global Cornell Maritime Press, First Edition, Maryland, 1983

Structural Analysis, Det Norske Veritas, Technical Report, 28. Heggelund, S. E., Moan, T. and Omar, S., “Global Structural

1999 Analysis of Large Catamarans,” Proceedings Fifth Confer-

5. Arai H., “Evolution of Classification Rules for Ships,” In Re-

ence on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST’99, SNAME, Seat-

cent Advances in Marine Structures, ISSC’2000 Pre-Con-

tle: 757–771, 1999

gress Symposium, Society of Naval Architects of Japan,

29. Rigo, P., “Stiffened Sheathings of Orthotropic Cylindrical

Tokyo: 8.1–8.22, 2000

Shells,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118 (4):

6. IACS Unified Requirement S7 “Minimum Longitudinal

926–943, 1992

Strength Standards,” 1989

30. Rigo, P. and Fleury, C., “Scantling Optimization Based on

7. IACS Unified Requirement S11 “Longitudinal Strength Stan-

Convex Linearizations and a Dual Approach,” Marine Struc-

dard,” 1993

8. ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, 2000 tures, Elsevier Science Ltd., 14 (6): 631–649, 2001

9. BV Rules for Steel Ships, 2001 31. Mansour, A. E., “Gross Panel Strength under Combined Load-

10. RINA Rules, 2001 ing,” Ship Structure Committee, SSC-270, NTIS, Washing-

11. DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, 2001 ton DC, 1977

12. NKK Rules and Guidance for the Survey and Construction 32. Hughes, O., Nikolaidis, E., Ayyub, B., White, G. and Hess,

of Steel Ships, 2001 P., “Uncertainty in Strength Models for Marine Structures,”

13. Salvensen, N., Tuck, E. O. & Faltinsen, O., “Ship Motions Ship Structure Committee (375), NTIS, Washington DC,

and Sea Loads”, Transactions SNAME, 78: 250–287, 1970 1994

14. Ochi, M.K., “Applied Probability & Stochastic Processes,” 33. Paik, J. K., Thayamballi, A. and Kim, B., “Advanced Ulti-

John Wiley & Sons, 1990 mate Strength Formulations for Ship Plating under Com-

15. GWS, “Global Wave Statistics” British Maritime Technol- bined Biaxial Compression/Tension, Edge Shear and Lateral

ogy Ltd. Feltham, 1986 Pressure Loads,” Marine Technology, 38, (1): 9–25, 2001

16. Guedes Soares, C., et al. “Loads (Report of ISSC Commit- 34. Faulkner, D., “A Review of Effective Plating for use in the

tee I.2),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan & Berge (Eds.), Analysis of Stiffened Plating in Bending and Compression,”

Pergamon, Norway, 1, 1997 Journal of Ship Research, 18 (1): 1–17, 1975

17. Guedes Soares, C., et al. “Loads (Report of ISSC Commit- 35. Faulkner, D., Adamchak, J., Snyder, G. and Vetter, M., “Syn-

tee I.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), thesis of Welded Grillages to withstand Compression and

Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000 ” Normal Loads,” Computers & Structures, Vol.3, 1973,

18. Chung, T. Y., et al. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC pp.221–246.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-74 4/28/03 1:31 PM

36. Bleich, F. Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGraw- 53. Yao, T., Sumi, Y., Takemoto, H., Kumano, A., Sueoka, H.

Hill, 1952 and Ohtsubo, H., “Analysis of the Accident of the MV

37. ECCS-56, Buckling of Steel Shells, 4th edition, ECCS—Tech- NAKHODKA, Part 2: Estimation of Structural Strength,”

nical Working Group 8.4 Stability of Shells, (60), European Journal of Marine Science and Technology (JMST), 3 (4):

Convention for Constructional Steel Work, Brussels, 1988 181–183, 1998

38. Paik J.K., Thayamballi A.K., Ultimate Limit State Design of 54. Smith, C. S., “Influence of Local Compressive Failure on Ul-

Steel Plated Structures, John Wiley & Sons, London, 2002. timate Longitudinal Strength of a Ship’s Hull, PRADS 77,

39. Kaminski et al., “Ultimate Strength, Report of Technical Tokyo, Japan: 73–79, 1977

Committee III.1,” Proceedings of the 14th Int. Ship and Off- 55. Rigo, P., Catalin, T. and Yao, T., “Sensitivity Analysis on Ul-

shore Structures Congress, Vol.1, Elsevier: 253–321, 2001 timate Hull Bending Moment,” In Proceeding of

40. Dowling et al “Design of Flat Stiffened Plating: Phase 1 Re- PRADS’2001, Shanghai, China, 2001

port”, CESLIC Report SP9, Department of Civil Engineer- 56. Adamchack, J. C., “Approximate Method for Estimating the

ing, Imperial College, London, 1991 Collapse of a Ship’s Hull in Preliminary Design,” Proc. Ship

41. Mansour, A. E. and Thayamballi A., “Ultimate Strength of a Structure Symposium’84, SNAME: 37–61, 1984

Ship’s Hull Girder in Plastic and Buckling Modes,” Ship 57. Beghin, D., et al., “Design Principles and Criteria (Report of

Structure Committee (299) NTIS, Washington DC, 1980 ISSC Committee IV.1),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan and

42. Mansour, A. E., Lin M., Hovem, L. and Thayamballi, A., Berge (Eds.), Pergamon Press—Elsevier Science, 1: 351–406,

“Probability-Based Ship Design—Phase 1: A Demonstra- 1997

tion,” SSC (368), NTIS, Washington DC, 1993 58. Dow, R. S., Hugill, R. C., Clarke, J. D. and Smith, C. S.,

43. Chen, Q., Zimmerman, T., DeGeer, D. and Kennedy, B., “Evaluation of Ultimate Ship Hull Strength,” Proceedings of

“Strength and Stability Testing of Stiffened Plate Compo- Symposium on Extreme Loads Response, Arlington: 33–148,

nents,” Ship Structure Committee (399), NTIS, Washington 1991

DC, 1997 59. Gordo, J. M., Guedes Soares, C., “Approximate Methods to

44. Paik, J. K. and Kim, D. H., “A Benchmark Study of the Ul- Evaluate the Hull Girder Collapse Strength,” Marine Struc-

timate Compressive Strength Formulation for Stiffened Pan- tures 9 (3–4): 449–470, 1996

els,” Journal Research Institute of Industrial Technology, 53, 60. Gordo, J. M. and Guedes Soares, C., “Interaction Equation

Pusan National University: 373–405, 1997 for the Collapse of Tankers and Containerships under Com-

45. Rigo, P., Moan, T., Frieze P. and Chryssanthopoulos, M., bined Vertical and Horizontal Bending Moments,” Journal

“Benchmarking of Ultimate Strength Predictions for Longi- of Ship Research 41 (3): 230–240, 1997

tudinally Stiffened Panels,” PRADS’95, 2: 869–882, Seoul, 61. Yao, T. and Nikolov, P. I., ‘Progressive Collapse Analysis of

Korea, 1995, a Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending,” Journal of So-

46. ECCS-60, Recommendations for the Design of Longitudi- ciety Naval Architects of Japan, 170: 449–461, 1991

nally Stiffened Webs and of Stiffened Compression Flanges, 62. Yao, T., Nikolov, P. I., “Progressive Collapse Analysis of a

1st edition, ECCS—Technical Working Group 8.3—Struc- Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending (2nd Report),” Jour-

tural Stability, (60), European Convention for Constructional nal of Society Naval Architects of Japan, 172: 437–446, 1992

Steel Work, Brussels, 1990 63. Rutherford, S. E., Caldwell, J. B., “Ultimate Longitudinal

47. Mansour, A. E., Lin,Y. H. and Paik, J. K., “Ultimate Strength Strength of Ships: A Case Study,” SNAME Transactions, 98:

of Ships under Combined Vertical and Horizontal Moments,” 441–471, 1990

PRADS’95, 2: 844–851, Seoul, Korea, 1995 64. Caldwell, J. B., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength,” Transac-

48. Smith, C. S., “Elastic Analysis of Stiffened Plating under tions RINA 107: 411–430, 1965

Lateral Loading,” Transactions RINA, 108, (2): 113–131, 65. Paik, J. K. and Mansour, A. E., “A Simple Formulation for

1966 Predicting the Ultimate Strength of Ships,” Journal Marine

49. Paik, J. K. and Thayamballi, A., “An Empirical Formulation Science and Technology, 1: 52–62, 1995

for Predicting the Ultimate Compressive Strength of Stiff- 66. Viner, A. C., “Development of Ship Strength Formulation,”

ened Panels,” Proceedings of ISOPE’97 Conference, IV: Proceedings of International. Conference on Advances in

328–338, 1997 Marine Structures, ARE, Dunfermline, UK: 152–173, 1986

50. Yao, T. et al., “Ultimate Hull Girder Strength (Committee 67. Frieze, P. et al, “Applied Design, Report of ISSC Commit-

VI.2),” Proc. of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Else- tee V.1,” 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 2, 1991

vier, Japan, 2: 321–391, 2000 68. Sumi, Y. et al, “Calculation Procedures. In Quasi-static Re-

51. Yao, T., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Ship Hull Girder; sponse (Report of ISSC Committee II.1),” Proceedings of

Historical Review and State of Art,” International Journal 13th ISSC, Moan and Berge (eds), Pergamon Press—Else-

Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE) 9 (1): 1–9, 1999 vier Science, 1: 128–138, 1997

52. Chen, Y. K., Kutt, L. M., Piaszczyk, C. M. and Bieniek, M. 69. Hu, Y., Zhang A. and Sun J., “Analysis on the Ultimate Lon-

P., “Ultimate Strength of Ship Structures,” Transactions gitudinal Strength of a Bulk Carrier by Using a Simplified

SNAME 91: 149–168, 1983 Method,” Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14: 311–330, 2001

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-75 4/28/03 1:31 PM

70. Paik, J. K., Thayamballi A. K. and Jung S. C. “Ultimate (ICCGS’2001), Technical University of Denmark, Copen-

Strength of Ship Hulls under Combined Vertical Bending, hagen, 2001

Horizontal Bending and Shearing Forces,” SNAME Trans- 88. Todd, F. H., Ship Hull Vibration, Arnold Ltd, London, 1961

actions 104: 31–59, 1996 89. Lewis F. M., “The Inertia of Water Surrounding a Vibrating

71. IACS “Longitudinal Strength Standard. Requirements Con- Ship,” SNAME Transactions, 37, 1929

cerning Strength of Ships, IACS (International Association 90. Volcy, G., Baudin, M, Bereau, M. and Besnier, F., “Hydro-

of Classification Societies),” IUR S11 Longitudinal Strength elasticity and Vibration of Internal Steelwork of Tanks,”

Standard, S11.1-S11.12, 1993 SNAME Transactions, 1980

72. Nitta, A., Arai, H. and Magaino, A., “Basis of IACS Unified 91. Morel, P., Beghin, D. and Baudin, M., “Assessment of the

Longitudinal Strength Standard,” Marine Structures, 5: 1–21, Vibratory Behavior of Ships,” RINA Conference on Noise

1992 and Vibration, London, UK, 1995

73. Almar-Naess A. Fatigue-Handbook—Offshore Structures, 92. Spittaël, L., Zalar, M., Laspalles, P.and Brosset, L., “Mem-

Tapir Publication, Trondheim, 1985 brane LNG FPSO & FSRU—Methodology for Sloshing

74. Fricke, W. et al., “Fatigue and Fracture (Report of ISSC Com- Phenomenon,” Proceedings of Gastech’2000, Houston, 2000

mittee III.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi 93. Fabro, R., “Ship Noise and Vibration Comfort Class: Inter-

(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1: 323–392, 2000 national Rules and Shipbuilding Practice,” Proceedings of

75. Maddox S. J., Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures, Abing- NAV2000, Venice, Italy, 2000

ton Publishing, Second Edition, UK, 1994 94. Blevins, R. D., Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode

76. Niemi, E., Stress Determination for Fatigue Analysis of Shape, Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, US, 1984

Welded Components, Abington Publishing, UK, 1995 95. Lund. J. W., “Rotor-Bearing Dynamics Design Technol-

77. NRC-National Research Council, “Prevention of Fractures ogy,” Part III: Design Handbook for fluid film bearings.,

in Ship Structures, Committee on Marine Structures,” Ma- Mech. Tech. Inc., Technical Report AFAPL-TR-65–45, 1965

rine Board, Washington DC, US, 1997 96. Greene E., Design Guide for Marine Applications of Com-

78. Petershagen, H., Fricke, W. and Paetzold, H., Fatigue Strength posites, Ship Structure Committee, SSC-403, NTIS, Wash-

of Ship Structures, GL-Technology—Part I: Basic Principles, ington DC, USA, 1997

Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Hamburg, 1/97, 1997 97. Beier, K. P., “Web-Based Virtual Reality in Design and Man-

79. Byers, W.G., Marley, M., Mohammadi, J., Nielsen, R. and ufacturing applications,” COMPIT 2000, 1st Int. Euro Con-

Sarkani, S., “Fatigue Reliability Reassessment Procedures: ference on Computer Applications and Information

State-of- The-Art Paper,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Technology in the Maritime Industry, Potsdam, Germany:

ASCE, 123 (3): 227–285, 1997 45–55, 2000

80. Madsen, H. O., Krenk, S. and Lind, N.C., Methods of Struc- 98. Jensen, J. J. et al, “Performance of Composite Structures,”

tural Safety, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986 in Report of Technical Committee III.1, Proc. of the 13th

81. Harris, D.O., Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics, Probabilis- Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 1, Pergamon:

tic Fracture Mechanics Handbook, Sundarajan, ed., Chap- 256–263, 1997

man and Hall, New York, N.Y., 1995 99. Ross, J. M., “CAD/CAM/CIM: Using Today’s High-Tech

82. Miner, M. A., “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,” Trans. Tools for State-of-the-Art,” International Conference on

ASME, 67, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 12: 154–164, 1945 Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS), Society

83. Wirsching, P.H., Chen, Y. N., “Considerations of Probabil- of Naval Architects of Japan, Yokohama, Japan, 1997

ity Based Fatigue Design Criteria for Marine Structures,” 100. Zenkert, D., The Handbook of Sandwich Construction., En-

Marine Structures, 1: 23–45, 1988 gineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd., London, UK,

84. Brown, A., Tikka, K., Daidola, J., Lutzen, M. and Choe, I., 1997

“Structural Design and Response in Collision and Ground- 101. Kitamura, O., Kawamoto, Y., Kaneko, E., “A Study of the

ing,” Proceedings of the 2000 SNAME Annual Meeting, Van- Improved Tanker Structure Against Collision and Ground-

couver, Canada, October, 2000 ing Damage,” Proceedings of PRADS’98, Elsevier, The

85. Amdahl, J. and Kavlie, D., “Design of Tankers for Ground- Hague, NL, 1: 173–179, 1998

ing and Collision,” Proceedings of the Int. Conference on 102. Bishop, R. E., Price N. G., “Some Comments on present-

Technologies for Marine Environment Preservation day ship dynamics,” Philosophical Transactions Royal So-

(MARIENV’95), 1, Tokyo, Japan: 167–174, 1995 ciety, London, A 334: 187–187, 1991

86. Ohtsubo, H. et al., “Structural Design Against Collision and 103. Porcari, et al., “Quasi-static Response (Report of ISSC Com-

Grounding,” Report of Technical Committee V.4, Proc. of mittee II.1),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi

the 13th Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 2, Perg- (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000

amon: 83–116, 1997 104. Basu, R., Kirkhope, K. and Srinivasan, J., “Guidelines for

87. Wang, G., Spencer, J. and Chen, Y., “Assessment of a Ship’s Evaluation of Finite Elements and Results,” Ship Structure

Performance in Accidents,” Proceedings of the 2nd Interna- Committee (387), NTIS, Washington DC, 1996

tional Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships 105. Rigo, P., “A Module-Oriented Tool for Optimum Design of

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-76 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Stiffened Structures,” Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14 (6): Review,” Marine Structures, Elsevier Science Publications,

611–629, 2001 5: 343–390, 1990

106. Ueda,Y., Rashed, S., “The Idealized Structural Unit Method 116. Beghin, D., Jastrzebski, T. and Taczala, M., “Result—A

and its Application to Deep Girder Structures,” Computers Computer Code for Evaluation of the Ultimate Longitudi-

& Structures, 18 (2): 277–293,1984 nal Strength of Hull Girder,” Proceedings of PRADS-95,

107. Paik, J. K. and Hughes, O. F., “Ship Structures,” Chapter 8 Eds. Kim & Lee, Society of Naval Architects of Korea, 2:

in the textbook Computational Analysis of Complex Struc- 832–843, 1995

tures, Edited by R.E. Melchers, The American Society of 117. Birmingham, R., Cleland, G., Driver, R. and Maffin, D. Un-

Civil Engineers, 2002 derstanding Engineering Design, Prentice and Hall, Lon-

108. Fujikubo, M. and Kaeding, P., ISUM rectangular plate ele- don, 1997

ment with new lateral shape function (2nd Report) – Stiff- 118. Chalmers, D. W. Design of Ships’ Structures, Ministry of

ened plates under bi-axial thrust—Journal of Society Naval Defense, HMSO Eds., London, 1993

Architects of Japan: 479–487, 2000 119. Moan T. et al., “Report of ISSC Committee IV.1- Design

Philosophy,” 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 1991

109. Brebbia, C. and Dominguez, J., Boundary Elements: An In-

120. Karr, D., Beier, K. P., Na, S. S. and Rigo, P., “A Framework

troductory Course, Computational Mechanics Publications,

for Simulation Based Design of Ship Structures,” Proceed-

Boston, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989

ings of the 2001 Ship Production Symposium, SNAME,Yp-

110. Pradillon, J. Y. et al., “Design Method (Report of ISSC Com-

silanti, Michigan, 2001

mittee IV.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi

121. Parsons, G., Singer, D. and Sauter, J., “A Hybrid Agent Ap-

(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, vol.1, 2000 proach for Set-Based Conceptual Ship Design,” Proceedings

111. Beckers, P., “Recent Developments in Shape Sensitivity 10th ICCAS Conference, Cambridge MA, 2: 207–221, 1999

Analysis: the Physical Approach,” Engineering Optimiza- 122. Watson D. G. M. Practical Ship Design, Elsevier Ltd, Ox-

tion, 18: 67–78, 1991 ford, 1, 1998

112. Bendsoe, M. P. and Kikuchi, N., “Generating Optimal 123. Fleury C., “Mathematical Programming Methods for Con-

Topologies in Structural Design using a Homogenization strained Optimization: Dual Methods, (Chap7)” and “Re-

Method,” Comp. Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi- cent Developments in Structural Optimization Methods

neering, (71): 187–224, 1988 (Chap9)” in Structural Optimization: Status and Promise,

113. Vanderplaats, G. N., Numerical Optimization Techniques (M.P. Kamat ed.), series: Progress in Astronautics and Aero-

for Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984 nautics, AIAA, 150: 123–150 and 183–208, 1993

114. Sen, P. and Yang, J. B., Multiple Criteria Decision Support 124. Rigo, P., “Least-Cost Structural Optimisation Oriented Pre-

in Engineering, Springer-Verslag London Ltd, UK, 1998 liminary Design,” Journal of Ship Production, 17 (4):

115. Catley, D. et al., “Design Optimization: A State-of-the-Art 202–215, 2001

- Preliminary Ship DesignUploaded bySijish
- Ship Design Procedure BookletUploaded byJolly Jack
- Design Report of a shipUploaded byMahdi
- Scantling Calculation 1031Uploaded byShifatMahmudRumman
- Ship Structural DesignUploaded byRafael Castelo Branco Goulart
- Scantling CalculationUploaded byJai Frinz
- MidshipUploaded byapi-27176519
- 7109539-General-Arrangement.pdfUploaded bytri
- Geometry of Ships - LetcherUploaded bySven Klinkhamer
- Ship Design and Construction - Robert TaggartUploaded byafreddy
- Design Guide for Ship Structural DetailsUploaded byReza Babri
- Estimation of MainDimensionsUploaded byJosua Martinez
- 093977366XStrength of ShipsUploaded byrafael
- Ship Design - Main DimensionsUploaded byMuhammad Hafidz
- 21306 Marine DesignUploaded byDEEPAK
- Ship Design ConstructionUploaded byfarhan_82
- Ship Design MethodUploaded byCanh Sanh Lo
- Design of Ship Hull Structures-A Practical Guide for Engineers.pdfUploaded byMarius Chirosca
- ShipStructuralDesignUploaded bynavalarchmarine
- ScantLing CalculationUploaded bySuseprianus Patumba
- Ship DesignUploaded byRed Ignacio
- Ship Structural DesignUploaded bywilliamscotts
- Empirical FormulaUploaded byapi-27176519
- Harvald, Resistance and Propulsion of ShipsUploaded byIgor Pereira
- Ship Resistance calculation for a fishing vesselUploaded byMahdi
- FEM MidShip Project ReportUploaded bychiliesweet
- Basic Naval Architecture Instructor's Guide and Problem SetUploaded byRoni Hanafiyah
- Ship Resistance and PropulsionUploaded byMerrel
- Scantling Calc SpreadsheetUploaded bytyagimohit228
- StabilityUploaded byapi-27176519

- Service Life and Life Cycle of Building StructuresUploaded byYuny Ayu Maharani
- Ultradur PBT HR BrochureUploaded byGerman Lag
- Kevlar fabricUploaded byeSinist3r
- B 746 - B 746M - 02 _QJC0NI9CNZQ2TQ__Uploaded bymalika_00
- PONTEGGI.pdfUploaded byTufano Grosso
- Sikadur 731Uploaded bywidayat81
- 2013 Simulation Algorithm for Spiral Case Structure in Hydropower StationUploaded byJosé G. Ortiz Mesías
- Casing DesignUploaded byNaser Khan
- Effect of Waste Plastic as Partial Replacement of Aggregate in Concrete Mixture: A ReviewUploaded byIRJET Journal
- A Teaching Guide for Structural Steel ConnectionsUploaded byv
- Section 6 _Rock MechanicsUploaded byaistop
- Theoretical Background of Beam DeflectionUploaded bySharmaine Gomez Falcis
- Part 1-3. Structures Susceptible to FatigueUploaded byMihai Predescu
- Practical Estimates of Rock Mass StrengthUploaded byRoda Cadiz
- EN 24Uploaded byDimpu Tripathi
- Crown Tech ReportUploaded byDavid John
- BD 31 01Uploaded byOriku Abiodun
- Atlas of Stress-Strain CurvesUploaded byankitsarvaiya
- Kiran_Steel Data SheetUploaded bykirankumargatty
- 2 Kinds of Pavements & Construction MaterialsUploaded byKim Sapong
- ACI 423.5R-99 Partially Prestressed ConcreteUploaded byingpulgar
- Hardened ConcreteUploaded byEng Aidaruos Abdi Matan
- manual scs.pdfUploaded bytocomauriapari
- Mechanical Properties of Stainless SteelUploaded byFahrul Nur Arifin
- Structural and Mechanical Characterization of Nanoclay-reinforced Agarose Nanocomposites..InglesUploaded byrenebarreiro
- Materials for Earth DAMUploaded bynita
- 221855766-Machine-Tool-Structures[1].pdfUploaded byMohan Nanjan S
- 13920rUploaded byraj_ferrari
- mur de soutenementUploaded byfethi42
- M21_datasheetUploaded byAntonis Alexiadis