Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13

Review article

Hull girder strength

Tetsuya Yao*
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering,
Osaka University, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan

Received 7 November 2001; accepted 18 September 2002

Abstract

Hull girder strength is the most fundamental strength of a ship structure. To assess the hull
girder strength, estimations of both extreme load which may act on the hull girder and the
capacity of the hull girder are necessary, and many research works have been performed from
this aspect. In the present review article, attention is focussed on the capacity of a ship hull
girder. At the beginning, a short historical review is given in relation to the research works on
hull girder strength, and some consideration is introduced on the ultimate hull girder strength
from the design aspect. Then, state of the art and the future direction of the research works on
hull girder strength are described.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Longitudinal bending; Ultimate hull girder strength; Buckling/plastic collapse; Progressive
collapse analysis; Strength assessment; Historical review; State of the art; Structural design; Future
research direction

1. Introduction

When the ship’s strength is assessed, it has been common to consider three
strengths, which are longitudinal strength, transverse strength and local strength.
Among these, longitudinal strength, that is hull girder strength, is the most
fundamental and important strength to ensure the safety of a ship structure.
It was Young who firstly tried to calculate the shear force and bending moment
distributions in a ship’s hull caused by distributed weights of the hull girder and
cargoes as well as distributed buoyancy force and wave force [1]. He assumed a wave

*Tel.: +81-6-6879-7583; fax: +81-6-6879-7594.

E-mail address: yao@naoe.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp (T. Yao).

0951-8339/03/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 1 - 8 3 3 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 2 - 7
2 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13

form to calculate the wave force and considered a ship’s hull as a beam subjected to
distributed loads. Young’s name is well known by Young’s modulus.
In the 1850s, Sir Isamberd designed a huge iron ship, Great Eastern, whose length
was nearly twice those of many ships at that time. It is reported that he applied the
Beam Theory to calculate the bending stress in the deck and the bottom plating, and
determined the plate thickness so that the plate does not break under tensile load [2].
In 1874, John [3] presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Institution of
Naval Architects. In his paper, John assumed a wave whose length is equal to the
ship’s length and calculated the bending stress applying the Beam Theory. The
calculated stress was compared with the breaking stress of the material, and the plate
thickness was determined from the condition that the plate does not break.
After John, methods of analyses to calculate the loads acting on a ship’s hull and
the structural responses have been much improved, and the design criterion has been
changed from the breaking strength of the material to the yielding, the buckling and
the ultimate strength, and recently fatigue strength is also being considered.
However, the fundamental concept proposed by John has not been changed until
now.
In the following chapters, at the beginning, a short historical review after John is
described since this is the first review article to deal with hull girder strength. Then,
consideration on ultimate hull girder strength from design viewpoint and state of the
art of the research are introduced on the basis of the ISSC report [4]. After these,
future direction on this subject and conclusions are shown, and the references after
the last ISSC report [4] are introduced.

2. Short historical review

2.1. Strength tests on actual ships

In September 1901, H.M.S. Cobra sank in a middle rough sea breaking in a

V-shape [2]. After this casualty, an investigation committee was established to find
out the cause of this casualty. As one of the research activities in this committee, a
series of strength test was conducted on Cobra’s sister ship, Wolf. This was the first
strength test carried out on actual ship. From the measured results, it was found that
some structural members had not effectively carried loads due to local panel
buckling and shear lag phenomenon [5].
The second strength test on actual ship was conducted on two destroyers, Preston
and Bruce, of the US Navy in 1930/1931. In case of the test on Wolf, only the elastic
response was measured. On the other hand, Preston and Bruce were loaded until they
collapsed under the sagging and the hogging condition, respectively. It was reported
that buckling collapse of the deck or bottom structure subjected to thrust led to the
overall collapse of the hull girder [6,7].
During the World War II, a series of strength tests were conducted on 16 ships
in USA to find out the cause of structural failure which occurred on many of the
 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13 3

war-time standard ships [8]. Some tests were related to the hull girder strength, and
the effectiveness of structural members on longitudinal strength was examined.
After the war, in 1949/1950, collapse test was conducted on an incomplete
destroyer, Albuera, in UK. After applying various loads in the elastic range, the
hogging load was applied until the hull collapsed by buckling in compression at the
bottom plating and in shear at the side shell plating [9].
After Albuera’s collapse test, no full-scale strength test has been carried out on real
ships regarding the ultimate hull girder strength. However, the collapse accident of
the hull girder can be regarded as a full-scale strength test when the loads acted on
the hull girder at collapse were known. MVs Energy Concentration [2], Ryoyo-maru
[10] and Nakhodka [11] are such cases.

2.2. Strength tests on girder models

Some collapse tests have been carried out on girders modelling a ship’s hull.
Sugimura et al. [12] carried out a collapse test on a 1/5-scale welded steel hull girder
model of a Nami class defence ship. Dow [13] also carried out a collapse test on 1/3-
scale welded steel hull girder model of a Leander class frigate. In both cases, sagging
bending moment was applied on the model, and the buckling of the deck and the
upper part of side shell plating led to the overall collapse of a cross-section.
Although the models were not precisely the scale model, Endo et al. [14] and Yao
et al. [15] conducted a series of collapse tests on hull girder models. Endo’s models
were those of fore-body hull girders of a bulk carrier, a container ship and an ore
carrier. Shear force and bending moment were applied simultaneously simulating a
slamming load, and the occurrence of buckling at the deck and yielding of the side
shell plating was the trigger for the overall collapse of a cross-section. Yao’s models
are those of a chip carrier, which were tested under sagging condition. Soon after the
occurrence of overall buckling of the deck as a stiffened plate and local buckling of
the upper side shell plating, the cross-section had collapsed.
Collapse tests on stiffened box girder models have also been carried out. The test
models were not the scale model of existing ship’s hulls, but useful data were
obtained with respect to the ultimate hull girder strength. Reckling [16] performed a
series of collapse tests on seven box-girder models under pure bending, and
Ostapenko [17] on three box-girder models applying combined bending, shear and
torsional loads. Nishihara [18] tested eight box-girder models representing a single-
hull tanker, a double-hull tanker, a bulk carrier and a container ship. Similar tests
were carried out by Mansour et al. [19] on two girder models applying distributed
lateral loads by air pressure through air-bags. One is to simulate collapse behaviour
of a single-hull tanker, and the other to simulate different collapse behaviour.

2.3. Calculation methods

2.3.1. Progressive collapse behaviour of hull girder under longitudinal bending

With the increase in the applied longitudinal bending moment, the structural
members composing a hull cross-section begin to collapse one by one due to
4 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13

buckling or yielding, and finally, the maximum capacity of the cross-section has been
attained. This implies that the behaviour of the structural members affects that of the
cross-section. To demonstrate this, results of calculation are introduced in Ref. [4].
Fig. 1(a) shows the average stress–average strain relationships of typical element on
the basis of different assumptions, and Fig. 1(b) the resulting bending moment–
curvature relationships calculated by the Smith’s method. Four fundamental cases
were considered, which are:
(a) elastic behaviour without buckling;
(b) elastic–perfectly plastic behaviour without buckling;
(c) yielding/buckling behaviour without strength reduction beyond the ultimate
strength; and
(d) yielding/buckling behaviour with strength reduction beyond the ultimate
strength (actual behaviour).
In Case (a), bending moment–curvature relationship is also linear. In Case (b), the
maximum capacity is the same under the sagging and the hogging conditions, and is
equal to the fully plastic bending moment of the cross-section.
On the other hand, in Case (c), behaviour is similar to that of Case (b), but the
maximum capacity in sagging is different from that in hogging. This is because the
buckling strength of the deck and the bottom is different from each other. Case (d) is
the actual case, and the capacity decreases after its maximum value has been
attained. Also in this case, the maximum capacity in sagging is different from that in
hogging.
It should be noticed that the order from (a) to (d) corresponds to the development
of the calculation method.

2.3.2. Caldwell’s method

The first attempt to calculate the ultimate hull girder strength was by Caldwell
[20]. He idealised the cross-section composed of stiffened panels as that composed of
panels with equivalent thickness. Then, he calculated the fully plastic bending
moment of the cross-section considering the influence of buckling. For the buckled
part, the yielding stress was multiplied by a strength reduction factor, the magnitude
of which was not clearly known at that time.
Caldwell’s method belongs to Case (c). As indicated in Fig. 1, the maximum
capacity is overestimated in Case (c) because the strength reduction of structural
members beyond their ultimate strength is assumed not to take place. This also
indicates that the maximum capacity is obtained after all the members attain their
ultimate strength state. However, in the real structure, this is not true, since bending
strain is linearly distributed towards the depth direction in the cross-section, and the
time at which the ultimate strength is attained in individual element differs each other.

2.3.3. Smith’s method

After Caldwell, more exact informations are obtained regarding the strength
reduction factor representing the influence of buckling. However, the problem
caused by the above-mentioned time lag had not been solved until Smith [21]
 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13 5

Fig. 1. Progressive collapse behaviour of hull girder under longitudinal bending; (a) Average stress-
average strain relationships; (b) Bending momen-currature relationships.
6 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13

proposed a simplified method, which is now commonly called the Smith’s method.
This method enables to perform progressive collapse analysis on the cross-section of
a hull girder subjected to longitudinal bending.
In Smith’s method, a cross-section is divided into small elements composed of
stiffener(s) and attached plating. At the beginning, the average stress–average strain
relationships of individual elements are derived under the axial load considering the
influences of yielding and buckling. Then, a progressive collapse analysis is
performed assuming that a plane cross-section remains plane and each element
behaves according to its average stress–average strain relationships.
After Smith, many research papers have been published, in which new methods
are proposed to constitute the average stress–average strain relationship of element
composed of stiffener(s) and attached plating.

2.3.4. Finite element method (FEM)

The FEM can also be a powerful method to perform progressive collapse analysis
on a hull girder. In 1983, ABS group [22] presented the first paper to apply the FEM
to this collapse analysis. They developed special elements such as orthotropic plate
element representing stiffened plate, and introduced the yielding condition in terms
of sectional forces to reduce the number of freedom of the calculated model. The
analyses were performed on 1 þ 1=2 holds model. DNV group also performed this
kind of progressive collapse analysis by the FEM employing specially developed
elements [23]. The analyses were performed on 1=2 þ 1=2 holds model and one-
frame-space model.
Generally speaking, hull girder is too huge to perform progressive collapse
analysis by the ordinary FEM, and some simplified methods are required. However,
it has become possible to perform the FEM analysis using ordinary elements, for
example, applying the computer code, LSDYNA-3D [11,24] although it is not
common to perform such analysis in the usual design stage.

2.3.5. Idealised structural unit method (ISUM)

An alternative method to perform progressive collapse analysis may be the ISUM,
which was originally proposed by Ueda [25] to perform progressive collapse
analysis on the transverse frame of a ship structure. Then, new elements have been
developed to perform progresive collapse analysis of a hull girder under longitudinal
bending [26]. Recently, more sophisticated elements are proposed and still under
development.
A more thorough historical review is given in Ref. [27].

3. Consideration from design aspect—introduction of ISSC report (I)

In Ref. [4], the hull girder strength is discussed from the present design aspect
referring to the unified International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)
requirements [28]. According to the requirements, section modulus and moment of
inertia of the hull girder cross-section have to satisfy certain conditions. Thirty-one
 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13 7

existing vessels were selected to investigate into the characteristics of hull girder
strength.
On four of the vessels, ultimate hull girder strength was evaluated as a benchmark
calculation by six different methods. The names in Remarks represent the methods
of analyses which correspond to those indicated in Table 2. Calculated results are
summarised in Table 1 together with design bending moments. It is seen that safety
factor under the hogging condition is higher than that under the sagging condition.
This is because, under the hogging condition, design bending moment is lower,
whereas hull girder strength is higher owing to the double bottom structure when
they are compared with those under the sagging condition.
Ultimate hull girder strength is very important when the safety of a ship structure
is considered. From this viewpoint, it is already recommended to evaluate the
ultimate hull girder strength in the rules of some classification societies.

4. State of the art—introduction of ISSC report (II)

According to the ISSC report [4], the existing methods to evaluate the ultimate
hull girder strength can be grouped into two, which are simple methods and
advanced methods. Simple methods are: (1) initial yielding; (2) elastic analysis; and
(3) assumed stress distribution. On the other hand, advanced methods are: (1)
progressive collapse analysis with idealised s–e curves; (2) progressive collapse
analysis with computed s–e curves; (3) ISUM; and (4) non-linear FEM.

4.1. Simple methods

Initial yielding implies that the ultimate hull girder strength can be approximated
by the initial yielding strength simply calculated by
MIY ¼ ZsY ; ð1Þ
where Z and sY are the elastic section modulus of the cross-section and the yielding
stress of the material. Also in the elastic analysis, Eq. (1) is used but sY is replaced by
the buckling strength of local panel or stiffened panel in the deck and/or bottom
structure.
Assumed stress distribution is the same as Caldwell’s method. When fully plastic
bending moment of the cross-section is calculated, yielding strength of the element
which comes in the compression side of the hull girder bending is replaced by its
ultimate strength in compression.

4.2. Advanced methods

Progressive collapse analyses with idealised and/or calculated s–e curves are
performed in general applying the Smith’s method. Various methods are proposed to
derive idealised or calculated average stress–average strain relationships up to now.
Some are theoretical and some are empirical. The stiffened plate elements collapse
 8

Table 1
Safety factor against ultimate hull girder strength
MOMENT ð:000 MNm Þ

DH Tanker SH Tanker Container ship Bulk carrier Remarks

Hog. Sag. Hog./Sag. Hog. Sag. Hog./Sag. Hog. Sag. Hog./Sag. Hog. Sag. Hog./Sag.

Mdesign Ms design 5.72 5.84 0.98 5.48 4.96 1.10 2.01 2.01 1.00 3.29 3.73 0.88
Mw rule 9.60 10.21 0.94 7.96 8.45 0.94 1.99 2.46 0.81 6.74 7.16 0.94
M total 15.32 16.05 0.95 13.44 13.41 1.00 4.00 4.47 0.89 10.04 10.89 0.92

Mult A 27.40 24.33 1.13 20.23 18.54 1.09 6.56 5.47 1.20 19.06 15.20 1.25 Chen
B 28.66 20.80 1.38 20.09 16.75 1.20 6.69 5.13 1.30 18.99 13.69 1.39 Cho
C 30.59 26.59 1.15 20.01 19.00 1.05 8.07 7.95 1.02 18.56 16.02 1.16 Masaoka
D 28.32 19.57 1.45 18.46 17.90 1.03 7.60 6.51 1.17 18.71 14.34 1.30 Rigo(1)
E 25.61 24.07 1.06 17.54 17.10 1.03 7.20 6.91 1.04 17.06 14.34 1.15 Rigo(2)
F 28.88 20.42 1.41 19.03 16.34 1.13 6.72 6.72 1.00 17.36 14.45 1.20 Yao
Mean 28.24 22.63 1.26 19.23 17.69 1.09 7.14 6.45 1.12 18.29 14.76 1.24
COV(%) 5.4 11.2 12.1 5.1 4.9 5.6 7.7 14.5 9.9 4.3 5.0 6.7
T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13

Safety factor 1.84 1.41 1.43 1.32 1.78 1.44 1.82 1.36

Note: (1) M total ¼ Ms design +Mw rule (Ref. Table 7.1 in Ref. [4]), (2) Mult: refer to Table 4.7–Table 4.10 in Ref. [4]. MUSl2 ; MUHl2 : with specified initial
deflection and welding residual stress), (3) COV ¼ Coefficient of variation, and (4) Safety factor ¼ MultðMeanÞ=M total:
Table 2
Assessment of available methods to evaluate ultimate hull girder strength in longitudinal bending
Capability Sample methods Advanced methods Consequence
of omitting
Initial yeilding Elastic analysis Assumed stress Progressive collapse Progressive collapse ISUM Non-linear capability
distribution analysis with analysis with FEM
idealised s–e curves calculated s–e curves

Corresponding methods — — Astrop Cho Dow Chem — —

in benchmark Rigo(2) Rigo(1) Yao Masaoka
calculations in Chapter 4 Scores

Plate buckling — 2 3 4 5 5 5 H
Stiffened plate — 2 3 3 5 3 5 H
buckling
Plate initial — 1 2 2 5 5 5 M
deflection
Stiffener initial — 1 3 3 5 3 5 M
deflection
Plate welding — 2 3 3 4 4 4 H
residual stress
Stiffener welding — 1 2 3 3 4 4 M
residual stress
Post-buckling — — — 3 5 5 5 H
behaviour
Multi–span–model — — — 2 5 5 5 M
M–S curve — — — 3 5 5 5 H
(collapse prediction)
Post-ultimate — — — 3 5 4 5 M
strength
T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13

Damage 2 2 2 3 5 3 5 —
Material modelling 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 —

Modelling/data 5 4 4 3 3 3 1 —
preparation
Analysis/ 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 —
checking results
Accuarcy/reliability 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 —
of results

Total (full score: 75) 15 19 30 43 67 56 63 —

Score: 1. not available, 2. poor ability, 3. inefficient accuracy, 4. acceptable, 5. excellent. Consequence of omitting capability: L. low, M. medium, and H. high.
9
10 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13

either by flexural buckling or stiffener tripping accompanied by localisation of

plastic deformation. So, the theoretical s–e relationship has to be the one that can
represent both collapse modes. Similarly, the data should include both collapse
modes to rationally derive empirical s–e relationship. Flexural buckling and stiffener
tripping have to be automatically distinguished according to the sizes of the local
panel and stiffeners in both methods.
When an ordinary FEM analysis is performed, the number of unknowns to be
solved is too huge and an implicit method cannot be applied in general. For this case,
it is common to apply an explicit method such as that used in the computer code,
LSDYNA-3D. Still the FEM analysis becomes a huge calculation.
An alternative method is the ISUM, which is very much suited for analyses of a
large-scaled structure such as a ship’s hull. However, the present ISUM cannot
represent the localisation of plastic deformation or stiffener tripping. New ISUM
element is now under development [29,30].

4.3. Assessment of available calculation methods

In the ISSC report [4], the methods introduced in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 are assessed
from the viewpoint of applicability. Each method was quantitatively graded with
respect to 15 capabilities by scoring 1–5. It was also done qualitatively by showing
the consequence of omitting capabilities by low, medium and high. The results are
shown in Table 2.
In this report, it is described that:
‘‘Of these methods, the method based on Initial Yielding is an empirical one.
Methods based on Elastic Analysis and Assumed Stress Distribution are direct
methods, whereas the remaining methods have the capability to trace out the full
sequence of progressive collapse behaviour of the hull girder. It is seen that the most
effective among all methods is the Progressive Collapse Analysis with Calculated s–e
Curves, that involves the use of numerical methods to determine the stress–strain
curves of individual plate and stiffened plate elements, which are then integrated
following the assumptions of simple beam theory in order to trace out the
progressive collapse curve. The ISUM may also be an efficient method, but more
rational elements have to be developed which can account the overall buckling as a
stiffened panel and the tripping of stiffeners as well as the localisation of yielding and
deformation in the post-ultimate strength range of individual structural members’’.

5. Future directions

The ultimate hull girder strength is the most important strength of ship structure.
It has become possible to evaluate the ultimate hull girder strength by performing the
ordinary nonlinear FEM analysis. However, the FEM analysis, at present, is still a
troublesome analysis which needs much efforts and computing time. Therefore,
more simple method is required to be developed.
 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13 11

One such method is the ISUM, and new ISUM elements are now under
development which enables to simulate the post-ultimate strength behaviour of
stiffened plating under thrust accompanied by localisation of plastic deformation
and deflection as well as stiffener tripping [30]. Such ISUM elements are hoped to be
used in the progressive collapse analysis of a hull girder under longitudinal bending.
An alternative method is the Smith’s method with more sophisticated average
stress–average strain relationships of elements. It is reported that the shape of
average stress–average strain relationship largely affects the ultimate hull girder
strength when the Smith’s method is applied [31]. From this viewpoint, it is very
important to determine stress–strain relationship of element in a simplified method
on the basis of a rational theoretical background.

6. Conclusions

This is the first review article on the hull girder strength. Because of this, a short
historical review was first described in relation to the research works on hull girder
strength. Then, the most recent ISSC report on hull girder strength was partly
introduced to show state of the art regarding the methods to evaluate the ultimate
hull girder strength as well as some considerations on the ultimate hull girder
strength of existing ships from design aspect.
The future direction of the research is also described emphasising the importance
to develop more sophisticated formulations both in the ISUM and the Smith’s
method.

7. Introduction to references

The following references are available after the last ISSC report [4].
In relation to the Smith’s method, influence of local pressure load is considered in
Ref. [32].
Newly developed average stress–average strain relationships are applied to assess
the ultimate longitudinal strength of Bulk Carriers in Ref. [33]. The influence of the
shape of average stress–average strain relationships on the moment–curvature
relationships of a hull girder is discussed in Refs. [31,34].
Ref. [35] deals with the assessment of ultimate longitudinal strength of aged single-
hull tankers on the basis of the calculated results by the FEM and the Smith’s
method.
Reliability analysis on ultimate hull girder strength is very important when the
safety of a ship structure is considered. This is performed in Refs. [36–38].
Ref. [39] deals with a post-ultimate strength behaviour of a hull girder on the basis
of a simple calculations applying the Plastic Mechanism Analysis and the Beam
Theory.
Another important hull girder strength is a torsional strength in case of a hull
girder with large openings such as container ships. Limit state analysis is performed
12 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13

in Ref. [40], and the evaluated torsional strength is compared with the design loads
given by the classification society rules.

References

[1] Timoshenko SP. History of strength of materials. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1953.
[2] Rutherford SE, Caldwell JB. Ultimate longitudinal strength of ships: a case study. SNAME Trans
1990;98:441–71.
[3] John WG. On the strength of iron ship. Trans Inst Naval Arch 1874;15:74–93.
[4] Yao T, et al. Ultimate hull girder strength. Proceedings of the 14th International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress (ISSC), Nagasaki, Japan, 2000. p. 321–91.
[5] Hoffmann GH. Analysis of Sir John Biles’s experiment on H.M.S. wolf, in the light of Piazker’s
theory. Trans Inst Naval Arch 1925;67:41–65.
[6] Kell CO. Investigation of structural characteristics of destroyers ‘‘Preston’’ and ‘‘Bruce’’. Part I—
Description. SNAME Trans 1931;39:35–64.
[7] Kell CO. Investigation of structural characteristics of destroyers ‘‘Preston’’ and ‘‘Bruce’’. Part II—
Analysis of data and results. SNAME Trans 1940;48:125–72.
[8] Vasta J. Lessons learnt from full-scale ship structural test. SNAME Trans 1958;66:165–243.
[9] Lang DW, Warren WG. Structural strength investigation of destroyer Albuera. Trans Inst Naval
Arch 1952;94:243–86.
[10] Yao T. Analysis of hull girder failure. In: On safety of aged ships. Report of DA-Working Group.
Soc Naval Arch Jpn, Ohtsubo, H. (Ed.), 1995. p. 140–6 (in Japanese).
[11] Japan Ministry of Transport. Report on the investigation of causes of the casualty of Nakhodka. The
committee for the Investigation on causes of the casualty of Nakhodka, 1997.
[12] Sugimura T, Nozaki M, Suzuki T. Destructive experiment of ship hull model under longitudinal
bending. J Soc Naval Arch Jpn 1966;119:209–20 (in Japanese).
[13] Dow RS. Testing and analysis of 1/3-scale welded steel frigate model. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Advances in Marine Structures, ARE, Dunfermline, Scotland, 1991.
p. 749–73.
[14] Endo H, Tanaka Y, Aoki G, Inoue H, Yamamoto Y. Longitudinal strength of the fore body of ships
suffering from slamming. J Soc Naval Arch Jpn 1988;163:322–33 (in Japanese).
[15] Yao T, Fujikubo M. Yanagihara D, Fujii I, Matrui R, Furui N, Kuwamura Y. Buckling collapse
strength of chip carrier under longitudinal bending (1st Report)—collapse test on 1/10-scale hull
girder model under pure bending. J Soc Naval Arch Jpn 2002;191:265–74 (in Japanese).
[16] Reckling KA. Behaviour of box girders under bending and shear. Proceedings of the ISSC, Paris,
France, 1979. p. II.2.46–9.
[17] Ostapenko A. Strength of ship hull girders under moment, shear and torque. Proceedings of the SSC-
SNAME Symposium on Extreme Loads Response, Arlington, USA, 1981. p. 149–66.
[18] Nishihara S. Analysis of ultimate strength of stiffened rectangular plate (4th Report)—on the
ultimate bending moment of ship hull girder. J Soc Naval Arch Jpn 1983;154:367–75 (in Japanese).
[19] Mansour AE, Lin YH, Paik JK. Ultimate strength of ships under combined vertical and horizontal
moments. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on PRADS, Seoul, Korea, 1995.
p. 2.844–51.
[20] Caldwell JB. Ultimate longitudinal strength. Trans RINA 1965;107:411–30.
[21] Smith CS. Influence of local compressive failure on ultimate longitudinal strength of a ship’s hull.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on PRADS, Tokyo, Japan, 1977. p. 73–9.
[22] Chen KY, Kutt LM, Piaszczyk CM, Bieniek MP. Ultimate strength of ship structures. SNAME
Trans 1983;91:149–68.
[23] Valsgaard S, Jorgensen L, Boe AA, Thorkildsen H. Ultimate hull girder strength margins and present
class requirements. Proceedings of the SNAME Symposium on Marine Structural Inspection,
Maintenance and Monitoring, Arlington, USA, 1991. p. B.1–19.
 T. Yao / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 1–13 13

[24] Japan Shipbuilding Research Association (JSRA). Investigation into structural safety of aged ships.
Report of No. 74 Rule and Regulation Panel, 1999:35–50 (in Japanese).
[25] Ueda Y, Rashed SMH. The idealized structural unit method and its application to deep girder
structures. Comput Struct 1984;18(2):227–93.
[26] Paik JK, Thayamballi AK, Che JS. Ultimate strength of ship hulls under combined vertical bending,
horizontal bending and shearing forces. SNAME Trans 1996;104:31–59.
[27] Yao T. Ultimate longitudinal strength of ship hull girder; historical review and state of the art. Int
J Offshore Polar Eng 1999;9(1):1–9.
[28] Nitta A, Arai H, Magaino A. Basis of IACS unified longitudinal strength standard. Mar Struct
1985;5(1):1–21.
[29] Fujikubo M, Kaeding P, Yao T. ISUM rectangular plate element with new lateral shape function (1st
Report)—longitudinal and transverse thrust. J Soc Naval Arch Jpn 2000;187:209–19.
[30] Fujikubo M, Kaeding P. ISUM rectangular plate element with new lateral shape function (2nd
Report)—stiffened plates under biaxial thrust. J Soc Naval Arch Jpn 2000;188:479–87.
[31] Rigo P, Toderan C, Yao T. Sensitivity analysis on ultimate hull bending moment. Proceedings of the
Eighth PRADS, Shanghai, China, 2001:987–95.
[32] Yao T, Fujikubo M, Khedmati MR. Progressive collapse analysis of a ship’s hull girder under
longitudinal bending considering local pressure loads. J Soc Naval Arch Jpn 2000;188:507–15.
[33] Hu Y, Zhang A, Sun J. Analysis on the ultimate longitudinal strength of a bulk carrier by using a
simplified method. Mar Struct 2001;14(3):311–30.
[34] Paradillon JY, Quesnel T, Toderan C, Rigo P. Ultimate strength of longitudinally stiffened
panels: multi-criteria comparative analysis. Proceedings of the Eighth PRADS, Shanghai, China,
2001: 1029–35.
[35] Ikeda A, Yao T, Kitamura O, Yamamoto M, Yoneda M, Ohtsubo H. Assessment of ultimate
longitudinal strength of aged tankers. Proceedings of the Eighth PRADS, Shanghai, China, 2001:
997–1003.
[36] Masaoka K, Talavera AL, Tsukamoto Y, Okad H. Ultimate strength and its reliability analysis of
ship longitudinal bending using numerical database. J Kansai Soc Naval Arch 2000;233:115–21
(in Japanese).
[37] Das PK, Dow RS. Reliability analysis of a naval hull girder under extreme load. Ship Technol Res
2000;47(4):186–96.
[38] Sun HH, Bai Y. Ultimate strength and reliability assessment for the ship hull girders used in ISSC-
2000 benchmark study. Proceedings of the Eighth PRADS, Shanghai, China, 2001:1005–12.
[39] Egorov GV, Kozlyakov VV. An assessment of the ultimate plastic strength of the ship’s aged hull.
Proceedings of the Eighth PRADS, Shanghai, China, 2001:1013–19.
[40] Hu Y, Chen B. Limit state of torsion of ship hulls with large hatch openings. J Ship Res 2001;
45(2):95–102.