CHAPTER 18

Philippe Rigo and Enrico Rizzuto

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF SHIP STRUCTURE

18.1

NOMENCLATURE

18.2

For specific symbols, refer to the definitions

contained in the various sections.
ABS
BEM
BV
DNV
FEA
FEM
IACS

American Bureau of Shipping

Boundary Element Method
Bureau Veritas
Det Norske Veritas
Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element Method
International Association of Classification
Societies
ISSC International Ship & Offshore Structures
Congress
ISOPE International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference
ISUM Idealized Structural Unit method
NKK Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
PRADS Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units,
RINA Registro Italiano Navale
SNAME Society of naval Architects and marine
Engineers
SSC
Ship Structure Committee.
a
= acceleration
A
= area
B
= breadth of the ship
C
= wave coefficient (Table 18.I)
CB = hull block coefficient
D
= depth of the ship
g
= gravity acceleration
m(x) = longitudinal distribution of mass
I(x) = geometric moment of inertia (beam section x)
L
= length of the ship
M(x) = bending moment at section x of a beam
MT(x)= torque moment at section x of a beam
p
= pressure
q(x) = resultant of sectional force acting on a beam
T
= draught of the ship
V(x) = shear at section x of a beam
S,W (low case)= still water, wave induced component
V,H (low case)= vertical, horizontal component
w(x) = longitudinal distribution of weight

= roll angle

= density

= angular frequency

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to present the

fundamentals of direct ship structure analysis based on
mechanics and strength of materials. Such analysis
allows a rationally based design that is practical,
efficient, and versatile, and that has already been
implemented in a computer program, tested, and
proven.
Analysis and Design are two words that are
very often associated. Sometimes they are used
indifferently one for the other even if there are some
important differences between performing a design and
completing an analysis.
Analysis refers to stress and strength
assessment of the structure. Analysis requires
information on loads and needs an initial structural
scantling design. Output of the structural analysis is
the structural response defined in terms of stresses,
deflections and strength. Then, the estimated response
is compared to the design criteria. Results of this
comparison as well as the objective functions (weight,
cost, etc.) will show if updated (improved) scantlings
are required.
Design for structure refers to the process
followed to select the initial structural scantlings and to
update these scantlings from the early design stage
(bidding) to the detailed design stage (construction). To
perform analysis, initial design is needed and analysis
is required to design. This explains why design and
analysis are intimately linked, but are absolutely
different. Of course design also relates to topology and
layout definition.
The organization and framework of this
chapter are based on the previous edition of the Ship
Design and Construction (1) and on the Chapter IV of
Principles of Naval Architecture (2). Standard
materials such as beam model, twisting, shear lag, etc.
that are still valid in 2002 are partly duplicated from
these 2 books. Other major references used to write
this chapter are Ship Structural Design (3) also
published by SNAME and the DNV 99-0394 Technical
Report (4).
The present chapter is intimately linked with
Chapter 11 - Parametric Design, Chapter 17 Structural Components and with Chapter 19 Reliability-Based Structural Design. References to
these chapters will be made in order to avoid
duplications. In addition, as Chapter 8 deals with
classification societies, the present chapter will focus
mainly on the direct analysis methods available to

18-1

perform a rationally based structural design, even if

mention is made to standard formulations from Rules
to quantify design loads.
In the following sections of this chapter, steps
of a global analysis are presented. Section 18.3
concerns the loads that are necessary to perform a
structure analysis. Then, Sections 18.4, 18.5 and 18.6
concern, respectively, the stresses and deflections
(basic ship responses), the limit states, and the failures
modes and associated structural capacity. A review of
the available Numerical Analysis for Structural Design
is performed in Section 18.7. Finally Design Criteria
(Section 18.8) and Design Procedures (Section 18.9)
are discussed. Structural modeling is discussed in Subsection 18.2.2 and more extensively in Sub-section
18.7.2 for finite element analysis. Optimization is
treated in Sub-sections 18.7.6 and 18.9.4.
Ship structural design is a challenging
activity. Hence Hughes (3) states:
The complexities of modern ships
and the demand for greater reliability,
efficiency, and economy require a scientific,
powerful, and versatile method for their
structural design
But, even with the development of numerical
techniques, design still remains based on the
designers experience and on previous designs. There
are many designs that satisfy the strength criteria, but
there is only one that is the optimum solution (least
cost, weight, etc.).
Ship structural analysis and design is a matter
of compromises:
Compromise between accuracy and the
available time to perform the design. This
is particularly challenging at the
preliminary design stage. A 3D Finite
Element Method (FEM) analysis would be
welcome but the time is not available. For
that reason, rule-based design or
simplified numerical analysis has to be
performed.
To limit uncertainty and reduce
conservatism in design, it is important that
the design methods are accurate. On the
other hand, simplicity is necessary to
make repeated design analyses efficient.
The results from complex analyses should
be verified by simplified methods to avoid
errors and misinterpretation of results
(checks and balances).
Compromise between weight and cost or
compromise between least construction
cost, and global owner live cycle cost
(including operational cost, maintenance,
etc.).
Builder optimum design may be different
from the owner optimum design.

18.2.1

Rationally Based Structural Design versus

Rules-Based Design

There are basically two schools to perform

analysis and design of ship structure. The first one, the
oldest, is called rule-based design. It is mainly based
on the rules defined by the classification societies.
Hughes (3) states:
In the past, ship structural design
has been largely empirical, based on
accumulated experience and ship performance,
and expressed in the form of structural design
codes or rules published by the various ship
classification societies. These rules concern
the loads, the strength and the design criteria
and provide simplified and easy-to-use
formulas for the structural dimensions, or
"scantlings" of a ship. This approach saves
time in the design office and, since the ship
must obtain the approval of a classification
society, it also saves time in the approval
process.
The second school is the Rationally Based
Structural Design; it is based on direct analysis. O.W.
Hughes, who could be considered as a father of this
methodology, (3) further states:
There are several disadvantages to a
completely rulebook approach to design.
First, the modes of structural failure are
numerous, complex, and interdependent. With
such simplified formulas the margin against
failure remains unknown; thus one cannot
distinguish between structural adequacy and
over-adequacy. Second, and most important,
these formulas involve a number of simplifying
assumptions and can be used only within
certain limits. Outside of this range they may
be inaccurate.
For these reasons there is a general
trend toward direct structural analysis.
Even if direct calculation has always been
performed, design based on direct analysis only
became popular when numerical analysis methods
became available and were certified. Direct analysis
has become the standard procedure in aerospace, civil
engineering and partly in offshore industries. In ship
design, classification societies preferred to offer
updated rules resulting from numerical analysis
calibration. For the designer, even if the rules were
continuously changing, the design remained rulebased. There really were two different methodologies.
Hopefully, in 2002 this is no longer true. The
advantages of direct analysis are so obvious that
classification societies include, usually as an
alternative, a direct analysis procedure (numerical
packages based on the finite element method, see

18-2

Table 18.VIII, Sub-section 18.7.5.2). In addition, for

new vessel types or non-standard dimension, such
direct procedure is the only way to assess the structural
safety. Therefore it seems that the two schools have
started a long merging procedure. Classification
societies are now encouraging and contributing greatly
to the development of direct analysis and rationally
based methods. Ships are very complex structures
compared with other types of structures. They are
subject to a very wide range of loads in the harsh
environment of the sea. Progress in technologies
related to ship design and construction is being made
daily, at an unprecedented pace. A notable example is
the fact that the efforts of a majority of specialists
together with rapid advances in computer and software
technology have now made it possible to analyze
complex ship structures in a practical manner using
structural analysis techniques centering on FEM
analysis. The majority of ship designers strive to
develop rational and optimal designs based on direct
strength analysis methods using the latest technologies
in order to realize the shipowners requirements in the
best possible way.
When carrying out direct strength analysis in
order to verify the equivalence of structural strength
with rule requirements, it is necessary for the
classification society to clarify the strength that a hull
structure should have with respect to each of the
various steps taken in the analysis process, from load
estimation through to strength evaluation. In addition,
in order to make this a practical and effective method
of analysis, it is necessary to give careful consideration
to more rational and accurate methods of direct
strength analysis.
Based on recognition of this need, extensive
research has been conducted and a careful examination
made, regarding the strength evaluation of hull
structures. The results of this work have been
presented in papers and reports regarding direct
strength evaluation of hull structures (4,5).
The flow chart given in Figure 18.1 gives an
overview of the analysis as defined by a major
classification society.
Note that a rationally based design procedure
requires that all design decisions (objectives, criteria,
priorities, constraints) must be made before the
design starts. This is a major difficulty of this
approach.
18.2.2

Modeling and Analysis

General guidance on the modeling necessary

for the structural analysis is that the structural model
shall provide results suitable for performing buckling,
yield, fatigue and vibration assessment of the relevant
parts of the vessel. This is done by using a 3D model
of the whole ship, supported by one or more levels of
sub models.

Design Load
Direct Load Analysis
Stress Response
in Waves

Study on Ocean Waves

Effect on
operation

Wave Load Response

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

Wave impact load

Structural response analysis

Modeling technique

Direct structural
analysis

Investigation on
corrosion

Strength Assessment
Yield
strength

Buckling
strength

Ultimate
strength

Fatigue
strength

Figure 18.1 - Direct Structural Analysis Flow Chart

Several approaches may be applied such as a
detailed 3D model of the entire ship or coarse meshed
3D model supported by finer meshed sub models.
Coarse mesh can be used for determining
stress results suited for yielding and buckling control
but also to obtain the displacements to apply as
boundary conditions for sub models with the purpose
of determining the stress level in more detail.
Strength analysis covers yield (allowable
stress), buckling strength and ultimate strength checks
of the ship. In addition, specific analyses are requested
for fatigue (Sub-section 18.6.6), collision and
grounding (Sub-section 18.6.7) and vibration (Subsection 18.6.8). The hydrodynamic load model must
give a good representation of the wetted surface of the
ship, both with respect to geometry description and
with respect to hydrodynamic requirements. The mass
model, which is part of the hydrodynamic load model,
must ensure a proper description of local and global
moments of inertia around the global ship axes.
Ultimate hydrodynamic loads from the
hydrodynamic analysis should be combined with static
loads in order to form the basis for the yield, buckling
and ultimate strength checks. All the relevant load
conditions should be examined to ensure that all
dimensioning loads are correctly included. A flow
chart of strength analysis of global model and sub
models is shown in Figure 18.2.

18-3

come under detail design are similar from ship

to ship, and so in-service experience provides
a sound basis for their design. In fact,
because of the large number of such items it
would be inefficient to attempt to design all of
them from first principles. Instead it is
generally more efficient to use design codes
and standard designs that have been proven
by experience. In other words, detail design is
an area where a rule-based approach is very
appropriate, and the rules that are published
by the various ship classification societies
contain a great deal of useful information on
the design of local structure, structural
connections, and other structural details.

Structural drawings,
mass description and
loading conditions.

Verification
of model/
loads

Structural models
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

18.3

No

Strength Assessment
Yielding
Buckling
Ultimate Strength
etc.

Design
criteria

Figure 18.2 Strength Analysis Flow Chart (4)

18.2.3

Preliminary Design versus Detailed Design

For a ship structure, structural design consists

of two distinct levels: the Preliminary Design and the
Detailed Design about which Hughes (3) states:
The preliminary determines the
location, spacing, and scantlings of the
principal structural members. The detailed
design determines the geometry and scantlings
of local structure (brackets, connections,
cutouts, reinforcements, etc.).
Preliminary design has the greatest
influence on the structure design and hence is
the phase that offers very large potential
savings. This does not mean that detail design
is less important than preliminary design. Each
level is equally important for obtaining an
efficient, safe and reliable ship.
During the detailed design there also
are many benefits to be gained by applying
modern methods of engineering science, but the
applications are different from preliminary
design and the benefits are likewise different.
Since the items being designed are much
smaller it is possible to perform full-scale
testing, and since they are more repetitive it is
possible to obtain the benefits of mass
production, standardization and so on. In fact,
production aspects are of primary importance
in detail design.
Also, most of the structural items that

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 procedures and
practical methods for their evaluation will be
summarized.
18.3.1

Classification of Loads

18.3.1.1 Time Duration

Static loads: These are the loads experienced by the
ship in still water. They act with time duration well
above the range of sea wave periods. Being related to a
specific load condition, they have little and very slow
variations during a voyage (mainly due to changes in
the distribution of consumables on board) and they
vary significantly only during loading and unloading
operations.
Quasi-static loads: A second class of loads includes
those with a period corresponding to wave actions (3
to 15 seconds). Falling in this category are loads
directly induced by waves, but also those generated in
the same frequency range by motions of the ship
(inertial forces). These loads can be termed quasi-static
because the structural response is studied with static
models.
Dynamic loads: When studying responses with
frequency components close to the first structural
resonance modes, the dynamic properties of the
structure have to be considered. This applies to a few
types of periodic loads, generated by wave actions in
particular situations (springing) or by mechanical
excitation (main engine, propeller). Also transient
impulsive loads that excite free structural vibrations
(slamming, and in some cases sloshing loads) can be
classified in the same category.

18-4

High frequency loads: Loads at frequencies higher

than the first resonance modes (> 10-20 Hz) also are
present on ships: this kind of excitation, however,
involves more the study of noise propagation on board
than structural design.
Other loads: All other loads that do not fall in the
above mentioned categories and need specific models
can be generally grouped in this class. Among them
are thermal and accidental loads.
A large part of ship design is performed on
the basis of static and quasi-static loads, whose
prediction procedures are quite well established,
having been investigated for a long time. However,
specific and imposing requirements can arise for
particular ships due to the other load categories.
18.3.1.2 Local and global loads
Another traditional classification of loads is
based on the structural scheme adopted to study the
response.
Loads acting on the ship as a whole,
considered as a beam (hull girder), are named global or
primary loads and the ship structural response is
accordingly termed global or primary response (see
Sub-section 18.4.3).
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 bidimensional 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 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 10-8. 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 10-4 to 10-6.
In fatigue analyses (see Sub-section 18.6.6.2),
reference loads are often set with an exceeding
probability in the range 10-3 to 10-5, corresponding to
load cycles which, by effect of both amplitude and
frequency of occurrence, contribute more to the

18-5

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

These conditions impose constraints

distributions of qV, qH and mT.

on

the

VV (0) = VV (L) = M V (0) = M V (L) = 0

VH (0) = VH (L) = M H (0) = M H (L) = 0

Definition of Global Hull Girder Loads

[6]

M T (0) = M T (L) = 0

The global structural response of the ship is

studied with reference to a beam scheme (hull girder),
that is, a mono-dimensional 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:

Global loads for the verification of the hull

girder are obtained with a linear superimposition of
still water and wave-induced 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 vertical load qSV(x), obtained as a
difference between buoyancy b(x) and weight w(x), as
shown in equation 7 (2).

VV (x) = q V () d

q SV (x) = b(x) w(x) = gA I (x) m(x)g

[1]

0
x

M V (x) = VV ( ) d

where: AI = transversal immersed area.

[2]

Components of vertical shear and vertical

bending can be derived according to equations 1 and 2.
There are no horizontal components of sectional forces
in equation 3 and accordingly no components of
horizontal shear and bending moment. As regards
equation 5, only mTg, if present, is to be accounted for,
to obtain the torque.

0
x

VH (x) = q H () d

[3]

0
x

M H (x) = VH ( ) d

[7]

[4]

0
x

M T (x) = m T ( ) d

[5]

Due to total equilibrium, for a beam in freefree conditions (no constraints at ends) all load
characteristics have zero values at ends (equations 6).

Figure 18.4 Sectional Resultant Forces in Still

Water

Figure 18.3 Sectional Forces and Moment

18-6

18.3.3.1 Standard still water bending moments

While buoyancy distribution is known from
an early stage of the ship design, weight distribution is
completely defined only at the end of construction.
Statistical formulations, calibrated on similar ships, are
often used in the design development to provide an
approximate quantification of weight items and their
longitudinal distribution on board. The resulting
approximated weight distribution, together with the
buoyancy distribution, allows computing shear and
bending moment.
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)
C L2 B (45.5 + 65 C B ) (sagging)

(a) oil tankers, bulk carriers, ore carriers

(b) other ship types

[8]
Figure 18.5 Examples of Reference Still Water
Bending Moment Distribution (10)

where C = wave parameter (Table 18.I).

The direct evaluation procedure requires, for

a given loading condition, a derivation, section by
section, of vertical resultants of gravitational (weight)
and buoyancy forces, applied along the longitudinal
axis x of the beam.
To obtain the weight distribution w(x), the
ship length is subdivided into portions: for each of
them, the total weight and center of gravity is
determined summing up contributions from all items
present on board between the two bounding sections.
The distribution for w(x) is then usually approximated
by a linear (trapezoidal) curve obtained by imposing
the correspondence of area and barycenter of the
trapezoid respectively to the total weight and center of
gravity of the considered ship portion.
The procedure is usually applied separately
for different types of weight items, grouping together
the weights of the ship in lightweight conditions
(always present on board) and those (cargo, ballast,
consumables) typical of a loading condition (Figure
18.6).

The formulations in equation 8 are sometimes

explicitly reported in Rules, but they can anyway be
indirectly derived from prescriptions contained in (6,
7). The first requirement (6) regards the minimum
longitudinal strength modulus and provides implicitly
a value for the total bending moment; the second one
(7), regards the wave induced component of bending
moment.
Longitudinal distributions, depending on the
ship type, are provided also. They can slightly differ
among Class Societies, (Figure 18.5).
18.3.3.2 Direct evaluation of still water global loads
Classification Societies require in general a
direct analysis of these types of load in the main
loading conditions of the ship, such as homogenous
loading condition at maximum draught, ballast
conditions, docking conditions afloat, plus all other
conditions that are relevant to the specific ship (nonhomogeneous loading at maximum draught, light load
at less than maximum draught, short voyage or harbor
condition, ballast exchange at sea, etc.).

Full Load Condition - Total Weight Distribution

light ship

Ship length L

90 L <300 m

Wave coefficient C

10.75-[(300-L)/100]3/2

300 L <350 m

10.75

350 L

10.75-[(300-L)/150]3/2

cargo
weight per unit length [t/m]

TABLE 18.I - WAVE COEFFICIENT VS.

LENGTH

consumables
total weight
buoyancy

longitudinal position x [m]

Figure 18.6Weight Distribution Breakdown

18-7

18.3.3.3 Uncertainties in the evaluation

A significant contribution to uncertainties in
the evaluation of still water loads comes from the
inputs to the procedure, in particular those related to
quantification and location on board of weight items.
This lack of precision regards the weight
distribution for 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).

ST SL
QL
BT
QT

BL

Figure 18.8 Multi-hull Additional Still Water

Loads (sketch)
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.
In particular, as regards global effects, the
action of waves modifies the pressure distribution
along the wet hull surface; the differential pressure
between the situation in waves and in still water
generates, on the transverse section, vertical and
horizontal resultant forces (bWV and bWH) and a
moment component mTb.
Analogous components come from the
sectional resultants of inertial forces and moments
induced on the section by ships motions (Figure 18.9).

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,Q stand for shear, bending and
torque; and L,T apply respectively to longitudinal and
transversal beams).

Figure 18.9 Sectional Forces and Moments in

Waves
Figure 18.7Longitudinal Component of Pressure

18-8

The total vertical and horizontal wave

induced forces on the section, as well as the total
torsional component, are found summing up the
components in the same direction (equations 9).

TABLE 18.II - REFERENCE HORIZONTAL

BENDING MOMENTS

q WH (x) = b WH (x) m(x)a H (x)

m (x) = m (x) I (x) &&
TW

Tb

[9]

where:
IR(x) is the rotational inertia of section x.
The longitudinal distributions along the hull
girder of horizontal and vertical components of shear,
bending moment and torque can then be derived by
integration (equations 1 to 5).
Such results are in principle obtained for each
instantaneous wave pressure distribution, depending
therefore, on time, on type and direction of sea
encountered and on the ship geometrical and
operational characteristics.
In regular (sinusoidal) waves, vertical
bending moments tend to be maximized in head waves
with length close to the ship length, while horizontal
bending and torque components are larger for oblique
wave systems.

18.3.4.1 Statistical formulae for global wave loads

Simplified, first approximation, formulations
are available for the main wave load components,
developed mainly on the basis of past experience.
Vertical wave-induced bending moment: IACS
classification societies provide a statistically based
reference values for the vertical component of waveinduced bending moment MWV, expressed as a function
of main ship dimensions.
Such reference values for the mid-length
section of a ship with unrestricted navigation are
yielded by equation 10 for hog and sag cases (7) and
corresponds to an extreme value with a return period
of about 20 years or an exceeding probability of about
10-8 (once in the ship lifetime).
M WV [N m ] =

190 C L2 B C B

MWH [Nm]
180 C1L2 D C B

Class Society

q WV (x) = b WV (x) m(x)a V (x)

(hog)

110 C L2 B (C B + 0.7 ) (sag)

ABS (8)
BV(9)
RINA(10)
DNV (11)

220 L9 / 4 (T + 0.3B) C B

NKK(12)

320 L2C T

1600 L2.1 T C B
L 35/L

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 pressures to
extreme wave loads, derived, for example, from long
term predictions based on other methods.
18.3.4.3 Linear methods for wave loads
The most popular approach to the evaluation
of wave loads is represented by solutions of a
linearized potential flow problem based on the socalled strip theory in the frequency domain (13).
The theoretical background of this class of
procedures is discussed in detail in PNA Vol.III (2).

[10]

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 midlength for ships with unrestricted navigation.
Simplified curves for the distribution in the
longitudinal direction are also provided.

18-9

TABLE 18.III EXAMPLES OF REFERENCE

VALUES FOR WAVE TORQUE
Class
Society

Qw [Nm] (at mid-ship)

ABS 2700 LB2 T C 0.5 2 + 0.1 0.13 e 0.14

W

(bulk
D T

carrier) e = vertical position of shear center

BV
RINA

250 0.7 L
190 LB2 C 2W 8.13

125

0.5

Here only the key assumptions of the method

are presented:
inviscid, incompressible and homogeneous
fluid in irrotational flow:
Laplace
equation 11
2 = 0
[11]
where: = velocity potential

2-dimensional solution of the problem

linearized boundary conditions: the
quadratic component of velocity in the
Bernoulli Equation is reformulated in
linear terms to express boundary
conditions:
(a) on free surface: considered as a plane
corresponding to still water: fluid velocity
normal to the free surface equal to velocity
of the surface itself (kinematic condition);
zero pressure,
(b) on the hull: considered as a static
surface, corresponding to the mean
position of the hull: the component of the
fluid velocity normal to the hull surface is
zero (impermeability condition), and
linear decomposition into additive
independent components, separately solved
for and later summed up (equation 12).
= s + FK + d + r

[12]

where:
s = stationary component due to ship
advancing in calm water
r = radiation component, due to the
ship motions in calm water
FK = excitation component, due to the
incident wave (undisturbed by the
presence of the ship): Froude-Krylov
d = diffraction component, due to
disturbance in the wave potential
generated by the hull
This subdivision also enables the de-coupling
of the excitation components from the response ones,
thus avoiding a non-linear feedback between the two.
Other key properties of linear systems that are
used in the analysis are:
linear relation between the input and
output amplitudes, and
superposition of effects (sum of inputs
corresponds to sum of outputs).
When using linear methods in the frequency
domain, the input wave system is decomposed into
sinusoidal components and a response is found for
each of them in terms of amplitude and phase.

The input to the procedure is represented by a

spectral representation of the sea encountered by the
ship. Responses, for a ship in a given condition,
depend on the input sea characteristics (spectrum and
spatial distribution respect to the ship course).
The output consists of response spectra of
point pressures on the hull and of the other derived
responses, such as global loads and ship motions.
Output spectra can be used to derive short and longterm predictions for the probability distributions of the
responses and of their extreme values (see Sub-section
18.3.4.5).
Despite the numerous and demanding
simplifications at the basis of the procedure, strip
theory methods, developed since the early 60s, have
been validated over time in several contexts and are
extensively used for predictions of wave loads.
In principle, the base assumptions of the
method are 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 unphysical 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.

18-10

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 mn of order n (equation 13).

m ny = n Sy ()d

[13]

This information is the basis of the spectral

method, whose theoretical framework (main
hypotheses, assumptions and steps) is recalled in the
following.
If the stochastic process representing the
wave input to the ship system is modeled as a
stationary and ergodic Gaussian process with zero
mean, the response of the system (load) can be
modeled as a process having the same characteristics.
The Parseval theorem and the ergodicity
property establish a correspondence between the area
of the response spectrum (spectral moment of order 0:
m0Y) and the variance of its Gaussian probability
distribution (14). This allows expressing the density
probability distribution of the Gaussian response y in
terms of m0Y (equation 14).

f Y (y) =

1
2 m 0Y

-[y 2 / 2 m 20 Y ]

[14]

Equation 14 expresses the distribution of the

fluctuating response y at a generic time instant.
From a structural point of view, more
interesting data are represented by:
the probability distribution of the response
at selected time instants, corresponding to
the highest values in each zero-crossing
period (peaks: variable p).
the probability distribution of the
excursions between the highest and the
lowest value in each zero-crossing period
(range: variable r).
the probability distribution of the highest
value in the whole stationary period of the
phenomenon (extreme value in period Ts ,
variable extrTsy).

The aforementioned distributions can be

derived from the underlying Gaussian distribution of
the response (equation 14) in the additional hypotheses
of narrow band response process and of independence
between peaks. The first two probability distributions
take the form of equations 15 and 16 respectively, both
Rayleigh density distributions (see 14).
The distribution in equation 16 is particularly
interesting for fatigue checks, as it can be adopted to
describe stress ranges of fatigue cycles.

f P (p) =

p2
p

exp

m0
2m 0

[15]

f R (r ) =

r2
r

exp

4m 0
8m 0

[16]

The distribution for the extreme value in the

stationary period Ts (short term extreme) can be
modeled by a Poisson distribution (in equation 17:
expression of the cumulative distribution) or other
equivalent distributions derived from the statistics of
extremes.

extrTs

1
p = exp 2

p2
m2
T
exp 2m 0 s
m0

[17]

Figure 18.10 summarizes the various shortterm distributions.

It is interesting to note that all the mentioned
distributions are expressed in terms of spectral
moments of the response, which are available from a
frequency domain solution of the ship motions
problem.
The results mentioned previously are derived
for the period Ts in which the input wave system can
be considered as stationary (sea state: typically, a
period of a few hours). The derived distributions
(short-term predictions) are conditioned to the
occurrence of a particular sea state, which is identified
by the sea spectrum, its angular distribution around the
main wave direction (spreading function) and the
encounter angle formed with ship advance direction.
Hypotheses:

- Gaussian process
- stationary and ergodic
- zero mean
- narrow band

Probability density
of response peaks p
(Rayleigh distrib.)
Probability density
of response y
(Gaussian distrib.)

18-11

Probability density
of response ranges r
(double amplitude
Rayleigh distrib.)

Probability density
of the extreme
response in the
stationary period Ts

Figure 18.10 Short-term Distributions

To obtain a long-term prediction, relative to

the ship life (or any other design period Td which can
be described as a series of stationary periods), the
conditional hypothesis is to be removed from shortterm distributions. In other words, the probability of a
certain response is to be weighed by the probability of
occurrence of the generating sea state (equation18).

F(y ) =

F (y S ) 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 of significant wave
heights and mean periods. Such scatter diagrams are

catalogued according to sea zones, such as shown in

Figure 18.11 (the subdivision of the world atlas), and
main wave direction. Seasonal characteristics are also
available.
The process described in equation 18 can be
termed de-conditioning (that is removing the
conditioning hypothesis). The same procedure can be
applied to any of the variables studied in the short term
and it does not change the nature of the variable itself.
If a range distribution is processed, a long-term
distribution for ranges of single oscillations is obtained
(useful data for a fatigue analysis).
If the distribution of variable extrTs y is deconditioned, a weighed average of the highest peak in
time Ts is achieved. In this case the result is further
processed to get the distribution of the extreme value
in the design time Td. This is done with an additional
application of the concept of statistics of extremes.
In the hypothesis that the extremes of the
various sea states are independent from each other, the
extreme on time Td is given by equation 19:

extrTd

) [(

y = F

extrTs

)]

Td/Ts

[19]

where:
F(extrTdy) is the cumulative probability distribution
for the highest response peak in time Td (longterm extreme distribution in time Td).

Figure 18.11 - Map of Sea Zones of the World (15)

18-12

18.3.4.6 Uncertainties in long-term predictions

The theoretical framework of the above
presented spectral method, coupled to linear frequency
domain methodologies like those summarized in Subsection 18.3.4.3, allows the characterization, in the
probability domain, of all the wave induced load
variables of interest both for strength and fatigue
checks.
The results of this linear prediction procedure
are affected by numerous sources of uncertainties,
such as:
sea description: as above mentioned, scatter
diagrams are derived from direct observations
on the field, which are affected by a certain
degree of indetermination.
In addition, simplified sea spectral
shapes are adopted, based on a limited
number of parameters (generally, biparametric formulations based on significant
wave and mean wave period),
model for the ships response: as briefly
outlined in Sub-section 18.3.4.3, the model is
greatly simplified, particularly as regards
fluid characteristics and boundary conditions.
Numerical algorithms and specific
procedures adopted for the solution also
influence results, creating differences even
between theoretically equivalent methods,
and
the de-conditioning procedure adopted to
derive long term predictions from short term
ones can add further uncertainties.
18.3.5

Local Loads

As previously stated, local loads are applied

to individual structural members like panels and beams
(stiffeners or primary supporting members).
They are once again traditionally divided into
static and dynamic loads, referred respectively to the
situation in still water and in a seaway.
Contrary to strength verifications of the hull
girder, which are nowadays largely based on ultimate
limit states (for example, in longitudinal strength:
ultimate bending moment), checks on local structures
are still in part implicitly based on more conservative
limit states (yield strength).
In many Rules, reference (characteristic) local
loads, as well as the motions and accelerations on
which they are based, are therefore implicitly
calibrated at an exceeding probability higher than the
10-8 value adopted in global load strength verifications.

18.3.6

supporting structures.

18.3.6.1 Static external pressures

Hydrostatic pressure is related through
equation 20 to the vertical distance between the free
surface and the load point (static head hS).

pS = gh S

[20]

In the case of the external pressure on the

hull, hS corresponds to the local draught of the load
point (reference is made to design waterline).

18.3.6.2 Dynamic pressures

The pressure distribution, as well as the wet
portion of the hull, is modified for a ship in a seaway
with respect to the still water (Figure 18.9). Pressures
and areas of application are in principle obtained
solving the general problem of ship motions in a
seaway.
Approximate distributions of the wave
external pressure, to be added to the hydrostatic one,
are adopted in Classification Rules for the ship in
various load cases (Figure 18.12).
18.3.7

Internal Loads Liquid in Tanks

Liquid cargoes generate normal pressures on

the walls of the containing tank. Such pressures
represent a local transversal load for plate, stiffeners
and primary supporting members of the tank walls.

18.3.7.1 Static internal pressure

For a ship in still water, gravitation
acceleration g generates a hydrostatic pressure, varying
again according to equation 20. The static head hS
corresponds here to the vertical distance from the load
point to the highest part of the tank, increased to
account for the vertical extension over that point of air
pipes (that can be occasionally filled with liquid) or, if
applicable, for the ullage space pressure (the pressure
present at the free surface, corresponding for example
to the setting pressure of outlet valves).

External Pressure Loads

Static and dynamic pressures generated on the

wet surface of the hull belong to external loads. They
act as local transverse loads for the hull plating and

Figure 18.12 Example of Simplified Distribution

of External Pressure (10)

18-13

18.3.7.2 Dynamic internal pressure

When the ship advances in waves, different
types of motions are generated in the liquid contained
in a tank onboard, depending on the period of the ship
motions and on the filling level: the internal pressure
distribution varies accordingly.
In a completely full tank, fluid internal
velocities relative to the tank walls are small and the
acceleration in the fluid is considered as corresponding
to the global ship acceleration aw.
The total pressure (equation 21) can be
evaluated in terms of the total acceleration aT, obtained
summing aw to gravity g.
The gravitational acceleration g is directed
according to the true vertical. This means that its
components in the ship reference system depend on
roll and pitch angles (in Figure 18.13 on roll angle r).
p f = a T h T

[21]

In equation 21, hT is the distance between the

load point and the highest point of the tank in the
direction of the total acceleration vector aT (Figure
18.13)
If the tank is only partially filled, significant
fluid internal 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).

18.3.7.3 Dry bulk cargo

In the case of a dry bulk cargo, internal
friction forces arise within the cargo itself and between
the cargo and the walls of the hold. As a result, the
component normal to the wall has a different
distribution from the load corresponding to a liquid
cargo of the same density; also additional tangential
components are present.
18.3.8

Inertial Loads - Dry Cargo

To account for this effect, distributions for the

components of cargo load are approximated with
empirical formulations based on the material frictional
characteristics, usually expressed by the angle of
repose for the bulk cargo, and on the slope of the wall.
Such formulations cover both the static and the
dynamic cases

Figure 18.14 Example of Simplified Distributions

of Sloshing and Impact Pressures (11)
Figure 18.13 Internal Fluid Pressure (full tank)
18-14

18.3.8.1 Unit cargo

In the case of a unit cargo (container, pallet,
vehicle or other) the local translational accelerations at
the centre of gravity are applied to the mass to obtain a
distribution of inertial forces. Such forces are
transferred to the structure in different ways,
depending on the number and extension of contact
areas and on typology and geometry of the lashing or
supporting systems.
Generally, this kind of load is modelled by
one or more concentrated forces (Figure 18.15) or by a
uniform load applied on the contact area with the
structure.
The latter case applies, for example, to the
inertial loads transmitted by tyred vehicles when
modelling the response of the deck plate between
stiffeners: in this case the load is distributed uniformly
on the tyre print.
18.3.9

Dynamic Loads

18.3.9.1 Slamming and bow flare loads

When sailing in heavy seas, the ship can
experience such large heave motions that the forebody
emerges completely from the water. In the following
downward fall, the bottom of the ship can hit the water
surface, thus generating considerable impact pressures.
The phenomenon occurs in flat areas of the
forward part of the ship and it is strongly correlated to
loading conditions with a low forward draught.
It affects both local structures (bottom panels)
and the global bending behaviour of the hull girder
with generation also of free vibrations at the first
vertical flexural modes for the hull (whipping).
A full description of the slamming
phenomenon involves a number of parameters:
amplitude and velocity of ship motions relative to
water, local angle formed at impact between the flat
part of the hull and the water free surface, presence

Figure 18.15 Scheme of Local Forces Transmitted

by a Container to the Support System (8)

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 draft, local structural
checks based on an additional external pressure.
Such additional pressure is formulated as a
function of ship main characteristics, of local geometry
of the ship (width of flat bottom, local draught) and, in
some cases, of the first natural frequency of flexural
vibration of the hull girder.
The influence on global loads is accounted for
by an additional term for the vertical wave-induced
bending moment, which can produce a significant
increase (15% and more) in the design value.
A phenomenon quite similar to bottom
slamming can occur also on the forebody of ships with
a large bow flare. In this case dynamic and (to a lesser
extent) impulsive pressures are generated on the sides
of V-shaped fore sections.
The phenomenon is likely to occur quite
frequently on ships prone to it, but with lower
pressures than in bottom slamming. The incremental
effect on vertical bending moment can however be
significant.
A quantification of bow flare effects implies
taking into account the variation of the local breadth of
the section as a function of draft. It represents a typical
non-linear effect (non-linearity due to hull geometry).
Slamming can also occur in the rear part of
the ship, when the flat part of the stern counter is close
to surface.

18.3.9.2 Springing
Another phenomenon which involves the
dynamic response of the hull girder is springing. For
particular types of ships, a coincidence can occur
between the frequency of wave excitation and the
natural frequency associated to the first (two-node)
flexural mode in the vertical plane, thus producing a
resonance for that mode (see also Sub-section
18.6.8.2).
The phenomenon has been observed in
particular on Great Lakes vessels, a category of ships
long and flexible, with comparatively low resonance
frequencies (1, Chapt.VI).
The exciting action has an origin similar to
the case of quasi-static wave bending moment and can
be studied with the same techniques, but the response
in terms of deflection and stresses is magnified by

18-15

dynamic effects. For recent developments of research

in the field, see references 16 and 17.

18.3.9.3 Propeller induced pressures and forces

Due to the wake generated by the presence of
the after part of the hull, the propeller operates in a
non-uniform incident velocity field.
Blade profiles experience a varying angle of
attack during the revolution and the pressure field
generated around the blades fluctuates accordingly.
The dynamic pressure field impinges the hull
plating in the stern region, thus generating an exciting
force for the structure.
A second effect is due to axial and non axial
forces and moments generated by the propeller on the
shaft and transmitted through the bearings to the hull
(bearing forces).
Due to the negative dynamic pressure
generated by the increased angle of attack, the local
pressure on the back of blade profiles can, for any
rotation angle, fall below the vapor saturation pressure.
In this case, a vapor sheet is generated on the back of
the profile (cavitation phenomenon). The vapor filled
cavity collapses as soon as the angle of attack
decreases in the propeller revolution and the local
pressure rises again over the vapor saturation pressure.
Cavitation
further
enhances
pressure
fluctuations, because of the rapid displacement of the
surrounding water volume during the growing phase of
the vapor bubble and because of the following
implosion when conditions for its existence are
removed.
All of the three mentioned types of excitation
have their main components at the propeller rotational
frequency, at the blade frequency, and at their first
harmonics. In addition to the above frequencies, the
cavitation pressure field contains also other
components at higher frequency, related to the
dynamics of the vapor cavity.
Propellers with skewed blades perform better
as regards induced pressure, because not all the blade
sections pass simultaneously in the region of the stern
counter, where disturbances in the wake are larger;
accordingly, pressure fluctuations are distributed over
a longer time period and peak values are lower.
Bearing forces and pressures induced on the
stern counter by cavitating and non cavitating
propellers can be calculated with dedicated numerical
simulations (18).
18.3.9.4 Main engine excitation
Another major source of dynamic excitation
for the hull girder is represented by the main engine.
Depending on general arrangement and on number of
cylinders, diesel engines generate internally
unbalanced forces and moments, mainly at the engine
revolution frequency, at the cylinders firing frequency
and inherent harmonics (Figure 18.16).

Figure 18.16 Propeller, shaft and engine induced

actions (20)
The excitation due to the first harmonics of
low speed diesel engines can be at frequencies close to
the first natural hull girder frequencies, thus
representing a possible cause of a global resonance.
In addition to frequency coincidence, also
direction and location of the excitation are important
factors: for example, a vertical excitation in a nodal
point of a vertical flexural mode has much less effect
in exciting that mode than the same excitation placed
on a point of maximum modal deflection.
In addition to low frequency hull vibrations,
components at higher frequencies from the same
sources can give rise to resonance in local structures,
which can be predicted by suitable dynamic structural
models (18,19).

18.3.10 Other Loads

18.3.10.1 Thermal loads
A ship experiences loads as a result of
thermal effects, which can be produced by external
agents (the sun heating the deck), or internal ones (heat
transfer from/to heated or refrigerated cargo).
What actually creates stresses is a nonuniform temperature distribution, which implies that
the warmer part of the structure tends to expand while
the rest opposes to this deformation. A peculiar aspect
of this situation is that the portion of the structure in
larger elongation is compressed and vice-versa, which
is contrary to the normal experience.
It is very difficult to quantify thermal loads,
the main problems being related to the identification of
the temperature distribution and in particular to the
model for constraints. Usually these loads are
considered only in a qualitative way (1, Chapt.VI).
18.3.10.2 Mooring loads
For a moored vessel, loads are exerted from
external actions on the mooring system and from there
to the local supporting structure. The main
contributions come by wind, waves and current.

18-16

Wind: The force due to wind action is mainly directed

in the direction of the wind (drag force), even if a
limited component in the orthogonal direction can
arise in particular situations. The magnitude depends
on the wind speed and on extension and geometry of
the exposed part of the ship. The action due to wind
can be described in terms of two force components; a
longitudinal one FWiL, and a transverse one FWiT
(equation 22), and a moment MWiz about the vertical
axis (equation 23), all applied at the center of gravity.
2
FWiL,T = 1/ 2 C F L,T ( Wi ) A Wi VWi

[22]

2
M Wiz = 1/ 2 C Mz ( Wi ) A Wi L VWi

[23]

where:
Wi

is 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 is the reference area for the surface of the
ship exposed to wind, (usually the area of
the cross section), and
VWi is 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 a 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 derived by force decomposition, taking
into account the angle formed with the external force
in the horizontal and/or vertical plane.

18.3.10.3 Launching loads

The launch is a unique moment in the life of
the ship. For a successful completion of this complex
operation, a number of practical, organizational and
technical elements are to be kept under control (as
general reference see 1, Chap. XVII).
Here only the aspect of loads acting on the
ship will be discussed, so, among the various types of
launch, only those which present peculiarities as
regards ship loads will be considered: end launch and
side launch.
End Launch: In end launch, resultant forces and
motions are contained in the longitudinal plane of the
ship (Figure 18.17).
The vessel is subjected to vertical sectional
forces distributed along the hull girder: weight w(x),
buoyancy bL(x) and the sectional force transmitted
from the ground way to the cradle and from the latter
to the ships bottom (in the following: sectional cradle
force fC(x), with resultant FC).
While the weight distribution and its resultant
force (weight W) are invariant during launching, the
other distributions change in shape and resultant: the
derivation of launching loads is based on the
computation of these two distributions.
Such computation, repeated for various
positions of the cradle, is based on the global static
equilibrium s (equations 24 and 25, in which dynamic
effects are neglected: quasi static approach).
BT + FC - W = 0

[24]

xB BT + xF FC - xW W = 0

[25]

where:
W, BT, FC respectively represent weight, buoyancy
and cradle force resultants and xW, xB, xF represent
their longitudinal positions.

18-17

Figure 18.17 End Launch: Sketch

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 integrated according to equations 1 and
2 to derive vertical shear and bending moment.
qVL(x) = w(x) bL(x) fC(x)

[26]

This computation is performed for various

intermediate positions of the cradle during the
launching in order to check all phases. However, the
most demanding situation for the hull girder
corresponds to the instant when pivoting starts.
In that moment the cradle force is
concentrated close to the bow, at the fore end of the
cradle itself (on the fore poppet, if one is fitted) and it
is at the maximum value.
A considerable sagging moment is present in
this situation, whose maximum value is usually lower
than the design one, but tends to be located in the fore
part of the ship, where bending strength is not as high
as at midship.
Furthermore, the ship at launching could still
have temporary openings or incomplete structures
(lower strength) in the area of maximum bending
moment.
Another matter of concern is the concentrated
force at the fore end of the cradle, which can reach a
significant percentage of the total weight (typically 2030%). It represents a strong local load and often
requires additional temporary internal strengthening
structures, to distribute the force on a portion of the
structure large enough to sustain it.
Side Launch: In side launch, the main motion
components are directed in the transversal plane of the
ship (see Figure 18.19, reproduced from reference 1,
Chapter XVII).

Figure 18.18 Forces during Pivoting

Figure 18.19 Side Launch (1, Chapter XVII)

The vertical reaction from ground ways is
substituted in a comparatively short time by buoyancy
forces when the ship tilts and drops into water.
The kinetic energy gained during the tilting
and dropping phases makes the ship oscillate around
her final position at rest. The amplitude of heave and
roll motions and accelerations governs the magnitude
of hull girder loads. Contrary to end launch, trajectory
and loads cannot be studied as a sequence of quasistatic equilibrium positions, but need to be investigated
with a dynamic analysis.
The problem is similar to the one regarding
ship motions in waves, (Sub-section 18.3.4), with the
difference that here motions are due to a free
oscillation of the system due to an unbalanced initial
condition and not to an external excitation.
Another difference with respect to end launch
is that both ground reaction (first) and buoyancy forces
(later) are always distributed along the whole length of
the ship and are not concentrated in a portion of it.

18.3.10.4 Accidental loads

Accidental loads (collision and grounding)
are discussed in more detail by ISSC (21).
Collision: When defining structural loads due to
collisions, the general approach is to model the
dynamics of the accident itself, in order to define
trajectories of the unit(s) involved.
In general terms, the dynamics of collision
should be formulated in six degrees of freedom,
accounting for a number of forces acting during the
event: forces induced by propeller, rudder, waves,
current, collision forces between the units,
hydrodynamic pressure due to motions.
Normally, theoretical models confine the
analysis to components in the horizontal plane (3
degrees of freedom) and to collision forces and
motion-induced hydrodynamic pressures. The latter
are evaluated with potential methods of the same type
as those adopted for the study of the response of the
ship to waves.
As regards collision forces, they can be
described differently depending on the characteristics
of the struck object (ship, platform, bridge pylon)
with different combinations of rigid, elastic or an

18-18

elastic body models.

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).

18.3.11 Combination of Loads

When dealing with the characterization of a
set of loads acting simultaneously, the interest lies in
the definition of a total loading condition with the
required exceeding probability (usually the same of the
single components). This cannot be obtained by simple
superposition of the characteristic values of single
contributing loads, as the probability that all design
loads occur at the same time is much lower than the
one associated to the single component.
In the time domain, the combination problem
is expressed in terms of time shift between the instants
in which characteristic values occur.
In the probability domain, the complete
formulation of the problem would imply, in principle,
the definition of a joint probability distribution of the
various loads, in order to quantify the distribution for
the total load. An approximation would consist in
modeling the joint distribution through its first and
second order moments, that is mean values and
covariance matrix (composed by the variances of the
single variables and by the covariance calculated for
each couple of variables). However, also this level of
statistical characterization is difficult to obtain.
As a practical solution to the problem,
empirically based load cases are defined in Rules by
means of combination coefficients (with values
generally 1) applied to single loads. Such load cases,
each defined by a set of coefficients, represent realistic
and, in principle, equally probable combinations of
characteristic values of elementary loads.
Structural checks are performed for all load
cases. The result of the verification is governed by the
one, which turns out to be the most conservative for
the specific structure. This procedure needs a higher
number of checks (which, on the other hand, can be
easily automated today), but allows considering
various load situations (defined with different
combinations of the same base loads), without
choosing a priori the worst one.

18.3.12 New Trends and Load Non-linearities

Figure 18.20 - Sagging Moments for a Grounded

Ship: Simulation Results (22)

A large part of research efforts is still devoted

to a better definition of wave loads. New procedures
have been proposed in the last decades to improve
traditional 2D linear methods, overcoming some of the
simplifications adopted to treat the problem of ship
motions in waves. For a complete state of the art of
computational methods in the field, reference is made
to (23). A very coarse classification of the main
features of the procedures reported in literature is here
presented (see also reference 24).
18-19

18.3.12.1 2D versus 3D models

Three-dimensional extensions of linear
methods are available; some non-linear methods have
also 3-D features, while in other cases an intermediate
approach is followed, with boundary conditions
formulated part in 2D, part in 3D.
18.3.12.2 Body boundary conditions
In linear methods, body boundary conditions
are set with reference to the mean position of the hull
(in still water). Perturbation terms take into account, in
the frequency or in the time domain, first order
variations of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic
coefficients around the still water line.
Other non-linear methods account for
perturbation terms of a higher order. In this case, body
boundary conditions are still linear (mean position of
the hull), but second order variations of the coefficients
are accounted for.
Mixed or blending procedures consist in linear
methods modified to include non-linear effects in a
single component of the velocity potential (while the
other ones are treated linearly). In particular, they
account for the actual geometry of wetted hull (nonlinear body boundary condition) in the Froude-Krylov
potential only. This effect is believed to have a major
role in the definition of global loads.
More evolved (and complex) methods are
able to take properly into account the exact body
boundary condition (actual wetted surface of the hull).
18.3.12.3 Free surface boundary conditions
Boundary conditions on free surface can be
set, depending on the various methods, with reference
to: (a) a free stream at constant velocity, corresponding
to ship advance, (b) a double body flow, accounting
for the disturbance induced by the presence of a fully
immersed double body hull on the uniform flow, (c)
the flow corresponding to the steady advance of the
ship in calm water, considering the free surface or (d)
the incident wave profile (neglecting the interaction
with the hull).
Works based on fully non-linear formulations
of the free surface conditions have also been published.
18.3.12.4 Fluid characteristics
All the methods above recalled are based on
an inviscid fluid potential scheme.
Some results have been published of viscous
flow models based on the solution of Reynolds
Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) equations in the time
domain. These methods represent the most recent trend
in the field of ship motions and loads prediction and
their use is limited to a few research groups.

18.4

STRESSES AND DEFLECTIONS

The reactions of structural components of the

ship hull to external loads are usually measured by
either stresses or deflections. Structural performance
criteria and the associated analyses involving stresses
are referred to under the general term of strength. The
strength of a structural component would be
inadequate if it experiences a loss of load-carrying
ability through material fracture, yield, buckling, or
some other failure mechanism in response to the
applied loading. Excessive deflection may also limit
the structural effectiveness of a member, even though
material failure does not occur, if that deflection
results in a misalignment or other geometric
displacement of vital components of the ship's
machinery, navigational equipment, etc., thus
rendering the system ineffective.
The present section deals with the
determination of the responses, in the form of stress
and deflection, of structural members to the applied
loads. Once these responses are known it is necessary
to determine whether the structure is adequate to
withstand the demands placed upon it, and this
requires consideration of the different failure modes
associated to the limit states, as discussed in Sections
18.5 and 18.6
Although longitudinal strength under vertical
bending moment and vertical shear forces is the first
important strength consideration in almost all ships, a
number of other strength considerations must be
considered. Prominent amongst these are transverse,
torsional and horizontal bending strength, with
torsional strength requiring particular attention on
open ships with large hatches arranged close together.
All these are briefly presented in this Section. More
detailed information is available in Lewis (2) and
Hughes (3), both published by SNAME, and Rawson
(25). Note that the content of Section 18.4 is
influenced mainly from Lewis (2).

18.4.1

Stress and Deflection Components

The structural response of the hull girder and

the associated members can be subdivided into three
components (Figure 18.21).
Primary response is the response of the entire
hull, when the ship bends as a beam under the
longitudinal distribution of load. The associated
primary stresses (1) are those, which are usually
called the longitudinal bending stresses, but the
general category of primary does not imply a direction.

18-20

Primary response (hull girder)

Secondary response
(double bottom)

Primary
stress
1

Secondary response
(panels)

Tertiary response
(plate)
Secondary stresses Tertiary stress
2

2*

Figure 18.21 Primary (Hull), Secondary (Double

Bottom and Stiffened Panels) and Tertiary (Plate)
Structural Responses (1, 2)
Secondary response relates to the global
bending of stiffened panels (for single hull ship) or to
the behavior of double bottom, double sides, etc., for
double hull ships:
Stresses in the plating of stiffened panel
under lateral pressure may have different
origins (2 and 2*). For a stiffened panel,
there is the stress (2) and deflection of the
global bending of the orthotropic stiffened
panels, for example, the panel of bottom
structure contained between two adjacent
transverse bulkheads. The stiffener and
the attached plating bend under the lateral
load and the plate develops additional
plane stresses since the plate acts as a
flange with the stiffeners.
In
longitudinally framed ships there is also a
second type of secondary stresses: 2*
corresponds to the bending under the
hydrostatic pressure of the longitudinals
between transverse frames (web frames).
For transversally framed panels, 2* may
also exist and would correspond to the
bending of the equally spaced frames
between two stiff longitudinal girders.

A double bottom behaves as box girder but

can bend longitudinally, transversally or
both. This global bending induces stress
(2) and deflection. In addition, there is
also the 2* stress that corresponds to the
bending of the longitudinals (for example,
in the inner and outer bottom) between two
transverse elements (floors).

Tertiary response describes the out-of-plane deflection

and associated stress of an individual unstiffened plate
panel included between 2 longitudinals and 2
transverse web frames. The boundaries are formed by
these components (Figure 18.22).
Primary and secondary responses induce inplane membrane stresses, nearly uniformly distributed
through the plate thickness. Tertiary stresses, which
result from the bending of the plate member itself vary
through the thickness, but may contain a membrane
component if the out-of-plane deflections are large
compared to the plate thickness.
In many instances, there is little or no
interaction between the three (primary, secondary,
tertiary) component stresses or deflections, and each
component may be computed by methods and
considerations entirely independent of the other two.
The resultant stress, in such a case, is then obtained by
a simple superposition of the three component stresses
(Sub-section 18.4.7). An exception is the case of plate
(tertiary) deflections, which are large compared to the
thickness of plate.
In plating, each response induces longitudinal
stresses, transverse stresses and shear stresses. This is
due to the Poissons Ratio. Both primary and
secondary stresses are bending stresses but in plating
these stresses look like membrane stresses.

18-21

S tif fe n e d
P anel

B u lk h e a d

S econ dary
W eb F ra m e
M a in W e b F r a m e
Figure 18.22 - A Standard Stiffened Panel

In stiffeners, only primary and secondary

responses induce stresses in the direction of the
members and shear stresses. Tertiary response has no
effect on the stiffeners.
In Figure 18.21 (see also Figure 18.37) the
three types of response are shown with their associated
stresses (1, 2, 2* and 3). These considerations
point to the inherent simplicity of the underlying
theory. The structural naval architect deals principally
with beam theory, plate theory, and combinations of
both.

18.4.2

Basic Structural Components

Structural components are extensively

discussed in Chapter 17 - Structure Components. In
this section, only the basic structural component used
extensively is presented. It is basically a stiffened
panel.
The global ship structure is usually referred to
as being a box girder or hull girder. Modeling of this
hull girder is the first task of the designer. It is usually
done by modeling the hull girder with a series of
stiffened panels.
Stiffened panels are the main components of a
ship. Almost any part of the ship can be modeled as
stiffened panels (plane or cylindrical).
This means that, once the ships main
dimensions and general arrangement are fixed, the
remaining scantling development mainly deals with
stiffened panels.
The panels are joined one to another by
connecting lines (edges of the prismatic structures) and
have longitudinal and transverse stiffening (Figures
18.23, 24 and 36).
Longitudinal Stiffening includes
- longitudinals (equally distributed), used
only for the design of longitudinally
stiffened panels,
- girders (not equally distributed).
Transverse Stiffening includes (Figure 18.23)
- transverse bulkheads (a),
- the main transverse framing also called
web-frames (equally distributed; large
spacing),
used for longitudinally
stiffened panels (b) and transversally
stiffened panels (c).

18.4.3

Elementary beam theory (equation 29) is

usually utilized in computing the component of
primary stress, 1, and deflection due to vertical or
lateral hull bending loads.
In assessing the
applicability of this beam theory to ship structures, it is
useful to restate the underlying assumptions:
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 not deform in their own
planes, and merely rotate as the beam
deflects.
Transverse (Poisson) effects on strain are
neglected.
The material behaves elastically: the
elasticity modulus in tension and
compression is equal.
Shear effects and bending (stresses, strains)
are not coupled. For torsional deformation,
the effect of secondary shear and axial
stresses due to warping deformations are
neglected.
Since stress concentrations (deck openings,
side ports, etc.) cannot be avoided in a highly complex
structure such as a ship, their effects must be included
in any comprehensive stress analysis.
Methods
dealing with stress concentrations are presented in
Sub-section 18.6.6.3 as they are linked to fatigue.
The elastic linear bending equations,
equations 27 and 28, are derived from basic mechanic
principle presented at Figure 18.24.
EI (2w/x2) = M(x) or
EI (4w/x4) = q(x)

[27]
[28]

where:
w
E

= deflection (Figure 18.24), in m,

= 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,
V(x) = total shearing force, in N,
= M(x)/x = EI (3w/x3)
q(x) = load per unit length, in N/m,
= V(x)/x = 2M(x)/x2 = EI (4w/x4)

Primary Response

18.4.3.1 Beam Model and Hull Section Modulus

The structural members involved in the
computation of primary stress are, for the most part,
the longitudinally continuous members such as deck,
side, bottom shell, longitudinal bulkheads, and
continuous or fully effective longitudinal primary or
secondary stiffening members.

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).

18-22

- Bulkheads -

- Main Transverse Web Frame

Longitudinally
Stiffened

Transversally
Stiffened

Figure 18.23 - Types of Stiffening (Longitudinal and Transverse)

This gives the well-known formula:

= M ( I / c ) = M SM
where:
M =
=
I =
c

SM =

[29]

bending moment (in N.m),

bending stress (in N/m2),
Sectional moment of Inertia about the
neutral axis (in m4),
distance from the neutral axis to the
extreme member (in m),
section modulus (I/c) (in m3).

For a given bending moment at a given cross

section of a ship, at any part of the cross section, the
stress may be obtained ( = M/SM = Mc/I) which is
proportional to the distance c of that part from the
neutral axis. The neutral axis will seldom be located
exactly at half-depth of the section; hence two values
of c and will be obtained for each section for any
given bending moment, one for the top fiber (deck)
and one for the bottom fiber (bottom shell).

Y
q(x)= Load distribution
Z
w(x)= Deflection

x= stress distribution
X

Bending Moment

Shear Force

Figure 18.24 Behavior of an Elastic Beam under

Shear Force and Bending Moment (2)

A variation on the above beam equations may

be of importance in ship structures. It concerns beams
composed of two or more materials of different moduli
of elasticity, for example, steel and aluminum. In this
case, the flexural rigidity, EI, is replaced by
A E(z) z2 dA, where A is cross sectional area and E(z)
the modulus of elasticity of an element of area dA
located at distance z from the neutral axis. The neutral
axis is located at such height that A E(z) z dA = 0.
Calculation of Section Modulus: An important step in
routine ship design is the calculation of the midship
section modulus. As defined in connection with
equation 29, it indicates the bending strength
properties of the primary hull structure. The section
modulus to the deck or bottom is obtained by dividing
the moment of inertia by the distance from the neutral
axis to the molded deck line at side or to the base line,
respectively.
In general, the following items may be
included in the calculation of the section modulus,
provided they are continuous or effectively developed.
Deck plating (strength deck and other
effective decks). (See Sub-section 18.4.3.9
for Hull/Superstructure Interaction).
Shell and inner bottom plating,
Deck and bottom girders,
Plating and longitudinal stiffeners of
longitudinal bulkheads,
All longitudinals of deck, sides, bottom and
inner bottom,
Continuous longitudinal hatch coamings.
In general, only members that are effective in
both tension and compression are assumed to act as
part of the hull girder.
Theoretically, a thorough analysis of
longitudinal strength would include the construction of
a curve of section moduli throughout the length of the
ship as shown in Figure 18.25.

18-23