ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Marine Structures 15 (2002) 119–138

Longitudinal strength of ships

with accidental damages1
Ge Wang*, Yongjun Chen, Hanqing Zhang, Hua Peng
American Bureau of Shipping, 16855 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060, USA
Received 20 February 2001; received in revised form 10 May 2001; accepted 17 May 2001

Abstract

This paper presents an investigation of the longitudinal strength of ships with damages due to grounding or collision
accidents. Analytical equations are derived for the residual hull girder strength and verified with direct calculations of
sample commercial ships for a broad spectrum of accidents. Hull girder ultimate strengths of these sample vessels under
sagging and hogging conditions are also calculated, based on which correlation equations are proposed. To evaluate a
grounded ship, using the section modulus to the deck would be optimistic, while using the section modulus to the bottom
would be conservative. On the contrary, to evaluate a collided ship, using the section modulus to the deck would be
conservative, while using the section modulus to the bottom would be optimistic. The derived analytical formulae are
then applied to a fleet of 67 commercial ships, including 21 double hull tankers, 18 bulk carriers, 22 single hull tankers
and six container carriers. The mean values, standard deviations and coefficients of variation for the coefficients in these
new analytical formulae are obtained. The ship length exhibits little influence on these coefficients because they are close
to the mean values although ship length spans from 150 to 400 m. The ship type shows some influence on the residual
strength. Uniform equations are proposed for commercial ships which do not depend on a ship’s principal dimensions.
These formulae provide very handy tools for predicting the residual strength in seconds, without performing step-by-step
detailed calculations, an obvious advantage in cases of emergency or salvage operation. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.
Keywords: Residual strength; Hull girder ultimate strength; Section modulus; Damage; Collision; Grounding

Reproduced from Marine Structures, Vol. 15, Wang. G., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Peng, H., Longitudinal Strength of Ships
with Accidental Damages. pp. 119-138, Copyright (2002), with permission from Elsevier.

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +281-877-5785; fax:+281-877-5815.

E-mail address: gwang@eagle.org (G. Wang).

Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages 53

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

1. Introduction

Traditionally, ships have been designed to resist all loads expected to arise in their seagoing environment. The
objective in structural design has been to maintain a ship’s structural integrity for normal operating conditions. A
combination of the most severe loads is usually selected as the nominal design load.
Protection of a ship and the cargo it carries from damages incurred by accidents, though an essential issue in the design
of watercraft, has been focused on subdividing a ship into compartments. National and international standards (Load
Line, MARPOL, SOLAS, Classification Societies’ Rules) have established requirements for watertight bulkheads and
subdivision. Structural strength in collision, grounding or internal accidents (such as an explosion) has attracted very
little attention.
Public sensation increases each time there is a major loss of ships, cargo and life at sea, or when there is oil pollution
from damaged ships. This motivates the development of design procedures and related analysis methods for accidental
loads, in particular, the loads due to ship collision or grounding accidents.
A ship may collapse after an accident because of inadequate longitudinal strength. However, the consequences of an
accident on a ship’s strength are seldom investigated. Although there are some papers published on the residual strength
of damaged ship hulls [1,2], this field still remains unexplored.
This paper reports on an investigation of the longitudinal strength of damaged ship hulls for a broad spectrum of
collision and grounding accidents. Both the hull girder section modulus and hull girder ultimate strength are calculated.
We aim to obtain simple relations to assess residual hull girder strength, which may be used as handy and reliable tools to
help make timely decisions in the event of an emergency. Theoretical analyses are presented and analytical formulae are
derived. Typical designs of 67 commercial ships, including 21 double hull tankers, 18 bulk carriers, 22 single hull tankers
and six container carriers, which have lost portions of bottom shell plating and side shell plating, are analyzed to obtain
such simple equations for predicting residual strength of damaged ships.

2. Assumptions and analytical methods

2.1. Section modulus of hull girders

It has been a proven practice to use simple beam theory to analyze the global bending of hull girders. Many
experiments have confirmed that the bending behavior of ships agrees quite well with the beam theory.
The hull girder section modulus indicates the bending strength of the primary hull structures. The calculation of a
midship section modulus is a very important step in basic ship design. Structural members that are continuous in the
longitudinal direction are included in the calculation of the section modulus. Only members that are e ective in both
tension and compression are assumed to act as part of the hull girder. The section modulus to the deck or to the bottom is
obtained by dividing the moment of inertia by the distance from the neutral axis to the molded deck line at the side or to
the base line, respectively.

2.2. Ultimate strength of hull girder

The hull girder section modulus is an indicator of initial buckling or initial yielding, which is usually not the state at
which the ship achieves its ‘‘true’’ maximum bending capacity. Plates and longitudinals may experience elastic buckling,
plastic buckling, post buckling, yielding, and/or fracture in the process of approaching hull girder ultimate strength.
The so-called ultimate strength of hull girder corresponds to the maximum bending capacity beyond which the ship
will break its back due to extensive yielding and buckling.
The continuous improvement of knowledge regarding the behavior of hull girders and structural members has led to
the development of various methods. ISSC 2000 Special Task Committee VI.2 [4] reviews the state-of-the-art technology
for predicting hull girder ultimate strength. The committee conducted extensive benchmark calculations and assessed the
uncertainties involved in these approaches.
Among all groups of approaches (closed-form formulae, simplified analytical methods and nonlinear FEM
simulations), the simplified analytical methods are favored by most analysts. These approaches save modeling time; they
generally account for fabrication imperfections and provide reliable results. Extensive related studies have placed
simplified methods as the first choice when one tries to calculate ultimate hull girder strength. A program of this kind,
ALPS/ISUM [3], is used in this investigation.

54 Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

2.3. Extent of damages

Every accident is different. The resulting damage also varies. Accidents require many parameters to describe the
damage a ship sustains after an accident. A comprehensive description can easily fill a couple of pages or more, even
though not all of the data is necessary for calculating hull girder strength. For simplicity, this paper uses definitions that
are convenient for calculation but retain the main characteristics of accidental damages.
For a grounding, it is assumed that the bottom shell and the attached bottom longitudinals are lost. No girders are
assumed to be damaged after a grounding. This study investigatesa broader range of bottom loss, up to 80% of ship
breadth, to simulate minor to severe grounding damages.
For a collision, it is assumed that the side shell and the attached longitudinals are lost. The damage starts from the deck
at the side and extends downward. The deck stringer plate and longitudinal bulkhead that attach to the damaged side are
assumed to be intact after an accident. A broad range of side shell loss, ranging from 5% to about 40% of ship depth, is
considered.
The assumptions mentioned above help to simplify the definition of damages. Only one parameter is used to describe
the damage. Introduction of additional parameters is avoided. The focus is on shell plating, the first barrier from water
flooding. Structures attached to the damaged shell are not considered with the assumption that they may be approximated
by ‘‘smearing’’ as equivalent thickness of shell.
There exist other assumptions with regard to damage extents. In the ABS Guide for assessing hull-girder residual
strength [5], a grounding damage includes bottom girders attached to the damaged bottom shell to a certain depth;
collision damage includes deck stringer plate and slope bulkhead plating attached to the damaged side shell plating for a
specified extent. Paik et al. [1] defined collision and grounding damages according to this ABS Guide. For sensitivity
studies, they analyzed 0.8 to 1.2 times the specified damage extents described in the ABS Guide. Wang et al. [2] analyzed
a broad range of bottom damage, spanning from minor to substantial damage. Wang et al. also investigated cases where
there is damage in bottom girders in additional to damage to the bottom shell.

2.4. Presentation of results

Two means are used to indicate the longitudinal bending strength of a ship hull: hull girder section modulus and
ultimate hull girder strength. Section modulii to the deck and bottom, and ultimate bending strengths of hull girder under
sagging and hogging are calculated and presented in dimensionless format; all are compared with their values at intact
condition.
Bottom damage is expressed as a percentage of the ship’s breadth. Side damage extent is expressed as a percentage of
the ship’s depth.
The investigation is focused on midship sections of typical commercial ships. Sections beyond midship are not
analyzed in this paper but the same analysis may be performed on those sections readily.

3. Simple equations for the residual section modulus

Fig. 1 is a sketch of a transverse section, which characterizes the geometry of a ship and ignores many details. This
transverse section may be a double hull tanker, a bulk carrier,a container carrier, a single hull tanker or any other type of
ship. The shaded area is the assumed damage caused by either collision or grounding accident.
For an intact hull, the cross-sectional area, height of neutral axis above the base line, distance of the deck at the side to
the neutral axis, moment of inertia and section modulus are A; z0; z1; I and (SM)0; respectively. The section modulii to
the deck and the bottom, (SMdk)0 and (SMbtm)0; have been used by the industry to indicate the hull girder strength.
∆A is the cross-sectional area of the lost structure. Its center is c from the neutral axis of the intact hull. The c is
positive when the center of the damaged area ∆A is above the neutral axis.

Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages 55

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Fig. 1. A transverse section.

The shift of neutral axis ∆z0 is

where

The neutral axis moves away from the lost area. The moment of inertia of the damaged hull becomes

Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (2) gives

The section modulus to a location of distance z from the neutral axis when z is above the neutral axis becomes

Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (3) and replacing ðSMÞ0 with I =z into the above equation gives

An expansion of this equation by neglecting higher order terms of r gives the expression for dimensionless section
modulus for z above the neutral axis

Through a similar process, the following equation is derived for z below the neutral axis:

Eqs. (1)–(8) are applicable to general cases where there is an area loss in a transverse section.

56 Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

3.1. Grounding

The transverse extent of damage to the bottom is b; see Fig. 1. For grounding damage as discussed in this paper, the
center of ∆A almost falls on the base line. As a result, c can be replaced by (– z0).
Replacing z with z1 in Eq. (7), the dimensionless section modulus to the deck for a grounded ship is

where (SMdk)′ is the section modulus to the deck of the damaged ship.
Replacing z with z0 in Eq. (8), the dimensionless section modulus to the bottom for a grounded ship is

where (SMbtm)′ is the section modulus to the bottom of the damaged ship.
∆A/A may be decomposed into two parts, ∆A/Abtm; the ratio of the lost area over the area of the bottom, and Abtm /A;
the ratio of area of the bottom over the whole cross-sectional area. For many cases, the bottom shell and bottom
longitudinals are uniform in scantling at a given transverse section. Approximately, ∆A/Abtm is proportional to the ratio of
the damage width over ship breadth, b/B (Fig. 1). Therefore, the following relation can be introduced

Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (9) leads to the following expression for the dimensionless section modulus to the deck
of a grounded ship:

where,

A similar expression for the dimensionless section modulus to the bottom of a grounded ship is obtained using Eqs.
(10) and (11)

where,

3.2. Collision

As previously mentioned, it is assumed that the collision damage starts from the deck at the side, which includes the
side shell and side longitudinals and not the deck and longitudinal bulkhead attached to the damaged zone. The vertical
extent of this collision damage ∆A is denoted as b; see also Fig. 1.
In the following derivation, c is taken as (z1 – 0.5b) as an approximation

Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages 57

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Generally, the side shell differs in thickness at different heights; so do the side longitudinals. The center of ∆A does not
necessarily coincide with the half point of b: Nevertheless, for simplicity in derivation, it is still assumed that these two
points – the centers of ∆A and b – are the same. By doing so, a simpler expression of formulae is achieved at a relatively
small sacrifice of accuracy.
Relations similar to Eq. (11) are not straightforward either, because of the aforementioned feature of structural design.
However, the following relation is still employed:

Substituting relations of Eqs. (14) and (15) into Eq. (7), one can express the dimensionless section modulus to the deck
for a collision as

where,

Substituting relations of Eqs. (14) and (15) into Eq. (8), the dimensionless section modulus to the bottom for a
collision is

where,

3.3. Influence of the moment of inertia of the lost area

In the above derivations, the moment of inertia of the lost area ∆A with respect to its horizontal centroidal axis, or i0; is
neglected. This treatment is appropriate for grounding damage. A plate’s contribution to the moment of inertia of hull
girder comes mostly from the product of its area and the square of the distance from the neutral axis. Compared with this,
i0; which is proportional to the product of its area and the square of the plate thickness, is negligibly small. The distance
of the neutral axis to the lost bottom is measured in meters, while shipbuilding plates are only tens of millimeters in
thickness, very thin compared to the ship’s principal dimensions. Viewing the bottom panel as an equivalent plate, the
conclusion is the same. Obviously, for grounding damage, even severe grounding damage, i0 can be excluded.
For collision damage, however, the situation is different. The i0 is a function of the area of ∆A and the square of b; the
extent of ∆A in a vertical direction (Fig. 1). The b is measured in meters, no longer small compared to the ship depth. The
i0 should be included in the calculation, especially for severe collision damage.

58 Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Characterizing ∆A as a rectangular cross-section which is b vertically and t transversely, its moment of inertia is
3
(tb /12); or approximately

Then, Eq. (3) becomes the following expression:

Taking i0 into account, the coefficients of the third terms of (b/D) in Eqs. (16) and (17) should be modified while the
coefficients α1’s and α2’s remain the same. For the section modulus to the deck, α3 becomes

and for the section modulus to the bottom, the a3 takes the following form

In the following sections, Eq. (16c′) (section modulus to the deck) and (17c′) (section modulus to the bottom) are used
for collision damage instead of Eqs. (16c) and (17c).

4. Calculations of sample ships

Nine sample commercial ships are examined. Their principal dimensions are listed in Table 1. Eight of these vessels
were used by Wang et al. [2] in their studies.
These vessels (except for SHT1) were designed and built in the 1990s. All are in active service. Most of the designs
are optimized in terms of weight while satisfying rules of classification societies. One of them (SHT2) has heavier
scantlings than the class requirements because of the owner’s special requests.
The calculation results are summarized in Tables 2–4, which include the section modulus and ultimate strength,
directly calculated by using the derived formulae. The ultimate strength was calculated using ALPS/ISUM [3], and the
corresponding formulae were obtained through curve fitting.
As an example of the comparison of direct calculations and predictions using the new analytical formulae, Figs. 2 and
3 show the results for the double hull tanker DHT1 with grounding and collision damages, respectively. The marked
points are the results of direct calculations. The solid lines are obtained using the formulae Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17),
and the dashed lines are regressions of the calculated ultimate strengths.

Table 1
Principal dimensions of the eight sample ships

Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages 59

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Figs. 2 and 3 are for one vessel DHT1, but the other vessels generally follow the same trend. For grounding damage,
the following conclusions are drawn:
● The section modulus to the bottom is the most sensitive indicator of the bottom damage, followed by hull girder
ultimate strength for hogging, hull girder ultimate strength for sagging, and the section modulus to the deck is the least
sensitive (Fig. 2).
● A hull girder exhibits more reserve in the section modulus to the deck than in the hull girder ultimate strength for
sagging. On the other hand, the hull shows less reserve in the section modulus to the bottom than in the hull girder
ultimate strength for hogging.
● To evaluate the residual strength of a grounded ship, using the section modulus to the deck is less conservative than
using the hull girder ultimate strength under sagging; and using the section modulus to the bottom is more conservative
than using the hull girder ultimate strength for hogging.

For collision damage, the following conclusions are drawn:

● The section modulus to the deck is the most sensitive indicator of the side damage, and the section modulus to the
bottom is the least sensitive (Fig. 3). Hull girder ultimate strength for hogging and sagging fall in between these two
extremes.
● A hull girder exhibits less reserve in the section modulus to the deck than in the hull girder ultimate strength for
sagging. On the other hand, the hull shows more reserve in the section modulus to the bottom than in the hull girder
ultimate strength for hogging.
● To evaluate the residual strength of a collided ship, using the section modulus to the deck is more conservative than
using the hull girder ultimate strength under sagging; and using the section modulus to the bottom is less conservative
than using the hull girder ultimate strength for hogging.

60 Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Table 2
Residual hull girder section modulus of sample ships with grounding damage
(b is the damage width, and B is the ship’s width)

Table 3
Residual hull girder section modulus of sample ships with collision damage
(b is the damage extent, and D is the ship’s depth)

Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages 61

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Table 4
Residual hull girder ultimate strength of sample ships with grounding and collision damage
(b is the damage extent, B and D are the ship’s width and depth, respectively)

62 Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Thus, we have the following additional conclusions:

● The predictions using the derived formulae compare well with the direct calculations (Tables 2 and 3), which validates
the derived formulae of Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17).
● For a grounded ship, the dimensionless section modulii show a weak dependence on non-linear terms of the
dimensionless damage width. In Table 2, the relations of Wang et al. [2] for grounding damage are also included, all of
which are linear. Eq. (16) and Wang’s et al. linear equations [2] assess the same damages of the same vessels. The
predictions of this paper and [2] are close to each other.
● For a grounded ship, the residual hull girder strengths (section modulus to the deck and bottom, and ultimate strengths
for sagging and hogging) decrease almost linearly with the increase of damage width in the bottom shell (Fig. 2).
● For collision damage, the residual strengths (hull girder section modulii and hull girder ultimate strengths) decrease
quickly with the increase in damage extent (until about a 20–30% bottom loss) and then such decreases slow down
(Fig. 3), revealing a nonlinear dependence on the damage extent.

5. Residual strength of 67 commercial ships

Eqs. (12) and (13) (grounding) and Eqs. (16) and (17) (collision) are applied to a fleet of 67 commercial ships in total,
including 21 double hull tankers, 18 bulk carriers, 22 single hull tankers, and six container carriers. These ships were
built in the 1980s (most single hull tankers) and 1990s (all other ships). They are typical designs and typical sizes in ship
length and deadweight tons. They were built by shipyards in Asia, Europe and North America. Though limited in
number, this fleet is representative of commercial ships in service.
Tables 5–8 summarize the calculation results for the a coe cients in Eqs. (16) through Eqs. (17). In sequences, these
tables include double hull tankers, bulk carriers, single hull tankers, and container carriers. Mean values, standard
deviations, and coefficients of variation are calculated for the ten α’s used in Eqs. (16) (grounding) and (17) (collision).
For the grounding damage, the following conclusions may be drawn:

● The standard deviations of α’s are generally not big. These α’s are concentrated within a small neighborhood of their
mean values.
● The ship length exhibits little influence on the α’s. These α’s do not change much even when the ship length changes
from 150 to 400 m.
● It would be possible to use Eqs. (12) and (13) with common values of α’s to predict the residual strength of grounded
ships for a given ship type. These values of α’s may be the mean values of the analyzed ships.
● The ship type shows some influence on the values of α’s. Double hull tankers, bulk carriers and container carriers have
similar mean values of these α’s. However, single hull tankers have higher values of α’s; and bulk carriers have lower
values for the section modulus to the deck.
● A fitted inner bottom gives a ship more reserve in residual strength for grounding damage. This is reflected in that
double hull tankers, bulk carriers and container carriers, all of which have inner bottom, have α1 values of about
0.42 ~ 0.46 for the section modulus to the bottom, while single hull tankers have 0.69. A grounded vessel with no
inner bottom will see over 1.5 times the strength loss than if it were fitted with an inner bottom.

For the collision damage, the following conclusions may be drawn:

● The standard deviations of α’s are generally not big. These α’s are concentrated within a small neighborhood of their
mean values.
● The ship length exhibits little influence on the α’s. These α’s do not change much even when the ship length changes
from 150 to 400 m.
● It would be possible to use Eqs. (16) and (17) with common values of α’s to predict the residual strength of collided
ships for given ship type. These values of a’s may be the mean values of the analyzed ships.
● The ship type shows some influence on the values of these α’s. Container carriers have the highest values of the α’s for
section modulus to the deck, followed by bulk carriers; and single hull tankers have the lowest values for the section
modulus to the bottom.
● Container carriers have less reserve in residual strength for collision damage, while single hull tankers have relatively
more reserve.

Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages 63

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

There are some other aspects of the problem that are not covered in this paper, such as the asymmetry in the geometry
of a damaged ship, allowable stress, double bottom strength, shearing strength, etc. They also play a role if one analyzes
the structural safety of a ship with accidental damage.

6. Simple equations

The conclusions drawn from Tables 5–8 open a possibility of using uniform equations for commercial ships that are
functions of the ship type and do not depend on a ship’s principal dimensions. Therefore, the coefficient α’s are averaged
for a given ship type. Applying these values in Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17) gives simple equations which are
summarized in Table 9.

Table 5
a
Samples of 21 double hull tankers (coefficients of Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17))

64 Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Table 6
a
Samples of 18 bulk carriers (coefficients of Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17))

Table 7
a
Samples of 22 single hull tankers (coefficients of Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17))

Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages 65

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

Table 8
a
Samples of 6 container carriers (coefficients of Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17))

The formulae in Table 9 are handy tools with which one can approximately predict the residual strength in seconds.
Without performing step-by-step detailed calculations and even without structural drawings in hand, one can assess the
residual strength with a reasonable accuracy. This is an obvious advantage in emergency or salvage situations, when it is
critical to make timely decisions to save troubled ships or prevent pollution.

Table 9
Simple equations for predicting residual strength of commercial ships
(b is the damage extent, B and D are the ship’s width and depth, respectively)

7. Conclusions

This paper investigated the longitudinal strength of ships with damages due to grounding or collision accidents. Based
on a theoretical analysis, new formulae were derived for dimensionless hull girder strength that were expressed as
polynomial equations of dimensionless damage extent up to the cubic terms Eqs. (7) and (8).
These formulae were verified with direct calculations of sample commercial ships for a broad spectrum of collision
and grounding accidents. Hull girder ultimate strengths of these sample vessels under sagging and hogging conditions
were also calculated. Simple equations correlating residual strength with damage extent were shown.
To evaluate the residual strength of a grounded ship, using the section modulus to the deck would be less conservative,
while using the section modulus to the bottom would be conservative. On the contrary, to evaluate the residual strength
of a collided ship, using the section modulus to the deck would be conservative, while using the section modulus to the
bottom would be less conservative.

66 Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2002

The derived analytical formulae were then applied to a fleet of 67 commercial ships, including 21 double hull tankers,
18 bulk carriers, 22 single hull tankers, and six container carriers, all of which were built in the 1980s to 1990s and are
still in active service. The mean values, standard deviations and coefficients of variation for the coefficients in these new
analytical formulae Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17) were obtained. These coefficient α’s do not change much even when
the ship length changes from 150 to 400 m. The ship type shows some influence on these coefficients.
Uniform equations (Table 9) were proposed for predicting the residual strength of damaged hulls that are functions of
the ship type and do not depend on a ship’s principal dimensions. They were obtained by averaging the coefficient α’s for
a given ship type, and applying these values in Eqs. (12), (13), (16) and (17). The equations provided very handy tools
with which one can predict the residual strength in seconds, without performing step-by-step detailed calculations. This is
an obvious advantage in emergency or salvage situations, when it is critical to make timely decisions to save troubled
ships or prevent pollution.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank many colleagues who provided valuable comments, especially, D. Liu, J. Card, J. Spencer,
Y. Shin, G. Horn, L. Ivanov, J. Baxter, K. Tamura, M. Lee, and J. Qi. The authors are indebted to Ms. Jo Feuerbacher for
proofreading the manuscript.

References

[1] Paik JK, Thayamballi AK, Yang SH. Residual strength assessment of ships after collision and grounding. Marine
Technology 1998;35(1):38–54.
[2] Wang G, Chen Y, Zhang H, Shin Y. Residual strength of damaged ship hull. Ship Structure Symposium 2000 Ship
Structures for the New Millennium: Supporting Quality in Shipbuilding, 13, 14 June 2000, Arlington, VA, 2000.
[3] Paik JK, Thayamballi AK, Che JS. Ultimate strength of ship hulls under combined vertical bending, horizontal
bending, and shear forces, Transactions SNAME, 1996.
[4] Yao T, et al. Ultimate hull girder strength. ISSC 2000 Special Task Committee VI.2 Report. 14th International Ship
and Offshore Structure Congress 2000, 2–6 October. Nagasaki, Japan.
[5] ABS. Guide for Assessing Hull Girder Residual Strength, 1995.

Longitudinal Strength of Ships with Accidental Damages 67