OTC 13213

Design Tool for Green Sea, Wave Impact, and Structural Response on Bow and Deck
Structures
. Hellan, O.A. Hermundstad and C.T. Stansberg, MARINTEK

Copyright 2001, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, 30 April3 May 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

Abstract
In the offshore industry, there has been a growing attention
around damages on bow and deck structures on FPSOs and
floating platforms caused by wave impact in steep storm wave
conditions. A standard design tool taking properly into
account these effects still does not seem to have been
established, although there are various research and
development activities around in the industry. This is because
the problem involves strongly non-linear wave-structure
interaction effects that are hard to describe accurately by
present theoretical models. The development of fully 3D nonlinear tools is expected to still take some time, and simplified
models are considered for present engineering applications.
One such simplified approach is discussed in the present
paper. This is based on a combination of presently available
theory, with the aim to end up with a practical and robust tool
taking into account the most essential physical effects. A
discussion of the main physical mechanisms considered
important for the prediction of events with serious damages is
given. This includes such as non-linear effects in steep and
energetic random waves combined with wave diffraction and
vessel motion, non-linear water propagation on deck with
resulting impact load pressure distributions, and finally, the
structural integrity assessment. As a part of this analysis, the
prediction of impact events is also included. Empirical
calibration against model tests in regular and irregular waves
is included as an essential part of the approach. The ideas are
applied in the development of an engineering design tool.
Introduction
Background.
In recent years, a number of incidents with damage on bow
and deck structures have been reported from floating

production systems at sea, due to wave impact in steep wave

conditions. Several incidents of damages due to green water
on deck have been reported /1/, and an FPSO operating in the
North Sea west of Scotland experienced heavy bow slam with
damages to the bow structure /2/.
Significant research activities have already been
established on different aspects of this subject. Examples
found among the extensive amount of works published in the
literature include such as green water modelling /3/-/7/,
slamming force modelling /8/-/9/, fully non-linear flow and
wave diffraction models /10/-/11/, and coupling between
hydrodynamic loads and structural responses (hydroelastic
effects) /12/-/14/. This includes experimental works as well as
basic theoretical modelling. Since parts of the problems are
considerably complex and highly non-linear, this includes, to
some extent, long-term research studies, from which
significant developments are expected to be achieved after
some time. Such studies are important steps for future design
models.
So far, however, a consistent design tool combining the
complete chain of different load and response effects in a
generally accepted way does not seem to be available today,
although various empirical methods are in use on different
elements in the procedure.
This work.
In this paper, the development of a new engineering design
tool is described. The objective is to establish reliable tools
for prediction of loads and structural responses from local
wave impact on bow and deck structures on FPSOs and
floating platforms, based on an analytical formulation with
empirical calibration to measured data. An overview of the
problem addressed is illustrated in Figure 1. A software
package for practical engineering use is developed. This
includes bow slam and green sea effects on ships and FPSO,
as well as loads from waves and run-up around platform
columns. The probability and nature of random, steep nonlinear wave events in a stochastic sea description is coupled
with slamming force models and structural response analysis
based on available experience in combination with model test
calibration. Due to the complex fluid-structure interaction
effects, for which exact theoretical models are still to be fully
developed, a semi-empirical approach is proposed. This

. HELLAN, O.A. HERMUNDSTAD AND C.T. STANSBERG

implies that empirical corrections will be applied to the

calculated local wave elevation around the bow as well as to
the horizontal velocity of the water flowing across the
bulwark.
The overall objective is to develop practical engineering
tools for prediction of:
- probability of bow stem slamming, water on deck or
water hitting platform deck in a random sea
- slamming loads
- assessment of structural integrity
The work is to a large extent making use of existing tools
and modules already available. Model test verification and
calibration plays an important role.
The basic elements of the method are described and some
preliminary results are presented in the following. At the
present stage, the main focus is on the green sea problem on
FPSO, while the treatment of air-gap and run-up on floating
platforms is planned in a next phase. Further details on the
plans for the complete project are given in /15/.

OTC 13213

/8/, /9/. The two-dimensional boundary value problems are

solved numerically, and asymmetric sections with quite
arbitrary geometry can be analysed. The method has been
implemented into the computer code Slam2D /17/. The twodimensional sections are inclined so that they lie in the plane
defined by the dominant water flow. Neglecting threedimensional effects is obviously an approximation, but it is a
practical approach that is expected to give conservative load
predictions.

Water kinematics
Relative motions of ship and waves. The incoming wave
is simulated by a second-order random wave model, which
describes the water elevation as well as the kinematics. Vessel
motions are calculated with linear ship motion analysis, such
as 3D diffraction or strip theory. The diffracted wave field is
calculated taking into account linear 3D diffraction, either by
full diffraction analysis, or, alternatively, by empirical
correction or from experiments.
Relative motions are then estimated by combining the
linear vessel motions, second-order incoming wave and linear
diffraction. Particle velocities for waves exceeding the
vessels freeboard are estimated from the second order
incoming wave without diffraction. Systematic model test
observations are used in calibration of the models.
The approach and its simplifications are further discussed
in /16/.
Probability of water on deck. The relative motions are
used to assess the probability of water on deck. The volume
and velocity of water initially entering the vessel is calculated
at selected points around the bulwark as continuos time series
of hi(t) and vi(t) obtained from the water kinematics above.

Water on deck and local loads

Initial conditions. Preliminary findings from model tests
indicate two types of events: Water flow on the deck
continuously from the bow and backwards, and jets from
extreme waves. This is illustrated in Figure 2. So far in this
work, the focus is on dam-breaking-like water entry (but
with an initial velocity at the bulwark), with jet entry
handled through empirical corrections.
Water propagation. Non-linear water propagation across
the deck is modelled by a shallow water approach, extended
from /4/. The formulation includes non-stationary boundary
conditions in terms of surface elevation and velocity. Dam
breaking can be handled as a special case, but in the present
project the water will have a prescribed horizontal velocity
across the boundary, and the water elevation will typically rise
from zero during a water-on-deck event.
Local loads, slamming. The local pressure distribution on
deckhouses and other large objects can be calculated by the
simplified two-dimensional approach proposed by Greco et al
/6/. The shape of the water just before it hits a vertical wall is
represented by a wedge forming an angle with the horizontal
deck and travelling with velocity V. The similarity solution of
Zhang et al /18/ will then give the pressure distribution as a
function of time. This method neglects the effect of gravity,
but is a good approximation during the first phase of the
impact /6/. It becomes increasingly conservative at later
stages, but the important issue is if it is still a reasonable
approximation by the time when the maximum structural
responses have been reached. This remains to be investigated.
Forces on piping and secondary structures in the water
flow are calculated using Morissons equation with the
calculated water particle velocities. This means that the initial
impact effects are neglected.
Calibration against model test data. There is a significant
database at MARINTEK from research and commission
projects on FPSOs. Measurements include such as relativewave, water on deck, impact loads and pressures, ship
motions, and high-quality video recordings. Systematic model
test observations are used in calibration of the models.

Bow slamming
The water surface elevation and velocity are used together
with the ship motions as input to local bow slamming
analyses. These analyses are based on a zero-gravity potential
theory formulation similar to the Wagner method, but with
body boundary conditions satisfied on the real body surface

Structural integrity assessment

Load interface to industry-standard FE tools. Software
has been developed to automatically map the calculated
pressures onto three-dimensional finite-element (FE) models.
If local FE models are available, the predicted slamming loads
will be mapped onto the FE model as nodal forces or

Design tool for water on deck loads and bow

slamming
The first phase of the project focuses on water on deck loading
on FPSOs. The different parts of the problem are shown in
Figure 2, which also illustrates the interface between the
different parts of the analyses.

OTC 13213 DESIGN TOOL FOR GREEN SEA, WAVE IMPACT, AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ON BOW AND DECK STRUCTURES

distributed pressure loads.

Integrity assessment of plate structures under water
impact loading. Integrity assessment of multi-stiffened plate
structures under water impact loading is based on a
formulation similar to the one specified in NORSOK for blast
loading /19/-/22/. The structural response and capacity is
idealised by non-linear 1 DOF spring characteristics, and the
structural response simulated by Duhamel integrals of the
structural response under impulse loading with a specified
build-up and decay rate. Limiting criteria are specified in
terms of maximum deformations or maximum strains. A
series of analyses are then carried out to establish combination
of peak pressure, p, and impulse duration, t, that causes
failure with the given impulse shape.
Acceptance criteria. According to e.g. the NORSOK code
/19/, inelastic strains are acceptable as long at it can be
documented that cyclic load effects do not lead to
deterioration of capacity. Since water impact loads on plated
structures are uni-directional, it could reasonably be assumed
that cyclic effects are limited, and inelastic strains can be
accommodated.
Thus, integrity assessment of plated structures under lateral
loading could be based on local inelastic strains rather than
stresses, using a maximum deformation or maximum strain
limit defined with reasonable safety with respect to the
ultimate rupture strain of the material or HAZ.
Hydro-elastic assessment of loads and responses
Depending on the duration of the load compared to the
eigenperiods of the responding structure, structural dynamics
may be important. This implies that the deformations of the
structure will influence the hydrodynamic pressure acting on
it. Such hydro-elastic problems have been extensively studied
at MARINTEK and NTNU in the last 8-10 years and may be
of particular relevance for flat platform decks exposed to
slamming loads.
Preliminary investigations indicate that hydro-elasticity
has limited effect on the local pressures and responses on
deckhouse walls /7/, but further experience will be gained
during the course of the project.
Case study
As a particular part of this development, a research case study
with an FPSO in conditions typical of that in the Norwegian
sector of the Norwegian Sea is carried out. Simulations are
compared with model tests and theoretical solutions. Further
details on the experiments, are given in /23/.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show photographs of water on deck
incidents from model tests at MARINTEK of the case vessel
in a random sea. Figure 3 shows a case of water entry in a
large wave, with water flow on the deck continuously from the
deck and backwards (dam-breaking-like, but with an initial
velocity). Figure 4 shows the case of a water jet
overshooting the bulwark and deck and hitting straight into the
deckhouse. The latter incident is caused by a particularly
steep and energetic random wave event (a freak wave).

Wave kinematics
A panel model for the vetted part of the hull is created, and
vessel movements and first order diffraction is calculated by
WAMIT /24/. The wave surface elevation is calculated by
combining linear diffraction and a second-order model for the
incoming wave. Particle velocities are estimated from the
second order incoming wave (without taking the diffracted
wave-field into account). Empirical corrections can be taken
into account, depending on the need and the actual application.
The simplifications made and their implications are considered
to be of minor importance in this case, in cases with large and
energetic waves and head seas, as shown in the discussion in
/16/.
Figure 5 shows the calculation domain for the wave
kinematics analysis. The dotted line shows the water line of
the vessel, while the es mark the points where surface
elevation and particle velocities are determined at selected
points along the bulwark, at the bow waterline and at some
points ahead of the vessel.
Figure 6 shows visual snap-shots from simulations in
irregular waves. Figure 7 shows time series samples of the
predicted surface wave elevation and horizontal free-surface
water velocity at the bow, including comparisons to a linear
incident wave without diffraction. A large and steep wave
event is selected in this example. The predicted wave elevation
is also compared to model test measurements of the same case.
It is seen that the measured elevation is reasonably well
predicted by the non-linear model. The slight underprediction
is likely to be caused by higher-order non-linearities in the
steep incident wave event. At the present stage, no empirical
corrections have been made. It is also seen that in this case, the
use of a linear incident wave without diffraction will clearly
underpredict the maximum elevation. Also the corresponding
linear water velocity is significantly lower than the non-linear
one.
Water on deck
The water propagation across the deck is modelled by a
shallow water approach. Water entering at the most forward
part of the bow, the water has a velocity in the longitudinal
direction. Water entering form the sides of the bow has a
transverse velocity component towards the middle of the deck.
These waterflows meet at the centre of the deck and forms a
high water tongue which propagate at high velocity along
the middle of the deck.
Figure 8 shows simulated water propagation across the
deck of the case vessel based on a dam breaking mechanism.
Local loads
Figure 9 shows measured impact forces across a 2.752.75
meters pressure panel (full scale) for the two green water
incidents in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The dam-breaking-like
water entry causes a rapid increase in lateral forces on the
deckhouse wall, and that the forces act for a significant period
of time. The water jet case creates forces with a much
higher intensity and much lower duration. However, as shown

. HELLAN, O.A. HERMUNDSTAD AND C.T. STANSBERG

OTC 13213

below, even these loads have duration longer than the eigen
period of the deckhouse wall.

calculated maximum stresses agree quite well with the

measured stresses.

Integrity assessment
Figure 10 shows a typical deckhouse structure, with pressureimpulse capacity estimates shown in Figure 12. Combinations
of p and i below and to the left of the curves identify
admissible points, while points above and to the right of the
curves exceed the limiting criteria. In the present study the
deformations limit is defined as = ymax / yelastic = 8 and the
deckhouse wall is modelled with pinned end conditions.
Figure 12 also shows the effect of various impulse shapes
(shown in Figure 11) on the dynamic capacity of the
deckhouse. Figure 13 shows the effect of end conditions and
added mass on the capacity estimates.
Dry and wet eigen periods are estimated to 1.610-2 and
3.010-2 seconds, respectively. Compared to the measured
impulse duration in Figure 9, this implies that the impact loads
can be considered as quasi-static loads, even the intense peak
created by the water jet overshooting both bulwark and deck.
Measured peak forces divided by the measurement area give
maximum average pressures of 170 kN/m2 and 925 kN/m2,
respectively. It is seen that the water jet case would
potentially be very damaging to the structure, while the
structure would probably sustain dam-breaking-like case
without serious damage.
The observed water jet case is associated with a freak or
extreme wave occurring as a rare event in the laboratory
generated random sea. The statistics of occurrence of such
freak events in the real nature is not quite clear, but is
currently a topic of discussion in the field of wave research
/25/.

Concluding remarks
A simplified approach for design and integrity assessment for
wave impact on bow and deck structures of floating
production vessels has been described in the present paper.
The approach is based on a combination of presently available
theory, with the aim to end up with a practical and robust tool
taking into account the most essential linear and non-linear
physical effects. Main physical effects have been discussed
through a research case study of an FPSO operating in
conditions typical of the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.
Simulations are in qualitative agreement with model tests and
theoretical solutions. Work is still in progress, but the
methodology shows promising results.

Bow slamming
Bow slamming loads and structural responses have not yet
been calculated for this particular case, but the method has
been applied to a wedge-shaped cross section as part of the
validation process. Hayman et al /26/ performed drop-tests
with a 2-meter wide aluminium ship section with 30 degree
deadrise. Some results from these tests are analysed in /27/.
The test section is shown in Figure 14. Strain gauges were
located between the stiffeners on both sides of the plate.
A single drop has been analysed with the present
numerical methods. The drop height was 2.9 meter and the
section was tilted 10 degrees to form an asymmetric impact
scenario with a 20 degree impact angle on the side of the
section where the strain gauges were located.
To analyse this case, a SESAM finite-element (FE) model
was established and the measured vertical acceleration was
used to find the relative velocity between the section and the
water. The Slam2D code was then used to calculate the
pressure distribution in time and space. This pressure was
applied to the FE-model by the VESHIP /28/ interface
program and the FE-model was analysed quasistatically.
Measured and calculated stresses in the local plate closest to
the keel (plate 1) are presented in Figure 15. It is seen that the

Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out within the Norwegian Joint
Industry Project Design Loads and Integrity Assessment for
Wave Impact on Bow and Deck Structures /15/, sponsored by
the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Norsk Hydro,
STATOIL, APL, NAVION, Rolls Royce Marine and PGS.
Permission to publish is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are
also due to Mr. Atle Johansen, Dr. Jan Hoff and Dr. Vibeke
Moe for valuable contributions.
References
/1/ Ersdal, G. and Kvitrud, A.: Green Water on Norwegian Production
Ships, Proc., the 10th ISOPE Conf., Seattle, WA, USA, 2000
/2/ MacGregor, J.R., Black, F., Wright, D. and Gregg, J., Design and
construction of the FPSO vessel for the Schiehallion field,
Transactions, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London,
UK, 2000
/3/ Buchner, B.: On the Impact of Green Water Loading on Ship and
Offshore Unit Design, Proc, Vol. 1, PRADS95, The Society of
Naval Architects of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 1995
/4/ Huang, Z.-J.: Non-linear Shallow Water Flow on Deck and Its
Effect on Ship Motion, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Nova
Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1995
/5/ Buchner, B. and Voogt, A.: The Effect of Bow Flare Angle on
FPSO Green Water Loading, Proc., the19th OMAE Conf., Paper
No. OSU OFT-4092, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2000
/6/ Greco M., Faltinsen O.M., Landrini M., 2000: A Parametric Study
of Water on Deck Phenomena. Proc. Int. Conf. on Ship and
Shipping Research, NAV'2000, Venice.
/7/ Faltinsen O.M., Greco M., Landrini M., 2001: Green Water
Loading on a FPSO. Proc. OMAE 2001, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
2001.
/8/ Zhao R. and Faltinsen O.M.; Water entry of two-dimensional
bodies, J. Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 246, pp. 593-612, 1993
/9/ Zhao R., Faltinsen O.M. and Aarsnes, J.V.: Water entry of
arbitrary two-dimensional sections with and without flow
separation, Proc. 21st Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim,
Norway, pp. 408-423, 1996
/10/ Guignard, S., Rey, V. and Marcer, R., New method for simulation
of nonlinear wave effects, Proc., Vol. III, 9th ISOPE Conf., Brest,
France, pp. 382-387, 1999

OTC 13213 DESIGN TOOL FOR GREEN SEA, WAVE IMPACT, AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ON BOW AND DECK STRUCTURES

/11/ Ferrant, P. Fully nonlinear diffraction of regular waves by a

multicolumn structure, Proc., Vol. III, 9th ISOPE Conf., Brest,
France, 1999
/12/ Kvlsvold, J., Faltinsen, O.M. and Aarsnes, J.V.,Effect of
structural elasticity on slamming against wetdecks of multihull
vessels, Ship and Ocean Technology, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 1-14., 1997.
/13/ Haugen, E.M., Hydroelastic analysis of slamming on stiffened
plates with application to catamaran wetdecks, Ph.D. thesis, Dept.
Marine Hydrodynamics, Norwegian Univ. Science and Techn,
Trondheim, Norway, 1999
/14/ Greco M., Faltinsen O.M., Landrini M., 2: Green Water Loading
on a Deck Structure. Proc. 16th Int. Workshop on Water Waves
and Floating Bodies, 2001
/15/ Design Loads and Integrity Assessment for Wave Impact on Bow
and Deck Structures: Proposal for a Joint Industry Project,
MARINTEK proposal T99-51.063, Trondheim, Norway, 1999.
/16/ Stansberg, C.T. and Nielsen, F.G., Nonlinear wave-structure
interaction on floating production systems, Proc., the 11th ISOPE
Conference, Stavanger, Norway, 2001.
/17/ MARINTEK Rep. MT60 A99-422: Slam2D Version 1.4 Users
Manual, 1999
/18/ Zhang, S., Yue, D.K.P. ad Tanizawa, K., Simulation of plunging
wave impact on a vertical wall , J. Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 327, pp.
221-254, 1996
/19/ NORSOK N-004 Design of Steel Structures, Annex A, rev. 1,
December 1998

/20/ Biggs, J.M. Introduction to Structural Dynamics. McGraw-Hill

New York, USA, 1963
/21/ Baker, W.E., Cox, P.A., Westine, P.A., Kulesz, P.S. and Strehlov,
R.A. Explosion Hazards and Evaluation. Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Holland, 1983
/22/ Jones, N., Slamming Damage, Journal of Ship Research, vol.17,
no.2, 1973
/23/ Stansberg, C.T. and Karlsen, S.I., Green Sea and Water Impact on
FPSO in Steep Random Waves, to be presented at PRADS 2001
Conference, Shanghai, China, September 2001.
/24/ WAMIT Version 5.0: A Radiation-Diffraction Panel Program for
Wave-Body Interaction. Report, Dep. of Ocean Eng., MIT,
Cambridge, Mass., USA, 1993
/25/ Report from the 14th International Ship and Offshore Structures
Congress (ISSC), Technical Committee I.1: Environment,
Nagasaki, Japan, 2000.
/26/ Hayman B., Haug T., Valsgrd S. Response of Fast Craft Hull
Structures to Slamming Loads. Proc. 1st International Conference
on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST91. Trondheim, Norway, 1991
/27/ Hermundstad O.A.: Slamming on high speed craft (in
Norwegian). Thesis. Dept. Marine Structures, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology. 153 pp, 1990
/28/ MARINTEK Report: VESHIP Version 2.1 Users Manual,
2001

Tables and Figures

F P S O

S E M I
D

W a v e ru n u p s
a n d s la m m in g

E C K -

H O U S E

F P S O

O W

G re e n w a te r
s la m m in g o n d e c k
v

1
W
B

G re e n w a te r
s la m m in g o n d e c k

A V E

IN
S

IN E M A T IC S

C ID E N T

W A V E

O W

G E O M E T R Y

H IP

M O T IO N

R E E B O A R D
N T R Y

E X C E E D A N C E ,

V E L O C IT Y ,

L J

D J

W
F
E

B o w s la m m in g

E C K -

O C A L

O L U M E

A T E R

O L U M E ,

L O W
(X ,Y )

E L O C IT Y , V (X ,Y )
U R F A C E

A N G L E

E C K -

H O U S E

p (t)

D A M A G E

p (t)

X C E E D A N C E

V E L O C IT Y

@ (t)
I (t)

Figure 1 Problem overview

R E E B O A R D
N T R Y

V
o

R O P A G A T IO N

H O U S E

E x tre m e w a v e s
a n d
d e c k s la m m in g

A T E R

A T E R
U R F A C E

O A D S
O F

W A T E R

V E L O C IT Y
A N G L E

4
R E S S U R E

A S

F U N C T IO N

O F

T IM E

S P A C E

A N D

O F

S
P
O F

T R U C T U R A L
R E S S U R E
T IM E

A N D

Figure 2 Calculation procedure, water on deck

A S

IN

T E G R IT Y

F U N C T IO N
S P A C E

E F O R M A T IO N S

T R E S S E S
A M A G E S

. HELLAN, O.A. HERMUNDSTAD AND C.T. STANSBERG

OTC 13213

Figure 3 Model tests of an FPSO with water on deck. Water entry by water flow on the deck continuously from the bow and backwards.

Figure 4 Model tests of an FPSO with water on deck. Water entry by a water jet overshooting the bulwark impacting the deckhouse wall.

11

11
10
9
8
7
19 5
6
221 2
21 23 3
20
4

10

19
18

12

17

13

16

14

5
1

22

6
2

21

23

20

15
y

Figure 5 Calculation domain for wave Kinematics

Figure 6 Snap shots from simulation

OTC 13213 DESIGN TOOL FOR GREEN SEA, WAVE IMPACT, AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ON BOW AND DECK STRUCTURES

Figure 7 Time series samples, irregular waves. Left: Surface elevation at bow, compared to measurement. Right: Free-surface water velocity
(linear incident wave indicated with dashed lines for comparison)

Figure 8 Water propagation for case vessel according to a dam

breaking model. Deck movement neglected.

Figure 9 Measured forces from water impact on deckhouse wall.

Top: Water entry by a dam-breaking-like mechanism. Middle:
water jet. Bottom: Close-up of the water jet impulse.

. HELLAN, O.A. HERMUNDSTAD AND C.T. STANSBERG

OTC 13213

Impulse 1
Impulse 2
Impulse 3

Intensity

0.75

0.5

0.25

0
0

0.25

0.5

0.75

Time

Figure 10 Typical deckhouse structure /7/

1000

Figure 11 Impulse shapes

4000

Impulse 1
Impulse 2
Impulse 3

Pinned ends
Fixed ends
Incl. added mass

800
Pressure [kN/m2]

Pressure [kN/m2]

3000

600

400

2000

1000

200

10
15
Impulse [(kN/m2)*seconds]

20

25

Figure 12 Effect of impulse shape on predicted p-i capacity of the

deckhouse wall

10

15

20

25

Impulse [(kN/m2)*seconds]

Figure 13 Effect of end conditions and added mass on predicted

capacity of the deckhouse wall

OTC 13213 DESIGN TOOL FOR GREEN SEA, WAVE IMPACT, AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ON BOW AND DECK STRUCTURES

Figure 14 One half of the section used in drop tests by Hayman et al (1991). Left: Side view. Right: Top view.

60
40
20
[M
Pa]

0
-20
-40
-60

10

20

30
[ms]

40

50

Figure 15 Time-history of measured (continuous lines) and calculated (crosses) stresses in the local plate closest to the keel of the section
used in drop tests by Hayman et al (1991). The bottom curve shows stress on the outer side of plate while the top curve shows stress on the
inner side.