Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter
18
18.1 NOMENCLATURE
For specific symbols, refer to the definitions contained in
the various sections.
ABS
BEM
BV
DNV
FEA
FEM
IACS
ISSC
ISOPE
ISUM
NKK
PRADS
RINA
SNAME
SSC
a
A
B
C
CB
D
g
m(x)
I(x)
L
M(x)
MT(x)
p
q(x)
T
V(x)
s,w (low case)
v,h (low case)
w(x)
18.2
INTRODUCTION
18-1
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-2 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-2
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-3 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Design Load
Direct Load Analysis
Stress Response
in Waves
Effect on
operation
Structural analysis by
whole ship model
Stress response
function
Response function
of wave load
Short term
estimation
Design
Sea State
Short term
estimation
Long term
estimation
Long term
estimation
Nonlinear influence
in large waves
Design wave
Direct structural
analysis
Investigation on
corrosion
Strength Assessment
Yield
strength
Buckling
strength
Ultimate
strength
Fatigue
strength
18-3
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-4 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-4
Structural drawings,
mass description and
loading conditions.
Verification
of model/
loads
Structural model
including necessary
load definitions
Hydrodynamic/static
loads
Verified structural
model
Load transfer to
structural model
Structural analysis
Sub-models to be
used in structural
analysis
Verification
of load
transfer
Verification
of response
Transfer of
displacements/forces
to sub-model?
Yes
No
18.3
LOADS
Loads acting on a ship structure are quite varied and peculiar, in comparison to those of static structures and also of
other vehicles. In the following an attempt will be made to
review the main typologies of loads: physical origins, general interpretation schemes, available quantification proce-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-5 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-5
Loads, defined in order to be applied to limited structural models (stiffened panels, single beams, plate panels),
generally are termed local loads.
The distinction is purely formal, as the same external
forces can in fact be interpreted as global or local loads. For
instance, wave dynamic actions on a portion of the hull, if
described in terms of a bi-dimensional distribution of pressures over the wet surface, represent a local load for the hull
panel, while, if integrated over the same surface, represent
a contribution to the bending moment acting on the hull
girder.
This terminology is typical of simplified structural analyses, in which responses of the two classes of components
are evaluated separately and later summed up to provide
the total stress in selected positions of the structure.
In a complete 3D model of the whole ship, forces on the
structure are applied directly in their actual position and the
result is a total stress distribution, which does not need to
be decomposed.
18.3.1.3 Characteristic values for loads
Structural verifications are always based on a limit state
equation and on a design operational time.
Main aspects of reliability-based structural design and
analysis are (see Chapter 19):
the state of the structure is identified by state variables
associated to loads and structural capacity,
state variables are stochastically distributed as a function of time, and
the probability of exceeding the limit state surface in the
design time (probability of crisis) is the element subject
to evaluation.
The situation to be considered is in principle the worst
combination of state variables that occurs within the design
time. The probability that such situation corresponds to an
out crossing of the limit state surface is compared to a (low)
target probability to assess the safety of the structure.
This general time-variant problem is simplified into a
time-invariant one. This is done by taking into account in
the analysis the worst situations as regards loads, and, separately, as regards capacity (reduced because of corrosion
and other degradation effects). The simplification lies in
considering these two situations as contemporary, which in
general is not the case.
When dealing with strength analysis, the worst load situation corresponds to the highest load cycle and is characterized through the probability associated to the extreme
value in the reference (design) time.
In fatigue phenomena, in principle all stress cycles contribute (to a different extent, depending on the range) to
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-6 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-6
damage accumulation. The analysis, therefore, does not regard the magnitude of a single extreme load application, but
the number of cycles and the shape of the probability distribution of all stress ranges in the design time.
A further step towards the problem simplification is represented by the adoption of characteristic load values in
place of statistical distributions. This usually is done, for
example, when calibrating a Partial Safety Factor format for
structural checks. Such adoption implies the definition of a
single reference load value as representative of a whole
probability distribution. This step is often performed by assigning an exceeding probability (or a return period) to each
variable and selecting the correspondent value from the statistical distribution.
The exceeding probability for a stochastic variable has
the meaning of probability for the variable to overcome a
given value, while the return period indicates the mean time
to the first occurrence.
Characteristic values for ultimate state analysis are typically represented by loads associated to an exceeding probability of 108. This corresponds to a wave load occurring,
on the average, once every 108 cycles, that is, with a return
period of the same order of the ship lifetime. In first yielding analyses, characteristic loads are associated to a higher
exceeding probability, usually in the range 104 to 106. In
fatigue analyses (see Subsection 18.6.6.2), reference loads
are often set with an exceeding probability in the range 103
to 105, corresponding to load cycles which, by effect of both
amplitude and frequency of occurrence, contribute more to
the accumulation of fatigue damage in the structure.
On the basis of this, all design loads for structural analyses are explicitly or implicitly related to a low exceeding
probability.
18.3.2 Definition of Global Hull Girder Loads
The global structural response of the ship is studied with
reference to a beam scheme (hull girder), that is, a monodimensional structural element with sectional characteristics distributed along a longitudinal axis.
Actions on the beam are described, as usual with this
scheme, only in terms of forces and moments acting in the
transverse sections and applied on the longitudinal axis.
Three components act on each section (Figure 18.3): a
resultant force along the vertical axis of the section (contained in the plane of symmetry), indicated as vertical resultant force qV; another force in the normal direction, (local
horizontal axis), termed horizontal resultant force qH and a
moment mT about the x axis. All these actions are distributed along the longitudinal axis x.
Five main load components are accordingly generated
along the beam, related to sectional forces and moment
through equation 1 to 5:
x
VV (x) =
q V ()
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
M V (x) =
VV ( )
0
VH (x) =
q H ( )
0
M H (x) =
VH ( )
0
M T (x) =
m T ()
0
Due to total equilibrium, for a beam in free-free conditions (no constraints at ends) all load characteristics have
zero values at ends (equations 6).
These conditions impose constraints on the distributions
of qV, qH and mT.
VV (0) = VV (L) = M V (0) = M V (L) = 0
VH (0) = VH (L) = M H (0) = M H (L) = 0
M T (0) = M T (L) = 0
[6]
Global loads for the verification of the hull girder are obtained with a linear superimposition of still water and waveinduced global loads.
They are used, with different characteristic values, in
different types of analyses, such as ultimate state, first yielding, and fatigue.
18.3.3 Still Water Global Loads
Still water loads act on the ship floating in calm water, usually 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 vertical gravitational forces.
If the latter ones are not symmetric, a sectional torque
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
[7]
(a)
18-7
At an even earlier stage of design, parametric formulations can be used to derive directly reference values for still
water hull girder loads.
Common reference values for still water bending moment at mid-ship are provided by the major Classification
Societies (equation 8).
Ms [ N m ] =
C L2 B (122.5 15 C B ) (hogging)
[8]
C L2 B ( 45.5 + 65 C B ) (sagging)
Ship Length L
Wave Coefficient C
90 L <300 m
300 L <350 m
10.75
350 L
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-8 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-8
the ship in lightweight condition (hull structure, machinery, outfitting) but also the distribution of the various components of the deadweight (cargo, ballast, consumables).
Ship types like bulk carriers are more exposed to uncertainties 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 (Figure 18.7), which generate an axial compressive force on the
hull girder.
As the resultant of such components is generally below
the neutral axis of the hull girder, it leads also to an additional 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 counterbalanced by internal axial pressures, causing hull sagging
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 oriented 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).
18.3.3.4 Other still water global loads
In a vessel with a multihull configuration, in addition to
conventional still water loads acting on each hull considered as a single longitudinal beam, also loads in the transversal direction can be significant, giving rise to shear,
bending and torque in a transversal direction (see the simplified scheme of Figure 18.8, where S, B, and Q stand for
shear, bending and torque; and L, T apply respectively to
longitudinal and transversal beams).
18.3.4 Wave Induced Global Loads
The prediction of the behaviour of the ship in waves represents a key point in the quantification of both global and
local loads acting on the ship. The solution of the seakeeping problem yields the loads directly generated by external
pressures, but also provides ship motions and accelerations.
The latter are directly connected to the quantification of inertial loads and provide inputs for the evaluation of other
types of loads, like slamming and sloshing.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-9 4/28/03 1:30 PM
[9]
18-9
(hog)
190 C L2 B C B
[10]
2
110 C L B ( C B + 0 . 7 ) (sag)
Horizontal Wave-induced Bending Moment: Similar formulations are available for reference values of horizontal
wave induced bending moment, even though they are not
as uniform among different Societies as for the main vertical component.
In Table 18.II, examples are reported of reference values of horizontal bending moment at mid-length for ships
with unrestricted navigation. Simplified curves for the distribution in the longitudinal direction are also provided.
Wave-induced Torque: A few reference formulations are
given also for reference wave torque at midship (see examples in Table 18.III) and for the inherent longitudinal
distributions.
18.3.4.2 Static Wave analysis of global wave loads
A traditional analysis adopted in the past for evaluation of
wave-induced loads was represented by a quasi-static wave
approach. The ship is positioned on a freezed wave of given
characteristics in a condition of equilibrium between weight
and static buoyancy. The scheme is analogous to the one described for still water loads, with the difference that the waterline upper boundary of the immersed part of the hull is
no longer a plane but it is a curved (cylindrical) surface. By
definition, this procedure neglects all types of dynamic effects. 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]
ABS (8)
180 C1L2DCB
DNV (11)
NKK (12)
320 L2C T L 35 / L
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-10 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-10
Qw [N . m] (at mid-ship)
2700 LB 2 T ( C W 0 . 5 )
e 0 .14 0 . 5
+ 0 .1 0 .13
T
D
250 0 . 7 L 3
190 LB 2 C 2W 8.13
125
[11]
[12]
where:
s = stationary component due to ship advancing in calm
water
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-11 4/28/03 1:30 PM
valid only for small wave excitations, small motion responses and low speed of the ship.
In practice, the field of successful applications extends
far beyond the limits suggested by the preservation of realism in the base assumptions: the method is actually used
extensively to study even extreme loads and for fast vessels.
18.3.4.4 Limits of linear methods for wave loads
Due to the simplifications adopted on boundary conditions
to linearize the problem of ship response in waves, results
in terms of hydrodynamic pressures are given always up to
the still water level, while in reality the pressure distribution extends over the actual wetted surface. This represents
a major problem when dealing with local loads in the side
region close to the waterline.
Another effect of basic assumptions is that all responses
at a given frequency are represented by sinusoidal fluctuations (symmetric with respect to a zero mean value). A consequence is that all the derived global wave loads also have
the same characteristics, while, for example, actual values
of vertical bending moment show marked differences between the hogging and sagging conditions. Corrections to
account for this effect are often used, based on statistical
data (7) or on more advanced non-linear methods.
A third implication of linearization regards the superimposition of static and dynamic loads. Dynamic loads are
evaluated separately from the static ones and later summed
up: this results in an un-physical situation, in which weight
forces (included only in static loads) are considered as acting always along the vertical axis of the ship reference system (as in still water). Actually, in a seaway, weight forces
are directed along the true vertical direction, which depends
on roll and pitch angles, having therefore also components
in the longitudinal and lateral direction of the ship.
This aspect represents one of the intrinsic non-linearities in the actual system, as the direction of an external input
force (weight) depends on the response of the system itself
(roll and pitch angles).
This effect is often neglected in the practice, where linear superposition of still water and wave loads is largely followed.
18.3.4.5 Wave loads probabilistic characterization
The most widely adopted method to characterize the loads
in the probability domain is the so-called spectral method,
used in conjunction with linear frequency-domain methods
for the solution of the ship-wave interaction problem.
From the frequency domain analysis response spectra
Sy() are derived, which can be integrated to obtain spectral moments m n of order n (equation 13).
18-11
m ny = n S y ()d
[13]
1
y 2 / 2 m 20 Y )
e (
2 m0Y
[14]
p
p2
exp
m0
2m0
[15]
fR ( r ) =
r
r2
exp
4m0
8m 0
[16]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-12 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-12
m2
p2
exp
m0
m0
2
Ts [17]
F ( y S i ) P(S i )
[18]
i= 1
where:
F(y) = probability for the response to be less than value
y (unconditioned).
F(ySi) = probability for the response to be less than value
y, conditioned to occurrence of sea state Si (short
term prediction).
P(Si) = probability associated to the i-th sea state.
n = total number of sea states, covering all combinations.
Probability P(Si) can be derived from collections of sea data
based on visual observations from commercial ships and/or
on surveys by buoys.
One of the most typical formats is the one contained in
(15), where sea states probabilities are organized in bi-dimensional histograms (scatter diagrams), containing classes
) [ (
)]
Td/Ts
F extrTd y = F extrTs y
[19]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-13 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-13
[20]
In the case of the external pressure on the hull, hS corresponds to the local draft of the load point (reference is
made to design waterline).
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-14 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-14
nal velocities can arise in the longitudinal and/or transversal directions, producing additional pressure loads (sloshing loads).
If pitch or roll frequencies are close to the tank resonance frequency in the inherent direction (which can be
evaluated on the basis of geometrical parameters and filling ratio), kinetic energy tends to concentrate in the fluid
and sloshing phenomena are enhanced.
The resulting pressure field can be quite complicated
and specific simulations are needed for a detailed quantification. Experimental techniques as well as 2D and 3D procedures have been developed for the purpose. For more
details see references 16 and 17.
A further type of excitation is represented by impacts that
can occur on horizontal or sub-horizontal plates of the upper
part of the tank walls for high filling ratios and, at low filling levels, in vertical or sub-vertical plates of the lower part
of the tank.
Impact loads are very difficult to characterize, being related to a number of effects, such as: local shape and velocity of the free surface, air trapping in the fluid and
response of the structure. A complete model of the phenomenon would require a very detailed two-phase scheme
for the fluid and a dynamic model for the structure including hydro-elasticity effects.
Simplified distributions of sloshing and/or impact pressures are often provided by Classification Societies for structural verification (Figure 18.14).
[21]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-15 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-15
the flat part of the hull and the water free surface, presence
and extension of air trapped between fluid and ship bottom
and structural dynamic behavior (18,19).
While slamming probability of occurrence can be studied on the basis only of predictions of ship relative motions
(which should in principle include non-linear effects due to
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
experimental point of view (18,19).
From a practical point of view, Class Societies prescribe,
for ships with loading conditions corresponding to a low fore
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-16 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-16
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-17 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-17
[22]
M Wiz = 1 / 2 C Mz ( Wi ) A Wi L VWi 2
[23]
where:
Wi = the angle formed by the direction of the wind relative to the ship
CMz(Wi), CFL(Wi), CFT(Wi) are all coefficients depending
on the shape of exposed part of the ship and on
angle Wi
AWi = the reference area for the surface of the ship exposed
to wind, (usually the area of the cross section)
VWi = the wind speed
The empirical formulas in equations 22 and 23 account
also for the tangential force acting on the ship surfaces parallel to the wind direction.
Current: The current exerts on the immersed part of the
hull a similar action to the one of wind on the emerged part
(drag force). It can be described through coefficients and
variables analogous to those of equations 22 and 23.
Waves: Linear wave excitation has in principle a sinusoidal time dependence (whose mean value is by definition
zero). If ship motions in the wave direction are not constrained (for example, if the anchor chain is not in tension)
the ship motion follows the excitation with similar time dependence and a small time lag. In this case the action on
the mooring system is very small (a few percent of the other
actions).
If the ship is constrained, significant loads arise on the
mooring system, whose amplitude can be of the same order
of magnitude of the stationary forces due to the other actions.
In addition to the linear effects discussed above, non-linear wave actions, with an average value different from zero,
are also present, due to potential forces of higher order, formation of vortices, and viscous effects. These components
can be significant on off-shore floating structures, which
often feature also complicated mooring systems: in those
cases the dynamic behavior of the mooring system is to be
included in the analysis, to solve a specific motion problem. For common ships, non-linear wave effects are usually neglected.
A practical rule-of-thumb for taking into account wave
actions for a ship at anchor in non protected waters is to increase of 75 to 100% the sum of the other force components.
Once the total force on the ship is quantified, the tension in the mooring system (hawser, rope or chain) can be
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-18 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-18
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 buoyancy 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 corresponds 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
[26]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-19 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-19
Governing equations for the problem are given by conservation of momentum and of energy. Within this framework, time domain simulations can evaluate the magnitude
of contact forces and the energy, which is absorbed by structure deformation: these quantities, together with the response
characteristics of the structure (energy absorption capacity),
allow an evaluation of the damage penetration (21).
Grounding: In grounding, dominant effects are forces and
motions in the vertical plane.
As regards forces, main components are contact forces,
developed at the first impact with the ground, then friction,
when the bow slides on the ground, and weight.
From the point of view of energy, the initial kinetic energy is (a) dissipated in the deformation of the lower part
of the bow (b) dissipated in friction of the same area against
the ground, (c) spent in deformation work of the ground (if
soft: sand, gravel) and (d) converted into gravitational potential energy (work done against the weight force, which
resists to the vertical raising of the ship barycenter).
In addition to soil characteristics, key parameters for the
description are: slope and geometry of the ground, initial
speed and direction of the ship relative to ground, shape of
the bow (with/without bulb).
The final position (grounded ship) governs the magnitude of the vertical reaction force and the distribution of
shear and sagging moment that are generated in the hull
girder. Figure 18.20 gives an idea of the magnitude of
grounding loads for different combinations of ground slopes
and coefficients of friction for a 150 000 tanker (results of
simulations from reference 22).
In addition to numerical simulations, full and model
scale tests are performed to study grounding events (21).
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
18-20
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-21 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-21
Figure 18.21 Primary (Hull), Secondary (Double Bottom and Stiffened Panels)
and Tertiary (Plate) Structural Responses (1, 2)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-22 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-22
the 2* stress that corresponds to the bending of the longitudinals (for example, in the inner and outer bottom)
between two transverse elements (floors).
the beam is prismatic, that is, all cross sections are the
same and there is no openings or discontinuities,
plane cross sections remain plane after deformation, will
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-23 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-23
[27]
EI (4w/x4) = q(x)
[28]
or
where:
w = deflection (Figure 18.24), in m
E = modulus of elasticity of the material, in N/m2
I = moment of inertia of beam cross section about a
horizontal axis through its centroid, in m4
M(x) = bending moment, in N.m
q(x) = load per unit length in N/m
= V(x)/x
= 2M(x)/x2
= EI (4w/x4)
Figure 18.24 Behavior of an Elastic Beam under Shear Force and Bending
Moment (2)
Hull Section Modulus: The plane section assumption together with elastic material behavior results in a longitudinal stress, 1, in the beam that varies linearly over the depth
of the cross section.
The simple beam theory for longitudinal strength calculations of a ship is based on the hypothesis (usually attributed to Navier) that plane sections remain plane and in
the absence of shear, normal to the OXY plane (Figure
18.24). This gives the well-known formula:
fP ( p) =
p
p2
exp
m0
2m0
where:
M = bending moment (in N.m)
= bending stress (in N/m2)
[29]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-24 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-24
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-25 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-25
Mv
Mh
+
I
I
c
( v v ) ( h ch )
[30]
where Mv, Iv, cv, and Mh, Ih, ch, correspond to the M, I, c
defined in equation 29, for the vertical bending and the horizontal bending respectively.
For a given vertical bending (Mv), the periodical wave
induced horizontal bending moment (Mh) increases stresses,
alternatively, on the upper starboard and lower portside, and
on the upper portside and lower starboard. This explains
why these areas are usually reinforced.
Empirical interaction formulas between vertical bending, horizontal bending and shear related to ultimate strength
of hull girder are given in Subsection 18.6.5.2.
Transverse Stresses: With regards to the validity of the
Navier Equation (equation 29), a significant improvement
may be obtained by considering a longitudinal strength
member composed of thin plate with transverse framing.
This might, for example, represent a portion of the deck
structure of a ship that is subject to a longitudinal stress x,
from the primary bending of the hull girder. As a result of
the longitudinal strain, x, which is associated with x, there
will exist a transverse strain, s. For the case of a plate that
is free of constraint in the transverse direction, the two
strains will be of opposite sign and the ratio of their absolute values, given by | s / x | = , is a constant property
of the material. The quantity is called Poissons Ratio and,
for steel and aluminum, has a value of approximately 0.3.
Hookes Law, which expresses the relation between stress
and strain in two dimensions, may be stated in terms of the
plate strains (equation 31). This shows that the primary response induces both longitudinal (x) and transversal
stresses (s) in plating.
x = 1/E ( x v S)
S = 1/E ( S x)
[33-a]
Ns / x + N / x = 0
[33-b]
In these equations, s, is the transverse coordinate measured on the surface of the section from the x-axis as shown
in Figure 18.26.
For vessels without continuous longitudinal bulkheads
[31]
[32]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-26 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-26
[34]
and the shear stress, , at any point in the cross section is:
t(s) =
V(x).m(s)
t(s) I(x)
(in N / m 2 )
[35]
where:
V(x) = total shearing force (in N) in the hull for a given
section x
m(s) =
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-27 4/28/03 1:30 PM
r N ds = N r ds = 2 N
[36]
Here the symbol indicates that the integral is taken entirely around the section and, therefore, (m2) is the area
enclosed by the mid-thickness line of the tubular cross section. The constant shear flow, N (N/m), is then related to
the applied twisting moment by:
N = . t = MT /2
[37]
MT .L
(in radians)
G Ip
where:
MT = Twisting moment (torsion), in N.m
L = Length of the girder, in m
Ip = Polar Inertia, in m4
G = E/2(1+), the shear Modulus, in N/m2
[38]
18-27
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-28 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-28
of the open tube without longitudinal restraint. The resistance to twist of the entirely open section is given by the St.
Venant torsion equation:
MT = G.J /x (N.m)
[39]
where:
/x = twist angle per unit length, in rad./m, which can be
approximated by /L for uniform torsion and uniform section.
J = torsional constant of the section, in m4
= 1/3
=
1
3
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-29 4/28/03 1:30 PM
[40]
w = k ( M L2/EI )
18-29
[41]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-30 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-30
Figure 18.34 Three Interaction Levels between Superstructure and Hull (1)
z
Passenger deck
Neutral axis
r (z) = .(z)
( I )z
(z) = M
x
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-31 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-31
4w
4w
4w
+ a2
+ a3
= p (x,y)
4
2
2
x
x y
y 4
[42]
where:
a1, a2, a3 = express the average flexural rigidity of the orthotropic plate in the two directions
w(x,y) = is the deflection of the plate in the normal direction
p(x,y) = is the distributed normal pressure load per unit
area
Note that the behavior of the isotropic plate, that is, one
having uniform flexural properties in all directions, is a special case of the orthotropic plate problem. The orthotropic
plate method is best suited to a panel in which the stiffeners are uniform in size and spacing and closely spaced. It
has been said that the application of this theory to crossstiffened panels must be restricted to stiffened panels with
more than three stiffeners in each direction.
An advanced orthotropic procedure has been implemented 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 established (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 stiffened panels that compose a parallel section of a ship, typically a cargo hold.
This approach has three main advantages. First the plate
bending behavior (w) and the inplane membrane behavior
(u and v) are analyzed simultaneously. Then, in addition to
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-32 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-32
4w
+ k w = q (x)
x 4
[43]
where:
w = is the deflection
I = is sectional moment of inertia of the longitudinal
stiffener, including adjacent plating
k = is average spring constant per unit length of the
transverse stiffeners
q(x) = is load per unit length on the longitudinal member
The grillage approach models the cross-stiffened panel
as a system of discrete intersecting beams (in plane frame),
each beam being composed of stiffener and associated effective plating. The torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel
and the Poisson ratio effect are neglected. The validity of
modeling the stiffened panel by an intersecting beam (or grillage) may be critical when the flexural rigidities of stiffeners are small compared to the plate stiffness. It is known
that the grillage approach may be suitable when the ratio
of the stiffener flexural rigidity to the plate bending rigidity (EI/bD with I the moment of inertia of stiffener and D
the plate bending rigidity) is greater than 60 (31) otherwise
if the bending rigidity of stiffener is smaller, an Orthotropic
Plate Theory has to be selected.
The FEM approach is discussed in detail in section 18.7.2.
18.4.5 Tertiary Response
18.4.5.1 Unstiffened plate
Tertiary response refers to the bending stresses and deflections in the individual panels of plating that are bounded by
the stiffeners of a secondary panel. In most cases the load
that induces this response is a fluid pressure from either the
[44]
where:
D = plate flexural rigidity
E t3
12(1 )
= Et3 / 12(1 )
t = the uniform plate thickness
p(x,y) = distributed unit pressure load
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-33 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-33
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-34 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-34
e = 2x + 2y x y + 3 2
[45]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-35 4/28/03 1:30 PM
[46]
where:
s1 = partial safety factor defined by classification societies,
which depends on the loading conditions and method
of analysis. For 20 years North Atlantic conditions
(seagoing condition), the s1 factor is usually taken between 0.85 and 0.95
y = minimum yield point of the considered steel (mild
steel, high tensile steel, etc.)
For special ship types, different permissible stresses may
be specified for different parts of the hull structure. For example, for LNG carriers, there are special strain requirements 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 reversal, fatigue life must be calculated and a reduced permissible stress may be imposed to prevent fatigue failure (see
Subsection 18.6.6).
18-35
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-36 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-36
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-37 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-37
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-38 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-38
18.6.2 Yielding
As explained in Subsection 18.5.1 yield occurs when the
stress in a structural component exceeds the yield stress.
It is necessary to distinguish between first yield state and
fully plastic state. In bending, first yield corresponds to the
situation when stress in the extreme fiber reaches the yield
stress. If the bending moment continues to increase the yield
area is growing. The final stage corresponds to the Plastic
Moment (Mp), where, both the compression and tensile sides
are fully yielded (as shown on Figure 18.47).
Yield can be assessed using basic bending theory, equation 29, up to complex 3D nonlinear FE analysis. Design
criteria related to first yield is the von Mises equivalent
stress (equation 45).
Yielding is discussed in detail in Section 18.4.
18.6.3 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Plates
A ship stiffened plate structure can become unstable if either buckling or collapse occurs and may thus fail to perform its function. Hence plate design needs to be such that
instability under the normal operation is prevented (Figure
18.44a). The phenomenon of buckling is normally divided
into three categories, namely elastic buckling, elastic-plastic buckling and plastic buckling, the last two being called
inelastic buckling. Unlike columns, thin plating buckled in
the elastic regime may still be stable since it can normally
sustain further loading until the ultimate strength is reached,
even if the in-plane stiffness significantly decreases after the
inception of buckling. In this regard, the elastic buckling of
plating between stiffeners may be allowed in the design,
sometimes intentionally in order to save weight. Since significant residual strength of the plating is not expected after
buckling occurs in the inelastic regime, however, inelastic
buckling is normally considered to be the ultimate strength
of the plate.
The buckling and ultimate strength of the structure depends on a variety of influential factors, namely geometric/material properties, loading characteristics, fabrication
related imperfections, boundary conditions and local damage related to corrosion, fatigue cracking and denting.
18.6.3.1 Direct Analysis
In estimating the load-carrying capacity of plating between
stiffeners, it is usually assumed that the stiffeners are stable and fail only after the plating. This means that the stiffeners should be designed with proper proportions that help
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 compression/tension, transverse compression/tension, edge shear and
lateral pressure loads, are typically considered to act on ship
plating between stiffeners, as shown in Figure 18.39, while
the in-plane bending effects on plate buckling are also sometimes accounted for. In actual ship structures, lateral pressure loading arises from water pressure and cargo weight.
The still water magnitude of water pressure depends on the
vessel draft, and the still water value of cargo pressure is determined by the amount and density of cargo loaded.
These still water pressure values may be augmented by
wave action and vessel motion. Typically the larger in-plane
loads are caused by longitudinal hull girder bending, both
in still water and in waves at sea, which is the source of the
primary stress as previously noted in Subsection 18.4.3.
The elastic plate buckling strength components under
single types of loads, that is, xE for xav, yE for yav and
E for av, can be calculated by taking into account the related effects arising from in-plane bending, lateral pressure,
cut-outs, edge conditions and welding induced residual
stresses.
The critical (elastic-plastic) buckling strength components under single types of loads, that is, xB for xav, yB
for yav and B for av, are typically calculated by plasticity
correction of the corresponding elastic buckling strength
using the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula, namely:
E for E
B =
F
F 1 4
E
0.5 F
where:
E = elastic plate buckling strength
[47]
18-39
xB yB yB
xB
av
+
B [48]
where:
B = usage factor for buckling strength, which is typically
the inverse of the conventional partial safety factor.
B = 1.0 is often taken for direct strength calculation, while
it is taken less than 1.0 for practical design in accordance with classification society rules.
Compressive stress is taken as negative while tensile
stress is taken as positive and = 0 if both xav and yav are
compressive, and = 1 if either xav or yav or both are tensile. The constant c is often taken as c = 2.
Figure 18.40 shows a typical example of the axial membrane stress distribution inside a plate element under predominantly longitudinal compressive loading before and
after buckling occurs. It is noted that the membrane stress
distribution in the loading (x) direction can become nonuniform as the plate element deforms. The membrane stress
distribution in the y direction may also become non-uniform 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 minimum 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 middle of the plate element will initially yield by the action of
bending. However, as long as it is possible to redistribute
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-40 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-40
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)
[49a]
[49b]
The maximum and minimum membrane stresses of equations 49a and 49b can be expressed in terms of applied
stresses, lateral pressure loads and fabrication related initial imperfections, by solving the nonlinear governing differential equations of plating, based on equilibrium and
compatibility equations. Note that equation 44 is the linear
differential equation.
On the other hand, the plate ultimate edge shear strength,
u , is often taken u =B (equation 47, with B instead of B).
Also, an empirical formula obtained by curve fitting based
on nonlinear finite element solutions may be utilized (33).
The effect of lateral pressure loads on the plate ultimate edge
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
18-41
xu yu
xu
yu
av
+
u [50]
where:
and c = variables defined in equation 48
u = usage factors for the ultimate limit state
xu and yu = solutions of equation 49a with regard to xav
and equation 49b with regard to yav, respectively
18.6.3.2 Simplified models
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 lateral pressure, the resulting elastic buckling strength prediction would be pessimistic. While the plate edges are often
supposed to be simply supported, that is, without rotational
restraints along the plate/stiffener junctions, the real elastic
buckling strength with rotational restraints would of course
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, B ,
in the elastic range has been found for a number of cases
of interest. For rectangular plate subject to compressive inplane stress in one direction:
B = kc
2
2E
t
12 (1 2 ) b
[51]
[52]
[53]
Figure 18.42 presents, kc, versus the aspect ratio, a/b, for
different configurations of rectangular plates in compression.
For the simplified prediction of the plate ultimate strength
under uniaxial compressive loads, one of the most common approaches is to assume that the plate will collapse if the maximum compressive stress at the plate corner reaches the material
yield stress, namely x max = Y for xav or y max = Y for yav.
This assumption is relevant when the unloaded edges
move freely in plane as that shown in Figure 40(b). Another
approximate method is to use the plate effective width concept, which provides the plate ultimate strength components
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-42 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-42
[54]
where aeu and beu are the plate effective length and width at
the ultimate limit state, respectively.
While a number of the plate effective width expressions
have been developed, a typical approach is exemplified by
Faulkner, who suggests an empirical effective width (beu /b)
formula for simply supported steel plates, as follows,
for longitudinal axial compression (34),
1 for < 1
b eu
c2
= c1
b
2 for 1
[55a]
a
a
2
2
[55b]
where:
Y
= b
is the plate slenderness
t
E
E = the Youngs modulus
t = the plate thickness
c1 , c2 = typically taken as c1 = 2 and c2 = 1
The plate ultimate strength components under uniaxial
compressive loads are therefore predicted by substituting
the plate effective width formulae (equation 55a) into equation 54.
More charts and formulations are available in many
books, for example, Bleich (36), ECCS-56 (37), Hughes
(3) and Lewis (2). In addition, the design strength of plate
(unstiffened panels) is detailed in Chapter 19, Subsection
19.5.4.1, including an example of reliability-based design
and alternative equations to equations 56 and 57.
18.6.3.3 Design criteria
When a single load component is involved, the buckling or
ultimate strength must be greater than the corresponding applied stress component with an appropriate target partial
safety factor. In a multiple load component case, the structural safety check is made with equation 48 against buckling and equation 50 against ultimate limit state being
satisfied.
To ensure that the possible worst condition is met (buckling and yield) for the ship, several stress combination must
be considered, as the maximum longitudinal and transverse
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-43 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-43
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(d)
mode III).
Biaxial In-plane Bending, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads. (a) Stiffened
PanelLongitudinals and Frames (4), and (b) A Generic Stiffened Panel (38).
(d) Overall stiffened panel buckling (grillage or gross panel bucklingmode I).
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-44 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-44
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-45 4/28/03 1:31 PM
1
0.995
18-45
and
=
a
r
Y
=
E
Y
E
where:
r = radius
4 of gyration
= I / A, (m)
I = inertia, (m4)
A = cross section of the plate-stiffener combination with full
attached plating, (m2)
t = plate thickness, (m)
a = span of the stiffeners, (m)
b = spacing between 2 longitudinals, (m)
Note that A, I, r, ... refer to the full section of the platestiffener combination, that is, without considering an effective plating.
Figure 18.45 compares the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula
(equation 47), the Perry-Robertson formula and the PaikThayamballi empirical formula (equation 56) for on the column ultimate strength for a plate-stiffener combination
varying the column slenderness ratios, with selected initial
eccentricity and plate slenderness ratios. In usage of the
Perry-Roberson formula, the lower strength as obtained
from either plate induced failure or stiffener-induced failure is adopted herein. Interaction between bending axial
[56]
and
u
1
2 = E
Y
Y
with
b
=
t
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-46 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-46
compression and lateral pressure can, within the same failure mode (Flexural BucklingMode III), leads to three-failure scenario: plate induced failure, stiffener induced failure
or a combined failure of stiffener and plating (see Chapter
19 Figure 19.11 ).
18.6.4.3 Design criteria
The ultimate strength based design criteria of stiffened panels can also be defined by equation 50, but using the corresponding stiffened panel ultimate strength and stress
parameters. Either all of the six design criteria, that is, against
individual collapse modes I to VI noted above, or a single design criterion in terms of the real (minimum) ultimate strength
components must be satisfied. For stiffened panels following Mode I behavior, the safety check is similar to a plate,
using average applied stress components. The applied axial
stress components for safety evaluation of the stiffened panel
following Modes IIVI behavior will use the maximum axial
stresses at the most highly stressed stiffeners.
18.6.5 Ultimate Bending Moment of Hull Girder
Ultimate hull girder strength relates to the maximum load
that the hull girder can support before collapse. These loads
induce vertical and horizontal bending moment, torsional
moment, vertical and horizontal shear forces and axial force.
For usual seagoing vessels axial force can be neglected. As
the maximun shear forces and maximum bending moment
do not occur at the same place, ultimate hull girder strength
should be evaluated at different locations and for a range of
bending moments and shear forces.
The ultimate bending moment (Mu) refers to a combined
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
the feasible loading cases that induce hull girder collapse.
Today, Mu is considered as being a relevant design case.
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
comprehensive works performed by the Special Task Committees of ISSC 2000. Yao (51) contains an historical review and a state of art on this matter.
Computation of Mu depends closely on the ultimate
strength of the structures constituent panels, and particularly
on the ultimate strength in compressed panels or components.
Figure 18.46 shows that in sagging, the deck is compressed
(deck) and reaches the ultimate limit state when deck = u.
On the other hand, the bottom is in tensile and reaches its ultimate limit state after complete yielding, bottom = 0 (0
being the yield stress).
Basically, there exist two main approaches to evaluate
the hull girder ultimate strength of a ships hull under longitudinal bending moments. One, the approximate analysis, is to calculate the ultimate bending moment directly
(Mu, point C on Figure 18.46), and the other is to perform
progressive collapse analysis on a hull girder and obtain,
both, Mu and the curves M-.
The first approach, approximate analysis, requires an
assumption on the longitudinal stress distribution. Figure
18.47 shows several distributions corresponding to different methods. On the other hand, the progressive collapse
analysis does not need to know in advance this distribution.
Accordingly, to determine the global ultimate bending
moment (Mu), one must know in advance
the ultimate strength of each compressed panel (u), and
the average stress-average strain relationship (), to
perform a progressive collapse analysis.
For an approximate assessment, such as the Caldwell
method, only the ultimate strength of each compressed panel
(u) is required.
18.6.5.1 Direct analysis
The direct analysis corresponds to the Progressive collapse
analysis. The methods include the typical numerical analy-
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-47 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-47
(a)
(b)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-48 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-48
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-49 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-49
M vu
a
Mh
+
M hu
=1
[57]
where:
Mv and Mh = vertical and horizontal bending moments
Mvu and Mhu = ultimate vertical and horizontal bending moments
a, b and = empirical constants
For instance, Mansour et al (47) proposes a=1, b=2 and
= 0.8 based on analysis on one container, one tanker and
2 cruisers, and Gordo and Soares (60) 1.5<a=b<1.66 and
= 1.0 for tankers. Hu et al (69) has proposed similar formulations for bulk carriers. Paik et al (70) proposes an empirical formulation that includes the shear forces in addition
to the bending moments.
18.6.5.3 Design Criteria
For design purpose, the value of the ultimate longitudinal
bending moment (capability) has to be compared with the
extreme bending moment (load) that may act on a ships hull
girder. To estimate the extreme bending moment, the most
severe loading condition has to be selected to provide the
maximum still water bending moment. Regarding the wave
bending moment, the IACS unified requirement is a major
reference (71,72), but more precise discussions can be found
in the ISSC 2000 report (24).
To evaluate the ultimate longitudinal strength, various
methods can be applied ranging from simple to complicated
methods. In 2000, many of the available methods were examined and assessed by an ISSC2000 Committee (50). The
grading of each method with respect to each capability is
quantitatively performed by scoring 1 through 5. The committee concluded that the appropriate methods should be selected according to the designers needs and the design
stage. That is, at early design stage, a simple method based
on an Assumed Stress Distribution can be used to obtain a
rough estimate of the ultimate bending moment. At later
stages, a more accurate method such as Progressive Collapse Analysis with calculated curves (Smiths Method)
or ISUM has to be applied.
Main sensitive model capability with regards to the assessment of ultimate strength can be ranked in 3 classes, respectively, high (H), medium (M) and low (L) consequence
of omitting capability (Table 18.IV).
Based on the different sources of uncertainties (model-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-50 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-50
Impact
H
ing, curves, curvature incrementation), the global uncertainty on the ultimate bending moment is usually large
(55). A bias of 10 to 15% must be considered as acceptable.
For intact hull the design criteria for Mu, defined by classification societies, is given by:
MS + s1 Mw s2 MU
[58]
where:
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-51 4/28/03 1:31 PM
[59]
where:
a = crack size,
N = number of fatigue cycles (fatigue life),
K = S.Y(a) . a , range of stress intensity factor, (Kmax
Kmin)
C, m = crack propagation parameters,
S = constant amplitude stress range,
= = max min
Y(a) = function of crack geometry.
Fatigue life prediction based on the fracture mechanics
approach shall be computed according to the following
equation:
N=
1
C . Sm
da
Ym
A
m
k Sm S e
[62]
where:
= fatigue damage ratio ( 1)
log(A) = intercept of the S-N curve of the Log N axis
1 / m = slope of the S-N curve, (3 m 7)
Se= mean of the Miners equivalent stress range Se, defined at Table 18.V
kS = fatigue stress uncertainty factor
= kS. Se (or the constant amplitude stress range for failure at N cycles)
N = fatigue life, or number of loading cycles expected during the life of a detail
The Miners equivalent stress range, Se, can be evaluated based on the models provided in Table 18.V (83). The
most refined model would start with a scatter diagram of
sea-states, information on ships routes and operating char-
[60]
18-51
[61]
Figure 18.51 Comparison between the Characteristic S-N Curve and Fracture
Mechanics Approach
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-52 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-52
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-53 4/28/03 1:31 PM
notch
nominal
[63]
[64]
18-53
the notch stress. This can be done by multiplication of Kfactors arising from different causes. The resulting K-factor to be used for calculation of notch stress is:
K = K1 . K2 . K3 . K4 . K5
[65]
where:
K1 = stress concentration factor due to the gross geometry
of the detail considered
K2 = stress concentration factor due to the weld geometry
(notch factor); K2 = 1.5 if not stated otherwise
K3 = additional stress concentration factor due to eccentricity tolerance
K4 = additionally stress concentration factor due to angular mismatch
K5 = additional stress concentration factor for un-symmetrical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels, applicable
when the nominal stress is derived from simple beam
analyses
Fatigue cracks are assumed to be independent of principal stress direction within 45 of the normal to the weld toe.
Hot spot stress extrapolation procedure: The hot spot
stress extrapolation procedure (Figure 18.52) is only to be
used for stresses that are derived from stress concentration
models (fine mesh). Nominal stresses found from other
models should be multiplied with appropriate stress concentration factors (equation 65). The stress extrapolation
procedure is specific to each classification societies (74).
Today, there is unfortunately no standard procedure.
18.6.6.4 Direct analysis
Several S-N fatigue approaches exists, they all have advantages and disadvantages. The different approaches are
therefore suitable for different areas. Load effects, accuracy of the analysis, computer demands, etc. should be evaluated before one of the approaches is chosen.
Full stochastic fatigue analysis: The full stochastic analysis, 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 correct phasing and without simplifications or omissions of
any stress component.
This method usually will be the most exact for determination 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 especially the case for areas where wave or tank pressures in
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
18-54
S em =
nb
f i S im
Se = m
nb
f i S im
i
Si = stress range
where:
(2 2 )
f0
m
+ 1
2
i f i im
i
S em =
nb
f i S im S e = m
[66]
S em = ( m )
AiHi
nb
f i S im
i
the fact that all load effects result in one set of combined
stresses, making it difficult to modify the stress caused by
one of the load effects.
The approach is suitable for areas where the stress concentration factors are unknown (knuckles, bracket and flange
terminations of main girder, stiffeners subjected to large
relative deformations).
18.6.6.5 Simplified models
The stress component based stochastic fatigue analysis:
The idea of the stress component based fatigue analysis is
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
18-55
structures against collision and grounding (85). For the accidental limit state design, the integrity of a structure can
be checked in two steps. In the first step, the structural performance against design accident events will be assessed,
while post-accident effects such as likely oil outflow are
evaluated in the second step.
The primary concern of the accidental limit state design
in such cases is to maintain the water tightness of ship compartments, the containment of dangerous or pollutant cargoes, and the integrity of critical spaces (reactor compartments of nuclear powered ships or tanks in LNG ships) at
the greatest possible levels, and to minimize the release/outflow of cargo. To facilitate a rescue mission, it is also necessary 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.
18.6.7.3 Simplified models
Since the response of ships in collision or grounding accident includes relatively complicated behavior such as crushing, tearing and yielding, existing simplified methods are
not always adequate. However, many simplified models
useful for predicting accident induced structural damages
and residual strength of damaged ship structures have been
developed and continue to be successfully used. Simplified
models for collision are rather different from those of
grounding since both are different in the nature of the mechanics involved. As it is impossible to describe them in a
limited space, valuable references are Ohtsubo et al (86),
and Kaminski et al (39).
18.6.7.4 Design criteria
The structural design criteria for ship collisions and grounding are based on limiting accidental consequences such as
structural damage, fire and explosion, and environmental
pollution, and to make sure that the main safety functions
of ship structures are not impaired to a significant extent during any accidental event or within a certain time period
thereafter.
Structural performance of a ship against collision or
grounding can be measured by:
energy absorption capability,
maximum penetration in an accident,
spillage amount of hazardous cargo, for example, crude
oil, and
hull girder ultimate strength of damaged ships (Section
18.6.5).
Design acceptance criteria may be based on the following parameters (87):
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-56 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-56
Figure 18.53 Structural Design Procedures of Ships for Collision and Grounding (85)
18.6.8 Vibration
18.6.8.1 Present Vibration Design Approaches
The traditional design methodology for vibration is based on
rules, defined by classification societies. Vibrations are not
explicitly covered by class rules but their prediction is needed
to achieve a good design. Ship structures are excited by numerous dynamic oscillating forces. Excitation may originate
within the ship or outside the ship by external forces. Reciprocating machinery such as large main propulsion diesel
produce important forces at low frequency. Pressure fluctuations due to propeller at blade rate frequency induce pressure variation on the ships hull. Varying hull pressures
associated with waves belong also to external excitations. All
these forces can be approximated by a combination of harmonic forces. If their frequencies coincide with the structure
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 vibrations. If they do occur, the remedial action will probably be very costly. So, during early design, the hull girder
frequencies must be compared to wave excitation (springing risk), and to propeller and engine excitation. Table 18.VI
gives some typical values of the first hull girder frequencies in Hz of some ship types.
Hull girder frequencies and modes should be computed
using approximate empirical formulae (88), simple beam
models for long prismatic structures (VLCC, container ships,
etc.) associated with lumped added mass models, or using
3D finite element models for complex ships (RO-RO, cruise
ship), LNG, and short and non-prismatic structures (tug,
catamaran, etc.).
18.6.8.2 Fluid structure interaction
Fluid structure interaction is evidenced in the dynamic behavior of ships. As a first approximation, the ship is considered as a rigid body, for the sea keeping analyses (wave
induced motions and loads).
Wave vibration induced: An early determination of hull
girder vibration modes and frequencies is important to avoid
serious problems that would be difficult to solve at a later
stage of the project.
Risk of springing (occurring when first hull girder frequency 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 methods to assess the first hull girder frequency can be used at
preliminary design stage.
Engine/propeller vibration induced: Resonance problems 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-
18-57
placement of the surrounding fluid. Therefore imparting kinetic energy in the fluid. This phenomenon can be taken
into account for the hull girder modes and frequencies calculation as added mass terms. Various methods can be used
for the determination of added mass term. Lumped mass approach is the simplest one (89) but is only valid for simple
prismatic slender shapes, and for a single mode. Fluid finite and semi-infinite elements or boundary integral formulation lead to the calculation of more accurate added
mass matrices (90), especially for complex hull forms and
appendices study (rudder). Added mass matrices associated
with 3D finite element model of the structure, allow for an
accurate determination of hull girder modes and frequencies. Added mass terms may also be needed for the vibrations of tank walls. The corresponding methods and
associated software are available for industrial usage (Figure 18.54) and numerical simulations are today predictable
with good accuracy (91). Figure 18.54 shows a fluid-structure coupled FE-model of a 230 m long passenger vessel
using 150 000 degrees of freedom.
A difficult coupled problem is the fluid impact occurring in slamming or due to sloshing in tanks. The local deformation of the impacted shells and plating influences the
Large
Cruise
ship
1.0 Hz
1.8
1.5 Hz
2.9
2.6 Hz
3.2 Hz
Fast
monohull LNG
VLCC
Frigate
Tug
0.9
0.8
1.9
2.0
1.7
3.8
5.8
7.8
7.0
13
Figure 18.54 Fluid/Structure FE-Model of a Passenger Vessel (Principia
Marine, France)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-58 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-58
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-59 4/28/03 1:31 PM
second action consists in avoiding resonance by modification of the hull scantlings, and addition of pillars, in order
to increase or lower the eigen frequencies.
Reduction of unavoidable vibration levels can be
achieved for local vibrations by dynamic isolation for equipments, passive damping solutions (floating floors on absorbing material), and dynamic energy absorbers. All these
curative actions are usually difficult, costly, only applicable for local vibrations and nearly impossible for vibrations
due to global modes. Local modes determination is difficult at early stage of the design mainly due to the uncertainty on mass distribution, non-structural mass (outfitting
and equipments) being of the some order of magnitude as
the steelwork part.
18-59
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-60 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-60
Figure 18.56 Potential Failure Modes of Sandwich Panels (100), (a) Face
yielding/fracture, (b) Core shear failure, (c-d) Face wrinkling, (e) Buckling, (f)
Shear crimping, (g) Face dimpling, (h) Local indentation.
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
applied on the side plates of the hull.
In the future, even if the assumption of static loads is not
verified, static analysis will continue to be performed, as it
is easier and faster to perform. In addition, tens of experience years have shown that they provide accurate results
when stresses and deflections assessment are the main target (as defined in Section 18.4).
Such analysis is also the standard procedure for fatigue
assessment to determine the hot spot stress through fine
mesh FEA.
18.7.1.2 Dynamic analysis
When problems occur on a ship due to dynamic effects, it
is very often late in the design and building stage and even
in service, and corrective actions are costly. Simplified methods can only predict the first hull girder modes frequencies.
Numerical finite element based simulation is mature enough
to predict up to second propeller harmonic, the vibration
level, giving a design tool to comply with ISO or ship owner
requirements. Moreover, possible dynamic problems can
be detected early enough in the design to allow for corrective actions.
18.7.1.3 Nonlinearities analysis
Nonlinear structural analysis is mainly used to analyze buckling, ultimate strength and accidental or extreme situations
(explosions, collisions, grounding, blast). The results of
such costly and difficult analysis are often used to calibrate
simplified methods or rules. But they are also very useful
to understand possible failure modes and mechanical behavior under severe loads.
18.7.1.4 Emerging trends
Like the automotive and aerospace industry, there is a clear
trend towards the reduction of design cycle time. Numerical mock up or virtual ship approach (97), especially for one
of a kind product, is clearly a way to achieve this. Required
computing power is available and will no longer be a constraint. The first difficulty is to establish an efficient model
of complex physical problems, associated with increasing
demand for accuracy. The second difficulty is the manpower
needed to prepare and check the models, which will be
solved by the development of integrated solutions for ship
description and modeling (99).
Advances are expected in the field of FE-modeling. The
trend is toward one structure description, one model and several applications. This is the field for multiphysics and coupling analysis. The base modeling will be re-used and
adapted to perform successively,
18-61
Progress is expected by the utilization of reliability methods already used in offshore industry, where uncertainties
and dispersions of the loads, geometrical defaults, initial
stresses and strains, material properties are defined as stochastic (non deterministic) data, leading to the calculation
of a probability of failure. This philosophy can be applied
to fatigue and ultimate strength, but also to dynamic response, leading to a more robust design, less sensitive to
defaults, imperfections, uncertainties and stochastic nature
of loads. Reliability-based analyses using probabilistic concept are presented in Chapter 19.
In the future, safety aspects related to structural problems will also be tackled such as ultimate strength using nonlinear methods. Collision and grounding damages and
improved design to increase ship safety will be studied by
numerical simulation, whereas experimental approach is
nearly impossible and/or too costly. Explicit codes, used in
car crash simulation (101), will be adapted to specific aspects of ship structure (size and presence of fluid). In traditional sea keeping analysis, the ship is considered as a
rigid body. In coupled problems such as slamming situations, this hypothesis is no more valid and a part of the energy is absorbed by ship deformation. Hydro-elasticity
methods (102) aim taking into account the interaction of the
flexible ship structure with the surrounding water. Nonlinear effects due to bow and aft part of the ship, ship velocity, diffraction radiation effects contribute to the complexity
of the problem. The simulation of catamaran, trimaran and
fast monohulls behavior need the development of new methods to take into account the high velocities and the complex 3D phenomena.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-62 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-62
longitudinal plating,
transverse bulkheads/frames,
stringers/girders, and
longitudinals or other structural stiffeners.
The finer mesh models are usually referred to as submodels. These models may be solved separately by transfer of boundary deformations/ boundary forces from the
coarser model. This requires that the various mesh models
are compatible, meaning that the coarser models have
meshes producing deformations and/or forces applicable as
boundary conditions for the finer mesh models.
18.7.2.1 Structural finite element models
Global stiffness model: A relatively coarse mesh that is used
to represent the overall stiffness and global stress distribution of the primary members of the total hull length. Typical models are shown in Figure 18.57. The mesh density of
the model has to be sufficient to describe deformations and
nominal stresses from the following effects:
The minimum element sizes to be used in a global structural model (coarse mesh) for 4node elements (finer mesh
divisions may of course be used and is welcomed, specially
with regard to sub-models):
main model: 1 element between transverse frames/girders; 1element between structural deck levels and minimum three elements between longitudinal bulkheads,
girders: 3 elements over the height, and
plating: 1 element between 2 longitudinals.
Figure 18.58 Cargo Hold Model (Based on the Fine Mesh of the Frame
Model), (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 deformation response and nominal stresses of the primary
members of the midship area. The model will normally
cover 1/2+1+1/2 cargo hold/tank length in the midship region. Typical models are shown in Figure 18.58.
Frame and girder models: These models are used to analyze nominal stresses in the main framing/girder system
(Figure 18.59). The element mesh is to be fine enough to
describe stress increase in critical areas (such as bracket
with continuous flange). This model may be included in the
cargo hold model, or run separately with prescribed boundary deformations/forces. However, if sufficient computer
capacity is available, it will normally be convenient to combine the two analyses into one model.
Local structure analyses are used to analyze stresses in
local areas. Stresses in laterally loaded local plates and stiffeners subjected to large relative deformations between girders/frames and bulkheads may be necessary to investigate
along with stress increase in critical areas, such as brackets with continuous flanges.
As an example, the areas to model are normally the following for a tanker:
longitudinals in double bottom and adjoining vertical
bulkhead members,
deck longitudinals and adjoining vertical bulkhead members,
double side longitudinals and adjoining horizontal bulkhead members,
hatch corner openings, and
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 stiffener 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 analyses 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 analyses (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-
18-63
Figure 18.60 Stiffener Bending Stress with FEM (from left to right: using 1, 2
or 8 elements), (4)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-64 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-64
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-65 4/28/03 1:31 PM
for each type of structural member in advance. The non-linear behavior of each type of structural member is idealized
and expressed in the form of a set of failure functions defining the necessary conditions for different failures which
may take place in the corresponding ISUM unit, and sets
of stiffness matrices representing the non-linear relationship
between the nodal force vector and the nodal displacement
vector until the limit state is reached. The ISUM super elements so developed are typically used within the framework of a non-linear matrix displacement procedure
applying the incremental method.
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 difficulty 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 stiffeners is not very successful.
In fact, ISUM elements accommodating post-collapse
behavior have previously been already developed but improvements 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 elements specifically; by including buckling and collapse behavior 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 analysis and vice versa. ISUM is also not adequate for linear
stress analysis.
ISUM is very flexible, new closed form expressions of
the ultimate strength can be directly utilized by replacing
in the existing ISUM element the previous ultimate strength
formulations with the new ones.
18.7.3.2 Boundary Element Method (BEM)
In contrast to FEM, the boundary element method (BEM)
is a type of semi-numerical method involving integral equations along the boundary of the integral domain (or volume). To solve a problem that involves the boundary integral
equations, BEM typically uses an appropriate numerical integration technique so that the problem is discretized by dividing only the boundary of the integral domain into a
number of segments or boundary elements, while the conventional FEM uses a mesh (finite elements) over the entire domain (or volume), that is, inside as well as its
boundary. For a specific problem with a relatively simple
18-65
Figure 18.63 A Typical FEM Model for NonLinear Analysis of the Cantilever
Box Girder
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-66 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-66
(a)
the accuracy high. Nevertheless as the required computational times with the BEM is in general significant, BEM
may be more appropriate for linear analysis of solids and
for fluid mechanics problems.
bottom,
inner bottom,
deck,
side shell,
inner side including hopper tank top,
longitudinal and transverse bulkheads, and
longitudinal and transverse girders.
Author:
Please
advise
what
symbold
is
needed.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-67 4/28/03 1:31 PM
1 or 2 days
About 1 week
Months
Receive Order
Production Design
Complete Functional Design
Production Design
1 or 2 months
610 months
Product
VeriSTAR
KR-RULES, KR-TRAS
Rulefinder, ShipRight
PrimeShip BOSUN
18-67
2. Two-dimensional (or almost 2D) geometry-based methods: These methods are based on one or more 2D views
of the ship sections. The expected results may be:
Verification of main section scantlings,
Global strength assessment,
Global vibration levels prediction,
Ultimate strength determination, and
Early assessment of fatigue
Two main approaches exist:
The main section of the ship is modeled a 2D way
(including geometry and scantlings) then global, and
possibly local, loadings are applied (bending moments, pressures, etc.). All major Classification Societies provide today the designer with such tools
(Table 18.VIII).
Various significant sections are described as beam
cross section properties (areas, inertias, etc.) and then
the ship is represented by a beam with variable properties on which global loading is applied.
3. Simple three-dimensional models: These models are useful when a more detailed response is needed. The idea
is to include main surfaces and actual scantlings (or from
the main section when not available) in a 3D model that
can be achieved in one or two weeks. This approach is
mainly dedicated to novel ship designs for which the
feedback is rather small.
18.7.5.2 Production design
The most popular method for structural analysis at the production design stage remains the Finite Elements Analysis
(FEA). This method is commonly used by Shipyards, Classification Societies, Research Institutes and Universities. It is
very versatile and may be applied to various types of analysis:
global and local strength,
global and local vibration analysis (natural frequencies
with or without external water, forced response to the
propeller excitation, etc.),
ultimate strength, and
detailed stress for local fatigue assessment,
fatigue life cycle assessment,
analysis of various non-linearities (material, geometry,
contact, etc.), and
collision and grounding studies.
The two main approaches for solving the physical problem are:
1. implicit method is used to solve large problems (both linear and non linear) with a matrix-based method. This is
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-68 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-68
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-69 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Constraints are linear or nonlinear functions, either explicit or implicit of the design variables (XI). These constraints are analytical translations of the limitations that the
user wants to impose on the design variables themselves or
to parameters like displacement, stress, ultimate strength,
etc. Note that these parameters must be functions of the design variables.
So it is possible to distinguish:
Technological constraints (or side constraints) that provide
the upper and lower bounds of the design variables. For example:
Xi min = 4mm Xi Xi max = 40 mm,
with:
Xi min = a thickness limit dues to corrosion,
Xi max = a technological limit of manufacturing or assembly.
Geometrical constraints that impose relationships between
design variables in order to guarantee a functional, feasible, reliable structure. They are generally based on good
practice rules to avoid local strength failures (web or flange
buckling, stiffener tripping, etc.), or to guarantee welding
quality and easy access to the welds. For instance, welding
a plate of 30 mm thick with one that is 5 mm thick is not
recommended. Hence, the constraints can be 0.5 X2 / X1
2 with X1, the web thickness of a stiffener and X2, the
flange thickness.
Structural constraints represent limit states in order to avoid
yielding, buckling, cracks, etc. and to limit deflection, stress,
etc. These constraints are based on solid-mechanics phenomena and modeled with rational equations. Rational equations mean a coherent and homogeneous group of analysis
methods based on physics, solid mechanics, strength and
stability treatises, etc. and that differ from empirical and
parametric formulations. Such standard rational structural
constraints can limit:
the deflection level (absolute or relative) in a point of the
structure,
the stress level in an element: x , y, and c = von Mises,
the safety level related to buckling, ultimate resistance,
tripping, etc. For example: /ult 0.5.
For each constraint, or solid-mechanics phenomenon,
the selected behavior model is especially important since
this model fixes the quality of the constraint modeling. These
behavior models can be so complex that it is no longer possible to explicitly express the relation between the parameters being studied (stress, displacement, etc.) and the design
variables (XI). This happens when one uses mathematical
models (FEM, ISUM, BEM, etc.). In this case, one gener-
18-69
18.8
DESIGN CRITERIA
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-70 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-70
The semiprobabilistic method corresponds to the current practice used by codes and the major classifications societies. Load, strength, dimensions are random parameters
but their distribution is basically not known. To overcome
this, partial safety factor are used. Each safety factor corresponds to a load type, failure mode, etc. This is an intermediate step between the deterministic and the full
probabilistic methods.
18.9
DESIGN PROCEDURE
It does not seem possible to unify all of the design procedures (117-122). They differ from country to country, from
shipyard to shipyard and differ between naval ships, commercial ships and advanced high-speed catamaran passenger vessels. So, as an example of one feasible methodology,
the design procedure for commercial vessel such as tanker,
container, and VLCC is selected. It corresponds to the actual current shipyard procedure.
This structural design procedure can be defined as follows:
receive general arrangement from the basic design group,
define structural arrangement based on the general
arrangement,
determine initial scantling of structural members within
design criteria (rule-based).,
check longitudinal and transverse strength,
change the structural arrangement or scantling, and
transfer the structural arrangement and scantling to the
production design group.
The structural design can also be classified according to
available design tool:
use data of existing ship or past experienceexpert system, (1st level)
use of a structural analysis software like FEM (2nd level)
use optimization software (3rd level)
The adequacy of the relevant analysis method to use for
a specific design stage is discussed in Subsection 18.7.5.
Here the discussion concerns the procedure from a design
point of view and not from the analysis point of view.
18.9.1 Initial Scantling
At the basic design stage, principal dimensions, hull form,
double bottom height, location of longitudinal bulkheads and
transverse bulkheads, maximum still-water bending moment, etc. have already been determined to meet the owners
requirements such as deadweight and ships speed. Such a
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-71 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-71
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-72 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-72
ology where the performance of the system, the manufacturing process of the system and the associated life cycle
costs are considered in an integrated fashion (120). Designing ship structures systems involves achieving simultaneous, though sometimes competing, objectives. The
structure must perform its function while conforming to
structural, economic and production constraints. The present design framework consists of establishing the structural
system and composite subsystems, which optimally satisfy
the topology, shape, loading and performance constraints
while simultaneously considering the manufacturing or fabrication processes in a cost effective manner.
The framework is used within a computerized virtual
environment in which CAD product models, physics-based
models, production process models and cost models are
used simultaneously by a designer or design team. The performance of the product or process is in general judged by
some time independent parameter, which is referred to as
a response metric (R). Specifications for the system must
be established in terms of these Response Metrics. The formulation of the design problem is thus the same whether
the product or process systems (or both) are considered.
The general framework consists of a system definition
module, a simulation module and a design module.
Operational Requirements
ParametersZ
System Definition
Model Parameters Y
Environmental Model Product Model Process Model
Parameters U
ParametersV
ParametersW
Simulations
Simulation Response S(T ,X ,time)
Design Criteria
Constraints G(T,X,Y,Z)
Yes
No
Is Design Space
Feasible?
Optimization
Steepest Descent
Convex Linearization
Design Assessment
Min (F) ?
R<G ?
No
Conditions Satisfied ?
Yes
Yes
Redesign?
No
Stop
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-73 4/28/03 1:31 PM
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
18.10
REFERENCES
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
18-73
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-74 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-74
53. Yao, T., Sumi, Y., Takemoto, H., Kumano, A., Sueoka, H.
and Ohtsubo, H., Analysis of the Accident of the MV
NAKHODKA, Part 2: Estimation of Structural Strength,
Journal of Marine Science and Technology (JMST), 3 (4):
181183, 1998
54. Smith, C. S., Influence of Local Compressive Failure on Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Ships Hull, PRADS 77,
Tokyo, Japan: 7379, 1977
55. Rigo, P., Catalin, T. and Yao, T., Sensitivity Analysis on Ultimate Hull Bending Moment, In Proceeding of
PRADS2001, Shanghai, China, 2001
56. Adamchack, J. C., Approximate Method for Estimating the
Collapse of a Ships Hull in Preliminary Design, Proc. Ship
Structure Symposium84, SNAME: 3761, 1984
57. Beghin, D., et al., Design Principles and Criteria (Report of
ISSC Committee IV.1), Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan and
Berge (Eds.), Pergamon PressElsevier Science, 1: 351406,
1997
58. Dow, R. S., Hugill, R. C., Clarke, J. D. and Smith, C. S.,
Evaluation of Ultimate Ship Hull Strength, Proceedings of
Symposium on Extreme Loads Response, Arlington: 33148,
1991
59. Gordo, J. M., Guedes Soares, C., Approximate Methods to
Evaluate the Hull Girder Collapse Strength, Marine Structures 9 (34): 449470, 1996
60. Gordo, J. M. and Guedes Soares, C., Interaction Equation
for the Collapse of Tankers and Containerships under Combined Vertical and Horizontal Bending Moments, Journal
of Ship Research 41 (3): 230240, 1997
61. Yao, T. and Nikolov, P. I., Progressive Collapse Analysis of
a Ships Hull under Longitudinal Bending, Journal of Society Naval Architects of Japan, 170: 449461, 1991
62. Yao, T., Nikolov, P. I., Progressive Collapse Analysis of a
Ships Hull under Longitudinal Bending (2nd Report), Journal of Society Naval Architects of Japan, 172: 437446, 1992
63. Rutherford, S. E., Caldwell, J. B., Ultimate Longitudinal
Strength of Ships: A Case Study, SNAME Transactions, 98:
441471, 1990
64. Caldwell, J. B., Ultimate Longitudinal Strength, Transactions RINA 107: 411430, 1965
65. Paik, J. K. and Mansour, A. E., A Simple Formulation for
Predicting the Ultimate Strength of Ships, Journal Marine
Science and Technology, 1: 5262, 1995
66. Viner, A. C., Development of Ship Strength Formulation,
Proceedings of International. Conference on Advances in
Marine Structures, ARE, Dunfermline, UK: 152173, 1986
67. Frieze, P. et al, Applied Design, Report of ISSC Committee V.1, 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 2, 1991
68. Sumi, Y. et al, Calculation Procedures. In Quasi-static Response (Report of ISSC Committee II.1), Proceedings of
13th ISSC, Moan and Berge (eds), Pergamon PressElsevier Science, 1: 128138, 1997
69. Hu, Y., Zhang A. and Sun J., Analysis on the Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Bulk Carrier by Using a Simplified
Method, Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14: 311330, 2001
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-75 4/28/03 1:31 PM
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
18-75
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-76 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-76
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.