(Invited lecture)
R. E. D. BISHOP*
A SURVEY OF STRENGTH CALCULATIONS FOR SHIP HULLS
S U M M A R Y : A n elementaor introduction is given to, and a
survey is made of, practical methods employed for estimating the
strength of ships. The evolution of techniques is described, showing
their developmentfrom the statics of a rigid body to the dynamic
anal,sis of an elastic body subjea to random loading. The need
for basic research on the side of structural dynamics is pointed
out.
1. Introduction.
Many types of loading are applied to ship hulls, and
Fig. 1 gives some idea of the range of possibilities. It is
therefore understandable that a practical strength calcula-
tion for a ship can never be complete. Considerable emphasis
has to be given to the process of idealisation prior to ana-
lysis and, for the sake of definiteness, we shall here restrict
our attention to ships that are under way at sea. (Docking,
launching, collision, grounding, ... , all raise special prob-
lems of their own).
Some hull stresses are essentially localised. Those asso-
ciated with the support o f a concentrated weight, with the
thrust of a propeller, with the hydrodynamic forces ap-
plied to a rudder, ..., are cases in point. )t ship's hull raises
many structural problems of this sort and their elucidation
may be referred to as "unit analysis". The high natural
frequencies of the units concerned (in relation to the driv-
ing frequency of any forced excitation that may exist) mean
that many problems of unit analysis can decently be dealt
with by Statics [1].
There are certain problems, however, where dynamical
effects matter. They are mainly connected with motion
of the propeller and so are usually associated with the after
end of the ship. That these are unit (i.e. localised) problems
is of course determined by the frequency of excitation,
which is commonly the "blade frequency".
Not all propeller induced vibration is localised, however.
It has been found that gross (i.e. overall) distortion may
arise from that particular source [2]. But this latter phe-
nomenon is recognisable by the frequency of vibration,
and steps can be taken to avoid resonance - - at least in
principle they can.
Overall distortions of the hull can in fact be static or
dynamic. The static distortion arises from differences of
load distribution and from built-in stresses, and it exists
* Kennedy Professor of Mechanical Engineering in London
University; Fellow of University College London.
SPECIAL ISSUE 1972
even in a flat calm sea. Aside from propeller excitation, the
overall dynamic distortions arise from wave loading and
are essentially a matter of random excitation. It is to this
last problem that this survey principally relates. There is
at least some justification for assuming that enough is
known about unit analysis and about propeller excitation
for the important practical problems to be identified (and
even solved, if only approximately).
The loading action of waves on a ship is normally a con-
tinuous random process. There is an important special
case however which is usually associated with emergence
of the bows from the water; re-entry may then be impactive
and the whole hull subjected to a transient vibration as a
consequence. This behaviour is known as "slamming". It
can usually be alleviated by reduction of speed and its
study is a specialised branch of naval architecture [3].
The purpose of this lecture is to give a brief survey of
the practical techniques available for estimating the overall
strength o f a hull in the absence of slamming. As we shall
see this is a matter of very great interest at present, since
very large modern ships (which are not normally subject
to slamming) are beginning to raise serious questions as
to their ability to withstand passage through heavy seas.
2. T h e statics o f a r i g i d ship.
_A ship hull.is normally treated as a beam with a vertical
plane of symmetry. Its strength is estimated for both sym-
metric and antisymmetric loading.
Consider first the symmetric loading; it stresses the beam
in bending. Fig. 2(a) shows the beam in still water. The
weight and buoyancy forces applied to it are shown in
Fig. 3. The distributed net vertical force per unit length
may be obtained by subtraction, and hence shear force
and bending moment curves found. The appropriate
"nominal" stresses can then be determined by one of the
procedures of beam analysis.
It is not suggested that a technique like this would ever
be one and it is not surprising that early calculations of
ship strength sought to "correct" the foregoing static ana-
lysis for dynamic effects.
Suppose the vessel traverses trochoidal waves whose
length is equal to its own. Figs. 2(b) and 2(c) show the ship
when a wave trough and a wave crest are amidships. The
corresponding buoyancy curves are shown in Fig. 3. F o r
each of these two cases a curve of net vertical force per unit
length can be found and, hence, stresses deduced. (The
areas under all the curves of Fig. 3 are equal because equi-
librium in the vertical direction is assumed to be preserved).
9
 EXTERNAL ,,FORCES
I ....... i
I I I
BOTTOM REACTION
I i
INERTIA MISCELLANEOUS
GRAVITY PROPULSOR FLUID
TORQUE
WEIGHT OF: --& COLLISICN
THRUST
DARE HULL
t I I I MJNES
BARE PAYLOAD ICE PROPULSOR
HULL & UNDERWATER
& STORES
MACHINERY It EXpL~JSlONS
MACHINERY
EQUIPMENT I
LAUNCHING
I
DOCKING
I
GROUNDING
I
SEA-BED I FIRING
PAYLOAD SUPPORTS I I I WEAPONS
FIXED MOVABLE SLOSHING
HUMANS ~, THEIR TETHERING
IMPEDIMENTA
I I TOWING
tEE LACK ,S)F GYROSCOPIC
I BALANCE JACKING
TRAPPED WATER HYDROSTATIC HYDRODYNAMIC WIN.__O (E ACV GN
G~qOUND)
CONSUMABLE ITEMS : WATER I
CIJSHION LANDING ,~
FUEL (ACV) LAUNC~;~,G
WATER OF ~/C
STORES I I I t FENDE~NG
STEADY UNS"(E ADY IM,PA(:TIVE W~VES PERIODIC

HULL HULL SLAMIv~ING PROPELLER

HYDROFOILS hYDROFOILS POUNDING

CONTROL CONTROL CAVITATION

SURFACES SURFACES

STABILISERS

Fig. 1 - Sources of loading of a ship's hull.

In this way an attempt is made to find "worst cases" of
bending [1] [3]. The nominal stresses so found give some
idea of the worst that can arise in the structure, though a
strict assessment of their real importance would again
raise questions of stress concentrations, of fabrication stres-
ses, of metallurgical behaviour and so forth. In practice the
worst nominal stresses allowed are usually of the order
of 9 tons/in2 for mild steel with a yield point of about
21 tons/in s. The nominal stresses are used as a general
guide to the designer, who is able to compare them with
the corresponding results for previous satisfactory (and
unsatisfactory) designs of similar ships.
This is the basis of what might be termed the "classical"
approach to the calculation of ship strength. In practice
the calculations may be refined considerably, both as regards
the postulated loading and the type of beam analysis [1] [3].
But the object of the calculations remains merely to tell
the designer "where he is" in a useful, but rough and ready,
manner. They provide a reasonable way round a problem
of great inherent difficulty.
This approach to the "longitudinal strength calculation"
is certainly adequate for most ships and it has been very
widely adopted. It was in use by Lloyd's Register of Ship-
ping, for example, in 1874 [4] and (with many modifica-
tions) remained so until at least 1958 [5].
Hull loading by waves on the sea introduces the problem
of antisymmetric loading. Lateral bending is caused by
oblique waves and, the properties of shear centres being
what they are, this is accompanied by twisting. As with
longitudinal strength, suitable quasi-static calculations have
been devised for the antisymmetric effects, based on em-
pirical assumptions [1] [3].
The literature on ship structures is colossal. It is care-
fully and systematically reviewed by committees of the
International Ship Structures Congresses, the proceedings
of which are really essential reading in this field [6]. Con-

(b)
, I

Fig. 2. - Vessel in (a) still water; (b) sagging; (c) hogging; Fig. 3. - Distribution of vertical forces corresponding to con-
conditions. ditions of Fig. 2.

10 MECCANICA
temporary ship structural analysis is to some extent still
based on the techniques that have been outlined here and
some idea of its complexity may be had from reference [6].
3. "Rigid ship" analysis.
Even with a correction for dynamic effects, the statics of a
rigid ship is clearly open to several serious objections. It is
to be expected that a real ship will respond to waves in
modes, that each mode separately is capable of being
brought to resonance, that coincidence of the encounter
frequency of the waves with a natural frequency of the
ship will usually produce large motions. It is of course to
be expected that resonant motion will be limited by damp-
ing forces that may arise in the structure and from the
action of the water. None of these factors are countenanced
in the foregoing static theory.
Since about 1960 the static analysis of a rigid ship has
gradually been supplanted by dynamic analysis of a rigid
ship. This change of emphasis is of considerable theore-
tical interest. To explain it, it is necessary to digress.
The last 15 to 20 years have seen the emergence of the
study of " seakeeping" [7]. Seakeeping analysis is concer-
ned with the motions of a ship, assumed rigid, in a random
sea and results obtained in that field are now used in cal-
culations of hull strength in a manner that will next be
explained.
So far as linear theory is concerned, small parasitic
motions of a rigid hull about a steady uniform motion are
described kinematically in terms of surge, drift, heave,
roll, pitch and yaw. Appropriate generalised coordinates
for these six motions may be arranged in the form of a
column matrix q governed by six simultaneous equations
that are in practice coupled in two groups of three as a
result of symmetry and antisymmetry and are of the form
Aq+B¢ I+Cq=Q (t).
Here A, B, C are 6 × 6 matrices of "inertia", "damping"
and "stiffness", all consisting of structural and fluid con-
tributions (the latter being frequency dependent if q varies
sinusoidatly). The column vector of generalised forces
Q(t) represents the excitation by the sea. Notice that, as the
six degrees of freedom, those six principal modes of the
dry hull are used which have zero natural frequency. Mo-
reover, typically, it is the fluid forces which couple the
corresponding equations of motion.
Consider a two dimensional wave train of unit amplitude,
frequency of encounter co, and relative angle ~ (see Fig. 4).
For it, we may specify Q(t) and hence calculate q and hence
q and q. It follows that we may write down the gravity,
buoyancy and inertia forces for any transverse slice of the
hull. This makes it possible to calculate vertical and ho-
rizontal bending moment and shear force and also twisting
moment for any section of the hull, all "per unit wave
amplitude" and all "for the given frequency toe and wave
angle ~".
Let us take vertical bending moment 2]/I at any section
as an example. The foregoing analysis gives the transfer
function /-/Mg(c0e) for the given wave direction ~e; that is
to say it gives the (complex) bending moment at any sec-
tion due to an incident wave of unit amplitude. The one
SPECIAL ISSUE 1972
Fig. 4. - Ship moving with constant velocity in long crested
sinusoidal waves of unit amplitude.
sided mean square spectral density of M is then given
by [8]
a,,~,(~o,) = I ~,,,~(,o,) I~ a,~(,o,)
for the given ~:, where @(toe) is the one-dimensional en-
counter spectrum for a long crested sea. In effect •(00e)
embodies the oceanographer's contribution to ship strength
calculations and, as one might expect, such quantities are
the subject of much careful thought; see Committee t
report in Ref. [6], for example. If the bending moment
is a narrow band random process (because the motion is
lightly damped and capable of being brought to resonance),
then the bending moment in question will possess a
Rayleigh probability density function [8] and we may
calculate the probability of M exceeding some specified
value. The convention has grown up of determining the
minimum plate thickness of a hull so as to be capable
of resisting such a value of the bending moment as is likely
to be applied once in the lifetime of the ship, i.e. a bending
moment the probability of exceeding which is about 10 -8.
The beginnings of this type of analysis can be traced back
to the 1950s. But the approach has been in everyday use
for a relatively short time. (An interesting example of the
technique, in action so to speak, appears in a recent paper
on a new generation of container ships [9]). Murray [10]
described the technique, as the basis of the prevailing
Lloyd's Register thinking, in 1965 and at that time the
transfer functions, such as HM~(toe), were mainly deter-
mined by model testing. Since then seakeeping theory
(whose object is the calculation of the motions q as random
processes) has been very greatly advanced, largely by Ger-
ritsma and his co-workers in Delft, to the point where
theory and model tests now agree fairly well [3].
Just as the static analysis of a rigid ship is fundamentally
a clever approach to a very difficult problen-, so too is the
dynamics of a rigid ship. Philosophically the advance
from the former to the latter was huge, but it has only been
made at the expense of much greater complication. The
added complexity relates mainly to the representation of the
fluid forces and this aspect is apparently becoming do-
rninated by strip theory [3] [7]. But the assumptions that
have to be made (particularly those demanded by strip
theory) are sweeping indeed.
11
4. W a v e - e x c i t e d h u l l vibration.
By the mid 1960s, several instances had been reported of
significant wave-excited hull vibrations [11] [12]. The
motion is sometimes distinguished by a special name
(viz. "springing" or "whipping") and is apparently to be
observed only in large hulls. There is also evidence to sug-
gest that wave-excited vibration usually occurs principally
in the 2-node mode of vibration in the vertical plane of
hull symmetry.
Fig. 5 is adapted from a paper by Goodman 113] and it
illustrates xvhy wave induced vibration has become a
problem and why that problem can be expected to become
more serious as hull size is increased. The curve shows
a standard encounter spectrum #~(co,,) for a ship making
16 knots in a head sea(l). Typical frequencies o f the 2-node
symmetric mode are marked for a number of tanker dead-
weight tonnages. We see that as the ship deadweight in-
creases so the appropriate resonance frequencies are moved
further into the significant region of the sea spectrum.
Wave excited vibration cannot be treated as a vibration
with a mere nuisance value. It throws the question of hull
strength under conditions of fluctuating stress in sharper
perspective because of the possibility of dynamic magni-
fication. It is mentioned by T o d d [2] that two sister ships
has resonant magnification factors (i.e. Q factors) in the
2 node vertical symmetric mode of:
68 (riveted hull) and
132 (welded hull).
N o doubt one should not take such figures literally - - un-
fortunately damping forces are like that - - but the message
is clear. It is that resonance is potentially serious.
Unfortunately this vibration lies outside the scope of
the rigid ship theory. Methods of coping with this new
situation have therefore been proposed by Goodman [13]
and van Gunsteren [14]. These writers regard the vibration
problem as essentially something to be "added" to the rigid
ship analysis. Both consider the excitation of the modes of
a ship, treated as an elastic beam, by a random sea. These
two papers are particularly relevant to the present discus-
sion and both are significant contributions to ship structural
dynamics. In general approach they have much in common
and it is worthwhile to dwell on them briefly.
As already mentioned, these papers are concerned only
with responses in distortion modes as distinct from motions
that are commonly thought of as "rigid", but are not so
in fact (i.e. heave and pitch). In dealing with the distortions,
the authors adopt the conventional theory of beam vi-
bration and allow for the effects of "added mass" and
damping, using strip theory. But in extracting the modes
(z) For the reader who has a specialist interest in statistical
theory, curves like this were adopted by Committee 1 of the
Ship Structures Congress [6] and details of the one shown
are:
significant wave height, h~/z = 4.O/too = 10 ft
average period at zero crossings, T = 2~/(mo/m2) = 6 sec
where me, m2 are the area and second moment of the spectral
density curve.
12
¢~:(+Je)
(it2 +,ec)
?
6
500,000 D~/T
5
200,000 Di~
50,000 D~£
3
2
1
°O..5 ' I I -r
1.0 2.0 3.0 ~ .0 5.0
Fig. 5. - A standard sea encounter spectrum showing the na-
tural frequencies of a 2-node symmetric vibration of various
sizes of tanker (showing appropriate deadweight tonnages,)
after Goodman [13].
they treat the system as if it is a passive one in the familiar
sense described in books on mechanical vibration [15].
The position may thus be summed up as follows: Starting
at co = 0 in a spectrum like that of Fig. 5 and attempting
to estimate responses (and hence bending moments, shear
forces and torsion), one would
a) investigate surge, drift, heave, roll, pitch and yaw
under the assumption of no distortion,
b) change to a new form of approximation to the modes
to proceed to higher frequencies (and so to get away from
the hump in the sea spectrum).
This theoretical approach may very well suffice provided
the dominant frequencies of the six "rigid" motions are
sufficiently removed from the lowest dominant frequency
of distortion. But it seems questionable whether such a
level o f empiricism will survive for very long, if only
because it seems to leave many obscurities.
5. T h e o r e t i c a l considerations.
The contemporary position as outlined above is one of
some interest from a purely theoretical point of view.
While the writer may well have missed one, the fact is
that he has never seen any suggestion that the dynamics of
a flexible ship in a seaway could be tackled in any other
fashion. It has become second nature to the naval architect
to regard ships as rigid in seakeeping analysis. This un-
doubtedly simplifies that anlilysis very considerably. But
it is not obvious that the arbitrary modes (i.e. the rigid body
motions) that are most suitable for seakeeping are the best
for other purposes.
To digress briefly, the writer's interest in this situation is
heightened by experience with the dynamics of rotating
shafts. It is usual for an engineer to think in terms of
"static" and "dynamic" balancing of a shaft in a balancing
machine, as if that shaft were rigid. I f in fact the shaft is
flexible and is going to run through (or near) one o f its
critical speeds, then strictly speaking static and dynamic
MECCANICA
balancing are irrelevant and unnecessary and a technique
of "modal balancing" is then called for.
The modes attributable to a rigid rotor are not possessed
by a flexible rotor. In other words, if static and dynamic
balancing is practised on a flexible rotor, then the proce-
dure o f balancing the various higher (distortion) modes is
complicated by the necessity of not upsetting the previously
acquired static and dynamic balancing and yet not posses-
sing a simple orthogonality condition to make this pos-
sible. This has in fact formed the basis o f some controversy
in the literature [16]. One wonders if there is scope for
controversy in the present context of ship strength - - for
a flexible ship does not possess the rigid modes of the dry
hull. While it is quite permissible to use a mixture of ar-
bitrary modes (i.e. rigid modes) and natural modes, the
advisability of proceeding in this way seems open to
question.
A t present our understanding of hull dynamics appears
to be fundamentally deficient. Let us examine some of the
questions that cannot be answered at present:
1) Would a knowledge o f the heave mode be helpful
in focusing attention on a particular location within a hull
where extra care is needed over stress concentration?
2) What are the spacings between resonance frequencies
(of heave, pitch and the two-node symmetric modes, for
instance) and what does closeness imply?
3) H o w large can resonant distortion stresses be in
heaving and pitching? What part does cargo damping
play?
4) How close to the maximum of the sea encounter
spectrum do heaving and pitching take us (see Fig. 5)?
5) What modes other than the two-node symmetric
mode are a potential hazard?
6) H o w reliable are estimates that are made on the basis
o f nonlinear theory (for the effects on bending moment in
the vertical plane of bow flare, for example) by dealing
with one mode at a time?
All these questions, and others like them, seem to be
sensible and worthwhile. If the trend that is illustrated in
Fig. 5 continues (as it will), then satisfactory and scholarly
answers will presumably have to be found one day. If they
are not sensible and worthwhile questions then surely the
reasons why they are not should be exposed.
6. P r a c t i c a l s t r e n g t h analysis.
It is at once clear that the sort of calculations that we have
been discussing would be very difficult to make with any
accuracy. What sea spectra should be used? What sort of
life will a given hull lead and, in particular, how much
consideration will the master have for his ship ? H o w much
alleviation of wave induced vibration can be counted on
from cargo damping? These and other imponderables will
inevitably remain and will presumably have to be kept
always under close scrutiny. There are however one or two
SPECIAL ISSUE 1972
matters which seem to demand special attention at this
time and it is perhaps of interest to mention one or two.
As we have seen, the stress system at any point consists
of a steady and a fluctuating portion. Even assuming that
the steady stress can be estimated adequately closely and
that the fluctuating stresses can be analysed by a modal ap-
proach, we are still left with an awkward problem. H o w
does the combination of modal contributions vary in space
throughout the structure and in time?
A second major source of misgivings relates to the pro-
perties of materials. Fatigue damage is not considered in
present day calculations of hull strength, so far as the
writer knows. N o w fatigue is known to be associated with
cyclic plastic deformation and this undoubtedly takes place.
In large welded structures there are inevitably sharp crack-
like defects present in the welded joints prior to service.
In service these small defects can be expected to increase
and crack growth will occur. In a welded structure that
operates in a corrosive environment such as the sea the
situation is more serious, as the rate at which fatigue cracks
grow will then be increased.
The potential severity of this situation may be seen from
the statement [17] that, when corrosion acts together with
fatigue, there is no endurance limit. No-one really knows
how important this point is in practice. It may merely mean
that welded joints are likely to grow defects that are of
geographically limited extent and which can reasonably
be repaired when necessary during overhauls. The present
situation is essentially one of ignorance and it is worth
noting that if this attitude to damage of welds is indeed
justified, then particular attention will have to be paid to
design for higher strength steels. In general fatigue crack
growth rate goes up, and the crack size that is critical from
the aspect of brittle fracture goes down, as yield strength
is increased.
It is indeed quite possible that so far the day has been
saved by the accommodating properties o f mild steel. It
seems most unlikely that considerations of cumulative
damage can be avoided much longer where the strength
of ship hulls is concerned.
7. Conclusions.
It is now freely predicted that in ten years' time tankers,
bulk carriers, liquid methane carriers and container ships
will be nmch larger than they are at present. T o build them
in our present state of ignorance would, the writer suggests,
be to invite t r o u b l e . . A s dj,nam#s, present analysis o f hull
strength is both crude and circuitous. In particular, the
semi-empiricism of rigid ship dynamics (which is admit-
tedly a great advance on what went before it) places re-
sponses in the seakeeping modes on a different footing
from the responses in the natural modes. Yet even if those
responses could be adequately elucidated and steady com-
ponents found, the metallurgical problems that would still
remain are great indeed.
13
 REFERENCES
[1 ] K. J. RAWSONand E. G. TUVVER,Basic Ship Theory, Long-
mans, 1968.
[2] F. H. TODD, Ship HulI Vibration, Edward Arnold, 1961.
[3] J. P. COMS'rOCK(Editor), The Principles of Naval Architec-
ture, S.N.A.M.E., 1967.
[4] W. JOHN, On the Strength of Iron Ships, Trans. I.N.A.,
Vol. 15, pp. 74-93, 1874.
[5] J. M. MURRAY, Longitudinal Strength of Tankers, Trans.
N. E. Coast Insm. Engrs. and Shipbuilders, Vol. 75,
pp. 39-56, 1958.
[6] Proe. 4th Internat. Ship Structures Congr., Oslo, 1967.
[7] KORVlN- B. V. KROUKOVSKY, Theory of Seakeeping,
S.N.A.M.E., 1961.
[8] J. D. ROBSON, A n Introdnction to Random Vihration, Edin-
burgh Univ. Press, sect. 4.3, 1963.
{9] M. MEEK, R. ADAMS, J. C. CHAr'MAN, H. REIREL and
P. WIESKE, The Strttclurat Design of the OCL Container
Ships, R.I.N.A. Spring Meeting, 1971.
[10] J. M. MURRAY, Fnrther Notes on the Strength of Tankers,
] 4-
Trans. N. E. Coast Insm. of Engrs and Shipbrs., Vol. 81,
pp. 261-280, 1965.
[11 ] S. T. M^THEWS,Main HnH Girder Loads on a Great Lakes
Bulk Carrier, S.N.A.M.E., Spring Meeting, Montreal,
1967.
[12] A. O. BELLand K. V. TAYLOR,IVave-Excited Hull VibraZion
Stresses. Measurements on a 47,000-ton Deadweight Tanker,
BSRA Report NS. 115, Nay. Arch. Rep. 41, 1966.
[13] R. A. GOODMAN,IWave-Excited Maiu Hnll Vibration in Large
Tankers and Bulk Carriers, The Naval Architect (Jour.
RINA), pp. 167-184, Apr. 197I.
[14] F. F. VAN GUNSTEREN,Springing. IVave-lndnced Ship Vibra-
tion, Internat. Shipbdg. Progress, Vol. 17, pp. 333-347,
1970.
[15] R. E. D. BIsHoP, G. M. L. GLAOWELLand S. MmHAELSON,
The ATatrix Analysis of Vibration, Cambridge University
Press, sect. 2.1, 1965.
[16] R. E. D. BISHOPand A. G. PARKINSON,On the Use of Ba-
lancing Machinesfor Flexible Rotors, ASME Vibrations Con-
ference, Toronto, 1971 (to be published).
[17] D. BIRCHON, The Use and Abuse of ASaterials in Ocean En-
gineering, Proc. I. Mech. E., Vol. 185, 1971.
MECCANICA