This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

1 NOMENCLATURE

For speciﬁc symbols, refer to the deﬁnitions contained in

the various sections.

ABS American Bureau of Shipping

BEM Boundary Element Method

BV Bureau Veritas

DNV Det Norske Veritas

FEA Finite Element Analysis

FEM Finite Element Method

IACS International Association of Classiﬁca-

tion Societies

ISSC International Ship & Offshore Structures

Congress

ISOPE International Offshore and Polar Engi-

neering 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)

C

B

hull block coefﬁcient

D depth of the ship

g gravity acceleration

m(x) longitudinal distribution of mass

I(x) geometric moment of inertia (beam sec-

tion x)

L length of the ship

M(x) bending moment at section x of a beam

M

T

(x) torque moment at section x of a beam

p pressure

q(x) resultant of sectional force acting on a

beam

T draft 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

θ roll angle

ρ density

ω angular frequency

18.2 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 be-

tween performing a design and completing an analysis.

18-1

Chapter 18

Analysis and Design of Ship Structure

Philippe Rigo and Enrico Rizzuto

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-1 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 se-

lect the initial structural scantlings and to update these scant-

lings from the early design stage (bidding) to the detailed

design stage (construction). To perform analysis, initial de-

sign is needed and analysis is required to design. This ex-

plains 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 Architec-

ture (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 Arrange-

ment and Component Design and with Chapter 19 – Reli-

ability-Based Structural Design. References to these

chapters will be made in order to avoid duplications. In ad-

dition, as Chapter 8 deals with classiﬁcation societies, the

present chapter will focus mainly on the direct analysis

methods available to 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 fail-

ures modes and associated structural capacity. A review of

the available Numerical Analysis for Structural Design is per-

formed 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 Subsection 18.7.2 for ﬁnite element analy-

sis. Optimization is treated in Subsections 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 sci-

entiﬁc, powerful, and versatile method for their structural

design

But, even with the development of numerical techniques,

design still remains based on the designer’s 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 com-

promises:

• 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 de-

sign analyses efﬁcient. The results from complex analy-

ses 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.),

and

• 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 de-

sign 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 empir-

ical, based on accumulated experience and ship perform-

ance, and expressed in the form of structural design codes

or rules published by the various ship classiﬁcation soci-

eties. These rules concern the loads, the strength and the

design criteria and provide simpliﬁed and easy-to-use for-

mulas 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. Hughes, who could

be considered as a father of this methodology, (3) further

states:

18-2 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-2 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 un-

known; thus one cannot distinguish between structural ad-

equacy and over-adequacy. Second, and most important,

these formulas involve a number of simplifying assump-

tions 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 cer-

tiﬁed. Direct analysis has become the standard procedure

in aerospace, civil engineering and partly in offshore in-

dustries. In ship design, classiﬁcation societies preferred to

offer updated rules resulting from numerical analysis cali-

bration. For the designer, even if the rules were continuously

changing, the design remained rule-based. 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 Table 18.VIII, Subsection 18.7.5.2). In addition, for new

vessel types or non-standard dimension, such direct proce-

dure is the only way to assess the structural safety. There-

fore 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 struc-

tures compared with other types of structures. They are sub-

ject 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 ma-

jority of specialists together with rapid advances in com-

puter 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

shipowner’s requirements in the best possible way.

When carrying out direct strength analysis in order to

verify the equivalence of structural strength with rule re-

quirements, 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 evalua-

tion. In addition, in order to make this a practical and ef-

fective method of analysis, it is necessary to give careful

consideration to more rational and accurate methods of di-

rect strength analysis.

Based on recognition of this need, extensive research

has been conducted and a careful examination made, re-

garding the strength evaluation of hull structures. The re-

sults 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, con-

straints…) 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 struc-

tural analysis is that the structural model shall provide re-

sults suitable for performing buckling, yield, fatigue and

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-3

Figure 18.1 Direct Structural Analysis Flow Chart

Direct Load Analysis

Design Load

Study on Ocean Waves

Effect on

operation

Wave Load Response

Response function

of wave load

Structural analysis by

whole ship model

Stress response

function

Short term

estimation

Long term

estimation

Design

Sea State

Design wave Wave impact load

Structural response analysis

Strength Assessment

Yield

strength

Nonlinear influence

in large waves

Investigation on

corrosion

Buckling

strength

Ultimate

strength

Fatigue

strength

Modeling technique Direct structural

analysis

Stress Response

in Waves

Long term

estimation

Short term

estimation

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-3 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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.

Several approaches may be applied such as a detailed

3D model of the entire ship or coarse meshed 3D model sup-

ported 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), buck-

ling strength and ultimate strength checks of the ship. In ad-

dition, speciﬁc analyses are requested for fatigue (Subsection

18.6.6), collision and grounding (Subsection 18.6.7) and

vibration (Subsection 18.6.8). The hydrodynamic load

model must give a good representation of the wetted sur-

face 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.

18.2.3 Preliminary Design versus Detailed Design

For a ship structure, structural design consists of two dis-

tinct levels: the Preliminary Design and the Detailed De-

sign about which Hughes (3) states:

The preliminary determines the location, spacing, and scant-

lings of the principal structural members. The detailed de-

sign 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 de-

sign is less important than preliminary design. Each level

is equally important for obtaining an efﬁcient, safe and re-

liable ship.

During the detailed design there also are many bene-

ﬁts to be gained by applying modern methods of engi-

neering 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 come under de-

tail 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 in-

efﬁcient to attempt to design all of them from ﬁrst princi-

ples. Instead it is generally more efﬁcient to use design

codes and standard designs that have been proven by ex-

perience. 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.

18.3 LOADS

Loads acting on a ship structure are quite varied and pecu-

liar, 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, gen-

eral interpretation schemes, available quantiﬁcation proce-

18-4 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.2 Strength Analysis Flow Chart (4)

Structural model

including necessary

load definitions

Hydrodynamic/static

loads

Load transfer to

structural model

Verified structural

model

Sub-models to be

used in structural

analysis

Structural analysis

Verification

of response

Verification

of model/

loads

Yes

No

Transfer of

displacements/forces

to sub-model?

Verification

of load

transfer

Structural drawings,

mass description and

loading conditions.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-4 4/28/03 1:30 PM

dures and practical methods for their evaluation will be sum-

marized.

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 con-

dition, they have little and very slow variations during a

voyage (mainly due to changes in the distribution of con-

sumables 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 in-

duced by waves, but also those generated in the same fre-

quency range by motions of the ship (inertial forces). These

loads can be termed quasi-static because the structural re-

sponse is studied with static models.

Dynamic loads: When studying responses with fre-

quency 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 (spring-

ing) or by mechanical excitation (main engine, propeller).

Also transient impulsive loads that excite free structural vi-

brations (slamming, and in some cases sloshing loads) can

be classiﬁed in the same category.

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 gen-

erally 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 cate-

gories.

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 Subsection 18.4.3).

Loads, deﬁned in order to be applied to limited struc-

tural models (stiffened panels, single beams, plate panels),

generally are termed local loads.

The distinction is purely formal, as the same external

forces can in fact be interpreted as global or local loads. For

instance, wave dynamic actions on a portion of the hull, if

described in terms of a bi-dimensional distribution of pres-

sures 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 analy-

ses, 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 func-

tion 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, sep-

arately, 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 sit-

uation corresponds to the highest load cycle and is charac-

terized through the probability associated to the extreme

value in the reference (design) time.

In fatigue phenomena, in principle all stress cycles con-

tribute (to a different extent, depending on the range) to

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-5

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-5 4/28/03 1:30 PM

damage accumulation. The analysis, therefore, does not re-

gard the magnitude of a single extreme load application, but

the number of cycles and the shape of the probability dis-

tribution of all stress ranges in the design time.

A further step towards the problem simpliﬁcation is rep-

resented 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 as-

signing an exceeding probability (or a return period) to each

variable and selecting the correspondent value from the sta-

tistical 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 typ-

ically represented by loads associated to an exceeding prob-

ability of 10

–8

. This corresponds to a wave load occurring,

on the average, once every 10

8

cycles, that is, with a return

period of the same order of the ship lifetime. In ﬁrst yield-

ing analyses, characteristic loads are associated to a higher

exceeding probability, usually in the range 10

–4

to 10

–6

. In

fatigue analyses (see Subsection 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 accumulation of fatigue damage in the structure.

On the basis of this, all design loads for structural analy-

ses are explicitly or implicitly related to a low exceeding

probability.

18.3.2 Deﬁnition of Global Hull Girder Loads

The global structural response of the ship is studied with

reference to a beam scheme (hull girder), that is, a mono-

dimensional structural element with sectional characteris-

tics 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 (con-

tained in the plane of symmetry), indicated as vertical re-

sultant force q

V

; another force in the normal direction, (local

horizontal axis), termed horizontal resultant force q

H

and a

moment m

T

about the x axis. All these actions are distrib-

uted 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:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Due to total equilibrium, for a beam in free-free condi-

tions (no constraints at ends) all load characteristics have

zero values at ends (equations 6).

These conditions impose constraints on the distributions

of q

V

, q

H

and m

T

.

[6]

Global loads for the veriﬁcation of the hull girder are ob-

tained 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 yield-

ing, and fatigue.

18.3.3 Still Water Global Loads

Still water loads act on the ship ﬂoating in calm water, usu-

ally 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 ver-

tical gravitational forces.

If the latter ones are not symmetric, a sectional torque

m

Tg

(x) is generated (Figure 18.4), in addition to the verti-

V (0) V (L) M (0) M (L) 0

V (0) V (L) M (0) M (L) 0

M (0) M (L) 0

V V V V

H H H H

T T

· · · ·

· · · ·

· ·

M (x) m ( ) d

T T

0

x

·

∫

ξ ξ

M (x) V ( ) d

H H

0

x

·

∫

ξ ξ

V (x) q ) d

H H

0

x

·

∫

(ξ ξ

M (x) V ( ) d

V V

0

x

·

∫

ξ ξ

V (x) q ( ) d

V V

0

x

·

∫

ξ ξ

18-6 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.3 Sectional Forces and Moment

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-6 4/28/03 1:30 PM

cal load q

SV

(x), obtained as a difference between buoyancy

b(x) and weight w(x), as shown in equation 7 (2).

[7]

where A

I

= transversal immersed area.

Components of vertical shear and vertical bending can

be derived according to equations 1 and 2. There are no hor-

izontal components of sectional forces in equation 3 and ac-

cordingly no components of horizontal shear and bending

moment. As regards equation 5, only m

Tg

, if present, is to

be accounted for, to obtain the torque.

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, cal-

ibrated on similar ships, are often used in the design de-

velopment 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.

q (x) b(x) w(x) gA (x) m(x)g

SV I

· − · −

At an even earlier stage of design, parametric formula-

tions can be used to derive directly reference values for still

water hull girder loads.

Common reference values for still water bending mo-

ment at mid-ship are provided by the major Classiﬁcation

Societies (equation 8).

[8]

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

The formulations in equation 8 are sometimes explicitly

reported in Rules, but they can anyway be indirectly de-

rived from prescriptions contained in (6, 7). The ﬁrst re-

quirement (6) regards the minimum longitudinal strength

modulus and provides implicitly a value for the total bend-

ing 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 So-

cieties, (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

draft, ballast conditions, docking conditions aﬂoat, plus all

other conditions that are relevant to the speciﬁc ship (non-

homogeneous loading at maximum draft, light load at less

than maximum draft, short voyage or harbor condition, bal-

last exchange at sea, etc.).

The direct evaluation procedure requires, for a given

loading condition, a derivation, section by section, of ver-

tical 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 approxi-

mated by a linear (trapezoidal) curve obtained by imposing

M N m

C L B 122.5 15 C (hogging)

C L B 45.5 65 C (sagging)

s

2

B

2

B

⋅

− ( )

+

[ ] ·

( )

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-7

Figure 18.4 Sectional Resultant Forces in Still Water

Figure 18.5 Examples of Reference Still Water Bending Moment Distribution

(10). (a) oil tankers, bulk carriers, ore carriers, and (b) other ship types

TABLE 18.I Wave Coefﬁcient Versus Length

Ship Length L Wave Coefﬁcient C

90 ≤ L <300 m 10.75 – [(300 – L)/100]

3/2

300 ≤ L <350 m 10.75

350 ≤ L 10.75 – [(300 – L)/150]

3/2

(a)

(b)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-7 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 differ-

ent 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 load-

ing condition (Figure 18.6).

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, machin-

ery, outﬁtting) but also the distribution of the various com-

ponents of the deadweight (cargo, ballast, consumables).

Ship types like bulk carriers are more exposed to uncer-

tainties 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 (Fig-

ure 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 addi-

tional 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 counter-

balanced 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 ori-

ented 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 q

sv

(x) in

order to satisfy boundary conditions at ends (equations 6).

18.3.3.4 Other still water global loads

In a vessel with a multihull conﬁguration, in addition to

conventional still water loads acting on each hull consid-

ered as a single longitudinal beam, also loads in the trans-

versal direction can be signiﬁcant, giving rise to shear,

bending and torque in a transversal direction (see the sim-

pliﬁed scheme of Figure 18.8, where S, B, and Q stand for

shear, bending and torque; and

L, T

apply respectively to

longitudinal and transversal beams).

18.3.4 Wave Induced Global Loads

The prediction of the behaviour of the ship in waves repre-

sents a key point in the quantiﬁcation of both global and

local loads acting on the ship. The solution of the seakeep-

ing 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 in-

ertial loads and provide inputs for the evaluation of other

types of loads, like slamming and sloshing.

18-8 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.6 Weight Distribution Breakdown for Full Load Condition

Figure 18.7 Longitudinal Component of Pressure

Figure 18.8 Multi-hull Additional Still Water Loads (sketch)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-8 4/28/03 1:30 PM

In particular, as regards global effects, the action of waves

modiﬁes the pressure distribution along the wet hull sur-

face; the differential pressure between the situation in waves

and in still water generates, on the transverse section, ver-

tical and horizontal resultant forces (b

WV

and b

WH

) and a

moment component m

Tb

.

Analogous components come from the sectional result-

ants of inertial forces and moments induced on the section

by ship’s motions (Figure 18.9).

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).

[9]

where I

R

(x) is the rotational inertia of section x.

The longitudinal distributions along the hull girder of hor-

izontal 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 instanta-

neous 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 com-

ponents 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 classiﬁ-

q (x) b (x) m(x)a (x)

q (x) b (x) m(x)a (x)

m (x) m (x) I (x)

WV WV V

WH WH H

TW Tb R

· −

· −

· − θ

cation societies provide a statistically based reference values

for the vertical component of wave-induced bending moment

M

WV

, expressed as a function of main ship dimensions.

Such reference values for the midlength 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 prob-

ability of about 10

–8

(once in the ship lifetime).

[10]

Horizontal Wave-induced Bending Moment: Similar for-

mulations 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 verti-

cal component.

In Table 18.II, examples are reported of reference val-

ues of horizontal bending moment at mid-length for ships

with unrestricted navigation. Simpliﬁed curves for the dis-

tribution in the longitudinal direction are also provided.

Wave-induced Torque: A few reference formulations are

given also for reference wave torque at midship (see ex-

amples 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 de-

scribed for still water loads, with the difference that the wa-

terline 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 ef-

fects. 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

M N m

C L B C

C L B C .

(hog)

(sag)

WV

B

B

⋅ [ ] ·

− + ( )

190

110 0 7

2

2

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-9

Figure 18.9 Sectional Forces and Moments in Waves

TABLE 18.II Reference Horizontal Bending Moments

Class Society M

WH

[N ⋅ m]

ABS (8) 180 C

1

L

2

DC

B

BV (9) RINA (10) 1600 L

2.1

TC

B

DNV (11) 220 L

9/4

(T + 0.3B)C

B

NKK (12) 320 L

2

C T L L − 35 /

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-9 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 so-called strip theory in the frequency

domain (13).

The theoretical background of this class of procedures

is discussed in detail in PNA Vol. III (2).

Here only the key assumptions of the method are pre-

sented:

• inviscid, incompressible and homogeneous ﬂuid in irro-

tational ﬂow: Laplace equation 11

∇

2

Φ = 0 [11]

where Φ = velocity potential

• 2-dimensional solution of the problem

• linearized boundary conditions: the quadratic compo-

nent of velocity in the Bernoulli Equation is reformu-

lated in linear terms to express boundary conditions:

— 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 con-

dition); zero pressure,

— on the hull: considered as a static surface, corre-

sponding to the mean position of the hull: the com-

ponent of the ﬂuid velocity normal to the hull surface

is zero (impermeability condition), and

• linear decomposition into additive independent compo-

nents, separately solved for and later summed up (equa-

tion 12).

Φ = Φ

s

+ Φ

FK

+ Φ

d

+ Φ

r

[12]

where:

Φ

s

= stationary component due to ship advancing in calm

water

Φ

r

= radiation component due to the ship motions in calm

water

Φ

FK

= excitation component, due to the incident wave

(undisturbed by the presence of the ship): Froude-

Krylov

Φ

d

= diffraction component, due to disturbance in the wave

potential generated by the hull

This subdivision also enables the de-coupling of the ex-

citation 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 com-

ponents 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 char-

acteristics (spectrum and spatial distribution respect to the

ship course).

The output consists of response spectra of point pres-

sures 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 long-term predictions for the prob-

ability distributions of the responses and of their extreme

values (see Subsection 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 sev-

eral contexts and are extensively used for predictions of

wave loads.

In principle, the base assumptions of the method are

18-10 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

TABLE 18.III Examples of Reference Values for Wave Torque

Class Society Q

w

[N

.

m] (at mid-ship)

ABS (bulk carrier)

(e = vertical position of shear center)

BV RINA 190 8 13

250 0 7

125

2 2

3

LB C .

. L

W

−

−

¸

¸

_

,

¸

1

]

1

2700 0 5 0 1 0 13

0 14

2

2

0 5

LB T C . . .

e

D

.

T

W

.

− ( ) +

[ ]

−

¸

¸

_

,

¸

1

]

1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-10 4/28/03 1:30 PM

valid only for small wave excitations, small motion re-

sponses and low speed of the ship.

In practice, the ﬁeld of successful applications extends

far beyond the limits suggested by the preservation of re-

alism in the base assumptions: the method is actually used

extensively to study even extreme loads and for fast ves-

sels.

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 distribu-

tion 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 ﬂuctua-

tions (symmetric with respect to a zero mean value). A con-

sequence 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 be-

tween 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 super-

imposition of static and dynamic loads. Dynamic loads are

evaluated separately from the static ones and later summed

up: this results in an un-physical situation, in which weight

forces (included only in static loads) are considered as act-

ing always along the vertical axis of the ship reference sys-

tem (as in still water). Actually, in a seaway, weight forces

are directed along the true vertical direction, which depends

on roll and pitch angles, having therefore also components

in the longitudinal and lateral direction of the ship.

This aspect represents one of the intrinsic non-lineari-

ties 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 lin-

ear superposition of still water and wave loads is largely fol-

lowed.

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

S

y

(ω) are derived, which can be integrated to obtain spec-

tral moments m

n

of order n (equation 13).

[13]

This information is the basis of the spectral method,

whose theoretical framework (main hypotheses, assump-

tions 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 sys-

tem (load) can be modeled as a process having the same char-

acteristics.

The Parseval theorem and the ergodicity property es-

tablish a correspondence between the area of the response

spectrum (spectral moment of order 0: m

0Y

) and the vari-

ance of its Gaussian probability distribution (14). This al-

lows expressing the density probability distribution of the

Gaussian response y in terms of m

0Y

(equation 14).

[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), and

• the probability distribution of the highest value in the

whole stationary period of the phenomenon (extreme

value in period T

s

, variable

extrTs

y).

The aforementioned distributions can be derived from

the underlying Gaussian distribution of the response (equa-

tion 14) in the additional hypotheses of narrow band re-

sponse 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 interest-

ing for fatigue checks, as it can be adopted to describe stress

ranges of fatigue cycles.

[15]

[16] f r

r

m

r

m

R

( ) · −

¸

¸

_

,

4 8

0

2

0

exp

f p

p

m

p

m

P

( ) · −

¸

¸

_

,

0

2

0

2

exp

f (y)

m

e

Y

Y

y m

Y

·

−

( )

1

2

0

2

2

0

2

π

/

m S ( )d

ny

n

y

·

∫

∞

ω ω ω

0

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-11

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-11 4/28/03 1:30 PM

The distribution for the extreme value in the stationary

period T

s

(short term extreme) can be modeled by a Pois-

son distribution (in equation 17: expression of the cumula-

tive distribution) or other equivalent distributions derived

from the statistics of extremes.

[17]

Figure 18.10 summarizes the various short-term distri-

butions.

It is interesting to note that all the mentioned distribu-

tions are expressed in terms of spectral moments of the re-

sponse, which are available from a frequency domain

solution of the ship motions problem.

The results mentioned previously are derived for the

period T

s

in which the input wave system can be consid-

ered 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 distri-

bution around the main wave direction (spreading func-

tion) and the encounter angle formed with ship advance

direction.

To obtain a long-term prediction, relative to the ship life

(or any other design period T

d

which can be described as a

series of stationary periods), the conditional hypothesis is

to be removed from short-term distributions. In other words,

the probability of a certain response is to be weighed by the

probability of occurrence of the generating sea state (equa-

tion18).

[18]

where:

F(y) = probability for the response to be less than value

y (unconditioned).

F(y|S

i

) = probability for the response to be less than value

y, conditioned to occurrence of sea state S

i

(short

term prediction).

P(S

i

) = probability associated to the i-th sea state.

n = total number of sea states, covering all combi-

nations.

Probability P(S

i

) 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-di-

mensional histograms (scatter diagrams), containing classes

F y F y S P(S )

i i

i

n

( ) ·

( )

⋅

·

∑

1

F p

m

m

p

m

T

extrT

s

s

( )

· − −

¸

¸

_

,

¸

1

]

1

1

exp exp

1

2 2

2

0

2

0

∂

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 de-conditioned, a

weighed average of the highest peak in time T

s

is achieved.

In this case the result is further processed to get the distri-

bution of the extreme value in the design time T

d

. This is

done with an additional application of the concept of sta-

tistics of extremes.

In the hypothesis that the extremes of the various sea

states are independent from each other, the extreme on time

T

d

is given by equation 19:

[19]

where F(

extrTd

y) is the cumulative probability distribution

for the highest response peak in time T

d

(long-term extreme

distribution in time T

d

).

18.3.4.6 Uncertainties in long-term predictions

The theoretical framework of the above presented spectral

method, coupled to linear frequency domain methodolo-

gies 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 af-

fected by numerous sources of uncertainties, such as:

F y F y

extrTd extrTs

Td/Ts

( )

·

( ) [ ]

18-12 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.10 Short-term Distributions

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-12 4/28/03 1:30 PM

• 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, bi-

parametric formulations based on signiﬁcant wave and

mean wave period),

• model for the ship’s response: as brieﬂy outlined in Sub-

section 18.3.4.3, the model is greatly simpliﬁed, partic-

ularly 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 pri-

mary 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 ex-

ample, 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 External Pressure Loads

Static and dynamic pressures generated on the wet surface

of the hull belong to external loads. They act as local trans-

verse loads for the hull plating and 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 h

S

).

p

S

= ρgh

S

[20]

In the case of the external pressure on the hull, h

S

cor-

responds to the local draft of the load point (reference is

made to design waterline).

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-13

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

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-13 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 Classiﬁ-

cation 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 trans-

versal load for plate, stiffeners and primary supporting mem-

bers of the tank walls.

18.3.7.1 Static internal pressure

For a ship in still water, gravitation acceleration g gener-

ates a hydrostatic pressure, varying again according to equa-

tion 20. The static head h

S

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 liq-

uid) or, if applicable, for the ullage space pressure (the pres-

sure present at the free surface, corresponding for example

to the setting pressure of outlet valves).

18.3.7.2 Dynamic internal pressure

When the ship advances in waves, different types of mo-

tions are generated in the liquid contained in a tank on-

board, depending on the period of the ship motions and on

the ﬁlling level: the internal pressure distribution varies ac-

cordingly.

In a completely full tank, ﬂuid internal velocities rela-

tive to the tank walls are small and the acceleration in the

ﬂuid is considered as corresponding to the global ship ac-

celeration a

w

.

The total pressure (equation 21) can be evaluated in terms

of the total acceleration a

T

, obtained summing a

w

to grav-

ity 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 Fig-

ure 18.13 on roll angle θ

r

).

p

f

= ρa

T

h

T

[21]

In equation 21, h

T

is the distance between the load point

and the highest point of the tank in the direction of the total

acceleration vector a

T

(Figure 18.13)

If the tank is only partially ﬁlled, signiﬁcant ﬂuid inter-

nal velocities can arise in the longitudinal and/or transver-

sal directions, producing additional pressure loads (slosh-

ing loads).

If pitch or roll frequencies are close to the tank reso-

nance frequency in the inherent direction (which can be

evaluated on the basis of geometrical parameters and ﬁll-

ing 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 quantiﬁ-

cation. Experimental techniques as well as 2D and 3D pro-

cedures 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 ﬁll-

ing levels, in vertical or sub-vertical plates of the lower part

of the tank.

Impact loads are very difﬁcult to characterize, being re-

lated to a number of effects, such as: local shape and ve-

locity of the free surface, air trapping in the ﬂuid and

response of the structure. A complete model of the phe-

nomenon would require a very detailed two-phase scheme

for the ﬂuid and a dynamic model for the structure includ-

ing hydro-elasticity effects.

Simpliﬁed distributions of sloshing and/or impact pres-

sures are often provided by Classiﬁcation Societies for struc-

tural veriﬁcation (Figure 18.14).

18-14 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.13 Internal Fluid Pressure (full tank)

Figure 18.12 Example of Simpliﬁed Distribution of External Pressure (10)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-14 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 tangen-

tial 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 ex-

pressed 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.

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 dif-

ferent ways, depending on the number and extension of con-

tact 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 ap-

plied 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 con-

siderable impact pressures.

The phenomenon occurs in ﬂat areas of the forward part

of the ship and it is strongly correlated to loading condi-

tions with a low forward draft.

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 mo-

tions relative to water, local angle formed at impact between

the ﬂat part of the hull and the water free surface, presence

and extension of air trapped between ﬂuid and ship bottom

and structural dynamic behavior (18,19).

While slamming probability of occurrence can be stud-

ied 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

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-15

Figure 18.14 Example of Simpliﬁed Distributions of Sloshing and Impact

Pressures (11)

Figure 18.15 Scheme of Local Forces Transmitted by a Container to the

Support System (8)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-15 4/28/03 1:30 PM

draft, local structural checks based on an additional exter-

nal pressure.

Such additional pressure is formulated as a function of

ship main characteristics, of local geometry of the ship

(width of ﬂat bottom, local draft) 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 ad-

ditional term for the vertical wave-induced bending mo-

ment, 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 pres-

sures 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 mo-

ment 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 ex-

citation and the natural frequency associated to the ﬁrst

(two-node) ﬂexural mode in the vertical plane, thus pro-

ducing a resonance for that mode (see also Subsection

18.6.8.2).

The phenomenon has been observed in particular on Great

Lakes vessels, a category of ships long and ﬂexible, with com-

paratively low resonance frequencies (1, Chapter 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 deﬂec-

tion and stresses is magniﬁed by dynamic effects. For re-

cent 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 dur-

ing 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 trans-

mitted 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 gen-

erated on the back of the proﬁle (cavitation phenomenon).

The vapor ﬁlled cavity collapses as soon as the angle of at-

tack decreases in the propeller revolution and the local pres-

sure rises again over the vapor saturation pressure.

Cavitation further enhances pressure ﬂuctuations, be-

cause 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 addi-

tion 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 si-

multaneously in the region of the stern counter, where dis-

turbances 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 en-

gines generate internally unbalanced forces and moments,

mainly at the engine revolution frequency, at the cylinders

ﬁring frequency and inherent harmonics (Figure 18.16).

The excitation due to the ﬁrst harmonics of low speed

diesel engines can be at frequencies close to the ﬁrst natu-

ral 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 exam-

ple, a vertical excitation in a nodal point of a vertical ﬂex-

ural mode has much less effect in exciting that mode than

the same excitation placed on a point of maximum modal

deﬂection.

18-16 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-16 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 re-

frigerated cargo).

What actually creates stresses is a non-uniform temper-

ature distribution, which implies that the warmer part of the

structure tends to expand while the rest opposes to this de-

formation. A peculiar aspect of this situation is that the por-

tion 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 temper-

ature distribution and in particular to the model for con-

straints. Usually these loads are considered only in a

qualitative way (1, Chapter 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 sup-

porting structure. The main contributions come by wind,

waves and current.

Wind: The force due to wind action is mainly directed in

the direction of the wind (drag force), even if a limited com-

ponent in the orthogonal direction can arise in particular sit-

uations. 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 F

WiL

, and a transverse one

F

WiT

(equation 22), and a moment M

Wiz

about the vertical

axis (equation 23), all applied at the center of gravity.

[22]

[23]

where:

φ

Wi

= the angle formed by the direction of the wind rela-

tive to the ship

C

Mz

(φ

Wi

), C

FL

(φ

Wi

), C

FT

(φ

Wi

) are all coefﬁcients depending

on the shape of exposed part of the ship and on

angle φ

Wi

A

Wi

= the reference area for the surface of the ship exposed

to wind, (usually the area of the cross section)

V

Wi

= the wind speed

The empirical formulas in equations 22 and 23 account

also for the tangential force acting on the ship surfaces par-

allel 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 sinu-

soidal time dependence (whose mean value is by deﬁnition

zero). If ship motions in the wave direction are not con-

strained (for example, if the anchor chain is not in tension)

the ship motion follows the excitation with similar time de-

pendence 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-lin-

ear wave actions, with an average value different from zero,

are also present, due to potential forces of higher order, for-

mation 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 prob-

lem. For common ships, non-linear wave effects are usu-

ally neglected.

A practical rule-of-thumb for taking into account wave

actions for a ship at anchor in non protected waters is to in-

crease of 75 to 100% the sum of the other force components.

Once the total force on the ship is quantiﬁed, the ten-

sion in the mooring system (hawser, rope or chain) can be

M C A L V

Wiz Mz Wi Wi

Wi

· ( ) 1 2

2

/ φ φ

F C A V

WiL,T F L,T Wi Wi

Wi

· ( ) 1 2

2

/ φ φ

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-17

Figure 18.16 Propeller, Shaft and Engine Induced Actions (20)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-17 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 num-

ber of practical, organizational and technical elements are

to be kept under control (as general reference see Reference

1, Chapter 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 dis-

tributed along the hull girder: weight w(x), buoyancy b

L

(x)

and the sectional force transmitted from the ground way to

the cradle and from the latter to the ship’s bottom (in the

following: sectional cradle force f

C

(x), with resultant F

C

).

While the weight distribution and its resultant force

(weight W) are invariant during launching, the other distri-

butions 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 (equa-

tions 24 and 25, in which dynamic effects are neglected:

quasi static approach).

B

T

+ F

C

– W = 0 [24]

x

B

B

T

+ x

F

F

C

– x

W

W = 0 [25]

where:

W, B

T

, F

C

= (respectively) weight, buoyancy and cradle

force resultants

x

W

, x

B

, x

F

= their longitudinal positions

In a ﬁrst phase of launching, when the cradle is still in

contact for a certain length with the ground way, the buoy-

ancy 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 x

F

cor-

responds steadily to the fore end of the cradle and what is

unknown is the magnitude of F

C

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.

q

VL

(x) = w(x) – b

L

(x) – f

C

(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 pop-

pet, if one is ﬁtted) and it is at the maximum value.

A considerable sagging moment is present in this situ-

ation, whose maximum value is usually lower than the de-

sign 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 tem-

porary 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 per-

centage of the total weight (typically 20–30%). 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 compo-

nents are directed in the transversal plane of the ship (see

Figure 18.19, reproduced from reference 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 drop-

ping phases makes the ship oscillate around her ﬁnal posi-

18-18 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.17 End Launch: Sketch

Figure 18.18 Forces during Pivoting

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-18 4/28/03 1:30 PM

tion 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 stud-

ied as a sequence of quasi-static equilibrium positions, but

need to be investigated with a dynamic analysis.

The problem is similar to the one regarding ship mo-

tions in waves, (Subsection 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 ex-

citation.

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 colli-

sions, 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 num-

ber of forces acting during the event: forces induced by pro-

peller, 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 re-

sponse of the ship to waves.

As regards collision forces, they can be described dif-

ferently depending on the characteristics of the struck ob-

ject (ship, platform, bridge pylon…) with different

combinations of rigid, elastic or an elastic body models.

Governing equations for the problem are given by con-

servation of momentum and of energy. Within this frame-

work, time domain simulations can evaluate the magnitude

of contact forces and the energy, which is absorbed by struc-

ture 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 en-

ergy 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 po-

tential 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 magni-

tude 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).

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-19

Figure 18.19 Side Launch (1, Chapter XVII) Figure 18.20 Sagging Moments for a Grounded Ship: Simulation Results (22)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-19 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 prob-

ability (usually the same of the single components). This

cannot be obtained by simple superposition of the charac-

teristic values of single contributing loads, as the probabil-

ity 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 ex-

pressed 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 approxi-

mation would consist in modeling the joint distribution

through its ﬁrst and second order moments, that is mean val-

ues 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 sta-

tistical 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 com-

binations 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

A large part of research efforts is still devoted to a better

deﬁnition of wave loads. New procedures have been pro-

posed 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 com-

plete 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).

18.3.12.1 2D versus 3D models

Three-dimensional extensions of linear methods are avail-

able; 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 compo-

nent of the velocity potential (while the other ones are treated

linearly). In particular, they account for the actual geome-

try of wetted hull (non-linear 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 sur-

face or (d) the incident wave proﬁle (neglecting the inter-

action 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 mod-

els based on the solution of Reynolds Averaged Navier

Stokes (RANS) equations in the time domain. These meth-

ods represent the most recent trend in the ﬁeld of ship mo-

tions and loads prediction and their use is limited to a few

research groups.

18-20 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-20 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 associ-

ated analyses involving stresses are referred to under the gen-

eral term of strength. The strength of a structural component

would be inadequate if it experiences a loss of load-carry-

ing 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 ren-

dering 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 asso-

ciated 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 bend-

ing strength, with torsional strength requiring particular at-

tention 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 associ-

ated 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 (σ

1

) are those, which

are usually called the longitudinal bending stresses, but the

general category of primary does not imply a direction.

Secondary response relates to the global bending of stiff-

ened panels (for single hull ship) or to the behavior of dou-

ble bottom, double sides, etc., for double hull ships:

• Stresses in the plating of stiffened panel under lateral

pressure may have different origins (σ

2

and σ

2

*). For a

stiffened panel, there is the stress (σ

2

) and deﬂection of

the global bending of the orthotropic stiffened panels,

for example, the panel of bottom structure contained be-

tween 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: σ

2

* corresponds to the bending under the hy-

drostatic pressure of the longitudinals between trans-

verse frames (web frames). For transversally framed

panels, σ

2

* may also exist and would correspond to the

bending of the equally spaced frames between two stiff

longitudinal girders.

• A double bottombehaves as box girder but can bend lon-

gitudinally, transversally or both. This global bending in-

duces stress (σ

2

) and deﬂection. In addition, there is also

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-21

Figure 18.21 Primary (Hull), Secondary (Double Bottom and Stiffened Panels)

and Tertiary (Plate) Structural Responses (1, 2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-21 4/28/03 1:30 PM

the σ

2

* stress that corresponds to the bending of the lon-

gitudinals (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 in-plane mem-

brane 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 de-

ﬂections are large compared to the plate thickness.

In many instances, there is little or no interaction be-

tween the three (primary, secondary, tertiary) component

stresses or deﬂections, and each component may be com-

puted 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 (Subsection 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

Poisson’s Ratio. Both primary and secondary stresses are

bending stresses but in plating these stresses look like mem-

brane stresses.

In stiffeners, only primary and secondary responses in-

duce 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 re-

sponse are shown with their associated stresses (σ

1,

σ

2

, σ

2

*

and σ

3

). These considerations point to the inherent sim-

plicity of the underlying theory. The structural naval archi-

tect deals principally with beam theory, plate theory, and

combinations of both.

18.4.2 Basic Structural Components

Structural components are extensively discussed in Chap-

ter 17 – Structure Arrangement Component Design. In this

section, only the basic structural component used exten-

sively 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 model-

ing the hull girder with a series of stiffened panels.

Stiffened panels are the main components of a ship. Al-

most any part of the ship can be modeled as stiffened pan-

els (plane or cylindrical).

This means that, once the ship’s main dimensions and

general arrangement are ﬁxed, the remaining scantling de-

velopment 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 longi-

tudinally stiffened panels (b) and transversally stiff-

ened panels (c).

18.4.3 Primary Response

18.4.3.1 Beam Model and Hull Section Modulus

The structural members involved in the computation of pri-

mary stress are, for the most part, the longitudinally contin-

uous members such as deck, side, bottom shell, longitudinal

bulkheads, and continuous or fully effective longitudinal

primary or secondary stiffening members.

Elementary beam theory (equation 29) is usually uti-

lized in computing the component of primary stress, σ

1

, and

deﬂection due to vertical or lateral hull bending loads. In

assessing the applicability of this beam theory to ship struc-

tures, 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

18-22 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.22 A Standard Stiffened Panel

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-22 4/28/03 1:30 PM

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 cou-

pled. 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 comprehen-

sive stress analysis. Methods dealing with stress concen-

trations are presented in Subsection 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 (∂

2

w/∂x

2

) = M(x) [27]

or

EI (∂

4

w/∂x

4

) = q(x) [28]

where:

w = deﬂection (Figure 18.24), in m

E = modulus of elasticity of the material, in N/m

2

I = moment of inertia of beam cross section about a

horizontal axis through its centroid, in m

4

M(x) = bending moment, in N.m

q(x) = load per unit length in N/m

= ∂V(x)/∂x

= ∂

2

M(x)/∂x

2

= EI (∂

4

w/∂x

4

)

Hull Section Modulus: The plane section assumption to-

gether with elastic material behavior results in a longitudi-

nal stress, σ

1

, in the beam that varies linearly over the depth

of the cross section.

The simple beam theory for longitudinal strength cal-

culations of a ship is based on the hypothesis (usually at-

tributed to Navier) that plane sections remain plane and in

the absence of shear, normal to the OXY plane (Figure

18.24). This gives the well-known formula:

[29]

where:

M = bending moment (in N.m)

σ = bending stress (in N/m

2

)

f p

p

m

p

m

P

( ) · −

¸

¸

_

,

0

2

0

2

exp

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-23

Figure 18.23 Types of Stiffening (Longitudinal and Transverse)

Figure 18.24 Behavior of an Elastic Beam under Shear Force and Bending

Moment (2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-23 4/28/03 1:30 PM

I = Sectional moment of Inertia about the neutral axis

(in m

4

)

c = distance from the neutral axis to the extreme mem-

ber (in m)

SM = section modulus (I/c) (in m

3

)

For a given bending moment at a given cross section of

a ship, at any part of the cross section, the stress may be ob-

tained (σ = M/SM = Mc/I) which is proportional to the dis-

tance 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 σ will be obtained for each sec-

tion for any given bending moment, one for the top ﬁber

(deck) and one for the bottom ﬁber (bottom shell).

A variation on the above beam equations may be of im-

portance 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 rigid-

ity, EI, is replaced by ∫

A

E(z) z

2

dA, where A is cross sec-

tional 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 in-

dicates the bending strength properties of the primary hull

structure. The section modulus to the deck or bottom is ob-

tained 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 con-

tinuous or effectively developed:

• deck plating (strength deck and other effective decks).

(See Subsection 18.4.3.9 for Hull/Superstructure Inter-

action).

• shell and inner bottom plating,

• deck and bottom girders,

• plating and longitudinal stiffeners of longitudinal bulk-

heads,

• all longitudinals of deck, sides, bottom and inner bot-

tom, and

• 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.

Dividing the ordinates of the maximum bending-moments

curve (the envelope curve of maxima) by the corresponding

ordinates of the section-moduli curve yields stress values,

and by using both the hogging and sagging moment curves

four curves of stress can be obtained; that is, tension and com-

pression values for both top and bottom extreme ﬁbers.

It is customary, however, to assume the maximum bend-

ing moment to extend over the midship portion of the ship.

Minimum section modulus most often occurs at the loca-

tion of a hatch or a deck opening. Accordingly, the classi-

ﬁcation societies ordinarily require the maintenance of the

midship scantlings throughout the midship four-tenths

length. This practice maintains the midship section area of

structure practically at full value in the vicinity of maximum

shear as well as providing for possible variation in the pre-

cise location of the maximum bending moment.

Lateral Bending Combined with Vertical Bending: Up to

this point, attention has been focused principally upon the ver-

tical longitudinal bending response of the hull. As the ship

moves through a seaway encountering waves from directions

other than directly ahead or astern, it will experience lateral

bending loads and twisting moments in addition to the ver-

tical loads. The former may be dealt with by methods that

are similar to those used for treating the vertical bending

loads, noting that there will be no component of still water

bending moment or shear in the lateral direction. The twist-

ing or torsional loads will require some special consideration.

Note that the response of the ship to the overall hull twisting

loading should be considered a primary response.

The combination of vertical and horizontal bending mo-

ment has as major effect to increase the stress at the ex-

treme corners of the structure (equation 30).

18-24 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.25 Moment of Inertia and Section Modulus (1)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-24 4/28/03 1:30 PM

[30]

where M

v

, I

v

, c

v

, and M

h

, I

h

, c

h

, correspond to the M, I, c

deﬁned in equation 29, for the vertical bending and the hor-

izontal bending respectively.

For a given vertical bending (M

v

), the periodical wave

induced horizontal bending moment (M

h

) increases stresses,

alternatively, on the upper starboard and lower portside, and

on the upper portside and lower starboard. This explains

why these areas are usually reinforced.

Empirical interaction formulas between vertical bend-

ing, horizontal bending and shear related to ultimate strength

of hull girder are given in Subsection 18.6.5.2.

Transverse Stresses: With regards to the validity of the

Navier Equation (equation 29), a signiﬁcant improvement

may be obtained by considering a longitudinal strength

member composed of thin plate with transverse framing.

This might, for example, represent a portion of the deck

structure of a ship that is subject to a longitudinal stress σ

x

,

from the primary bending of the hull girder. As a result of

the longitudinal strain, ε

x

, which is associated with σ

x

, there

will exist a transverse strain, ε

s

. For the case of a plate that

is free of constraint in the transverse direction, the two

strains will be of opposite sign and the ratio of their ab-

solute values, given by | ε

s

/ ε

x

| = ν, is a constant property

of the material. The quantity ν is called Poisson’s Ratio and,

for steel and aluminum, has a value of approximately 0.3.

Hooke’s Law, which expresses the relation between stress

and strain in two dimensions, may be stated in terms of the

plate strains (equation 31). This shows that the primary re-

sponse induces both longitudinal (σ

x

) and transversal

stresses (σ

s

) in plating.

ε

x

= 1/E ( σ

x

– v σ

S

)

[31]

ε

S

= 1/E ( σ

S

– ν σ

x

)

As transverse plate boundaries are usually constrained

(displacements not allowed), the transverse stress can be

taken, in ﬁrst approximation as:

σ

s

= ν σ

x

[32]

Equation 32 is only valid to assess the additional stresses

in a given direction induced by the stresses in the perpen-

dicular direction computed, for instance, with the Navier

equation (equation 29).

18.4.3.2 Shear stress associated to shear forces

The simple beam theory expressions given in the preced-

ing section permit evaluation the longitudinal component

of the primary stress, σ

x

. In Figure 18.26, it can be seen that

σ ·

( )

+

( )

M

I c

M

I c

v

v v

h

h h

an element of side shell or deck plating may, in general be

subject to two other components of stress, a direct stress in

the transverse direction and a shearing stress.

This ﬁgure illustrates these as the stress resultants, de-

ﬁned as the stress multiplied by plate thickness.

The stress resultants (N/m) are given by the following

expressions:

N

x

= t σ

x

and Ns = t σ

s

stress resultants, in N/m

N = t τ shear stress resultant or shear ﬂow, in N/m

where:

σ

x

, σ

s

= stresses in the longitudinal and transverse direc-

tions, in N/m

2

τ = shear stress, in N/m

2

t = plate thickness, in m

In many parts of the ship, the longitudinal stress, σ

x

, is

the dominant component. There are, however, locations in

which the shear component becomes important and under

unusual circumstances the transverse component may, like-

wise, become important. A suitable procedure for estimat-

ing these other component stresses may be derived by

considering the equations of static equilibrium of the ele-

ment of plating (Figure 18.26). The static equilibrium con-

ditions for a plate element subjected only to in-plane stress,

that is, no plate bending, are:

∂Nx / ∂x + ∂N / ∂s = 0 [33-a]

∂Ns / ∂x + ∂N / ∂x = 0 [33-b]

In these equations, s, is the transverse coordinate meas-

ured on the surface of the section from the x-axis as shown

in Figure 18.26.

For vessels without continuous longitudinal bulkheads

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-25

Figure 18.26 Shear Forces (2)

ED: Correction on this equation is unclear.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-25 4/28/03 1:30 PM

(single cell), having transverse symmetry and subject to a

bending moment in the vertical plane, the shear ﬂow dis-

tribution, N(s) is then given by:

[34]

and the shear stress, τ , at any point in the cross section is:

[35]

where:

V(x) = total shearing force (in N) in the hull for a given

section x

m(s) = in m

3

, is the ﬁrst moment (or moment

= of area) about the neutral axis of the cross sectional

area of the plating between the origin at the cen-

terline and the variable location designated by s.

This is the crosshatched area of the section shown

in Figure 18.26

t(s) = thickness of material at the shear plane

I(x) = moment of inertia of the entire section

The total vertical shearing force, V(x), at any point, x,

in the ship’s length may be obtained by the integration of

the load curve up to that point. Ordinarily the maximum

value of the shearing force occurs at about one quarter of

the vessel’s length from either end.

Since only the vertical, or nearly vertical, members of

the hull girder are capable of resisting vertical shear, this

shear is taken almost entirely by the side shell, the contin-

uous longitudinal bulkheads if present, and by the webs of

any deep longitudinal girders.

The maximum value of τ occurs in the vicinity of the

neutral axis, where the value of t is usually twice the thick-

ness of the side plating (Figure 18.27). For vessels with con-

tinuous longitudinal bulkheads, the expression for shear

stress is more complex.

Shear Flow in Multicell Sections: If the cross section of

the ship shown in Figure 18.28 is subdivided into two or

more closed cells by longitudinal bulkheads, tank tops, or

decks, the problem of ﬁnding the shear ﬂow in the bound-

aries of these closed cells is statically indeterminate.

Equation 34 may be evaluated for the deck and bottom

of the center tank space since the plane of symmetry at

which the shear ﬂow vanishes, lies within this space and

forms a convenient origin for the integration. At the

deck/bulkhead intersection, the shear ﬂow in the deck di-

vides, but the relative proportions of the part in the bulk-

head and the part in the deck are indeterminate. The sum

t s z ds

o

s

( ) ,

∫

t(s)

V(x).m(s)

t(s) I(x)

(in N / m )

2

·

N(s)

V(x)

I(x)

m(s) ·

¸

¸

_

,

of the shear ﬂows at two locations lying on a plane cutting

the cell walls will still be given by equation 34, with m(s)

equal to the moment of the shaded area (Figure 18.28).

However, the distribution of this sum between the two com-

ponents in bulkhead and side shell, requires additional in-

formation for its determination.

This additional information may be obtained by con-

sidering the torsional equilibrium and deﬂection of the cel-

lular section. The way to proceed is extensively explained

in Lewis (2).

18.4.3.3 Shear stress associated with torsion

In order to develop the twisting equations, we consider a

closed, single cell, thin-walled prismatic section subject

only to a twisting moment, M

T

, which is constant along the

length as shown in Figure 18.29. The resulting shear stress

may be assumed uniform through the plate thickness and

is tangent to the mid-thickness of the material. Under these

circumstances, the deﬂection of the tube will consist of a

twisting of the section without distortion of its shape, and

the rate of twist, dθ/dx, will be constant along the length.

18-26 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.28 Shear Flow in Multicell Sections (2)

Figure 18.27 Shear Flow in Multicell Sections (1)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-26 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Now consider equilibrium of forces in the x-direction for

the element dx.ds of the tube wall as shown in Figure 18.29.

Since there is no longitudinal load, there will be no longi-

tudinal stress, and only the shear stresses at the top and bot-

tom edges need be considered in the expression for static

equilibrium. The shear ﬂow, N = tτ, is therefore seen to be

constant around the section.

The magnitude of the moment, M

T

, may be computed

by integrating the moment of the elementary force arising

from this shear ﬂow about any convenient axis. If r is the

distance from the axis, 0, perpendicular to the resultant shear

ﬂow at location s:

[36]

Here the symbol indicates that the integral is taken en-

tirely around the section and, therefore, Ω (m

2

) is the area

enclosed by the mid-thickness line of the tubular cross sec-

tion. The constant shear ﬂow, N (N/m), is then related to

the applied twisting moment by:

N = τ. t = M

T

/2Ω [37]

For uniform torsion of a closed prismatic section, the

angle of torsion is:

(in radians) [38]

where:

M

T

= Twisting moment (torsion), in N.m

L = Length of the girder, in m

I

p

= Polar Inertia, in m

4

G = E/2(1+ν), the shear Modulus, in N/m

2

θ ·

M L

G I

T

p

.

M r N ds N r ds N

T

· · ·

∫ ∫

2 Ω

18.4.3.4 Twisting and warping

Torsional strength: Although torsion is not usually an im-

portant factor in ship design for most ships, it does result

in signiﬁcant additional stresses on ships, such as container

ships, which have large hatch openings. These warping

stresses can be calculated by a beam analysis, which takes

into account the twisting and warping deﬂections. There

can also be an interaction between horizontal bending and

torsion of the hull girder. Wave actions tending to bend the

hull in a horizontal plane also induce torsion because of the

open cross section of the hull, which results in the shear cen-

ter being below the bottom of the hull. Combined stresses

due to vertical bending, horizontal bending and torsion must

be calculated.

In order to increase the torsional rigidity of the contain-

ership cross sections, longitudinal and transverse closed

box girders are introduced in the upper side and deck struc-

ture.

From previous studies, it has been established that spe-

cial attention should be paid to the torsional rigidity distri-

bution along the hull. Usually, toward the ship’s ends, the

section moduli are justiﬁably reduced base on bending. On

the contrary the torsional rigidity, especially in the forward

hatches, should be gradually increased to keep the warping

stress as small as possible.

Twisting of opened section: A lateral seaway could in-

duce severe twisting moment that is of the major importance

for ships having large deck openings. The equations for the

twist of a closed tube (equations 36 to 38) are applicable

only to the computation of the torsional response of closed

thin-walled sections.

The relative torsional stiffness of closed and open sec-

tions may be visualized by means of a very simple example.

Consider two circular tubes, one of which has a longi-

tudinal slit over its full length as in Figure 18.30. The closed

tube will be able to resist a much greater torque per unit an-

gular deﬂection than the open tube because of the inability

of the latter to sustain the shear stress across the slot. The

twisting resistance of the thin material of which the tube is

composed provides the only resistance to torsion in the case

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-27

Figure 18.29 Torsional Shear Flow (2). Figure 18.30 Twist of Open and Closed Tubes (2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-27 4/28/03 1:30 PM

of the open tube without longitudinal restraint. The resist-

ance to twist of the entirely open section is given by the St.

Venant torsion equation:

M

T

= G.J ∂θ/∂x (N.m) [39]

where:

∂θ/∂x = twist angle per unit length, in rad./m, which can be

approximated by θ/L for uniform torsion and uni-

form section.

J = torsional constant of the section, in m

4

= for a thin walled open section

= for a section composed of n different

= plates (b

i

= length, t

i

= thickness)

If warping resistance is present, that is, if the longitudi-

nal displacement of the elemental strips shown in Figure

18.30 is constrained, another component of torsional re-

sistance is developed through the shear stresses that result

from this warping restraint. This is added to the torque given

by equation 39.

In ship structures, warping strength comes from four

sources:

1. the closed sections of the structure between hatch open-

ings,

2. the closed ends of the ship,

3. double wall transverse bulkheads, and

4. closed, torsionally stiff parts of the cross section (lon-

gitudinal torsion tubes or boxes, including double bot-

tom, double side shell, etc.).

18.4.3.5 Racking and snaking

Racking is the result of a transverse hull shape distortion and

is caused by either dynamic loads due to rolling of the ship

or by the transverse impact of seas against the topsides. Trans-

verse bulkheads resist racking if the bulkhead spacing is close

enough to prevent deﬂection of the shell or deck plating in

its own plane. Racking introduces primarily compressive and

shearing forces in the plane of bulkhead plating.

With the usual spacing of transverse bulkheads the ef-

fectiveness of side frames in resisting racking is negligible.

However, when bulkheads are widely spaced or where the

deck width is small in way of very large hatch openings,

side frames, in association with their top and bottom brack-

ets, contribute signiﬁcant resistance to racking. Racking in

car-carriers is discussed in Chapters 17 and 34.

Racking stresses due to rolling reach a maximum in a

beam sea each time the vessel completes an oscillation in

one direction and is about to return.

1

3

3

1

b t

i

i

i

n

·

∑

1 3

3

0

/ t ds

s

∫

The angle between a deck beam and side frame tends to

open on one side and to close on the other side at the top

and reverses its action at the bottom. The effect of the con-

centration of stiff and soft sections results in a distortion pat-

tern in the ship deck that is shown in Figure 18.31. The term

snaking is sometimes used in referring to this behavior and

relates to both twisting and racking.

18.4.3.6 Effective breadth and shear lag

An important effect of the edge shear loading of a plate

member is a resulting nonlinear variation of the longitudi-

nal stress distribution (Figure 18.32). In the real plate the

longitudinal stress decreases with increasing distance from

the shear-loaded edge, and this is called shear lag. This is

in contrast to the uniform stress distribution predicted in

the beam ﬂanges by the elementary beam equation 29. In

many practical cases, the difference from the value pre-

dicted in equation 29 will be small. But in certain combi-

nations of loading and structural geometry, the effect referred

to by the term shear lag must be taken into consideration

if an accurate estimate of the maximum stress in the mem-

ber is to be made. This may be conveniently done by deﬁn-

ing an effective breadth of the ﬂange member.

The ratio, b

e

/b, of the effective breadth, b

e

, to the real

breadth, b, is useful to the designer in determining the lon-

gitudinal stress along the shear-loaded edge. It is a function

18-28 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.31 Snaking Behavior of a Container Vessel (2).

Figure 18.32 Shear Lag Effect in a Deck (2)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-28 4/28/03 1:30 PM

of the external loading applied and the boundary conditions

along the plate edges, but not its thickness. Figure 18.33

gives the effective breadth ratio at mid-length for column

loading and harmonic-shaped beam loading, together with

a common approximation for both cases:

[40]

The results are presented in a series of design charts,

which are especially simple to use, and may be found in

Schade (26).

A real situation in which such an alternating load dis-

tribution may be encountered is a bulk carrier loaded with

a dense ore cargo in alternate holds, the remainder being

empty.

An example of the computation of the effective breadth

of bottom and deck plating for such a vessel is given in

Chapter VI of Taggart (1), using Figure 18.33.

It is important to distinguish the effective breadth (equa-

tion 40) and the effective width (equations 54 and 55) pre-

sented later in Subsection 18.6.3.2 for plate and stiffened

plate-buckling analysis.

18.4.3.7 Longitudinal deﬂection

The longitudinal bending deﬂection of the ship girder is ob-

tainable from the appropriate curvature equations (equa-

tions 27 and 28) by integrating twice. A semi-empirical

approximation for bending deﬂection amidships is:

b

b

k L

b

e

·

6

w = k ( M L

2

/EI ) [41]

where the dimensionless coefﬁcient k may be taken, for ﬁrst

approximation, as 0.09 (2).

Actual deﬂection in service is affected also by thermal

inﬂuences, rigidity of structural components, and work-

manship; furthermore, deﬂection due to shear is additive to

the bending deﬂection, though its amount is usually rela-

tively small.

The same inﬂuences, which gradually increase nominal

design stress levels, also increase ﬂexibility. Additionally,

draft limitations and stability requirements may force the

L/D ratio up, as ships get larger. In general, therefore, mod-

ern design requires that more attention be focused on ﬂex-

ibility than formerly.

No speciﬁc limits on hull girder deﬂections are given in

the classiﬁcation rules. The required minimum scantlings

however, as well as general design practices, are based on

a limitation of the L/D ratio range.

18.4.3.8 Load diffusion into structure

The description of the computation of vertical shear and

bending moment by integration of the longitudinal load dis-

tribution implies that the external vertical load is resisted

directly by the vertical shear carrying members of the hull

girder such as the side shell or longitudinal bulkheads. In a

longitudinally framed ship, such as a tanker, the bottom

pressures are transferred principally to the widely spaced

transverse web frames or the transverse bulkheads where

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-29

Figure 18.33 Effective Breath Ratios at Midlength (1)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-29 4/28/03 1:30 PM

they are transferred to the longitudinal bulkheads or side

shell, again as localized shear forces. Thus, in reality, the

loading q(x), applied to the side shell or the longitudinal

bulkhead will consist of a distributed part due to the direct

transfer of load into the member from the bottom or deck

structure, plus a concentrated part at each bulkhead or web

frame. This leads to a discontinuity in the shear curve at the

bulkheads and webs.

18.4.3.9 Hull/superstructure interaction

The terms superstructure and deckhouse refer to a structure

usually of shorter length than the entire ship and erected

above the strength deck of the ship. If its sides are coplanar

with the ship’s sides it is referred to as a superstructure. If

its width is less than that of the ship, it is called a deckhouse.

The prediction of the structural behavior of a super-

structure constructed above the strength deck of the hull

has facets involving both the general bending response and

important localized effects. Two opposing schools of thought

exist concerning the philosophy of design of such erections.

One attempts to make the superstructure effective in con-

tributing to the overall bending strength of the hull, the other

purposely isolates the superstructure from the hull so that

it carries only localized loads and does not experience

stresses and deﬂections associated with bending of the main

hull. This may be accomplished in long superstructures

(>0.5L

pp

) by cutting the deckhouse into short segments by

means of expansion joints. Aluminum deckhouse con-

struction is another alternative when the different material

properties provide the required relief.

As the ship hull experiences a bending deﬂection in re-

sponse to the wave bending moment, the superstructure is

forced to bend also. However, the curvature of the super-

structure may not necessarily be equal to that of the hull but

depends upon the length of superstructure in relation to the

hull and the nature of the connection between the two, es-

pecially upon the vertical stiffness or foundation modulus

of the deck upon which the superstructure is constructed.

The behavior of the superstructure is similar to that of a

beam on an elastic foundation loaded by a system of nor-

mal forces and shear forces at the bond to the hull.

The stress distributions at the midlength of the super-

structure and the differential deﬂection between deckhouse

and hull for three different degrees of superstructure effec-

tiveness are shown on Figure 18.34.

The areas and inertias can be computed to account for

shear lag in decks and bottoms. If the erection material dif-

fers from that of the hull (aluminum on steel, for example)

the geometric erection area A

f

and inertia I

f

must be reduced

according to the ratio of the respective material moduli; that

is, by multiplying by E (aluminum)/E (steel) (approximately

one-third). Further details on the design considerations for

deckhouses and superstructures may be found in Evans (27)

and Taggart (1).

In addition to the overall bending, local stress concentra-

tions may be expected at the ends of the house, since here the

structure is transformed abruptly from that of a beam consist-

ing of the main hull alone to that of hull plus superstructure.

Recent works achieved in Norwegian University of Sci-

ence & Technology have shown that the vertical stress dis-

tribution in the side shell is not linear when there are large

openings in the side shell as it is currently the case for upper

decks of passenger vessels. Approximated stress distribu-

tions are presented at Figure 18.35. The reduced slope, θ,

for the upper deck has been found equal to 0.50 for a cata-

maran passenger vessel (28).

18.4.4 Secondary Response

In the case of secondary structural response, the principal

objective is to determine the distribution of both in-plane

18-30 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.34 Three Interaction Levels between Superstructure and Hull (1)

Figure 18.35 Vertical Stress Distribution in Passenger Vessels having Large

Openings above the Passenger Deck

Neutral axis

Passenger deck

x

z

( )z

I

M

z · ) ( σ

) ( . ) ( z z

r

σ θ σ ·

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-30 4/28/03 1:30 PM

and normal loading, deﬂection and stress over the length

and width dimensions of a stiffened panel. Remember that

the primary response involves the determination of only the

in-plane load, deﬂection, and stress as they vary over the

length of the ship. The secondary response, therefore, is

seen to be a two-dimensional problem while the primary

response is essentially one-dimensional in character.

18.4.4.1 Stiffened panels

A stiffened panel of structure, as used in the present con-

text, usually consists of a ﬂat plate surface with its attached

stiffeners, transverse frames and/or girders (Figure 18.36).

When the plating is absent the module is a grid or grillage

of beam members only, rather than a stiffened panel.

In principle, the solution for the deﬂection and stress in

the stiffened panel may be thought of as a solution for the

response of a system of orthogonal intersecting beams.

A second type of interaction arises from the two-di-

mensional stress pattern in the plate, which may be thought

of as forming a part of the ﬂanges of the stiffeners. The plate

contribution to the beam bending stiffness arises from the

direct longitudinal stress in the plate adjacent to the stiff-

ener, modiﬁed by the transverse stress effects, and also from

the shear stress in the plane of the plate. The maximum sec-

ondary stress may be found in the plate itself, but more fre-

quently it is found in the free ﬂanges of the stiffeners, since

these ﬂanges are at a greater distance than the plate mem-

ber from the neutral axis of the combined plate-stiffener.

At least four different procedures have been employed for

obtaining the structural behavior of stiffened plate panels

under normal loading, each embodying certain simplifying

assumptions: 1) orthotropic plate theory, 2) beam-on-elastic-

foundation theory, 3) grillage theory (intersecting beams), and

4) the ﬁnite element method (FEM).

Orthotropic plate theory refers to the theory of bending

of plates having different ﬂexural rigidities in the two or-

thogonal directions. In applying this theory to panels hav-

ing discrete stiffeners, the structure is idealized by assuming

that the structural properties of the stiffeners may be ap-

proximated by their average values, which are assumed to

be distributed uniformly over the width or length of the

plate. The deﬂections and stresses in the resulting contin-

uum are then obtained from a solution of the orthotropic

plate deﬂection differential equation:

[42]

where:

a

1

, a

2

, a

3

= express the average ﬂexural rigidity of the or-

thotropic plate in the two directions

w(x,y) = is the deﬂection of the plate in the normal di-

rection

p(x,y) = is the distributed normal pressure load per unit

area

Note that the behavior of the isotropic plate, that is, one

having uniform ﬂexural properties in all directions, is a spe-

cial case of the orthotropic plate problem. The orthotropic

plate method is best suited to a panel in which the stiffen-

ers are uniform in size and spacing and closely spaced. It

has been said that the application of this theory to cross-

stiffened panels must be restricted to stiffened panels with

more than three stiffeners in each direction.

An advanced orthotropic procedure has been imple-

mented by Rigo (29,30) into a computer-based scheme for

the optimum structural design of the midship section. It is

based on the differential equations of stiffened cylindrical

shells (linear theory). Stiffened plates and cylindrical shells

can both be considered, as plates are particular cases of the

cylindrical shells having a very large radius. A system of

three differential equations, similar to equation 42, is es-

tablished (8th order coupled differential equations). Fourier

series expansions are used to model the loads. Assuming

that the displacements (u,v,w) can also be expanded in sin

and cosine, an analytical solution of u, v, and w(x,y) can be

obtained for each stiffened panel.

This procedure can be applied globally to all the stiff-

ened panels that compose a parallel section of a ship, typ-

ically a cargo hold.

This approach has three main advantages. First the plate

bending behavior (w) and the inplane membrane behavior

(u and v) are analyzed simultaneously. Then, in addition to

a

w

x

a

w

x y

a

w

y

p

1

4

4

2

4

2 2

3

4

4

∂

∂

+

∂

∂ ∂

+

∂

∂

· (x,y)

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-31

Figure 18.36 A Stiffened Panel with Uniformly Distributed Longitudinals, 4

Webframes, and 3 Girders.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-31 4/28/03 1:30 PM

the ﬂexural rigidity (bending), the inplane axial, torsional,

transverse shear and inplane shear rigidities of the stiffen-

ers in the both directions can also be considered. Finally,

the approach is suited for stiffeners uniform in size and

spacing, and closely spaced but also for individual mem-

bers, randomly distributed such as deck and bottom gird-

ers. These members considered through Heaviside functions

that allow replacing each individual member by a set of 3

forces and 2 bending moment load lines. Figure 18.36 shows

a typical stiffened panel that can be considered. It includes

uniformly distributed longitudinals and web frames, and

three prompt elements (girders).

The beam on elastic foundation solution is suitable for a

panel in which the stiffeners are uniform and closely spaced

in one direction and sparser in the other one. Each of these

members is treated individually as a beam on an elastic foun-

dation, for which the differential equation of deﬂection is,

[43]

where:

w = is the deﬂection

I = is sectional moment of inertia of the longitudinal

stiffener, including adjacent plating

k = is average spring constant per unit length of the

transverse stiffeners

q(x) = is load per unit length on the longitudinal member

The grillage approach models the cross-stiffened panel

as a system of discrete intersecting beams (in plane frame),

each beam being composed of stiffener and associated ef-

fective plating. The torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel

and the Poisson ratio effect are neglected. The validity of

modeling the stiffened panel by an intersecting beam (or gril-

lage) may be critical when the ﬂexural rigidities of stiffen-

ers are small compared to the plate stiffness. It is known

that the grillage approach may be suitable when the ratio

of the stiffener ﬂexural rigidity to the plate bending rigid-

ity (EI/bD with I the moment of inertia of stiffener and D

the plate bending rigidity) is greater than 60 (31) otherwise

if the bending rigidity of stiffener is smaller, an Orthotropic

Plate Theory has to be selected.

The FEMapproach is discussed in detail in section 18.7.2.

18.4.5 Tertiary Response

18.4.5.1 Unstiffened plate

Tertiary response refers to the bending stresses and deﬂec-

tions in the individual panels of plating that are bounded by

the stiffeners of a secondary panel. In most cases the load

that induces this response is a ﬂuid pressure from either the

EI

w

x

k w q

∂

∂

+ ·

4

4

(x)

water outside the ship or liquid or dry bulk cargo within.

Such a loading is normal to and distributed over the surface

of the panel. In many cases, the proportions, orientation, and

location of the panel are such that the pressure may be as-

sumed constant over its area.

As previously noted, the deﬂection response of an

isotropic plate panel is obtained as the solution of a special

case of the earlier orthotropic plate equation (equation 42),

and is given by:

[44]

where:

D = plate ﬂexural rigidity

= Et

3

/ 12(1 – ν)

t = the uniform plate thickness

p(x,y) = distributed unit pressure load

Appropriate boundary conditions are to be selected to

represent the degree of ﬁxity of the edges of the panel.

Stresses and deﬂections are obtained by solving this equa-

tion for rectangular plates under a uniform pressure distri-

bution. Equation 44 is in fact a simpliﬁed case of the general

one (equation 42).

Information (including charts) on a plate subject to uni-

form load and concentrated load (patch load) is available

in Hughes (3).

18.4.5.2 Local deﬂections

Local deﬂections must be kept at reasonable levels in order

for the overall structure to have the proper strength and

rigidity. Towards this end, the classiﬁcation society rules may

contain requirements to ensure that local deﬂections are not

excessive.

Special requirements also apply to stiffeners. Tripping

brackets are provided to support the ﬂanges, and they should

be in line with or as near as practicable to the ﬂanges of struts.

Special attention must be given to rigidity of members under

compressive loads to avoid buckling. This is done by pro-

viding a minimum moment of inertia at the stiffener and as-

sociated plating.

18.4.6 Transverse Strength

Transverse strength refers to the ability of the ship struc-

ture to resist those loads that tend to cause distortion of the

cross section. When it is distorted into a parallelogram shape

the effect is called racking. We recall that both the primary

bending and torsional strength analyses are based upon the

assumption of no distortion of the cross section. Thus, we

E t

3

12(1 ) − ν

∂

∂

+

∂

∂ ∂

+

∂

∂

·

4

4

4

2 2

4

4

2

w

x

w

x y

w

y

p

D

(x,y)

18-32 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-32 4/28/03 1:30 PM

see that there is an inherent relationship between transverse

strength and both longitudinal and torsional strength. Cer-

tain structural members, including transverse bulkheads and

deep web frames, must be incorporated into the ship in order

to insure adequate transverse strength. These members pro-

vide support to and interact with longitudinal members by

transferring loads from one part of a structure to another.

For example, a portion of the bottom pressure loading on

the hull is transferred via the center girder and the longitu-

dinals to the transverse bulkheads at the ends of theses lon-

gitudinals. The bulkheads, in turn, transfer these loads as

vertical shears into the side shell. Thus some of the loads

acting on the transverse strength members are also the loads

of concern in longitudinal strength considerations.

The general subject of transverse strength includes ele-

ments taken from both the primary and secondary strength

categories. The loads that cause effects requiring transverse

strength analysis may be of several different types, de-

pending upon the type of ship, its structural arrangement,

mode of operation, and upon environmental effects.

Typical situations requiring attention to the transverse

strength are:

• ship out of water: on building ways or on construction

or repair dry dock,

• tankers having empty wing tanks and full centerline tanks

or vice versa,

• ore carriers having loaded centerline holds and large

empty wing tanks,

• all types of ships: torsional and racking effects caused

by asymmetric motions of roll, sway and yaw, and

• ships with structural features having particular sensitiv-

ity to transverse effects, as for instance, ships having

largely open interior structure (minimum transverse bulk-

heads) such as auto carriers, containers and RO-RO ships.

As previously noted, the transverse structural response

involves pronounced interaction between transverse and

longitudinal structural members. The principal loading con-

sists of the water pressure distribution around the ship, and

the weights and inertias of the structure and hold contents.

As a ﬁrst approximation, the transverse response of such a

frame may be analyzed by a two-dimensional frame re-

sponse procedure that may or may not allow for support by

longitudinal structure. Such analysis can be easily performed

using 2D ﬁnite element analysis (FEA). Inﬂuence of lon-

gitudinal girders on the frame would be represented by elas-

tic attachments having ﬁnite spring constants (similar to

equation 43). Unfortunately, such a procedure is very sen-

sitive to the spring location and the boundary conditions.

For this reason, a three-dimensional analysis is usually per-

formed in order to obtain results that are useful for more

than comparative purposes. Ideally, the entire ship hull or

at least a limited hold-model should be modeled. See Sub-

section 18.7.2—Structural Finite Element Models (Figure

18.57).

18.4.7 Superposition of Stresses

In plating, each response induces longitudinal stresses, trans-

verse stresses and shear stresses. These stresses can be cal-

culated individually for each response. This is the traditional

way followed by the classiﬁcation societies. With direct

analysis such as ﬁnite element analysis (Subsection 18.7.2),

it is not always possible to separate the different responses.

If calculated individually, all the longitudinal stresses

have to be added. Similar cumulative procedure must be

achieved for the transverse stresses and the shear stresses.

At the end they are combined through a criteria, which is

usually for ship structure, the von-Mises criteria (equation

45).

The standard procedure used by classiﬁcation societies

considers that longitudinal stresses induced by primary re-

sponse of the hull girder, can be assessed separately from

the other stresses. Classiﬁcation rules impose through al-

lowable stress and minimal section modulus, a maximum

longitudinal stress induced by the hull girder bending mo-

ment.

On the other hand, they recommend to combined stresses

from secondary response and tertiary response, in plating

and in members. These are combined through the von Mises

criteria and compared to the classiﬁcation requirements.

Such an uncoupled procedure is convenient to use but

does not reﬂect reality. Direct analysis does not follow this

approach. All the stresses, from the primary, secondary and

tertiary responses are combined for yielding assessment.

For buckling assessment, the tertiary response is discarded,

as it does not induce in-plane stresses. Nevertheless the lat-

eral load can be considered in the buckling formulation

(Subsection 18.6.3). Tertiary stresses should be added for

fatigue analysis.

Since all the methods of calculation of primary, sec-

ondary, and tertiary stress presuppose linear elastic behav-

ior of the structural material, the stress intensities computed

for the same member may be superimposed in order to ob-

tain a maximum value for the combined stress. In performing

and interpreting such a linear superposition, several con-

siderations affecting the accuracy and signiﬁcance of the re-

sulting stress values must be borne in mind.

First, the loads and theoretical procedures used in com-

puting the stress components may not be of the same ac-

curacy or reliability. The primary loading, for example, may

be obtained using a theory that involves certain simpliﬁca-

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-33

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-33 4/28/03 1:30 PM

tions in the hydrodynamics of ship and wave motion, and

the primary bending stress may be computed by simple

beam theory, which gives a reasonably good estimate of the

mean stress in deck or bottom but neglects certain localized

effects such as shear lag or stress concentrations.

Second, the three stress components may not necessar-

ily occur at the same instant in time as the ship moves

through waves. The maximum bending moment amidships,

which results in the maximum primary stress, does not nec-

essarily occur in phase with the maximum local pressure

on a midship panel of bottom structure (secondary stress)

or panel of plating (tertiary stress).

Third, the maximum values of primary, secondary, and

tertiary stress are not necessarily in the same direction or

even in the same part of the structure. In order to visualize

this, consider a panel of bottom structure with longitudinal

framing. The forward and after boundaries of the panel will

be at transverse bulkheads. The primary stress (σ

1

) will act

in the longitudinal direction, as given by equation 29. It will

be nearly equal in the plating and the stiffeners, and will be

approximately constant over the length of a midship panel.

There will be a small transverse component in the plating,

due to the Poison coefﬁcient, and a shear stress given by

equation 35. The secondary stress will probably be greater

in the free ﬂanges of the stiffeners than in the plating, since

the combined neutral axis of the stiffener/plate combina-

tion is usually near the plate-stiffener joint. Secondary

stresses, which vary over the length of the panel, are usu-

ally subdivided into two parts in the case of single hull struc-

ture. The ﬁrst part (σ

2

) is associated with bending of a panel

of structure bounded by transverse bulkheads and either the

side shell or the longitudinal bulkheads. The principal stiff-

eners, in this case, are the center and any side longitudinal

girders, and the transverse web frames. The second part,

(σ

2

*

), is the stress resulting from the bending of the smaller

panel of plating plus longitudinal stiffeners that is bounded

by the deep web frames. The ﬁrst of these components (σ

2

),

as a result of the proportions of the panels of structure, is

usually larger in the transverse than in the longitudinal di-

rection. The second (σ

2

*

) is predominantly longitudinal.

The maximum tertiary stress (σ

3

) happens, of course, in the

plate where biaxial stresses occur. In the case of longitudi-

nal stiffeners, the maximum panel tertiary stress will act in

the transverse direction (normal to the framing system) at

the mid-length of a long side.

In certain cases, there will be an appreciable shear stress

component present in the plate, and the proper interpreta-

tion and assessment of the stress level will require the res-

olution of the stress pattern into principal stress components.

From all these considerations, it is evident that, in many

cases, the point in the structure having the highest stress level

will not always be immediately obvious, but must be found

by considering the combined stress effects at a number of

different locations and times.

The nominal stresses produced from the analysis will be

a combination of the stress components shown in Figures

18.21 and 18.37.

18.4.7.1 von Mises equivalent stress

The yield strength of the material, σ

yield

, is deﬁned as the

measured stress at which appreciable nonlinear behavior

accompanied by permanent plastic deformation of the ma-

terial occurs. The ultimate strength is the highest level of

stress achieved before the test specimen fractures. For most

shipbuilding steels, the yield and tensile strengths in ten-

sion and compression are assumed equal.

The stress criterion that must be used is one in which it

is possible to compare the actual multi-axial stress with the

material strength expressed in terms of a single value for

the yield or ultimate stress.

For this purpose, there are several theories of material

failure in use. The one usually considered the most suitable

for ductile materials such as ship steel is referred to as the

von Mises Theory:

[45]

Consider a plane stress ﬁeld in which the component

stresses are σ

x

, σ

y

and τ. The distortion energy states that

σ σ σ σ σ τ

e x y x y

· + − +

( )

2 2 2

1

2

3

18-34 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.37 Deﬁnition of Stress Components (4)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-34 4/28/03 1:30 PM

failure through yielding will occur if the equivalent von

Mises stress, σ

e

, given by equation 45 exceeds the equiva-

lent stress, σ

ο

, corresponding to yielding of the material test

specimen. The material yield strength may also be expressed

through an equivalent stress at failure: σ

0

= σ

yield

(= σ

y

).

18.4.7.2 Permissible stresses (Yielding)

In actual service, a ship may be subjected to bending in the

inclined position and to other forces, such as those, which

induce torsion or side bending in the hull girder, not to men-

tion the dynamic effects resulting from the motions of the

ship itself. Heretofore it has been difﬁcult to arrive at the

minimum scantlings for a large ship’s hull by ﬁrst princi-

ples alone, since the forces that the structure might be re-

quired to withstand in service conditions are uncertain.

Accordingly, it must be assumed that the allowable stress

includes an adequate factor of safety, or margin, for these

uncertain loading factors.

In practice, the margin against yield failure of the struc-

ture is obtained by a comparison of the structure’s von Mises

equivalent stress, σ

e

, against the permissible stress (or al-

lowable stress), σ

0

, giving the result:

σ

e

≤ σ

0

= s

1

× σ

y

[46]

where:

s

1

= partial safety factor deﬁned by classiﬁcation societies,

which depends on the loading conditions and method

of analysis. For 20 years North Atlantic conditions

(seagoing condition), the s

1

factor is usually taken be-

tween 0.85 and 0.95

σ

y

= minimum yield point of the considered steel (mild

steel, high tensile steel, etc.)

For special ship types, different permissible stresses may

be speciﬁed for different parts of the hull structure. For ex-

ample, for LNG carriers, there are special strain require-

ments in way of the bonds for the containment system, which

in turn can be expressed as equivalent stress requirements.

For local areas subjected to many cycles of load rever-

sal, fatigue life must be calculated and a reduced permissi-

ble stress may be imposed to prevent fatigue failure (see

Subsection 18.6.6).

18.5 LIMIT STATES AND FAILURE MODES

Avoidance of structural failure is the goal of all structural

designers, and to achieve this goal it is necessary for the de-

signer to be aware of the potential limit states, failure modes

and methods of predicting their occurrence. This section

presents the basic types of failure modes and associated limit

states. A more elaborate description of the failure modes and

methods to assess the structural capabilities in relation to

these failure modes is available in Subsection 18.6.1.

Classically, the different limit states were divided in 2

major categories: the service limit state and the ultimate

limit state. Today, from the viewpoint of structural design,

it seems more relevant to use for the steel structures four

types of limit states, namely:

1. service or serviceability limit state,

2. ultimate limit state,

3. fatigue limit state, and

4. accidental limit state.

This classiﬁcation has recently been adopted by ISO.

A service limit state corresponds to the situation where

the structure can no longer provide the service for which it

was conceived, for example: excessive deck deﬂection, elas-

tic buckling in a plate, and local cracking due to fatigue.

Typically they relate to aesthetic, functional or maintenance

problem, but do not lead to collapse.

An ultimate limit state corresponds to collapse/failure,

including collision and grounding. A classic example of ul-

timate limit state is the ultimate hull bending moment (Fig-

ure 18.46). The ultimate limit state is symbolized by the

higher point (C) of the moment-curvature curve (M-Φ).

Fatigue can be either considered as a third limit state or,

classically, considered as a service limit state. Even if it is

also a matter of discussion, yielding should be considered

as a service limit state. First yield is sometimes used to as-

sess the ultimate state, for instance for the ultimate hull

bending moment, but basically, collapse occurs later. Most

of the time, vibration relates to service limit states.

In practice, it is important to differentiate service, ulti-

mate, fatigue and accidental limit states because the partial

safety factors associated with these limit states are gener-

ally different.

18.5.1 Basic Types of Failure Modes

Ship structural failure may occur as a result of a variety of

causes, and the degree or severity of the failure may vary

from a minor esthetic degradation to catastrophic failure re-

sulting in loss of the ship. Three major failure modes are

deﬁned:

1. tensile or compressive yield of the material (plasticity),

2. compressive instability (buckling), and

3. fracture that includes ductile tensile rupture, low-cycle

fatigue and brittle fracture.

Yield occurs when the stress in a structural member ex-

ceeds a level that results in a permanent plastic deforma-

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-35

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-35 4/28/03 1:30 PM

tion of the material of which the member is constructed. This

stress level is termed the material yield stress. At a some-

what higher stress, termed the ultimate stress, fracture of

the material occurs. While many structural design criteria

are based upon the prevention of any yield whatsoever, it

should be observed that localized yield in some portions of

a structure is acceptable. Yield must be considered as a serv-

iceability limit state.

Instability and buckling failure of a structural member

loaded in compression may occur at a stress level that is sub-

stantially lower than the material yield stress. The load at

which instability or buckling occurs is a function of mem-

ber geometry and material elasticity modulus, that is, slen-

derness, rather than material strength. The most common

example of an instability failure is the buckling of a simple

column under a compressive load that equals or exceeds

the Euler Critical Load. A plate in compression also will

have a critical buckling load whose value depends on the

plate thickness, lateral dimensions, edge support conditions

and material elasticity modulus. In contrast to the column,

however, exceeding this load by a small margin will not

necessarily result in complete collapse of the plate but only

in an elastic deﬂection of the central portion of the plate away

from its initial plane. After removal of the load, the plate

may return to its original un-deformed conﬁguration (for

elastic buckling). The ultimate load that may be carried by

a buckled plate is determined by the onset of yielding at some

point in the plate material or in the stiffeners, in the case of

a stiffened panel. Once begun, yield may propagate rapidly

throughout the entire plate or stiffened panel with further

increase in load.

Fatigue failure occurs as a result of a cumulative effect

in a structural member that is exposed to a stress pattern al-

ternating from tension to compression through many cy-

cles. Conceptually, each cycle of stress causes some small

but irreversible damage within the material and, after the

accumulation of enough such damage, the ability of the

member to withstand loading is reduced below the level of

the applied load. Two categories of fatigue damage are gen-

erally recognized and they are termed high-cycle and low-

cycle fatigue. In high-cycle fatigue, failure is initiated in

the form of small cracks, which grow slowly and which

may often be detected and repaired before the structure is

endangered. High-cycle fatigue involves several millions

of cycles of relatively low stress (less than yield) and is typ-

ically encountered in machine parts rotating at high speed

or in structural components exposed to severe and prolonged

vibration. Low-cycle fatigue involves higher stress levels,

up to and beyond yield, which may result in cracks being

initiated after several thousand cycles.

The loading environment that is typical of ships and

ocean structures is of such a nature that the cyclical stresses

may be of a relatively low level during the greater part of

the time, with occasional periods of very high stress levels

caused by storms. Exposure to such load conditions may

result in the occurrence of low-cycle fatigue cracks after an

interval of a few years. These cracks may grow to serious

size if they are not detected and repaired.

Concerning brittle fracture, small cracks suddenly begin

to grow and travel almost explosively through a major por-

tion of the structure. The term brittle fracture refers to the

fact that below a certain temperature, the ultimate tensile

strength of steel diminishes sharply (lower impact energy).

The originating crack is usually found to have started as a

result of poor design or manufacturing practice. Fatigue

(Subsection 18.6.6) is often found to play an important role

in the initiation and early growth of such originating cracks.

The prevention of brittle fracture is largely a matter of ma-

terial selection and proper attention to the design of struc-

tural details in order to avoid stress concentrations. The

control of brittle fracture involves a combination of design

and inspection standards aimed toward the prevention of

stress concentrations, and the selection of steels having a

high degree of notch toughness, especially at low tempera-

tures. Quality control during construction and in-service in-

spection form key elements in a program of fracture control.

In addition to these three failure modes, additional modes

are:

• collision and grounding, and

• vibration and noise.

Collision and Grounding is discussed in Subsection

18.6.7 and Vibration in Subsection 18.6.8. Vibration as well

as noise is not a failure mode, while it could fall into the

serviceability limit state.

18.6 ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURAL

CAPACITY

18.6.1 Failure Modes Classiﬁcation

The types of failure that may occur in ship structures are

generally those that are characteristic of structures made up

of stiffened panels assembled through welding. Figure 18.38

presents the different structure levels: the global structure,

usually a cargo hold (Level 1), the orthotropic stiffened

panel or grillage (Level 2) and the interframe longitudi-

nally stiffened panel (Level 3) or its simpliﬁed modeling:

the beam-column (Level 3b). Level 4 (Figure 18.44a) is the

unstiffened plate between two longitudinals and two trans-

verse frames (also called bare plate).

The word grillage should be reserve to a structure com-

18-36 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-36 4/28/03 1:30 PM

posed of a grid of beams (without attached plating). When

the grid is ﬁxed on a plate, orthotropic stiffened panel seems

to the authors more adequate to deﬁne a panel that is or-

thogonally stiffened, and having thus orthotropic properties.

The relations between the different failure modes and

structure levels can be summarized as follows:

• Level 1: Ultimate bending moment, M

u

, of the global

structure (Figure 18.46).

• Level 2: Ultimate strength of compressed orthotropic

stiffened panels (σ

u

),

σ

u

= min [σ

u

(mode i)], i = I to VI,

the 6 considered failure modes.

• Level 3:

Mode I: Overall buckling collapse (Figure 18.44d),

Mode II: Plate/Stiffener Yielding

Mode III: P

ult

of interframe panels with a plate-stif

ener combination (Figure 18.44b) using a beam-col-

umn model (Level 3b) or an orthotropic model (Level

3), considering:

— plate induced failure (buckling)

— stiffener induced failure (buckling or yielding)

Mode IV and V: Instability of stiffeners (local buck-

ling, tripping—Figure 18.44c)

Mode VI: Gross Yielding

• Level 4: Buckling collapse of unstiffened plate (bare

plate, Figure 18.44a).

To avoid collapse related to the Mode I, a minimal rigid-

ity is generally imposed for the transverse frames so that an

interframe panel collapse (Mode III) always occurs prior to

overall buckling (Mode I). It is a simple and easy constraint

to implement, thus avoiding any complex calculation of

overall buckling (mode I).

Note that the failure Mode III is inﬂuenced by the buck-

ling of the bare plate (elementary unstiffened plate). Elas-

tic buckling of theses unstiffened plates is usually not

considered as an ultimate limit state (failure mode), but

rather as a service limit state. Nevertheless, plate buckling

(Level 4) may signiﬁcantly affect the ultimate strength of

the stiffened panel (Level 3).

Sources of the failures associated with the serviceabil-

ity or ultimate limit states can be classiﬁed as follows:

18.6.1.1 Stiffened panel failure modes

Service limit state

• Upper and lower bounds (X

min

≤X≤X

max

): plate thick-

ness, dimensions of longitudinals and transverse stiff-

eners (web, ﬂange and spacing).

• Maximum allowable stresses against ﬁrst yield (Sub-

section 18.4.7)

• Panel and plate deﬂections (Subsections 18.4.4.1 and

18.4.5.2), and deﬂection of support members.

• Elastic buckling of unstiffened plates between two lon-

gitudinals and two transverse stiffeners, frames or bulk-

heads (Subsection 18.6.3),

• Local elastic buckling of longitudinal stiffeners (web

and ﬂange). Often the stiffener web/ﬂange buckling does

not induce immediate collapse of the stiffened panel as

tripping does. It could therefore be considered as a serv-

iceability ultimate limit state. However, this failure mode

could also be classiﬁed into the ultimate limit state since

the plating may sometimes remain without stiffening

once the stiffener web buckles.

• Vibration (Sub-ection 18.6.8)

• Fatigue (Sub-ection 18.6.6)

Ultimate limit state (Subsection 18.6.4).

• Overall collapse of orthotropic panels (entire stiffened

plate structure),

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-37

Figure 18.38 Structural Modeling of the Structure and its Components

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-37 4/28/03 1:30 PM

• Collapse of interframe longitudinally stiffened panel,

including torsional-ﬂexural (lateral-torsional) buckling

of stiffeners (also called tripping).

18.6.1.2 Frame failure modes

Service limit state (Subsection 18.4.6).

• Upper and lower bounds (X

min

≤ X ≤ X

max

),

• Minimal rigidity to guarantee rigid supports to the in-

terframe panels (between two transverse frames).

• Allowable stresses under the resultant forces (bending,

shear, torsion)

— Elastic analysis,

— Elasto-plastic analysis.

• Fatigue (Subsection 18.6.6)

Ultimate limit state

• Frame bucklings: These failures modes are considered

as ultimate limit states rather than a service limit state.

If one of them appears, the assumption of rigid supports

is no longer valid and the entire stiffened panel can reach

the ultimate limit state.

— Buckling of the compressed members,

— Local buckling (web, ﬂange).

18.6.1.3 Hull Girder Collapse modes

Service limit state

• Allowable stresses and ﬁrst yield (Subsection 18.4.3.1),

• Deﬂection of the global structure and relative deﬂec-

tions of components and panels (Subsection 18.4.3.7).

Ultimate limit state

• Global ultimate strength (of the hull girder/box girder).

This can be done by considering an entire cargo hold or

only the part between two transverse web frames (Sub-

section 18.6.5). Collapse of frames is assumed to only

appear after the collapse of panels located between these

frames. This means that it is sufﬁcient to verify the box

girder ultimate strength between two frames to be pro-

tected against a more general collapse including, for in-

stance, one or more frame spans. This approach can be

un-conservative if the frames are not stiff enough.

• Collision and grounding (Subsection 18.6.7), which is

in fact an accidental limit state.

A relevant comparative list of the limit states was de-

ﬁned by the Ship Structure Committee Report No 375 (32).

18.6.2 Yielding

As explained in Subsection 18.5.1 yield occurs when the

stress in a structural component exceeds the yield stress.

It is necessary to distinguish between ﬁrst yield state and

fully plastic state. In bending, ﬁrst yield corresponds to the

situation when stress in the extreme ﬁber reaches the yield

stress. If the bending moment continues to increase the yield

area is growing. The ﬁnal stage corresponds to the Plastic

Moment (M

p

), where, both the compression and tensile sides

are fully yielded (as shown on Figure 18.47).

Yield can be assessed using basic bending theory, equa-

tion 29, up to complex 3D nonlinear FE analysis. Design

criteria related to ﬁrst yield is the von Mises equivalent

stress (equation 45).

Yielding is discussed in detail in Section 18.4.

18.6.3 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Plates

A ship stiffened plate structure can become unstable if ei-

ther buckling or collapse occurs and may thus fail to per-

form its function. Hence plate design needs to be such that

instability under the normal operation is prevented (Figure

18.44a). The phenomenon of buckling is normally divided

into three categories, namely elastic buckling, elastic-plas-

tic buckling and plastic buckling, the last two being called

inelastic buckling. Unlike columns, thin plating buckled in

the elastic regime may still be stable since it can normally

sustain further loading until the ultimate strength is reached,

even if the in-plane stiffness signiﬁcantly decreases after the

inception of buckling. In this regard, the elastic buckling of

plating between stiffeners may be allowed in the design,

sometimes intentionally in order to save weight. Since sig-

niﬁcant residual strength of the plating is not expected after

buckling occurs in the inelastic regime, however, inelastic

buckling is normally considered to be the ultimate strength

of the plate.

The buckling and ultimate strength of the structure de-

pends on a variety of inﬂuential factors, namely geomet-

ric/material properties, loading characteristics, fabrication

related imperfections, boundary conditions and local dam-

age related to corrosion, fatigue cracking and denting.

18.6.3.1 Direct Analysis

In estimating the load-carrying capacity of plating between

stiffeners, it is usually assumed that the stiffeners are sta-

ble and fail only after the plating. This means that the stiff-

eners should be designed with proper proportions that help

attain such behavior. Thus, webs, faceplates and ﬂanges of

the stiffeners or support members have to be proportioned

so that local instability is prevented prior to the failure of

plating.

18-38 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-38 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Four load components, namely longitudinal compres-

sion/tension, transverse compression/tension, edge shear and

lateral pressure loads, are typically considered to act on ship

plating between stiffeners, as shown in Figure 18.39, while

the in-plane bending effects on plate buckling are also some-

times accounted for. In actual ship structures, lateral pres-

sure loading arises from water pressure and cargo weight.

The still water magnitude of water pressure depends on the

vessel draft, and the still water value of cargo pressure is de-

termined by the amount and density of cargo loaded.

These still water pressure values may be augmented by

wave action and vessel motion. Typically the larger in-plane

loads are caused by longitudinal hull girder bending, both

in still water and in waves at sea, which is the source of the

primary stress as previously noted in Subsection 18.4.3.

The elastic plate buckling strength components under

single types of loads, that is, σ

xE

for σ

xav

, σ

yE

for σ

yav

and

τ

E

for τ

av

, can be calculated by taking into account the re-

lated effects arising from in-plane bending, lateral pressure,

cut-outs, edge conditions and welding induced residual

stresses.

The critical (elastic-plastic) buckling strength compo-

nents under single types of loads, that is, σ

xB

for σ

xav

, σ

yB

for σ

yav

and τ

B

for τ

av

, are typically calculated by plasticity

correction of the corresponding elastic buckling strength

using the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula, namely:

[47]

where:

σ

E

= elastic plate buckling strength

σ

σ σ σ

σ

σ

σ

σ σ

B

E E F

F

F

E

E F

for

for

·

≤

−

¸

¸

_

,

>

¹

'

¹

¹

¹

0 5

1

4

0 5

.

.

σ

B

= critical buckling strength (that is, τ

B

for

shear stress)

σ

F

= σ

Y

for normal stress

= σ

Y

√

4

3 for shear stress

σ

Y

= material yield stress

In ship rules and books, equation 47 may appear with

somewhat different constants depending on the structural

proportional limit assumed. The above form assumes a struc-

tural proportional limit of a half the applicable yield value.

For axial tensile loading, the critical strength may be

considered to equal the material yield stress (σ

Y

).

Under single types of loads, the critical plate buckling

strength must be greater than the corresponding applied

stress component with the relevant margin of safety. For

combined biaxial compression/tension and edge shear, the

following type of critical buckling strength interaction cri-

terion would need to be satisﬁed, for example:

[48]

where:

η

B

= usage factor for buckling strength, which is typically

the inverse of the conventional partial safety factor.

η

B

= 1.0 is often taken for direct strength calculation, while

it is taken less than 1.0 for practical design in accor-

dance with classiﬁcation society rules.

Compressive stress is taken as negative while tensile

stress is taken as positive and α = 0 if both σ

xav

and σ

yav

are

compressive, and α = 1 if either σ

xav

or σ

yav

or both are ten-

sile. The constant c is often taken as c = 2.

Figure 18.40 shows a typical example of the axial mem-

brane stress distribution inside a plate element under pre-

dominantly longitudinal compressive loading before and

after buckling occurs. It is noted that the membrane stress

distribution in the loading (x) direction can become non-

uniform as the plate element deforms. The membrane stress

distribution in the y direction may also become non-uni-

form with the unloaded plate edges remaining straight, while

no membrane stresses will develop in the y direction if the

unloaded plate edges are free to move in plane. As evident,

the maximum compressive membrane stresses are developed

around the plate edges that remain straight, while the min-

imum membrane stresses occur in the middle of the plate

element where a membrane tension ﬁeld is formed by the

plate deﬂection since the plate edges remain straight.

With increase in the deﬂection of the plate keeping the

edges straight, the upper and/or lower ﬁbers inside the mid-

dle of the plate element will initially yield by the action of

bending. However, as long as it is possible to redistribute

σ

σ

α

σ

σ

σ

σ

σ

σ

τ

τ

η

xav

xB

c

xav

xB

yav

yB

yav

yB

c

av

B

c

B

¸

¸

_

,

− +

¸

¸

_

,

+

¸

¸

_

,

≤

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-39

Figure 18.39 A Simply Supported Rectangular Plate Subject to Biaxial

Compression/tension, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-39 4/28/03 1:30 PM

the applied loads to the straight plate boundaries by the

membrane action, the plate element will not collapse. Col-

lapse will then occur when the most stressed boundary lo-

cations yield, since the plate element can not keep the

boundaries straight any further, resulting in a rapid increase

of lateral plate deﬂection (33). Because of the nature of ap-

plied axial compressive loading, the possible yield loca-

tions are longitudinal mid-edges for longitudinal uniaxial

compressive loads and transverse mid-edges for transverse

uniaxial compressive loads, as shown in Figure 18.41.

The occurrence of yielding can be assessed by using the

von Mises yield criterion (equation 45). The following con-

ditions for the most probable yield locations will then be

found.

(a) Yielding at longitudinal edges:

[49a]

(b) Yielding at transverse edges:

[49b]

The maximum and minimum membrane stresses of equa-

tions 49a and 49b can be expressed in terms of applied

stresses, lateral pressure loads and fabrication related ini-

tial imperfections, by solving the nonlinear governing dif-

ferential equations of plating, based on equilibrium and

compatibility equations. Note that equation 44 is the linear

differential equation.

On the other hand, the plate ultimate edge shear strength,

τ

u

, is often taken τ

u

=τ

B

(equation 47, with τ

B

instead of σ

B

).

Also, an empirical formula obtained by curve ﬁtting based

on nonlinear ﬁnite element solutions may be utilized (33).

The effect of lateral pressure loads on the plate ultimate edge

shear strength may in some cases need to be accounted for.

σ σ σ σ σ

x min

x min y max y max

2 2 2

− + ·

Y

σ σ σ σ σ

x max x max y min

y min

2 2 2

− + ·

Y

18-40 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.40 Membrane Stress Distribution Inside the Plate Element under

Predomianntly Longitudinal Compressive Loads; (a) Before buckling, (b) After

buckling, unloaded edges move freely in plane, (c) After buckling, unloaded

edges kept straight

Figure 18.41 Possible Locations for the Initial Plastic Yield at the Plate Edges

(Expected yield locations, T: Tension, C: Compression); (a) Yield at longitudinal

mid-edges under longitudinal uniaxial compression, (b) Yield at transverse

mid-edges under transverse uniaxial compression)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-40 4/28/03 1:31 PM

For combined biaxial compression/tension, edge shear

and lateral pressure loads, the last being usually regarded

as a given constant secondary load, the plate ultimate

strength interaction criterion may also be given by an ex-

pression similar to equation 48, but replacing the critical

buckling strength components by the corresponding ulti-

mate strength components, as follows:

[50]

where:

α and c = variables deﬁned in equation 48

η

u

= usage factors for the ultimate limit state

σ

xu

and σ

yu

= solutions of equation 49a with regard to σ

xav

and equation 49b with regard to σ

yav

, respec-

tively

18.6.3.2 Simpliﬁed models

In the interest of simplicity, the elastic plate buckling strength

components under single types of loads may sometimes be

calculated by neglecting the effects of in-plane bending or

lateral pressure loads. Without considering the effect of lat-

eral pressure, the resulting elastic buckling strength predic-

tion would be pessimistic. While the plate edges are often

supposed to be simply supported, that is, without rotational

restraints along the plate/stiffener junctions, the real elastic

buckling strength with rotational restraints would of course

be increased by a certain percentages, particularly for heavy

stiffeners. This arises from the increased torsional restraint

provided at the plate edges in such cases.

The theoretical solution for critical buckling stress, σ

B

,

in the elastic range has been found for a number of cases

of interest. For rectangular plate subject to compressive in-

plane stress in one direction:

[51]

Here k

c

is a function of the plate aspect ratio, α = a/ b,

the boundary conditions on the plate edges and the type of

loading. If the load is applied uniformly to a pair of oppo-

site edges only, and if all four edges are simply supported,

then k

c

is given by:

[52]

where m is the number of half-waves of the deﬂected plate

in the longitudinal direction, which is taken as an integer

satisfying the condition For long plate in α · m(m + 1).

k

m

m

c

· +

¸

¸

_

, α

α

2

σ

π

ν

B c

k

E t

b

·

−

¸

¸

_

,

2

2

2

12 1 ( )

σ

σ

α

σ

σ

σ

σ

σ

σ

τ

τ

η

xav

xu

c

xav

xu

yav

yu

yav

yu

c

av

u

c

u

¸

¸

_

,

− +

¸

¸

_

,

+

¸

¸

_

,

≤

compression (a > b), k

c

= 4

,

and for wide plate (a ≤ b) in

compression, kc = (1 + b

2

/ a

2

)

2

, for simply supported edges.

For shear force, the critical buckling shear stress, τ

B

, can

also be obtain by equation 51 and the buckling coefﬁcient

for simply supported edges is:

kc = 5.34 + 4(b/a)

2

[53]

Figure 18.42 presents, k

c

, versus the aspect ratio, a/b, for

different conﬁgurations of rectangular plates in compression.

For the simpliﬁed prediction of the plate ultimate strength

under uniaxial compressive loads, one of the most common ap-

proaches is to assume that the plate will collapse if the maxi-

mum compressive stress at the plate corner reaches the material

yield stress, namely σ

x max

= σ

Y

for σ

xav

or σ

y max

= σ

Y

for σ

yav

.

This assumption is relevant when the unloaded edges

move freely in plane as that shown in Figure 40(b). Another

approximate method is to use the plate effective width con-

cept, which provides the plate ultimate strength components

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-41

Figure 18.42 Compressive Buckling Coefﬁcient for Plates in Compression; for

5 Conﬁgurations (2) (A, B, C, D and E) where Boundary Conditions of Unloaded

Edges are: SS: Simply Supported, C: Clamped, and F: Free

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-41 4/28/03 1:31 PM

under uniaxial compressive stresses (σ

xu

and σ

yu

), as fol-

low:

[54]

where a

eu

and b

eu

are the plate effective length and width at

the ultimate limit state, respectively.

While a number of the plate effective width expressions

have been developed, a typical approach is exempliﬁed by

Faulkner, who suggests an empirical effective width (b

eu

/b)

formula for simply supported steel plates, as follows,

• for longitudinal axial compression (34),

[55a]

• for transverse axial compression (35),

[55b]

where:

β = is the plate slenderness

E = the Young’s modulus

t = the plate thickness

c

1

, c

2

= typically taken as c

1

= 2 and c

2

= 1

The plate ultimate strength components under uniaxial

compressive loads are therefore predicted by substituting

the plate effective width formulae (equation 55a) into equa-

tion 54.

More charts and formulations are available in many

books, for example, Bleich (36), ECCS-56 (37), Hughes

(3) and Lewis (2). In addition, the design strength of plate

(unstiffened panels) is detailed in Chapter 19, Subsection

19.5.4.1, including an example of reliability-based design

and alternative equations to equations 56 and 57.

18.6.3.3 Design criteria

When a single load component is involved, the buckling or

ultimate strength must be greater than the corresponding ap-

plied stress component with an appropriate target partial

safety factor. In a multiple load component case, the struc-

tural safety check is made with equation 48 against buck-

ling and equation 50 against ultimate limit state being

satisﬁed.

To ensure that the possible worst condition is met (buck-

ling and yield) for the ship, several stress combination must

be considered, as the maximum longitudinal and transverse

σ

b

t E

Y

a

a

b

a

eu

· + −

¸

¸

_

,

0 9 1 9

1

0 9

2 2

. . .

β

β

β

b

b

for

c c

for

eu

·

<

− ≥

¹

'

¹

¹

¹

1 1

1

1 2

2

β

β

β

β

σ

σ

σ

σ

xu

Y

eu

yu

Y

eu

b

b

a

a

· · and

compression do not occur simultaneously. For instance,

DNV (4) recommends:

• maximum compression, σ

x

, in a plate ﬁeld and phase

angle associated with σ

y

, τ (buckling control),

• maximum compression, σ

y

, in a plate ﬁeld and phase

angle associated with σ

x

, τ (buckling control),

• absolute maximum shear stress, τ, in a plate ﬁeld and

phase angle associated with σ

x

, σ

y

(buckling control),

and

• maximum equivalent von Mises stress, σ

e,

at given po-

sitions (yield control).

In order to get σ

x

and σ

y

, the following stress compo-

nents may normally be considered for the buckling control:

σ

1

= stress from primary response, and

σ

2

= stress from secondary response (that is, double

bottom bending).

As the lateral bending effects should be normally in-

cluded in the buckling strength formulation, stresses from

local bending of stiffeners (secondary response), σ

2

*

, and

local bending of plate (tertiary response), σ

3

, must there-

fore not to be included in the buckling control. If FE-analy-

sis is performed the local plate bending stress, σ

3

, can easily

be excluded using membrane stresses.

18.6.4 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Stiffened

Panels

For the structural capacity analysis of stiffened panels, it is

presumed that the main support members including longi-

tudinal girders, transverse webs and deep beams are de-

signed with proper proportions and stiffening systems so

that their instability is prevented prior to the failure of the

stiffened panels they support.

In many ship stiffened panels, the stiffeners are usually

attached in one direction alone, but for generality, the de-

sign criteria often consider that the panel can have stiffen-

ers in one direction and webs or girders in the other, this

arrangement corresponds to a typical ship stiffened panels

(Figure 18.43a). The stiffeners and webs/girders are at-

tached to only one side of the panel.

The number of load components acting on stiffened steel

panels are generally of four types, namely biaxial loads, that

is compression or tension, edge shear, biaxial in-plane bend-

ing and lateral pressure, as shown in Figure 18.43. When the

panel size is relatively small compared to the entire structure,

the inﬂuence of in-plane bending effects may be negligible.

However, for a large stiffened panel such as that in side

shell of ships, the effect of in-plane bending may not be

negligible, since the panel may collapse by failure of stiff-

18-42 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-42 4/28/03 1:31 PM

eners which are loaded by largest added portion of axial

compression due to in-plane bending moments.

When the stiffeners are relatively small so that they

buckle together with the plating, the stiffened panel typi-

cally behaves as an orthotropic plate. In this case, the av-

erage values of the applied axial stresses may be used by

neglecting the inﬂuence of in-plane bending. When the stiff-

eners are relatively stiff so that the plating between stiffen-

ers buckles before failure of the stiffeners, the ultimate

strength is eventually reached by failure of the most highly

stressed stiffeners. In this case, the largest values of the axial

compressive or tensile stresses applied at the location of the

stiffeners are used for the failure analysis of the stiffeners.

In stiffened panels of ship structures, material properties of

the stiffeners including the yield stress are in some cases

different from that of the plate. It is therefore necessary to

take into account this effect in the structural capacity for-

mulations, at least approximately.

For analysis of the ultimate strength capacity of stiffened

panels which are supported by longitudinal girders, trans-

verse webs and deep beams, it is often assumed that the

panel edges are simply supported, with zero deﬂection and

zero rotational restraints along four edges, with all edges

kept straight.

This idealization may provide somewhat pessimistic,

but adequate predictions of the ultimate strength of stiffened

panels supported by heavy longitudinal girders, transverse

webs and deep beams (or bulkheads).

Today, direct non-linear strength assessment methods

using recognized programs is usual (38). The model should

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-43

Figure 18.43 A Stiffened Steel Panel Under Biaxial Compression/Tension,

Biaxial In-plane Bending, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads. (a) Stiffened

Panel—Longitudinals and Frames (4), and (b) A Generic Stiffened Panel (38).

(a)

(b)

Figure 18.44 Modes of Failures by Buckling of a Stiffened Panel (2).

(a) Elastic buckling of plating between stiffeners (serviceability limit state).

(b) Flexural buckling of stiffeners including plating (plate-stiffener combination,

mode III).

(c) Lateral-torsional buckling of stiffeners (tripping—mode V).

(d) Overall stiffened panel buckling (grillage or gross panel buckling—mode I).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-43 4/28/03 1:31 PM

be capable of capturing all relevant buckling modes and

detrimental interactions between them. The fabrication re-

lated initial imperfections in the form of initial deﬂections

(plates, stiffeners) and residual stresses can in some cases

signiﬁcantly affect (usually reduce) the ultimate strength of

the panel so that they should be taken into account in the

strength computations as parameters of inﬂuence.

18.6.4.1 Direct analysis

The primary modes for the ultimate limit state of a stiffened

panel subject to predominantly axial compressive loads may

be categorized as follows (Figure 18.44):

• Mode I: Overall collapse after overall buckling,

• Mode II: Plate induced failure—yielding of the plate-

stiffener combination at panel edges,

• Mode III: Plate induced failure—ﬂexural buckling fol-

lowed by yielding of the plate-stiffener combination at

mid-span,

• Mode IV: Stiffener induced failure—local buckling of

stiffener web,

• Mode V: Stiffener induced failure—tripping of stiffener,

and

• Mode VI: Gross yielding.

Calculation of the ultimate strength of the stiffened panel

under combined loads taking into account all of the possi-

ble failure modes noted above is not straightforward, be-

cause of the interplay of the various factors previously noted

such as geometric and material properties, loading, fabri-

cation related initial imperfections (initial deﬂection and

welding induced residual stresses) and boundary conditions.

As an approximation, the collapse of stiffened panels is then

usually postulated to occur at the lowest value among the

various ultimate loads calculated for each of the above col-

lapse patterns.

This leads to the easier alternative wherein one calcu-

lates the ultimate strengths for all collapse modes mentioned

above separately and then compares them to ﬁnd the min-

imum value which is then taken to correspond to the real

panel ultimate strength. The failure mode of stiffened pan-

els is a broad topic that cannot be covered totally within this

chapter. Many simpliﬁed design methods have of course

been previously developed to estimate the panel ultimate

strength, considering one or more of the failure modes

among those mentioned above. Some of those methods have

been reviewed by the ISSC’2000 (39). On the other hand,

a few authors provide a complete set of formulations that

cover all the feasible failure modes noted previously, namely,

Dowling et al (40), Hughes (3), Mansour et al (41,42), and

more recently Paik (38).

Assessment of different formulations by comparison

with experimental and/or FE analysis are available (43-45).

An example of reliability-based assessment of the stiff-

ened panel strength is presented in Chapter 19. Formula-

tions of Herzog, Hughes and Adamchack are also discussed.

18.6.4.2 Simpliﬁed models

Existing simpliﬁed methods for predicting the ultimate

strength of stiffened panels typically use one or more of the

following approaches:

• orthotropic plate approach,

• plate-stiffener combination approach (or beam-column

approach), and

• grillage approach.

These approaches are similar to those presented in Sub-

section 18.4.4.1 for linear analysis. All have the same back-

ground but, here, the buckling and the ultimate strength is

considered.

In the orthotropic plate approach, the stiffened panel is

idealized as an equivalent orthotropic plate by smearing the

stiffeners into the plating. The orthotropic plate theory will

then be useful for computation of the panel ultimate strength

for the overall grillage collapse mode (Mode I, Figure

18.44d), (31,46,48).

The plate-stiffener combination approach (also called

beam-column approach) models the stiffened panel behav-

ior by that of a single “beam” consisting of a stiffener to-

gether with the attached plating, as representative of the

stiffened panel (Figure 18.38, level 3b). The beam is con-

sidered to be subjected to axial and lateral line loads. The

torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel, the Poisson ratio ef-

fect and the effect of the intersecting beams are all neg-

lected. The beam-column approach is useful for the

computation of the panel ultimate strength based on Mode

III, which is usually an important failure mode that must be

considered in design. The degree of accuracy of the beam-

column idealization may become an important considera-

tion when the plate stiffness is relatively large compared to

the rigidity of stiffeners and/or under signiﬁcant biaxial

loading.

Stiffened panels are asymmetric in geometry about the

plate-plane. This necessitates strength control for both plate

induced failure and stiffener-induced failure.

Plate induced failure: Deﬂection away from the plate as-

sociated with yielding in compression at the connection be-

tween plate and stiffener. The characteristic buckling

strength for the plate is to be used.

Stiffener induced failure: Deﬂection towards the plate as-

sociated with yielding in compression in top of the stiffener

or torsional buckling of the stiffener.

Various column strength formulations have been used as

18-44 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-44 4/28/03 1:31 PM

the basis of the beam-column approach, three of the more

common types being the following:

• Johnson-Ostenfeld (or Bleich-Ostenfeld) formulation,

• Perry-Robertson formulation, and

• empirical formulations obtained by curve ﬁtting exper-

imental or numerical data.

A stocky panel that has a high elastic buckling strength

will not buckle in the elastic regime and will reach the ulti-

mate limit state with a certain degree of plasticity. In most

design rules of classiﬁcation societies, the so-called John-

son-Ostenfeld formulation is used to account for this behav-

ior (equation 47). On the other hand, in the so-called

Perry-Robertson formulation, the strength expression as-

sumes that the stiffener with associated plating will collapse

as a beam-column when the maximum compressive stress in

the extreme ﬁber reaches the yield strength of the material.

In empirical approaches, the ultimate strength formula-

tions are developed by curve ﬁtting based on mechanical

collapse test results or numerical solutions. Even if limited

to a range of applicability (load types, slenderness ranges,

assumed level of initial imperfections, etc.) they are very

useful for preliminary design stage, uncertainty assessment

and as constraint in optimization package. While a vast num-

ber of empirical formulations (sometimes called column

curves) for ultimate strength of simple beams in steel framed

structures have been developed, relevant empirical formu-

lae for plate-stiffener combination models are also available.

As an example of the latter type, Paik and Thayamballi (49)

developed an empirical formula for predicting the ultimate

strength of a plate-stiffener combination under axial com-

pression in terms of both column and plate slenderness ra-

tios, based on existing mechanical collapse test data for the

ultimate strength of stiffened panels under axial compres-

sion and with initial imperfections (initial deﬂections and

residual stresses) at an average level. Since the ultimate

strength of columns (σ

u

) must be less than the elastic col-

umn buckling strength (σ

E

), the Paik-Thayamballi empiri-

cal formula for a plate-stiffener combination is given by:

[56]

and

with

β σ ·

b

t

Y

E

σ

σ

λ

σ

σ

u

Y

E

Y

≤ ·

1

2

σ

σ

λ β λ β λ

u

Y

·

+ + + −

1

0 995 0 936

2

0 17

2

0 188

2 2

0 067

4

. . . . .

and

where:

r = radius of gyration

= √

4

I / A, (m)

I = inertia, (m

4

)

A = cross section of the plate-stiffener combination with full

attached plating, (m

2

)

t = plate thickness, (m)

a = span of the stiffeners, (m)

b = spacing between 2 longitudinals, (m)

Note that A, I, r, ... refer to the full section of the plate-

stiffener combination, that is, without considering an ef-

fective plating.

Figure 18.45 compares the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula

(equation 47), the Perry-Robertson formula and the Paik-

Thayamballi empirical formula (equation 56) for on the col-

umn ultimate strength for a plate-stiffener combination

varying the column slenderness ratios, with selected initial

eccentricity and plate slenderness ratios. In usage of the

Perry-Roberson formula, the lower strength as obtained

from either plate induced failure or stiffener-induced fail-

ure is adopted herein. Interaction between bending axial

λ

π

σ

σ

σ

· ·

a

r

Y

E

Y

E

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-45

Figure 18.45 A Comparison of the Ultimate Strength Formulations for

Plate-stiffener Combinations under Axial Compression (η relates to the

initial deﬂection)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-45 4/28/03 1:31 PM

compression and lateral pressure can, within the same fail-

ure mode (Flexural Buckling—Mode III), leads to three-fail-

ure scenario: plate induced failure, stiffener induced failure

or a combined failure of stiffener and plating (see Chapter

19 – Figure 19.11 ).

18.6.4.3 Design criteria

The ultimate strength based design criteria of stiffened pan-

els can also be deﬁned by equation 50, but using the corre-

sponding stiffened panel ultimate strength and stress

parameters. Either all of the six design criteria, that is, against

individual collapse modes I to VI noted above, or a single de-

sign criterion in terms of the real (minimum) ultimate strength

components must be satisﬁed. For stiffened panels follow-

ing Mode I behavior, the safety check is similar to a plate,

using average applied stress components. The applied axial

stress components for safety evaluation of the stiffened panel

following Modes II–VI behavior will use the maximum axial

stresses at the most highly stressed stiffeners.

18.6.5 Ultimate Bending Moment of Hull Girder

Ultimate hull girder strength relates to the maximum load

that the hull girder can support before collapse. These loads

induce vertical and horizontal bending moment, torsional

moment, vertical and horizontal shear forces and axial force.

For usual seagoing vessels axial force can be neglected. As

the maximun shear forces and maximum bending moment

do not occur at the same place, ultimate hull girder strength

should be evaluated at different locations and for a range of

bending moments and shear forces.

The ultimate bending moment (M

u

) refers to a combined

vertical and horizontal bending moments (M

v

, M

h

); the

transverse shear forces (V

v

,V

h

) not being considered. Then,

the ultimate bending moment only corresponds to one of

the feasible loading cases that induce hull girder collapse.

Today, M

u

is considered as being a relevant design case.

Two major references related to the ultimate strength of

hull girder are, respectively, for extreme load and ultimate

strength, Jensen et al (24) and Yao et al (50). Both present

comprehensive works performed by the Special Task Com-

mittees of ISSC 2000. Yao (51) contains an historical re-

view and a state of art on this matter.

Computation of M

u

depends closely on the ultimate

strength of the structure’s constituent panels, and particularly

on the ultimate strength in compressed panels or components.

Figure 18.46 shows that in sagging, the deck is compressed

(σ

deck

) and reaches the ultimate limit state when σ

deck

= σ

u

.

On the other hand, the bottom is in tensile and reaches its ul-

timate limit state after complete yielding, σ

bottom

= σ

0

(σ

0

being the yield stress).

Basically, there exist two main approaches to evaluate

the hull girder ultimate strength of a ship’s hull under lon-

gitudinal bending moments. One, the approximate analy-

sis, is to calculate the ultimate bending moment directly

(M

u

, point C on Figure 18.46), and the other is to perform

progressive collapse analysis on a hull girder and obtain,

both, M

u

and the curves M-φ.

The ﬁrst approach, approximate analysis, requires an

assumption on the longitudinal stress distribution. Figure

18.47 shows several distributions corresponding to differ-

ent methods. On the other hand, the progressive collapse

analysis does not need to know in advance this distribution.

Accordingly, to determine the global ultimate bending

moment (M

u

), one must know in advance

• the ultimate strength of each compressed panel (σ

u

), and

• the average stress-average strain relationship (σ−ε), to

perform a progressive collapse analysis.

For an approximate assessment, such as the Caldwell

method, only the ultimate strength of each compressed panel

(σ

u

) is required.

18.6.5.1 Direct analysis

The direct analysis corresponds to the Progressive collapse

analysis. The methods include the typical numerical analy-

18-46 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.46 The Moment-Curvature Curve (M-Φ)

Figure 18.47 Typical Stress Distributions Used by Approximate Methods. (a)

First Yield. (b) Sagging Bending Moment (c) Evans (d) Paik—Mansour (e)

Caldwell Modiﬁed (f) Plastic Bending Moment.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-46 4/28/03 1:31 PM

sis such as Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Idealized

structural Element method (ISUM) and Smith’s method,

which is a simpliﬁed procedure to perform progressive col-

lapse analysis.

FEM: is the most rational way to evaluate the ultimate

hull girder strength through a progressive collapse analysis

on a ship’s hull girder. Both material and geometrical non-

linearities can be considered.

A 3D analysis of a hold or a ship’s section is funda-

mentally possible but very difﬁcult to perform. This is be-

cause a ship’s hull is too large and complicated for such kind

of analysis. Nevertheless, since 1983 results of FEM analy-

ses have been reported (52). Today, with the development

of computers, it is feasible to perform progressive collapse

analysis on a hull girder subjected to longitudinal bending

with ﬁne mesh using ordinary elements. For instance, the

investigation committee on the causes of the Nakhodka ca-

sualty performed elastoplastic large deﬂection analysis with

nearly 200 000 elements (53).

However, the modeling and analysis of a complete hull

girder using FEM is an enormous task. For this reason the

analysis is more conveniently performed on a section of the

hull that sufﬁciently extends enough in the longitudinal di-

rection to model the characteristic behavior. Thus, a typi-

cal analysis may concern one frame spacing in a whole

compartment (cargo tank). These analyses have to be sup-

plemented by information on the bending and shear loads

that act at the fore and aft transverse loaded sections. Such

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has shown that accuracy is

limited because of the boundary conditions along the trans-

verse sections where the loading is applied, the position of

the neutral axis along the length of the analyzed section and

the difﬁculty to model the residual stresses.

Idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM): presented in

Subsection 18.7.3.1, can also be used to perform progres-

sive collapse analysis. It allows calculating the ultimate

bending moment through a 3D progressive collapse analy-

sis of an entire cargo hold. For that purpose, new elements

to simulate the actual collapse of deck and bottom plating

are actually underdevelopment.

Smith’s Method (Figure 18.48): A convenient alterna-

tive to FEM is the Smith’s progressive collapse analysis

(54), which consists of the following three steps (55).

Step 1: Modeling (mesh modeling of the cross-section

into elements),

Step 2: Derivation of average stress-average strain rela-

tionship of each element (σ−ε curve), Figure

18.49a.

Step 3: To perform progressive collapse analysis, Figure

18.49b.

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-47

Figure 18.49 Inﬂuence of Element Average Stress-Average Strain Curves

(σ−ε) on Progressive Collapse Behavior. (a) Average stress-average strain

relationships of element, and (b) moment-curvature relationship of cross-

section.

(a)

(b)

Figure 18.48 The Smith’s Progressive Collapse Method

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-47 4/28/03 1:31 PM

In Step 1, the cross-section of a hull girder is divided

into elements composed of a longitudinal stiffener and at-

tached plating. In Step 2, the average stress-average strain

relationship (σ−ε) of this stiffener element is derived under

the axial load considering the inﬂuences of buckling and

yielding. Step 3 can be explained as follows:

• axial rigidities of individual elements are calculated using

the average stress-average strain relationships (σ−ε),

• ﬂexural rigidity of the cross-section is evaluated using

the axial rigidities of elements,

• vertical and horizontal curvatures of the hull girder are

applied incrementally with the assumption that the plane

cross-section remains plane and that the bending occurs

about the instantaneous neutral axis of the cross-section,

• the corresponding incremental bending moments are

evaluated and so the strain and stress increments in in-

dividual elements, and

• incremental curvatures and bending moments of the

cross-section as well as incremental strains and stresses

of elements are summed up to provide their cumulative

values.

Figure 18.48 shows that the σ−ε curves are used to es-

timate the bending moment carried by the complete trans-

verse section (M

i

). The contribution of each element (dM)

depends on its location in the section, and speciﬁcally on

its distance from the current position of the neutral axis (Y

i

).

The contribution will then also depend on the strain that is

applied to it, since ε = –y φ, where φ is the hull curvature

and y is the distance from the neutral axis (simple beam as-

sumption). The average stress-average strain curve (σ-ε)

will then provide an estimate of the longitudinal stress (σ

i

)

acting on the section. Individual moments about the neu-

tral axis are then summed to give the total bending moment

for a particular curvature φ

i

.

The accuracy of the calculated ultimate bending mo-

ment depends on the accuracy of the average stress-aver-

age strain relationships of individual elements. Main

difﬁculties concern the modeling of initial imperfections

(deﬂection and welding residual stress) and the boundary

conditions (multi-span model, interaction between adjacent

elements, etc.).

Many formulations and methods to calculate these av-

erage stress-average strain relationships are available:

Adamchack (56), Beghin et al (57), Dow et al (58), Gordo

and Guedes Soares (59,60) and, Yao and Nikolov (61,62).

The FEM can even be used to get these curves (Smith 54).

For most of the methods, typical element types are: plate

element, beam-column element (stiffener and attached plate)

and hard corner.

An interesting well-studied ship that reached its ultimate

bending moment is the Energy Concentration (63). It fre-

quently is used as a reference case (benchmark) by authors

to validate methods.

Figure 18.49 shows typical average stress-average strain

relationships, and the associated bending moment-curva-

ture relationships (M-φ). Four typical σ−ε curves are con-

sidered, which are:

Case A: Linear relationship (elastic). The M-φ relationship

is free from the inﬂuences of yielding and buck-

ling, and is linear.

Case B: Bi-linear relationship (elastic-perfectly plastic,

without buckling).

Case C: With buckling but without strength reduction be-

yond the ultimate strength.

Case D: With buckling and a strength reduction beyond

the ultimate strength (actual behavior).

In Case B, where yielding takes place but no buckling,

the deck initially undergoes yielding and then the bottom.

With the increase in curvature, yielded regions spread in the

side shell plating and the longitudinal bulkheads towards

the plastic neutral axis.

In this case, the maximum bending moment is the fully

plastic bending moment (Mp) of the cross-section and its

absolute value is the same both in the sagging and the hog-

ging conditions.

For Cases C and D, the element strength is limited by

plate buckling, stiffener ﬂexural buckling, tripping, etc. For

Case C, it is assumed that the structural components can con-

tinue to carry load after attaining their ultimate strength.

The collapse behavior (M-φ curve) is similar to that of Case

B, but the ultimate strength is different in the sagging and

the hogging conditions, since the buckling collapse strength

is different in the deck and the bottom.

Case D is the actual case; the capacity of each structural

member decreases beyond its ultimate strength. In this case,

the bending moment shows a peak value for a certain value

of the curvature. This peak value is deﬁned as the ultimate

longitudinal bending moment of the hull girder (M

u

).

Shortcomings and limitations of the Smith’s method re-

lates to the fact that a typical analysis concerns one frame

spacing of a whole cargo hold and not a complete 3D hold.

As simple linear beam theory is used, deviations such

as shear lag, warping and racking are thus ignored. This

method may be a little un-conservative if the structure is

predominantly subjected to lateral pressure loads as well as

axial compression, and if it is not realized that the trans-

verse frames can deﬂect/fail and signiﬁcantly affect the stiff-

ened plate structure and hull girder bending capacity.

18-48 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-48 4/28/03 1:31 PM

18.6.5.2 Simpliﬁed models

Caldwell (64) was the ﬁrst who tried to theoretically eval-

uate the ultimate hull girder strength of a ship subjected to

longitudinal bending. He introduced a so-called Plastic De-

sign considering the inﬂuence of buckling and yielding of

structural members composing a ship’s hull (Figure 18.47).

He idealised a stiffened cross-section of a ship’s hull to

an unstiffened cross-section with equivalent thickness. If

buckling takes place at the compression side of bending,

compressive stress cannot reach the yield stress, and the fully

plastic bending moment (Mp) cannot be attained. Caldwell

introduced a stress reduction factor in the compression side

of bending, and the bending moment produced by the reduced

stress was considered as the ultimate hull girder strength.

Several authors have proposed improvements for the

Caldwell formulation (65). Each of them is characterized

by an assumed stress distribution (Figure 18.47). Such meth-

ods aim at providing an estimate of the ultimate bending

moment without attempting to provide an insight into the

behaviour before, and more importantly, after, collapse of

the section. The tracing out of a progressive collapse curve

is replaced by the calculation of the ultimate bending mo-

ment for a particular distribution of stresses. The quality of

the direct approximate method is directly dependent on the

quality of the stress distribution at collapse. It is assumed

that at collapse the stresses acting on the members that are

in tension are equal to yield throughout whereas the stresses

in the members that are in compression are equal to the in-

dividual inelastic buckling stresses. On this basis, the plas-

tic neutral axis is estimated using considerations of

longitudinal equilibrium. The ultimate bending moment is

then the sum of individual moments of all elements about

the plastic neutral axis.

In Caldwell’s Method, and Caldwell Modiﬁed Methods,

reduction in the capacity of structural members beyond their

ultimate strength is not explicitly taken into account. This

may cause the overestimation of the ultimate strength in

general (Case C, Figure 18.49).

Empirical Formulations: In contrast to all the previous

rational methods, there are some empirical formulations

usually calibrated for a type of speciﬁc vessels (66,67). Yao

et al (50), found that initial yielding strength of the deck

can provide in general a little higher but reasonably accu-

rate estimate of the ultimate sagging bending moment. On

the other hand, the initial buckling strength of the bottom

plate gives a little lower but accurate estimate of the ulti-

mate hogging bending moment. These in effect can provide

a ﬁrst estimate of the ultimate hull girder moment.

Interactions: In order to raise the problem of combined

loads (vertical and horizontal bending moments and shear

forces), several authors have proposed empirical interac-

tion equations to predict the ultimate strength. Each load

component is supposed to act separately. These methods

were reviewed by ISSC (68) and are often formulated as

equation 57.

[57]

where:

M

v

and M

h

= vertical and horizontal bending moments

M

vu

and M

hu

= ultimate vertical and horizontal bending mo-

ments

a, b and α = empirical constants

For instance, Mansour et al (47) proposes a=1, b=2 and

α= 0.8 based on analysis on one container, one tanker and

2 cruisers, and Gordo and Soares (60) 1.5<a=b<1.66 and

α= 1.0 for tankers. Hu et al (69) has proposed similar for-

mulations for bulk carriers. Paik et al (70) proposes an em-

pirical formulation that includes the shear forces in addition

to the bending moments.

18.6.5.3 Design Criteria

For design purpose, the value of the ultimate longitudinal

bending moment (capability) has to be compared with the

extreme bending moment (load) that may act on a ship’s hull

girder. To estimate the extreme bending moment, the most

severe loading condition has to be selected to provide the

maximum still water bending moment. Regarding the wave

bending moment, the IACS uniﬁed requirement is a major

reference (71,72), but more precise discussions can be found

in the ISSC 2000 report (24).

To evaluate the ultimate longitudinal strength, various

methods can be applied ranging from simple to complicated

methods. In 2000, many of the available methods were ex-

amined and assessed by an ISSC’2000 Committee (50). The

grading of each method with respect to each capability is

quantitatively performed by scoring 1 through 5. The com-

mittee concluded that the appropriate methods should be se-

lected according to the designer’s needs and the design

stage. That is, at early design stage, a simple method based

on an Assumed Stress Distribution can be used to obtain a

rough estimate of the ultimate bending moment. At later

stages, a more accurate method such as Progressive Col-

lapse Analysis with calculated σ−ε curves (Smith’s Method)

or ISUM has to be applied.

Main sensitive model capability with regards to the as-

sessment of ultimate strength can be ranked in 3 classes, re-

spectively, high (H), medium(M) and low(L) consequence

of omitting capability (Table 18.IV).

Based on the different sources of uncertainties (model-

M

M

M

M

v

vu

a

h

hu

b

¸

¸

_

,

+

¸

¸

_

,

· α 1

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-49

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-49 4/28/03 1:31 PM

ing, σ−ε curves, curvature incrementation), the global un-

certainty on the ultimate bending moment is usually large

(55). A bias of 10 to 15% must be considered as acceptable.

For intact hull the design criteria for M

u

, deﬁned by clas-

siﬁcation societies, is given by:

M

S

+ s

1

M

w

≤ s

2

M

U

[58]

where:

s

1

= the partial safety factor for load (typically 1.10)

s

2

= the material partial safety factor (typically 0.85)

M

S

= still water moment

M

w

= design wave moment (20 year return period)

18.6.6 Fatigue and Fracture

18.6.6.1 General

Design criteria stated expressly in terms of fatigue damage

resistance were in the past seldom employed in ship struc-

tural design although cumulative fatigue criteria have been

used in offshore structure design. It was assumed that fa-

tigue resistance is implicitly included in the conventional

safety factors or acceptable stress margins based on past

experience.

Today, fatigue considerations become more and more

important in the design of details such as hatch corners, re-

inforcements for openings in structural members and so on.

Since the ship-loading environment consists in large part

of alternating loads, ship structures are highly sensitive to

fatigue failures. Since 1990, fatigue is maybe the most sen-

sitive point at the detailed design stage. Tools are available

but they are time consuming and there is large uncertainty

of using simpliﬁed methods.

With the introduction of higher tensile steels in hull struc-

tures, at ﬁrst in deck and bottom to increase hull girder

strength, and later in local structures, the fatigue problem

became more imminent. The fatigue strength does not in-

crease according to the yield strength of the steel. In fact,

fatigue is found to be independent of the yield strength. The

higher stress levels in modern hull structures using higher

tensile steel have therefore led to a growing number of fa-

tigue crack problems.

To ensure that the structure will fulﬁll its intended func-

tion, fatigue assessment should be carried out for each in-

dividual type of structural detail that is subjected to extensive

dynamic loading. It should be noted that every welded joint

and attachment or other form of stress concentration is po-

tentially a source of fatigue cracking and should be indi-

vidually considered.

This section gives an overview of feasible analysis to be

performed. A more complete description of the different fa-

tigue procedures, S-N curves, stress concentration factors,

and so on, are given in: Almar-Naess (73), DNV (4), Fricke

et al (74), Maddox (75), Niemi (76), NRC (77) and Peter-

shagen et al (78). Reliability-based fatigue procedure is pre-

sented by Ayyub and Assakkaf in Chapter 19. These authors

also have contributed to this section.

18.6.6.2 Basic fatigue theories

Fatigue analyses can be performed based on:

• simpliﬁed analytical expressions,

• more reﬁned analysis where loadings/load effects are

calculated by numerical analysis, and

• a combination of simpliﬁed and reﬁned techniques.`

There are generally two major technical approaches for

fatigue life assessment of welded joints the Fracture Me-

chanics Approach and the Characteristic S-N Curves Ap-

proach.

The Fracture Mechanics Approach is based on crack

growth data assuming that the crack initiation already ex-

ists. The initiation phase is not modeled as it is assumed that

the lifetime can be predicted only using fracture mechan-

ics method of the growing cracks (after initiation). The frac-

ture mechanics approach is obviously more detailed than

the S-Ncurves approach. It involves examining crack growth

and determining the number of load cycles that are needed

for small initial defects to grow into cracks large enough to

cause fractures. The growth rate is proportional to the stress

range, S (or ∆σ) that is expressed in terms of a stress in-

tensity factor, K, which accounts for the magnitude of the

stress, current crack size, and weld and joint details. The

18-50 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

TABLE 18.IV Sensitivity Factors for Ultimate Strength

Assessment of Hull Girder.

Model Capability Impact

Plate buckling H

Stiffened plate buckling H

Post buckling behavior H

Plate welding residual stress H

M-φ curve (post collapse prediction) H

Plate initial deﬂection M

Stiffener initial deﬂection M

Stiffener welding residual stress M

Multi-span model (instead of single span) H

(see Figure 19.12 – Chapter 19)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-50 4/28/03 1:31 PM

basic equation that governs crack growth (79) is known as

the Paris Law is:

[59]

where:

a = crack size,

N = number of fatigue cycles (fatigue life),

∆K = S.Y(a) range of stress intensity factor, (K

max

– K

min

)

C, m = crack propagation parameters,

S = constant amplitude stress range,

= ∆σ = σ

max

– σ

min

Y(a) = function of crack geometry.

Fatigue life prediction based on the fracture mechanics

approach shall be computed according to the following

equation:

[60]

Equation 60 involves a variety of sources of uncertainty

and practical difﬁculties to deﬁne, for instance, the a and a

o

crack size. The crack propagation parameter Cin this equa-

tion is treated as random variable (80). However, in more

sophisticated models, equation 60 is treated as a stochastic

differential equation and C is allowed to vary during the

crack growth process. State of art on the Fracture Mechan-

ics Approach is available in Niemi (76) and Harris (81).

The characteristic S-N curves approach is based on fa-

tigue test data (S-N curves—Figure 18.50) and on the as-

sumption that fatigue damage accumulation is a linear

phenomenon (Miner’s rule). According to Miner (82) the

total fatigue life under a variety of stress ranges is the

weighted sum of the individual lives at constant stress range

S as given by the S-N curves (Figure 18.50), with each being

weighted according to fractional exposure to that level of

stress range.

The S-N curve approach related mainly to the crack ini-

tiation and a maximum allowable crack size. After, cracks

propagate based on the fracture mechanics concept as shown

in Figure 18.51. The propagation is not explicitly consid-

ered by the S-N curve approach.

Fatigue life strength prediction based on both the S-N

approach and Miner’s cumulative damage shall be evalu-

ated with equation 61 or, in logarithmic form, with equa-

tion 62 (Figure 18.50).

[61]

N

A

k S

S

m

e

m

·

∆

N

C S

da

Y

m m

a

a

·

∫

1

0 .

π . a ,

da

dN

C

m

· . ( K) ∆

logN = log (∆A) – m log (∆σ) [62]

where:

∆ = fatigue damage ratio (≤ 1)

log(∆A) = intercept of the S-N curve of the Log N axis

–1 / m = slope of the S-N curve, (≅3 ≤ m ≤ ≅7)

S

–

e

= mean of the Miner’s equivalent stress range S

e

, de-

ﬁned at Table 18.V

k

S

= fatigue stress uncertainty factor

∆σ = k

S

. S

–

e

(or the constant amplitude stress range for fail-

ure at N cycles)

N = fatigue life, or number of loading cycles expected dur-

ing the life of a detail

The Miner’s equivalent stress range, S

e

, can be evalu-

ated based on the models provided in Table 18.V (83). The

most reﬁned model would start with a scatter diagram of

sea-states, information on ship’s routes and operating char-

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-51

Figure 18.50 A Typical S-N Curve

Figure 18.51 Comparison between the Characteristic S-N Curve and Fracture

Mechanics Approach

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-51 4/28/03 1:31 PM

acteristics, and use of a ship response computer program to

provide a detailed history of stress ranges over the service

life of the ship. For such model, the wave exceedance dia-

gram (deterministic method) and the spectral method (prob-

abilistic method) can be employed (Table 18.V).

S-N curves are obtained from fatigue tests and are avail-

able in different design codes for various structural details

in bridges, ships, and offshore structures. The design S-N

curves are based on the mean-minus-two-standard-devia-

tion curves for relevant experimental data (Figure 18.50).

They are thus associated with a 97.6% probability of sur-

vival. Some classiﬁcation societies use 90%.

In practice, the actual probabilities of failure associated

with fatigue design lives is usually higher due to uncer-

tainties associated with the calculated stresses, the various

S-N curve correction factors, and the critical value of the

cumulative fatigue damage ratio, ∆.

Cumulative damage: The damage may either be calculated

on basis of the long-term stress range distribution using

Weibull parameters (simpliﬁed method), or on summation of

damage from each short-term distribution in the scatter dia-

gram (probabilistic and deterministic methods, Table 18.V).

The stress range (S or ∆σ): The procedure for the fa-

tigue analysis is based on the assumption that it is only nec-

essary to consider the ranges of cyclic principal stresses in

determining the fatigue endurance. However, some reduc-

tion in the fatigue damage accumulation can be credited

when parts of the stress cycle range are in compression.

Fatigue areas: The potential for fatigue damage is de-

pendent on weather conditions, ship type, corrosion level,

location on ship, structural detail and weld geometry and

workmanship. The potential danger of fatigue damage will

also vary according to crack location and number of po-

tential damage points. Fatigue strength assessment shall

normally be carried out for:

• longitudinal and transverse element in:

— bottom/inner bottom (side),

— longitudinal and transverse bulkheads.

• strength deck in the midship region and forebody, and

• other highly stressed structural details in the midship re-

gion and forebody, like panel knuckles.

Time at sea: Vessel response may differ signiﬁcantly for

different loading conditions. It is therefore of major im-

portance to include response for actual loading conditions.

Since fatigue is a result of numerous cyclic loads, only the

most frequent loading conditions are included in the fatigue

analysis. These will normally be ballast and full load con-

dition. Under certain circumstances, other loading condi-

tions may be used.

Environmental conditions: The long-term distribution

of load responses for fatigue analyses may be estimated

using the wave climate, represented by the distribution of

Hs and Ts, representing the sea operation conditions. As

guidance to the choice between these data sets, one should

consider the average wave environment the vessel is ex-

pected to encounter during its design life. The world wide

sailing routes will therefore normally apply. For shuttle

tankers and vessels that will sail frequently on the North At-

lantic, or in other harsh environments, the wave data given

in accordance with this should be applied. For vessels that

will sail in more smooth sailing routes, less harsh environ-

mental data may be applied. This should be decided upon

for each case.

Geometrical imperfections: The fatigue life of a welded

joint is much dependent on the local stress concentrations

factors arising from surface imperfections during the fab-

rication process, consisting of weld discontinuities and geo-

metrical deviations. Surface weld discontinuities are weld

toe undercuts, cracks, overlaps, incomplete penetration, etc.

Geometrical imperfections are deﬁned as misalignment, an-

gular distortion, excessive weld reinforcement and other-

wise poor weld shapes.

Effect of grinding of welds: For welded joints involving

potential fatigue cracking from the weld toe an improve-

ment in strength by a factor of at least 2 on fatigue life can

be obtained by controlled local machining or grinding of

the weld toe. Note that grinding of welds should not be used

as a “design tool”, but rather as a mean to lower the fatigue

damage when special circumstances have made it necessary.

This should be used as a reserve if the stress in special areas

turns out to be larger than estimated at an earlier stage of

the design.

18.6.6.3 Stress concentration and hot spot stress

The stress level obtained from a structural analysis, such as

FEA, will depend on the ﬁneness of the model. The differ-

ent analysis models described in Subsection 18.7.2 will

therefore lead to different levels of result processing in order

to complete the fatigue calculations.

In order to correctly determine the stresses to be used in

fatigue analyses, it is important to note the deﬁnition of the

different stress categories (Figure 18.52).

Nominal stresses are those, typically, derived from coarse

mesh FE models. Stress concentrations resulting from the

gross shape of the structure, for example, shear lag effects,

have to be included in the nominal stresses derived from

stress analysis.

Geometric stresses include nominal stresses and stresses

due to structural discontinuities and presence of attach-

ments, but excluding stresses due to presence of welds.

18-52 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-52 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Stresses derived from ﬁne mesh FE models are geometric

stresses. Effects caused by fabrication imperfections as mis-

alignment of structural parts, are normally not included in

FEA, and must be separately accounted for, using, for in-

stance (equation 65).

Hot spot stress is the greatest value of the extrapolation

to the weld toe of the geometric stress distribution imme-

diately outside the region affected by the geometry of the

weld (Figure 18.52).

Notch stress is the total stress at the weld toe (hot spot

location) and includes the geometric stress and the stress

due to the presence of the weld. The notch stress may be

calculated by multiplying the hot spot stress by a stress con-

centration factor, or more precisely the theoretical notch

factor, K

2

(equation 65).

FE may be used to directly determine the notch stress.

However, because of the small notch radius and the steep

stress gradient at a weld, a very ﬁne mesh is needed.

In practice, the stress concentration factors (K-factors)

may be determined based on ﬁne mesh FE analyses, or, al-

ternatively, from the selection of factors for typical details.

The notch stress range governs the fatigue life of a de-

tail. For components other than smooth specimens the notch

stress is obtained by multiplication of the nominal stress by

K-factors (equation 63). The K-factors in this document are

thus deﬁned as

[63]

The relation between the notch stress range to be used

together with the S-N-curve and the nominal stress range

is

[64]

All stress risers have to be considered when evaluating

S K

notch nominal

· · · ∆ ∆ ∆ σ σ σ .

K

notch

nominal

·

σ

σ

the notch stress. This can be done by multiplication of K-

factors arising from different causes. The resulting K-fac-

tor to be used for calculation of notch stress is:

K = K1 . K2 . K3 . K4 . K5 [65]

where:

K

1

= stress concentration factor due to the gross geometry

of the detail considered

K

2

= stress concentration factor due to the weld geometry

(notch factor); K

2

= 1.5 if not stated otherwise

K

3

= additional stress concentration factor due to eccen-

tricity tolerance

K

4

= additionally stress concentration factor due to angu-

lar mismatch

K

5

= additional stress concentration factor for un-symmet-

rical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels, applicable

when the nominal stress is derived from simple beam

analyses

Fatigue cracks are assumed to be independent of princi-

pal stress direction within 45° of the normal to the weld toe.

Hot spot stress extrapolation procedure: The hot spot

stress extrapolation procedure (Figure 18.52) is only to be

used for stresses that are derived from stress concentration

models (ﬁne mesh). Nominal stresses found from other

models should be multiplied with appropriate stress con-

centration factors (equation 65). The stress extrapolation

procedure is speciﬁc to each classiﬁcation societies (74).

Today, there is unfortunately no standard procedure.

18.6.6.4 Direct analysis

Several S-N fatigue approaches exists, they all have ad-

vantages and disadvantages. The different approaches are

therefore suitable for different areas. Load effects, accu-

racy of the analysis, computer demands, etc. should be eval-

uated before one of the approaches is chosen.

Full stochastic fatigue analysis: The full stochastic analy-

sis, for example the Spectral Model of Table 18.V, is an

analysis where all load effects from global and local loads,

are included. This is ensured by use of stress concentration

models and direct load transfer to the structural model.

Hence, all stress components are combined using the cor-

rect phasing and without simpliﬁcations or omissions of

any stress component.

This method usually will be the most exact for determi-

nation of fatigue damage and will normally be used together

with ﬁne meshed stress concentration models. The method

may, however, not be suitable when non-linearities in the

loading are of importance (side longitudinals). This is es-

pecially the case for areas where wave or tank pressures in

the surface region are of major importance. This is due to

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-53

Figure 18.52 Deﬁnition of Stress Categories (4)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-53 4/28/03 1:31 PM

the fact that all load effects result in one set of combined

stresses, making it difﬁcult to modify the stress caused by

one of the load effects.

The approach is suitable for areas where the stress con-

centration factors are unknown (knuckles, bracket and ﬂange

terminations of main girder, stiffeners subjected to large

relative deformations).

18.6.6.5 Simpliﬁed models

The stress component based stochastic fatigue analysis:

The idea of the stress component based fatigue analysis is

to change the direct load transfer functions calculated from

the hydrodynamic load program into stress transfer func-

tions by use of load/stress ratios, H

i

(equation 66). The load

transfer functions, H

i

, normally include the global hull girder

bending sectional forces and moments, the pressures for all

panels of the 3-D diffraction model, the internal tank pres-

sures.

The stress transfer functions, H

i

, are combined to a total

stress transfer function, H

σ

, by a linear complex summation

of the different transfer functions (4), as:

[66]

where:

A

i

= stress per unit axial force deﬁned as the local stress

response in the considered detail due to a unit sec-

tional load for load component i.

Η

σ

= total transfer function for the combined local stress,

H

i

= transfer function for the load component i, that is, axial

force, bending moments, twisting and lateral load.

This approach enables the use of separate load factors on

each load component and thus includes loads non-linearities.

Few load cases have to be analyzed and it is possible to use

simpliﬁed formulas for the area of interest but errors are eas-

ily made in the combination of stresses, manual deﬁnition of

extra load cases may cause errors and simpliﬁcations are usu-

ally made in loading. Suitable areas are components where

geometric stress concentration factors, K

1

, are available (lon-

gitudinals, plating, cut-outs and standard hopper knuckles)

and areas where side pressure is of importance.

The simpliﬁed design wave approach (Weibull Model,

Table 18.V) is a simpliﬁcation to the previous component

based stochastic fatigue analyses. In this simpliﬁed ap-

proach, the extreme load response effect over a speciﬁed

number of load cycles, for example, 10

4

cycles, is deter-

mined. The resulting stress range, ∆σ, is then representa-

tive for the stress at a probability level of exceedance of

10

-4

per cycle. The derived extreme stress response is com-

bined with a calculated Weibull shape parameter, k, to de-

ﬁne the long-term stress range distribution (Table 18.V).

The Weibull shape parameter, k, for the stress response

should be determined from the long-term distribution of the

dominating load calculated in the hydrodynamic analysis.

This simpliﬁed approach only requires the considera-

tion of one load case. It is easy and fast to perform but it

can only be used if one load dominates the response and

the results are very sensitive to selection of design wave.

Suitable areas concern components where one load is dom-

inating the response, that is, deck areas and other areas with-

out local loading.

H A H

i i

i

σ

·

∑

18-54 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

TABLE 18.V Commonly Used Expressions for Evaluating

Miner’s Equivalent Stress Range (S

e

), (83)

1. Wave Exceedance Diagram (Deterministic Method)

S

i

= stress range

F

i

= fraction of cycles in the ith stress block

n

b

= number of stress block

2. Spectral Method (Probabilistic Method)

λ(m) = rainﬂow correction

Γ(.) = gamma function

γ

ι

= fraction of time in ith sea-state

f

i

= frequency of wave loading in ith sea-state

σ

ι

= RMS of stress process in ith sea-state

3. Weibull Model for Stress Ranges (Simpliﬁed Method)

S

d

= stress range that is exceeded on the average once out of

N

d

stress cycles

Γ(.) = gamma function

k = Weibull shape parameter

N

d

= total number of stress ranges in design life

S f S S f S

e

m

i

i

m

i

n

e i

i

m

i

n

m

b b

· → ·

∑ ∑

S m

f

m

f

e

m

m

i i

i

m

i

· ( )

( )

+

¸

¸

_

,

∑

λ γ σ

2 2

2

1

0

Γ

S f S S f S

e

m

i

i

m

i

n

e i

i

m

i

n

m

b b

· → ·

∑ ∑

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-54 4/28/03 1:31 PM

18.6.6.6 Design criteria

The standard fatigue design criterion is basically the ex-

pected lifetime before that signiﬁcant damage appears

(cracks). It usually is taken as being 20 years. Then, the de-

signer’s target is to design structural details for which the

fatigue failure happens after, for instance, 20 years. If it

happens before, the ﬁxing cost is very high and induces

owner losses. If the ﬁrst failure only happens after 30 years

or later, the structural detail scantlings were globally over-

estimated, the hull weight too high and, therefore, that the

owner had lost payload during 20 years.

Partial safety factors, additional stress concentration fac-

tors and the stress extrapolation procedure are typically de-

ﬁned by the classiﬁcations societies.

18.6.7 Collision and Grounding

18.6.7.1 Present design approaches

The OPA 90 and equivalent IMO requirements must be sat-

isﬁed in structural design of ships carrying dangerous or pol-

lutant cargoes, for example, chemicals, bulk oil, liqueﬁed

gas. The primary requirements are to arrange a double bot-

tom of a required minimum height, and double sides of a

required minimum width. In this context, to reduce the out-

ﬂow of pollutant cargoes in ship collision or grounding ac-

cident, OPA 90 and IMO both require that the minimum

vertical height, h, of each double bottom ballast tank or void

space is not to be less than 2.0 m or B/15 (B = ship’s beam),

whichever is the lesser, but in no case is the height to be

less than 1.0 m. OPA and IMO also require that the mini-

mum width, w, of each wing ballast tank or void space is

not to be less than 0.5+DWT/20 000 (m) or w =2.0 (m),

whichever is the lesser, where DWT is the deadweight of

the ship in tonnes. In no case is w to be less than 1.0 (m).

More detailed information is available in Chapter 29 on Oil

Tanker.

18.6.7.2 Direct analysis

To reduce the probability of outﬂow of hazardous cargo in

ship collisions and grounding, the kinetic energy loss dur-

ing the accident should be entirely absorbed by damage of

outer structures, that is, before the inner shell in contact

with the cargo can rupture. Of crucial importance, then, is

how to arrange or make the scantlings of strength members

in the implicated ship structures such that the initial kinetic

energy is effectively consumed and the structural perform-

ance against an accident will be maximized. For this pur-

pose, the structural crashworthiness of ships in collisions

and grounding must be analyzed using accurate and efﬁcient

procedures (84).

Figure 18.53 shows direct design procedures of ship

structures against collision and grounding (85). For the ac-

cidental limit state design, the integrity of a structure can

be checked in two steps. In the ﬁrst step, the structural per-

formance against design accident events will be assessed,

while post-accident effects such as likely oil outﬂow are

evaluated in the second step.

The primary concern of the accidental limit state design

in such cases is to maintain the water tightness of ship com-

partments, the containment of dangerous or pollutant car-

goes, and the integrity of critical spaces (reactor compart-

ments of nuclear powered ships or tanks in LNG ships) at

the greatest possible levels, and to minimize the release/out-

ﬂow of cargo. To facilitate a rescue mission, it is also nec-

essary keep the residual strength of damaged structures at

a certain level, so that the ship can be towed to safe harbor

or a repair yard as may be required.

18.6.7.3 Simpliﬁed models

Since the response of ships in collision or grounding acci-

dent includes relatively complicated behavior such as crush-

ing, tearing and yielding, existing simpliﬁed methods are

not always adequate. However, many simpliﬁed models

useful for predicting accident induced structural damages

and residual strength of damaged ship structures have been

developed and continue to be successfully used. Simpliﬁed

models for collision are rather different from those of

grounding since both are different in the nature of the me-

chanics involved. As it is impossible to describe them in a

limited space, valuable references are Ohtsubo et al (86),

and Kaminski et al (39).

18.6.7.4 Design criteria

The structural design criteria for ship collisions and ground-

ing are based on limiting accidental consequences such as

structural damage, ﬁre and explosion, and environmental

pollution, and to make sure that the main safety functions

of ship structures are not impaired to a signiﬁcant extent dur-

ing any accidental event or within a certain time period

thereafter.

Structural performance of a ship against collision or

grounding can be measured by:

• energy absorption capability,

• maximum penetration in an accident,

• spillage amount of hazardous cargo, for example, crude

oil, and

• hull girder ultimate strength of damaged ships (Section

18.6.5).

Design acceptance criteria may be based on the follow-

ing parameters (87):

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-55

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-55 4/28/03 1:31 PM

• minimum distance of cargo containment from the outer

shell,

• ship speed above which a critical event (breaching of

cargo containment) happens,

• allowable quantity of oil outﬂow, and

• minimum values of section modulus or ultimate hull

girder strength.

And the design results must satisfy:

• cargo tanks/holds are not breached in an accident so that

there will be no danger of pollution, or

• if the cargo tanks are breached, the oil outﬂow follow-

ing an accident is limited, and/or

• the ship has adequate residual hull girder strength so that

it will survive an accident and will not break apart, min-

imizing a second chance of pollution.

18.6.8 Vibration

18.6.8.1 Present Vibration Design Approaches

The traditional design methodology for vibration is based on

rules, deﬁned by classiﬁcation societies. Vibrations are not

explicitly covered by class rules but their prediction is needed

to achieve a good design. Ship structures are excited by nu-

merous dynamic oscillating forces. Excitation may originate

within the ship or outside the ship by external forces. Reci-

procating machinery such as large main propulsion diesel

produce important forces at low frequency. Pressure ﬂuctu-

ations due to propeller at blade rate frequency induce pres-

sure variation on the ship’s hull. Varying hull pressures

associated with waves belong also to external excitations. All

these forces can be approximated by a combination of har-

monic forces. If their frequencies coincide with the structure

eigen frequencies, resonant behavior will happen.

18-56 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.53 Structural Design Procedures of Ships for Collision and Grounding (85)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-56 4/28/03 1:31 PM

It is of prime importance to avoid global main hull vi-

brations. If they do occur, the remedial action will proba-

bly be very costly. So, during early design, the hull girder

frequencies must be compared to wave excitation (spring-

ing risk), and to propeller and engine excitation. Table 18.VI

gives some typical values of the ﬁrst hull girder frequen-

cies in Hz of some ship types.

Hull girder frequencies and modes should be computed

using approximate empirical formulae (88), simple beam

models for long prismatic structures (VLCC, container ships,

etc.) associated with lumped added mass models, or using

3D ﬁnite element models for complex ships (RO-RO, cruise

ship), LNG, and short and non-prismatic structures (tug,

catamaran, etc.).

18.6.8.2 Fluid structure interaction

Fluid structure interaction is evidenced in the dynamic be-

havior of ships. As a ﬁrst approximation, the ship is con-

sidered as a rigid body, for the sea keeping analyses (wave

induced motions and loads).

Wave vibration induced: An early determination of hull

girder vibration modes and frequencies is important to avoid

serious problems that would be difﬁcult to solve at a later

stage of the project.

Risk of springing (occurring when ﬁrst hull girder fre-

quency equals wave encounter frequency) has to be detected

very early. Springing may occur for long and/or ﬂexible

ships and for high speed craft and it increases the number

of cyclic loads contributing to human fatigue. Various meth-

ods to assess the ﬁrst hull girder frequency can be used at

preliminary design stage.

Engine/propeller vibration induced: Resonance prob-

lems may also appear on small ships like tugs, where hull

girder frequency can be close to the propulsion excitation

(around 7Hz). High vibration levels contribute to human

fatigue and dysfunction, besides the discomfort aspect.

Fluid added mass: Hull girder vibrations induce dis-

placement of the surrounding ﬂuid. Therefore imparting ki-

netic energy in the ﬂuid. This phenomenon can be taken

into account for the hull girder modes and frequencies cal-

culation as added mass terms. Various methods can be used

for the determination of added mass term. Lumped mass ap-

proach is the simplest one (89) but is only valid for simple

prismatic slender shapes, and for a single mode. Fluid ﬁ-

nite and semi-inﬁnite elements or boundary integral for-

mulation lead to the calculation of more accurate added

mass matrices (90), especially for complex hull forms and

appendices study (rudder). Added mass matrices associated

with 3D ﬁnite element model of the structure, allow for an

accurate determination of hull girder modes and frequen-

cies. Added mass terms may also be needed for the vibra-

tions of tank walls. The corresponding methods and

associated software are available for industrial usage (Fig-

ure 18.54) and numerical simulations are today predictable

with good accuracy (91). Figure 18.54 shows a ﬂuid-struc-

ture coupled FE-model of a 230 m long passenger vessel

using 150 000 degrees of freedom.

A difﬁcult coupled problem is the ﬂuid impact occur-

ring in slamming or due to sloshing in tanks. The local de-

formation of the impacted shells and plating inﬂuences the

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-57

TABLE 18.VI Typical Values of the First Hull Girder

Frequencies (in Hertz)

Large

Order Cruise Fast

(mode) ship monohull LNG VLCC Frigate Tug

1 1.0 Hz 1.8 0.9 0.8 1.9 7.0

2 1.5 Hz 2.9 2.0 1.7 3.8 13

3 2.6 Hz — — — 5.8 —

4 3.2 Hz — — — 7.8 —

Figure 18.54 Fluid/Structure FE-Model of a Passenger Vessel (Principia

Marine, France)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-57 4/28/03 1:31 PM

pressures and ﬂuid velocities. Moreover, air trapped in such

an impact may have a cushioning effect, softening its sever-

ity. The numerical simulation of those heavily coupled prob-

lems still belongs to the research domain, though its

industrial importance for the design of ship structures (92).

18.6.8.3 Direct analysis

Vibration problems are critical for passenger ships with typ-

ically a 12-Hertz blade excitation. Ship owners demand very

low vertical velocity levels incabins and public areas (less

than 1.2 mm/s in the 5-25 Hz frequency band).

Numerical simulation using 3D ﬁnite element models is

the only method to predict ship response (including the var-

ious frequency modes) to pressure ﬂuctuation on the ship

hull. Such simulation is now used as a design tool to select

appropriate scantlings of decks, location of pillars, detect

possible resonance, and select the number of propeller

blades. The main difﬁculty is to perform this analysis early

enough in a very short design cycle.

Local analyses also have to be performed, based on ﬁ-

nite element models to check the potential risk of vibration

of local areas, when local modes can be considered as de-

coupled from global hull girder modes. Decks, superstruc-

ture, appendices (rudder, radar mast, etc.) can be analyzed

to check scantling and avoid the risk of resonance.

Slamming impacts generate impulsive response of the

hull girder (whipping), which affects comfort and fatigue.

Prediction of stress ﬂuctuations and vibration levels in var-

ious parts of the ship can only be performed by simulation

in the time domain based on 3D detailed ﬁnite element mod-

els (Figure 18.55). The main difﬁculty is the determination

of the time and space dependent slamming forces.

18.6.8.4 Simpliﬁed models

Unfortunately, they are of little use for simpliﬁed vibration

predictions. Beam models associated to database can be

used for an approximate determination of hull girder modes

and frequencies at early stage of the project. Decks zones

and equipment frequencies may also be estimated by for-

mulas given by reference books (94).

Dedicated software has also been written for the study

of shafting, including journal and bearing stiffness and

whirling effect (95).

18.6.8.5 Design criteria

The most effective way to control vibration resides in the

reduction of the excitation. This can be achieved by bal-

ancing all forces in reciprocating and rotary machinery and

using special mounts. Hydrodynamic forces can be reduced

by improving the ﬂow around the propeller and siting it

clear of the hull. Propulsion using pods can dramatically re-

duce pressure ﬂuctuations. Excitation frequencies can also

be modiﬁed by changing the number of propeller blades.

A good design, ensuring continuity of vertical bulkheads,

avoiding cantilevered and stiff or mass discontinuities, con-

tributes to improving the dynamic behavior of the ship. The

18-58 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.55 Hull Girder Vibration—Mode #3 (Principia Marine-France)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-58 4/28/03 1:31 PM

second action consists in avoiding resonance by modiﬁca-

tion of the hull scantlings, and addition of pillars, in order

to increase or lower the eigen frequencies.

Reduction of unavoidable vibration levels can be

achieved for local vibrations by dynamic isolation for equip-

ments, passive damping solutions (ﬂoating ﬂoors on ab-

sorbing material), and dynamic energy absorbers. All these

curative actions are usually difﬁcult, costly, only applica-

ble for local vibrations and nearly impossible for vibrations

due to global modes. Local modes determination is difﬁ-

cult at early stage of the design mainly due to the uncer-

tainty on mass distribution, non-structural mass (outﬁtting

and equipments) being of the some order of magnitude as

the steelwork part.

18.6.9 Special Considerations

In addition to the considerations for LNG tank, container

ship, bulk carrier and passenger vessel, special considera-

tions are available in Volume II of this book. Moreover,

ISSC committees 1997 and 2000 also provide valuable in-

formation on speciﬁc ship types, that is, high-speed vessels

and ships sailing in ice conditions.

18.6.9.1 LNG Tanks

General information on such ships is available in Chapter

32 – Liqueﬁed Gas Carriers. These ships contain usually a

double hull (sides and bottom). Major structural concerns

deal with the tanks themselves and with their support legs.

Dilatation, tightness and thermal isolation are important as-

pects. There are several patented concepts: independent

tanks, membrane tanks, semi-membranes tanks and inte-

gral tanks. Excepted for the integral tanks, the tanks are self-

supporting and are not essential to the hull strength. When

supported by legs, these legs require a particular attention.

Integral tanks form a structural part of the ship’s hull and

are inﬂuenced in the same manner by wave loads.

18.6.9.2 Container ships

The design of container ships of 5000 and 6000 TEU hav-

ing a beam of 40m has increased the standard torsional prob-

lem of ships having a large open deck. Torsional strength

and limitation of the equivalent stress (equation 45) at the

hatch corners are the major issues in the evaluation of the

strength of main hull structure. Use of multicell structures

in side shell and double bottom is recommended. More-

over, the torsional moment distribution must be assessed

with care.

As hatch covers are not considered as hull strength mem-

bers, omission of hatch covers does not impose any partic-

ular effects in the structural design of a main hull structure.

The general characteristics of container ships are detailed

in Chapter 36 – Container Ships.

18.6.9.3 Bulk carriers

Casualty of bulk carriers was very high in the early 1990s.

The main reasons were a lack of maintenance, excessive cor-

rosion and fatigue (77). Weak point of these ships is the

lower part of the side plate at the junction with the bilge

hopper. Now, classiﬁcation societies are aware about this

problem and had updated their rules and associated struc-

tural details. The general design practice on bulk carriers is

detailed in Chapter 33 – Bulk Carriers.

18.6.9.4 Passenger vessels

Ship strength analysis is based on a beam model. The com-

plexity of large passenger ships, with a low resistant deck

and wide openings, windows and openings in the side in-

duces a much more complex behavior. Rational approach

is necessary to get a realistic understanding of the ﬂux of

forces and capture the complex behavior of such ships.

Due to the large openings and discontinuities, racking and

stress concentration are two major concerns. For archi-

tectural reason, pillars are often omitted in large public

areas (theater, lounge, etc.). Today, 3D FEA is usually car-

ried out to design large passenger vessels (Figures 18.54

and 18.55). Due to large opening in the side shells, the ver-

tical stress distribution is not linear (Figure 18.35). This

means that the basic beam bending formulation is no valid

(equation 29). More general information related to pas-

senger vessels is available in Chapter 37 – Passenger Ships

and in reference 68.

18.6.9.5 Composite material

Fiberglass boat building started in the 1960s. Today, de-

signers are trying to plan composite construction of ships

up to 100 meters in length. A comprehensive guide for the

design of ship structures in composites is the Ship Struc-

ture Committee Report SSC-403 of Greene (96). Design

methodology, materiel properties, micro and macro me-

chanic of composites and failures modes are deeply dis-

cussed.

In addition to the classic failure modes of steel and alu-

minum structures presented in Subsection 18.6.1, compos-

ites are subject to speciﬁc failure modes.

In compression, there are the crimping, skin wrinkling

and dimpling of the honeycomb cores (Figure 18.56). In

bending, instead of the traditional ﬁrst yield bending mo-

ment, for composites, the design limit load corresponds to

the ﬁrst ply failure.

The creep behavior and the long-term damage from

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-59

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-59 4/28/03 1:31 PM

water, UV and temperature, and their performance in ﬁres

are other speciﬁc structural problems of composites. A re-

view of the performance of composite structures is pro-

posed by Jensen et al (98).

18.6.9.6 Aluminum structures

Compared to steel, the reduced speciﬁc weight of aluminum

(2.70 kN/m

3

for aluminum and7.70 kN/m

3

for steel) is a very

interesting property for a ship designer. The yield stress of

unwelded aluminum alloys can be comparable to mild steel

(235 MPa) but changes drastically from one alloy to an-

other (125 MPa for ALU 5083-O and 215 MPa for ALU

5083-H321). The modulus of elasticity of aluminum alloys

is one-third of steel.

The main difﬁculty for the use of aluminum use deals

with its mechanical properties after welding. The yield stress

of aluminum alloys may decrease signiﬁcantly after weld-

ing (remains at 125 MPa for

ALU 5083-O but drop to 140 MPa for ALU 5083-H321).

The area close to a weld is called Heat Affected Zone (HAZ).

It is characterized by reduced strength properties. HAZ is

particularly important to assess the buckling and ultimate

strength of welded components such as beam-column ele-

ments, stiffened panels, etc.

For marine applications ALU 5083, 5086 and 6061 can

be used. Nevertheless, the mechanical and strength prop-

erties of aluminum change a lot with the alloy composition

and the production processing. Thus, the alloy selection

must be done with care with regard to the yield strength be-

fore and after welding, the welding and extruding capabil-

ities, the marine behavior, etc.

Fire strength is another concerns when using aluminum

alloys as it quickly loses its strength when the temperature

rises.

Despite the aforementioned shortcomings aluminum al-

loys will be more extensively use in the future for the de-

sign of fast vessels, for which the structural weight is very

important to reach higher speed (for high speed mono hull,

catamaran and trimaran vessels). The good extruding ca-

pability of aluminum alloys has to be enhanced through

scantling standardization. That helps to lower to produc-

tion cost ($/man-hour) and compensate the initial higher

material cost of aluminum, which is approximately 3 times

higher that mild steel ($/kg).

18.6.9.7 Corrosion

Corrosion does not present a structural design problem, as

almost all the classiﬁcation societies base their rules on a

net scantling. This means that the thickness to consider in

analysis (for empirical formulations up to complex FEA)

is the reduced thickness (without corrosion allowance) and

not the actual thickness. The difference between the reduced

thickness and the actual one is usually ﬁxed by the classi-

ﬁcation but can also change according to the owner re-

quirements. This is an economic choice and not a structural

problem.

For bulk carriers, thickness reduction due to corrosion

is generally assumed to be 5 mm for hold frames and 3 mm

for side shell plating.

18.7 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL

DESIGN

18.7.1 Motivation for Numerical Analysis

In most of the cases, a ship is a one of a kind product, even

if limited series may exist in some cases. The design, study

and production cycle is very short and major decision have

to be taken very early in the project. It is well known that

the cost of a late modiﬁcation is very high and such a situ-

ation has to be avoided. Also experience-based design can

be an obstacle to the introduction of innovation. Numerical

analysis clearly is needed to improve the design (innova-

tion) but also to control safety margins. Moreover, it gives

access to local and detailed analysis, which is not possible

with simpliﬁed methods. The concept of numerical mock up,

used in aerospace and car industry has proven its efﬁciency.

Shipbuilding is clearly moving in the same direction.

18.7.1.1 Static and quasi-static analysis

Static and quasi-static analysis represents the traditional

way to perform stress and strength analysis of a ship struc-

ture. Loads are assessed separately of the strength structure

and, even if their origins are dynamic (ﬂow induced), they

are assumed to be static (do not change with the time). This

assumption may be correct for the hydrostatic pressure but

18-60 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.56 Potential Failure Modes of Sandwich Panels (100), (a) Face

yielding/fracture, (b) Core shear failure, (c-d) Face wrinkling, (e) Buckling, (f)

Shear crimping, (g) Face dimpling, (h) Local indentation.

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-60 4/28/03 1:31 PM

not when the dynamic wave loads are changed to static loads

applied on the side plates of the hull.

In the future, even if the assumption of static loads is not

veriﬁed, static analysis will continue to be performed, as it

is easier and faster to perform. In addition, tens of experi-

ence years have shown that they provide accurate results

when stresses and deﬂections assessment are the main tar-

get (as deﬁned in Section 18.4).

Such analysis is also the standard procedure for fatigue

assessment to determine the hot spot stress through ﬁne

mesh FEA.

18.7.1.2 Dynamic analysis

When problems occur on a ship due to dynamic effects, it

is very often late in the design and building stage and even

in service, and corrective actions are costly. Simpliﬁed meth-

ods can only predict the ﬁrst hull girder modes frequencies.

Numerical ﬁnite element based simulation is mature enough

to predict up to second propeller harmonic, the vibration

level, giving a design tool to comply with ISO or ship owner

requirements. Moreover, possible dynamic problems can

be detected early enough in the design to allow for correc-

tive actions.

18.7.1.3 Nonlinearities analysis

Nonlinear structural analysis is mainly used to analyze buck-

ling, ultimate strength and accidental or extreme situations

(explosions, collisions, grounding, blast). The results of

such costly and difﬁcult analysis are often used to calibrate

simpliﬁed methods or rules. But they are also very useful

to understand possible failure modes and mechanical be-

havior under severe loads.

18.7.1.4 Emerging trends

Like the automotive and aerospace industry, there is a clear

trend towards the reduction of design cycle time. Numeri-

cal mock up or virtual ship approach (97), especially for one

of a kind product, is clearly a way to achieve this. Required

computing power is available and will no longer be a con-

straint. The ﬁrst difﬁculty is to establish an efﬁcient model

of complex physical problems, associated with increasing

demand for accuracy. The second difﬁculty is the manpower

needed to prepare and check the models, which will be

solved by the development of integrated solutions for ship

description and modeling (99).

Advances are expected in the ﬁeld of FE-modeling. The

trend is toward one structure description, one model and sev-

eral applications. This is the ﬁeld for multiphysics and cou-

pling analysis. The base modeling will be re-used and

adapted to perform successively,

• static, fatigue and fracture analysis,

• buckling and ultimate strength analysis,

• vibration and acoustics analysis, and

• vulnerability assessment.

Progress is expected by the utilization of reliability meth-

ods already used in offshore industry, where uncertainties

and dispersions of the loads, geometrical defaults, initial

stresses and strains, material properties are deﬁned as sto-

chastic (non deterministic) data, leading to the calculation

of a probability of failure. This philosophy can be applied

to fatigue and ultimate strength, but also to dynamic re-

sponse, leading to a more robust design, less sensitive to

defaults, imperfections, uncertainties and stochastic nature

of loads. Reliability-based analyses using probabilistic con-

cept are presented in Chapter 19.

In the future, safety aspects related to structural prob-

lems will also be tackled such as ultimate strength using non-

linear methods. Collision and grounding damages and

improved design to increase ship safety will be studied by

numerical simulation, whereas experimental approach is

nearly impossible and/or too costly. Explicit codes, used in

car crash simulation (101), will be adapted to speciﬁc as-

pects of ship structure (size and presence of ﬂuid). In tra-

ditional sea keeping analysis, the ship is considered as a

rigid body. In coupled problems such as slamming situa-

tions, this hypothesis is no more valid and a part of the en-

ergy is absorbed by ship deformation. Hydro-elasticity

methods (102) aim taking into account the interaction of the

ﬂexible ship structure with the surrounding water. Nonlin-

ear effects due to bow and aft part of the ship, ship veloc-

ity, diffraction radiation effects contribute to the complexity

of the problem. The simulation of catamaran, trimaran and

fast monohulls behavior need the development of new meth-

ods to take into account the high velocities and the com-

plex 3D phenomena.

18.7.2 Finite Element Analysis

The main aim of using the ﬁnite element method (FEM) in

structural analysis is to obtain an accurate calculation of the

stress response in the hull structure. Several types or levels

of FE-models may be used in the analyses:

• global stiffness model,

• cargo hold model,

• frame and girder models,

• local structure models, and

• stress concentration models.

The model or sets of models applied is to give a proper

representation of the following structure:

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-61

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-61 4/28/03 1:31 PM

• longitudinal plating,

• transverse bulkheads/frames,

• stringers/girders, and

• longitudinals or other structural stiffeners.

The ﬁner mesh models are usually referred to as sub-

models. These models may be solved separately by trans-

fer of boundary deformations/ boundary forces from the

coarser model. This requires that the various mesh models

are compatible, meaning that the coarser models have

meshes producing deformations and/or forces applicable as

boundary conditions for the ﬁner mesh models.

18.7.2.1 Structural ﬁnite element models

Global stiffness model: A relatively coarse mesh that is used

to represent the overall stiffness and global stress distribu-

tion of the primary members of the total hull length. Typi-

cal models are shown in Figure 18.57. The mesh density of

the model has to be sufﬁcient to describe deformations and

nominal stresses from the following effects:

• vertical hull girder bending including shear lag effects,

• vertical shear distribution between ship side and bulk-

heads,

• horizontal hull girder bending including shear lag ef-

fects, torsion of the hull girder, and

• transverse shear and bending.

Stiffened panels may be modeled by means of layered

elements, anisotropic elements or frequently by a combi-

nation of plate and beam elements. It is important to have

a good representation of the overall membrane panel stiff-

ness in the longitudinal/transverse directions. Structure not

contributing to the global strength of the vessel may be dis-

regarded; the mass of these elements shall nevertheless be

included (for vibration). The scantling is to be modeled with

reduced scantling, that is, corrosion addition is to be de-

ducted from the actual scantling.

All girder webs should be modeled with shell elements.

Flanges may be modeled using beam and truss elements.

Web and ﬂange properties are to be according to the real

geometry.

The performance of the model is closely linked to the

type of elements and the mesh topology that is used. As a

standard practice, it is recommended to use 4-node shell or

membrane elements in combination with 2-node beam or

truss elements are used. The shape of 4-node elements

should be as rectangular as possible as skew elements will

lead to inaccurate element stiffness properties. The element

formulation of the 4-node elements requires all four nodes

to be in the same plane. Double curved surfaces should

therefore not be modeled with 4-node elements. 3-node el-

ements should be used instead.

The minimum element sizes to be used in a global struc-

tural model (coarse mesh) for 4–node elements (ﬁner mesh

divisions may of course be used and is welcomed, specially

with regard to sub-models):

• main model: 1 element between transverse frames/gird-

ers; 1element between structural deck levels and mini-

mum three elements between longitudinal bulkheads,

• girders: 3 elements over the height, and

• plating: 1 element between 2 longitudinals.

18-62 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.58 Cargo Hold Model (Based on the Fine Mesh of the Frame

Model), (4)

Figure 18.59 Frame and Girder Model (Web Frame), (4)

Figure 18.57 Global Finite Element Model of Container Vessel Including a 4

Cargo Holds Sub-model (4).

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-62 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Cargo hold model: The model is used to analyze the de-

formation response and nominal stresses of the primary

members of the midship area. The model will normally

cover 1/2+1+1/2 cargo hold/tank length in the midship re-

gion. Typical models are shown in Figure 18.58.

Frame and girder models: These models are used to an-

alyze nominal stresses in the main framing/girder system

(Figure 18.59). The element mesh is to be ﬁne enough to

describe stress increase in critical areas (such as bracket

with continuous ﬂange). This model may be included in the

cargo hold model, or run separately with prescribed bound-

ary deformations/forces. However, if sufﬁcient computer

capacity is available, it will normally be convenient to com-

bine the two analyses into one model.

Local structure analyses are used to analyze stresses in

local areas. Stresses in laterally loaded local plates and stiff-

eners subjected to large relative deformations between gird-

ers/frames and bulkheads may be necessary to investigate

along with stress increase in critical areas, such as brack-

ets with continuous ﬂanges.

As an example, the areas to model are normally the fol-

lowing for a tanker:

• longitudinals in double bottom and adjoining vertical

bulkhead members,

• deck longitudinals and adjoining vertical bulkhead mem-

bers,

• double side longitudinals and adjoining horizontal bulk-

head members,

• hatch corner openings, and

• corrugations and supporting structure.

The magnitude of the stiffener bending stress included

in the stress results depends on the mesh division and the

element type that is used. Figure 18.60 shows that the stiff-

ener bending stress, using FEM, is dependent on the mesh

size for 4-node shell elements. One element between ﬂoors

results in zero stiffener bending. Two elements between

ﬂoors result in a linear distribution with approximately zero

bending in the middle of the elements.

Stress concentration models are used for fatigue analy-

ses of details were the geometrical stress concentration is

unknown. A typical detail is presented Figure 18.61.

Local FE analyses may be used for calculation of local

geometric stresses at the hot spots and for determination of

associated K-factors to be used in subsequent fatigue analy-

ses (equation 63). The aim of the FE analysis is normally

not to calculate directly the notch stress at a detail, but to

calculate the geometric stress distribution in the region of

the hot spot. These stresses can then be used either directly

in the fatigue assessment of given details or as a basis for

derivation of stress concentration factors. FE stress con-

centration models are generally very sensitive to element

type and mesh size.

Several FEA benchmarks of such structural details were

performed by ISSC technical committees (68,103). They as-

sess the uncertainties of different FE packages associated

with coarse and ﬁne mesh models. Variation is usually

around 10% but is sometime much larger.

This implies that element sizes in the order of the plate

thickness are to be used for the modeling. If solid model-

ing is used, the element size in way of the hot spot may

have to be reduced to half the plate thickness in case the

overall geometry of the weld is included in the model rep-

resentation.

18.7.2.2. Uncertainties related to FEA

An important issue in structural analysis is the veriﬁcation

of the analysis. The FEM is basically reliable but many

sources of errors can appear, mainly induced by inappro-

priate modeling and wrong data. For this reason, different

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-63

Figure 18.61 Stress Concentration Model of Hopper Tank Knuckle (4)

Figure 18.60 Stiffener Bending Stress with FEM (from left to right: using 1, 2

or 8 elements), (4)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-63 4/28/03 1:31 PM

levels of veriﬁcation of the analysis should be performed

in order to ensure trustworthiness of the analysis results. Ver-

iﬁcation must be achieved at the following steps:

• basic input,

• assumptions and simpliﬁcations made in modeling/

analysis,

• models,

• loads and load transfer,

• analysis,

• results, and

• strength calculations.

One important step in the veriﬁcation is the understanding

of the physics and check of deformations and stress ﬂow

against expected patterns/levels. However, all levels of ver-

iﬁcation are important in order to verify the results.

Veriﬁcations of structural models: Assumptions and sim-

pliﬁcations will have to be made for most structural mod-

els. These should be listed such that an evaluation of their

inﬂuence on the results can be made.

The boundary conditions for the global structural model

should reﬂect simple supporting to avoid built in stresses. The

ﬁxation points should be located away from areas where

stresses are of interest. Fixation points are often applied in the

centerline close to the aft and the forward ends of the vessel.

Veriﬁcation of loads: Inaccuracy in the load transfer from

the hydrodynamic analysis to the structural model is among

the main error sources in this type of analysis. The load

transfer can be checked on basis of the structural response

or on basis on the load transfer itself.

Veriﬁcation of response: The response should be veri-

ﬁed at several levels to ensure correctness of the analysis:

• global displacement patterns/magnitude,

• local displacement patterns/magnitude,

• global sectional forces,

• stress levels and distribution,

• sub-model boundary displacement/forces, and

• reaction forces and moments.

18.7.2.3 FEM background

Today the ﬁnite element method is studied worldwide in uni-

versities, in mechanical engineering, civil engineering, naval

architecture, etc. Hundreds of papers are published yearly.

Many commercial packages are available including pre and

post processors and many books are published each year on

the subject. Classiﬁcation Societies also present technical

reports and guidelines associated with their own direct

analysis package (Table 18.VIII).

It is not the purpose of this chapter to present the FE the-

ory and a state of art. This topic is reviewed periodically by

ISSC. For instance, Sumi et al (68) presents ﬁnite element

guidelines and a comprehensive review of the available soft-

ware. Mesh modeling is discussed in ISSC’2000 by Por-

cari et al (103). Hughes (3) proposes in Chapter VI and VII

of his book published by SNAME an easy way to learn

FEM that does not require knowledge of variational calcu-

lus or of FEM. The Ship Structure Committee Reports (SSC

387 and 399) contains also Guideline for FEM (43,104).

18.7.3 Other Numerical Approaches

As an alternative to FEA, two other approaches are pre-

sented, namely: the idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM)

and the Boundary Element Method (BEM). Both are gen-

eral purpose oriented. Many others exist but they are usu-

ally dedicated to a special purpose. For instance, at the

preliminary design stage, the LBR-5 package founded on the

analytical solution of the governing differential equations of

stiffened plates is a convenient alternative to standard FEA.

Such an approach (30,105) allows structural design opti-

mization to be performed at the earliest design stage but does

not have the capability to perform detailed analysis includ-

ing stress concentration and non-linear analysis.

18.7.3.1 Idealized structural unit method (ISUM)

When subjected to extreme or accidental loading, ship struc-

tures can be involved in highly non-linear response associ-

ated with yielding, buckling, crushing and sometimes

rupture of individual structural components. Quite accurate

solutions of the non-linear structural response can be ob-

tained by application of the conventional FEM. However,

a weak feature of the conventional FEM is that it requires

enormous modeling effort and computing time for non-lin-

ear analysis of large sized structures. Therefore, most ef-

forts in the development of new non-linear ﬁnite element

methods have focused on reducing modeling and comput-

ing times.

The most obvious way to reduce modeling effort and

computing time is to reduce the number of degrees of free-

dom so that the number of unknowns in the ﬁnite element

stiffness equation decreases. Modeling the object structure

with very large sized structural units is perhaps the best way

to do that. Properly formulated structural units or super el-

ements in such an approach can then be used to efﬁciently

model the actual non-linear behavior of large structural

units. The idealized structural unit method (ISUM), which

is a type of simpliﬁed non-linear FEM, is one of such meth-

ods (106). Since ship structures are composed of several

different types of structural members such as beams,

columns, rectangular plates and stiffened panels, it is nec-

essary in the ISUM approach to develop various ISUM units

18-64 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-64 4/28/03 1:31 PM

for each type of structural member in advance. The non-lin-

ear behavior of each type of structural member is idealized

and expressed in the form of a set of failure functions deﬁn-

ing the necessary conditions for different failures which

may take place in the corresponding ISUM unit, and sets

of stiffness matrices representing the non-linear relationship

between the nodal force vector and the nodal displacement

vector until the limit state is reached. The ISUM super el-

ements so developed are typically used within the frame-

work of a non-linear matrix displacement procedure

applying the incremental method.

Figure 18.62 shows a cantilevers box girder and Figures

18.63 and 18.64 show typical FEM and ISUM models for

the non-linear analysis. For a recent state-of-the-art review

on ISUM theory and applications to ship structures, the

reader is referred to Paik and Hughes (107).

With the existing standard ISUM elements, the main dif-

ﬁculty is that computation of the post-collapse behavior in

the structural elements beyond their ultimate strength as

well as the ﬂexural-torsional collapse behavior of stiffen-

ers is not very successful.

In fact, ISUM elements accommodating post-collapse

behavior have previously been already developed but im-

provements are under development to better accommodate

such behavior (107, 108).

Usage of ISUM is limited to some speciﬁc problems and

is not a general-purpose methodology. In contrast to FEM,

for instance, it is necessary to formulate/develop ISUM el-

ements speciﬁcally; by including buckling and collapse be-

havior for ultimate strength analysis or by including tearing

and crushing for collision strength analysis. The former type

element cannot be used for the purpose of latter type analy-

sis and vice versa. ISUM is also not adequate for linear

stress analysis.

ISUM is very ﬂexible, new closed form expressions of

the ultimate strength can be directly utilized by replacing

in the existing ISUM element the previous ultimate strength

formulations with the new ones.

18.7.3.2 Boundary Element Method (BEM)

In contrast to FEM, the boundary element method (BEM)

is a type of semi-numerical method involving integral equa-

tions along the boundary of the integral domain (or vol-

ume). To solve a problem that involves the boundary integral

equations, BEM typically uses an appropriate numerical in-

tegration technique so that the problem is discretized by di-

viding only the boundary of the integral domain into a

number of segments or boundary elements, while the con-

ventional FEM uses a mesh (ﬁnite elements) over the en-

tire domain (or volume), that is, inside as well as its

boundary. For a speciﬁc problem with a relatively simple

boundary domain, linear or ﬂat boundary elements may be

employed so that analytical solutions for the integral equa-

tions can be adopted, while higher degree boundary ele-

ments must be used for modeling an integral domain with

more complex characteristics with the integration gener-

ally needing to be carried out numerically. Figure 18.65

shows typical FEM and BEM models for analysis of a pres-

sure vessel (109).

Since the publication of an early book on BEM, many

engineering applications using BEM have been achieved.

More recent developments of BEM together with the basic

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-65

Figure 18.63 A Typical FEM Model for NonLinear Analysis of the Cantilever

Box Girder

Figure 18.64 A Typical ISUM Model for Nonlinear Analysis of the

Cantilever Box Girder

Figure 18.62 Cantilever Box Girder

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-65 4/28/03 1:31 PM

idea may be found in Brebbia and Dominguez (109). While

there are some problem areas to overcome in use of BEM

for non-linear analysis, it has been recognized that BEM is

a powerful alternative to FEM particularly for problems in-

volving stress concentration or fracture mechanics, and for

cases in which the integral domain extends to inﬁnity. For

example, to design the cathodic corrosion protection sys-

tems for ships, offshore structures and pipelines, it has been

suggested that BEM should be employed, with the region

of interest extending to inﬁnity. BEM can also be applied

to problems other than stress or temperature analysis, in-

cluding ﬂuid ﬂow and diffusion (for example, for ﬂuid-

structure interaction, Subsection 18.6.8.2).

Main advantages of BEM are due that very complex ex-

pressions of integral equations can be adopted, resulting in

higher accuracy of the results.

In this regard, BEM can be involved in the usage of more

reﬁned mathematical treatment than FEM. However, to cal-

culate the integral equations using BEM, appropriate nu-

merical techniques should be used, otherwise the integration

results may not be accurate. For most linear problems, lin-

ear or ﬂat boundary elements along the boundary of the in-

tegral domain can be used so that we don’t have to carry

out numerical integration. If analytical solutions are avail-

able the required computing times will be very small and

the accuracy high. Nevertheless as the required computa-

tional times with the BEM is in general signiﬁcant, BEM

may be more appropriate for linear analysis of solids and

for ﬂuid mechanics problems.

18.7.4 Presentation of the Stress Result

After performing an analysis, the presentation of the stress

and deformation is very important. It should be based on

stresses acting at the middle of element thickness, exclud-

ing plate-bending stress, in the form of ISO-stress contours

in general. Numerical values should also be presented for

highly stressed areas or locations where openings are not

included in the model.

The following results should be presented for parts of

the vessel covered by the global model, such as, cargo hold

model and frame and girder models:

• deformed shape for each loading condition,

• In-plane maximum normal stresses (σ

x

and σ

y

) in the

global axis system, shear stresses (_) and equivalent von

Mises stress (σ

e

) of the following elements:

— bottom,

— inner bottom,

— deck,

— side shell,

— inner side including hopper tank top,

— longitudinal and transverse bulkheads, and

— longitudinal and transverse girders.

• Axial stress of free ﬂanges,

• Deformations of supporting brackets for main frames

including longitudinals connected to these when appli-

cable,

• Deformation of supports for longitudinals subject to

large relative deformation when applicable.

For parts of the vessel covered by the local model, the

following stresses are to be presented:

• Equivalent stress of plate/membrane elements,

• Axial stress of truss elements,

• Axial forces, bending moments and shear forces for beam

elements.

18.7.5 Relevant Structural Analysis Methods for

Speciﬁc Design Stages

Shipbuilding design ofﬁces face very challenging situations

(especially for passenger and other complex ships). The

products are one-of-a-kind or at least on short series and

the resulting ships are designed and built within two years

18-66 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.65 A Typical FEM/BEM Model for Analysis of the

Pressure Vessel (109). (a) Typical BEM model, and (b) Typical FEM model.

(b)

Author:

Please

advise

what

symbold

is

needed.

(a)

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-66 4/28/03 1:31 PM

for 20 to 30 years of operation. Another impact on design

activities that is also challenging is that the design overlaps

the production. To clarify the actual situation, a common

view of the design workﬂow for a commercial ship in the

shipyard is shown in Table 18.VII.

18.7.5.1 Basic design

The Basic Design is the design activities performed before

order. This phase does not overlap with the production but

is very short and will become the technical basis for the

contract. The shipyard must be sure that no technical prob-

lem will appear later on, to avoid extra costs not included

in the contract. The structural analysis carried out in this

phase must be as fast as possible because the allocated time

is short. The most time consuming task for analysis is the

data input. The more detailed are the data more accurate the

results. There are three kinds of early analysis:

1. First principles methods: Very simpliﬁed geometric rep-

resentation of the structure. These methods are dedicated

to an assessment of the global behavior of the ship. They

mainly use empirical or semi-empirical formulas.

2. Two-dimensional (or almost 2D) geometry-based meth-

ods: These methods are based on one or more 2D views

of the ship sections. The expected results may be:

• Veriﬁcation of main section scantlings,

• Global strength assessment,

• Global vibration levels prediction,

• Ultimate strength determination, and

• Early assessment of fatigue

Two main approaches exist:

— The main section of the ship is modeled a 2D way

(including geometry and scantlings) then global, and

possibly local, loadings are applied (bending mo-

ments, pressures, etc.). All major Classiﬁcation So-

cieties provide today the designer with such tools

(Table 18.VIII).

— Various signiﬁcant sections are described as beam

cross section properties (areas, inertias, etc.) and then

the ship is represented by a beam with variable prop-

erties on which global loading is applied.

3. Simple three-dimensional models: These models are use-

ful when a more detailed response is needed. The idea

is to include main surfaces and actual scantlings (or from

the main section when not available) in a 3D model that

can be achieved in one or two weeks. This approach is

mainly dedicated to novel ship designs for which the

feedback is rather small.

18.7.5.2 Production design

The most popular method for structural analysis at the pro-

duction design stage remains the Finite Elements Analysis

(FEA). This method is commonly used by Shipyards, Classi-

ﬁcation Societies, Research Institutes and Universities. It is

very versatile and may be applied to various types of analysis:

• global and local strength,

• global and local vibration analysis (natural frequencies

with or without external water, forced response to the

propeller excitation, etc.),

• ultimate strength, and

• detailed stress for local fatigue assessment,

• fatigue life cycle assessment,

• analysis of various non-linearities (material, geometry,

contact, etc.), and

• collision and grounding studies.

The two main approaches for solving the physical prob-

lem are:

1. implicit method is used to solve large problems (both lin-

ear and non linear) with a matrix-based method. This is

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-67

TABLE 18.VII Timing of a Design Project

Basic Design

Concept Design 1 or 2 days

Preliminary Design About 1 week

Contract Design Months

Receive Order

Production Design

Complete Functional Design 1 or 2 months

Production Design 6–10 months

TABLE 18.VIII Classiﬁcation Society Tools Overview (110)

Classiﬁcation Society Product

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) ABS Safe Hull

Bureau Veritas (BV) VeriSTAR

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Electronic Rulebook &

Nauticus HULL

Germanisher Lloyd (GL) GL-Rules & POSEIDON

Korean Register of shipping (KRS) KR-RULES, KR-TRAS

Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LR) Ruleﬁnder, ShipRight

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK) PrimeShip BOSUN

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-67 4/28/03 1:31 PM

the favored method for solving global and local linear

strength and vibration problems. But it can also be ap-

plied to non linear calculations when the time step re-

mains rather large (about 1/10 to 1 second), and

2. explicit method is mainly used for fast dynamics (as col-

lision and grounding or explosion) where time step is

quite smaller. This method allows using different for-

mulations for structural elements (Lagrangian) and ﬂuid

elements (Eulerian).

One interesting result from research that is being intro-

duced today is the reliability approach (see Chapter 19).

This approach introduces uncertainties within the model

(non planar plates, residual stresses from welding, dis-

crepancies in the thickness…) to provide the designer with

a level of reliability for a given result instead of a deter-

ministic value.

For FEA models, the modeling time is usually assumed

to be 70% of the overall calculation time and results ex-

ploitation 30%. The computation itself is regarded as neg-

ligible (excepted for explicit analysis). So the main efforts

today are focused on reducing the modeling time.

18.7.6 Optimization

Optimization is a ﬁeld in which much research has been car-

ried out over a long time. It is included today in many soft-

ware tools and many designers are using it. The aim of

optimization is to give the designers the opportunity to

change design variables (such as thickness, number and

cross section of stiffeners, shape or topology) to design a

better structure for a given objective (lower weight or cost).

Optimization can be performed both at basic and pro-

duction design stages:

• Basic Design: Even with simpliﬁed models, the designer

can optimize the scantlings. It can be used for instance

to ﬁnd out the minimal scantlings for a novel ship for

which the yard have a lack of feedback,

• Production Design: Optimization can be used for three

main purposes:

— Scantlings optimization, which gives the user the

minimum scantlings for a given structure. The num-

ber of longitudinals and the frame spacing for a given

cargo hold/tank can also be optimized (105).

— Shape optimization (111), which uses a given topol-

ogy and scantlings to provide the user the minimum,

required area of material (reducing holes in a plate

for instance), and to improve the hull shape consid-

ering the ﬂuid-structure interaction.

— Topology optimization (112) which uses a given

scantlings and allows the user to ﬁnd out where to

put material. An academic example of topology op-

timization is given on Figure 18.66.

Weight is the most usual objective function for structure

optimization. Minimizing weight is of particular impor-

tance in deadweight carriers, in ships required to have a

limited draft, and in fast ﬁne lined ships, for example, pas-

senger vessels. However, it is well know that the lowest

weight solution is not usually the lowest acquisition cost.

Today, cost is becoming the usual objective function for op-

timization (124).

For the other ship types it is still desirable to minimize

steel weight to reduce material cost but only when this can

be done without increasing labor costs to an extent that ex-

ceeds the saving in material costs. On the other hand, a re-

duction in structural labor cost achieved by simplifying

construction methods may still be worthwhile even if this

is obtained at the expense of increasing the steel weight.

Rigo (105) presents extensive review of ship structure

optimization focusing on scantling optimization. Vander-

plaats (113), and Sen and Yang (114) are standard reference

books about optimization techniques. Catley et al (115),

Hughes (3) and Chapter 11 of this book also contain valu-

able information on structure optimization.

18.7.6.1 Scantling optimization procedure

A standard optimization problem is deﬁned as follows:

• X

i

(i = 1, N), the N design variables,

• F(X

i

), the objective function to minimize,

• Cj(X

i

) ≤ CM

j

(j = 1, M), the M structural and geomet-

rical constraints,

• X

i min

≤ X

i

≤ X

i max

upper and lower bounds of the X

i

de-

sign variables: technological bounds (also called side

constraints).

18-68 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.66 Topology Optimization

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-68 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Constraints are linear or nonlinear functions, either ex-

plicit or implicit of the design variables (XI). These con-

straints are analytical translations of the limitations that the

user wants to impose on the design variables themselves or

to parameters like displacement, stress, ultimate strength,

etc. Note that these parameters must be functions of the de-

sign variables.

So it is possible to distinguish:

Technological constraints (or side constraints) that provide

the upper and lower bounds of the design variables. For ex-

ample:

X

i min

= 4mm ≤ X

i

≤ X

i max

= 40 mm,

with:

X

i min

= a thickness limit dues to corrosion,

X

i max

= a technological limit of manufacturing or assembly.

Geometrical constraints that impose relationships between

design variables in order to guarantee a functional, feasi-

ble, reliable structure. They are generally based on good

practice rules to avoid local strength failures (web or ﬂange

buckling, stiffener tripping, etc.), or to guarantee welding

quality and easy access to the welds. For instance, welding

a plate of 30 mm thick with one that is 5 mm thick is not

recommended. Hence, the constraints can be 0.5 ≤ X2 / X1

≤ 2 with X1, the web thickness of a stiffener and X2, the

ﬂange thickness.

Structural constraints represent limit states in order to avoid

yielding, buckling, cracks, etc. and to limit deﬂection, stress,

etc. These constraints are based on solid-mechanics phe-

nomena and modeled with rational equations. Rational equa-

tions mean a coherent and homogeneous group of analysis

methods based on physics, solid mechanics, strength and

stability treatises, etc. and that differ from empirical and

parametric formulations. Such standard rational structural

constraints can limit:

• the deﬂection level (absolute or relative) in a point of the

structure,

• the stress level in an element: σ

x

, σ

y,

and σ

c

= σ

von Mises

,

• the safety level related to buckling, ultimate resistance,

tripping, etc. For example: σ /σ

ult

≤ 0.5.

For each constraint, or solid-mechanics phenomenon,

the selected behavior model is especially important since

this model ﬁxes the quality of the constraint modeling. These

behavior models can be so complex that it is no longer pos-

sible to explicitly express the relation between the param-

eters being studied (stress, displacement, etc.) and the design

variables (XI). This happens when one uses mathematical

models (FEM, ISUM, BEM, etc.). In this case, one gener-

ally uses a numeric procedure that consists of replacing the

implicit function by an explicit approximated function ad-

justed in the vicinity of the initial values of the design vari-

ables (for instance using the ﬁrst or second order Taylor

series expansions). This way, the optimization process be-

comes an iterative analysis based on a succession of local

approximations of the behavior models.

At least one constraint should be deﬁned for each fail-

ure mode and limit state considered in the Subsection 18.6.1.

When going from the local to the general (Figure 18.38),

there are three types of constraints: 1) constraints on stiff-

ened panels and its components, 2) constraints on trans-

verse frames and transversal stiffening, and 3) constraints

on the global structure.

Constraints on stiffened panels (Figure 18.22): Panels

are limited by their lateral edges (junctions with other pan-

els, AA’ and BB’) either by transverse bulkheads or trans-

verse frames. These panels are orthotropic plates and shells

supported on their four sides, laterally loaded (bending) and

submitted, at their extremities, to in-plane loads (compres-

sion/tensile and shearing).

Global buckling of panels (including the local transverse

frames) must also be considered. Panel supports, in partic-

ular those corresponding to the reinforced frames, are as-

sumed inﬁnitely rigid. This means that they can distort

themselves signiﬁcantly only after the stiffened panel col-

lapse.

Constraints on the transverse frames (Figure 18.23): The

frames take the lateral loads (pressure, dead weight, etc.)

and are therefore submitted to combined loads (large bend-

ing and compression). The rigidity of these frames must be

assured in order to respect the hypotheses on panel bound-

ary conditions (undeformable supports).

Constraints on the global structure (box girder/hull

girder) (Figure 18.46): The ultimate strength of the global

structure or a section (block) located between two rigid

frames (or bulkheads) must be considered as well as the

elastic bending moment of the hull girder (against yielding).

18.8 DESIGN CRITERIA

In ship design, the structural analysis phase is concerned

with the prediction of the magnitude of the stresses and de-

ﬂections that are developed in the structural members as a

result of the action of the sea and other external and inter-

nal causes. Many of the failure mechanisms, particularly

those that determine the ultimate strength and collapse of

the structure, involve non-linear material and structural be-

havior that are beyond the range of applicability of the lin-

ear structural analysis procedures in Section 18.4, which are

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-69

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-69 4/28/03 1:31 PM

commonly used in design practice. Most of the available

methods of non-linear structural analysis are brieﬂy intro-

duced in Sections 18.6 and 18.7. Sometimes, these meth-

ods are limited in their applicability to a narrow class of

problems.

One of the difﬁculties facing the structural designer is that

linear analysis tools must often be used in predicting the be-

havior of a structure in which the ultimate capability is gov-

erned by non-linear phenomena. This is one of the important

sources of uncertainty related to strength assessment.

After performing an analysis, the adequacy or inade-

quacy of the member and/or the entire ship structure must

then be judged through comparison with some kind of cri-

terion of performance (Design Criteria). The conventional

criteria that are commonly used today in ship structural de-

sign are usually stated in terms of acceptable levels of stress

in comparison to the yield or ultimate strength of the ma-

terial, or as acceptable stress levels compared to the criti-

cal buckling strength and ultimate strength of the structural

member. Such criteria are, therefore, intended speciﬁcally

for the prevention of yielding (hull girder, frames, longitu-

dinals, etc), plate and stiffened plate buckling, plate and

stiffened plate ultimate strength, ultimate strength of hull

girder, fatigue, collision, grounding, vibration and many

other failure modes speciﬁc to particular vessel types. In-

formation related to the design criteria is given in Section

18.6 for each speciﬁc failure mode (see also Beghin et al

(116)).

18.8.1 Structural Reliability as a Design Basis

Three categories of design methodology are basically avail-

able. They are usually classiﬁed as:

1. deterministic method,

2. semiprobabilistic method, and

3. full probabilistic method.

The deterministic method uses a global safety factor. It

assumes that loads and strength are fully determined. This

means that no aspect of randomness is considered. Every-

thing is assumed to be deterministic. The global safety fac-

tor is compared to the ratio between the actual strength and

the required strength.

The full probabilistic method is an ideal approach as-

suming that all the randomness can be exactly considered

within a global probabilistic approach. All the actual devel-

opment in structural reliability and reliability analysis show

the huge effort actually done to reach that aims. Chapter 19

presents in detail the reliability concept with examples of the

reliability-based strength analysis of plates, stiffened pan-

els, hull girder and fatigue. See also Mansour et al (42).

The semiprobabilistic method corresponds to the cur-

rent practice used by codes and the major classiﬁcations so-

cieties. Load, strength, dimensions are random parameters

but their distribution is basically not known. To overcome

this, partial safety factor are used. Each safety factor cor-

responds to a load type, failure mode, etc. This is an inter-

mediate step between the deterministic and the full

probabilistic methods.

18.9 DESIGN PROCEDURE

It does not seem possible to unify all of the design proce-

dures (117-122). They differ from country to country, from

shipyard to shipyard and differ between naval ships, com-

mercial ships and advanced high-speed catamaran passen-

ger vessels. So, as an example of one feasible methodology,

the design procedure for commercial vessel such as tanker,

container, and VLCC is selected. It corresponds to the ac-

tual current shipyard procedure.

This structural design procedure can be deﬁned as fol-

lows:

• receive general arrangement from the basic design group,

• deﬁne structural arrangement based on the general

arrangement,

• determine initial scantling of structural members within

design criteria (rule-based).,

• check longitudinal and transverse strength,

• change the structural arrangement or scantling, and

• transfer the structural arrangement and scantling to the

production design group.

The structural design can also be classiﬁed according to

available design tool:

• use data of existing ship or past experience—expert sys-

tem, (1st level)

• use of a structural analysis software like FEM (2nd level)

• use optimization software (3rd level)

The adequacy of the relevant analysis method to use for

a speciﬁc design stage is discussed in Subsection 18.7.5.

Here the discussion concerns the procedure from a design

point of view and not from the analysis point of view.

18.9.1 Initial Scantling

At the basic design stage, principal dimensions, hull form,

double bottom height, location of longitudinal bulkheads and

transverse bulkheads, maximum still-water bending mo-

ment, etc. have already been determined to meet the owner’s

requirements such as deadweight and ship’s speed. Such a

18-70 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-70 4/28/03 1:31 PM

parametric design procedure presented in Chapter 11 is rel-

evant for this stage.

For the structural design stage, the structural arrangement

is carried out to deﬁne the material property, plate breadth,

stiffener spacing, stiffener type, slot type, shape of open-

ings, and frame spacing. The initial scantling of longitudi-

nal members such as plate thickness and section area of

stiffener can be determined by applying the classiﬁcation

rules which give minimum required value to meet the bend-

ing, shear and buckling strength. As there are usually no suit-

able rules for the transverse members, the initial scantling

of transverse members such as height and thickness of web,

breadth and thickness of ﬂange are determined by reference

to similar ships or using empirical shipyard database.

18.9.2 Strength Assessment

The purpose of the strength assessment is to validate the ini-

tial design, that is, to evaluate quantitatively the strength ca-

pability of the initial design. This problem was extensively

presented in previous Sections 18.4, 18.5 and 18.6.

In general, the longitudinal members are subjected to

several kinds of stresses in the sea-going condition: pri-

mary, secondary and tertiary stresses (Subsection 18.4.1).

As all these stresses act simultaneously, the superposition

of these stresses should not exceed the allowable equiva-

lent stress given by the classiﬁcation rules (equations 45

and 46).

There are two kinds of strength to design the longitudi-

nal members. One is the local strength to avoid collapse,

and the other is the longitudinal strength to consider the

collapse of the ships’ hull girder. The local strength is au-

tomatically satisﬁed if the design is based on the classiﬁ-

cation rules. The hull girder longitudinal strength can be

assessed with the hull section modulus (SM) at bottom and

deck where the extreme stresses are taken place (equation

29). The hull section modulus is calculated easily by using

available software.

If the hull section modulus at bottom or deck part is big-

ger than the required value, this design can be considered

as ﬁnished but this design might be too expensive. If the

section modulus at the deck or at the bottom is less than the

required value, the designer should change the initial scant-

lings.

If the calculated hull section modulus at deck part is less

than required, he can increase, step by step, the deck scant-

ling (for example, 0.5 mm for the plate thickness) until the

requirement is satisﬁed.

The designer also has to modify the scantling (usually

plate thickness) of transverse members, for which the stress

exceeds the allowable value. The designer estimates the in-

creased thickness according to the difference between the

actual stress and allowable stress. If the difference is small,

it is not necessary to perform a new strength assessment

and the design may be completed with only small changes.

If the difference is large, the design should be drastically

changed and it will be necessary to analyze the structure

again (see previous step in this Subsection).

Then, the designer has to check the transverse strength

by comparing the actual stresses in the transverse frames

with the allowable stresses given by the classiﬁcation rules.

The actual stresses such as equivalent stress and shear stress

can be obtained using commercial FEA packages. If the

stress in some of elements exceeds the allowable stress, the

designer should increase the initial scantling. These changes

are performed at the third step Structural Design using the

results of the Strength Assessment and by comparison with

the design criteria.

18.9.3 Structural Design

If all of local scantlings are determined by the rule mini-

mum values, and if the longitudinal strength satisﬁes the rule

strength requirement, the design is completed. But, even if

this design is strong enough, it might be too heavy and/or

too expensive and it should be reﬁned. In practice, reﬁning

an already feasible design is a difﬁcult task and requires ex-

perience. The designer can change the structural arrange-

ment, especially the dimensions such as frame spacing, and

material properties to better ﬁt with the longitudinal strength

requirements. This work has to be done in agreement with

the basic design team.

Instead of the trial and error procedure discussed above,

an automatic optimization technique can be used to obtain

the minimum weight and/or cost for the longitudinal and

transverse structural member. The object function(s) can be

structural weight and/or fabrication cost, using either a sin-

gle object function approach or a multiple objective func-

tion method. The design variables can be longitudinal and

transverse spacing, deck/bottom scantlings for the longitu-

dinal and transverse members (web height and thickness,

ﬂange width and thickness). The constraints and limitations

of the optimization process can be the range of each design

variable as well as the required hull section modulus and

minimum deck/bottom scantlings for the longitudinal mem-

bers, and allowable bending and shear stresses for the trans-

verse members (see Optimization in Subsection 18.7.6).

18.9.4 A Generic Design Framework

By comparison with the previous standard procedure, Fig-

ure 18.67 shows a new generic and advanced design method-

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-71

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-71 4/28/03 1:31 PM

ology where the performance of the system, the manufac-

turing process of the system and the associated life cycle

costs are considered in an integrated fashion (120). De-

signing ship structures systems involves achieving simul-

taneous, though sometimes competing, objectives. The

structure must perform its function while conforming to

structural, economic and production constraints. The pres-

ent design framework consists of establishing the structural

system and composite subsystems, which optimally satisfy

the topology, shape, loading and performance constraints

while simultaneously considering the manufacturing or fab-

rication processes in a cost effective manner.

The framework is used within a computerized virtual

environment in which CAD product models, physics-based

models, production process models and cost models are

used simultaneously by a designer or design team. The per-

formance of the product or process is in general judged by

some time independent parameter, which is referred to as

a response metric (R). Speciﬁcations for the system must

be established in terms of these Response Metrics. The for-

mulation of the design problem is thus the same whether

the product or process systems (or both) are considered.

The general framework consists of a system deﬁnition

module, a simulation module and a design module.

The system deﬁnition module [Y(U,V,W)] is used to

build an environmental model [U], a product model [V] and

a process model [W]. The system deﬁnition module receives

operational requirements [Z] such as owner’s requirements.

These operational parameters are presumed ﬁxed through-

out the design.

They of course can eventually be changed if no accept-

able design is established, but presumably any design would

have operational parameters, which would not be sacriﬁced.

The environmental model [U] includes the still water and

wave loading conditions and the product model [V] con-

tains the production information, for example. The process

model [W] is built to consider or deﬁne the fabrication se-

quence. A translator (simulation based design translator)

assigns some [Y] model parameters to the simulation pa-

rameters [T] and design variables [X].

These parameters are selected based on the available

simulation tools [S] that require speciﬁc data ([T],[X] and

time).

The simulation module [S(T, X, time)] is used to pro-

duce simulation responses such as Response Metrics [R[S(T,

X)]]. The time is needed to consider the dynamic effects and

actual dynamic load conditions [U].

The optimum design module includes the Design Cri-

teria, the Design Assessment and the Optimization compo-

nents. The design criteria module provides constraints [G(T,

X, Y, Z)] and objective functions [F(R, T, X, Y, Z)]. These

are used to assess the design through the Design Assess-

ment component of the module (for example R≤G). The

constraints are obtained by considering not only the simu-

lation parameters [T] and the design variables [X] but also

the operational requirements [Z] and the system deﬁnition

parameter [Y]. Also, the objective function [F] is calculated

using the response metrics [R], the operational requirements

[Z], the system deﬁnition parameter [Y] as well as the de-

sign variables [X] and simulation parameters [T].

Based on the results of the Design Assessment (Min(F)

and R≤G) several strategies for the design procedure (iter-

ations) can be followed:

• if the object function does not reach its minimum value

or the response metrics do not satisfy the constraints, an

optimization algorithm (steepest descent, dual approach

and convex linearization, evolutionary strategies, etc.) is

adopted to ﬁnd a new set of design variables. Standard

algorithms are presented in (113,114,123):

— if the optimizer fails to ﬁnd an improved solution (un-

feasible design space), it is required to change the

simulation parameter values [T] and/or design vari-

ables selection [X] or even to modify the Model Pa-

rameters [Y].

18-72 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

Figure 18.67 A Generic Design Framework (120)

Operational Requirements

ParametersZ

System Definition

Model Parameters Y

Environmental Model Product Model Process Model

Parameters U

Parameters V Parameters W

Simulation Based Design Translator

Simulation Parameters T

Design Variables X

Simulations

Simulation Response S(T ,X,time)

Design Criteria

Constraints G(T,X,Y,Z)

Objective Function F(R,T,X,Y,Z)

Response Metrics R [S(T ,X)]

Design Assessment

Min (F) ?

R < G ?

Conditions Satisfied ?

Is Design Space

Feasible?

Redesign?

Stop

Optimization

Steepest Descent

Convex Linearization

Yes

Yes

No Yes

No

No

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-72 4/28/03 1:31 PM

— otherwise, the design space is feasible, and a change

of design variable values [X] is performed based on

the optimizer solution (in other words a new itera-

tion).

• if the object function reaches its minimum value and the

response metrics satisfy the constraints, two alternatives

are examined:

— change the operational requirements parameters [Z],

repeat the previous procedure and to compare with

other alternative designs, or

— end the design procedure.

18.10 REFERENCES

1. Taggart R., Ship Design and Construction, SNAME, New

York, 1980

2. Lewis, E. V., Principles of Naval Architecture (2nd revision),

vol.1, SNAME, 1988

3. Hughes O. F., Ship Structural Design: A Rationally -Based,

Computer-Aided Optimization Approach, SNAME, New Jer-

sey, 1988

4. DnV 99–0394, Calculation Procedures for Direct Global

Structural Analysis, Det Norske Veritas, Technical Report,

1999

5. Arai H., “Evolution of Classiﬁcation Rules for Ships,” In Re-

cent Advances in Marine Structures, ISSC’2000 Pre-Con-

gress Symposium, Society of Naval Architects of Japan,

Tokyo: 8.1–8.22, 2000

6. IACS Uniﬁed Requirement S7 “Minimum Longitudinal

Strength Standards,” 1989

7. IACS Uniﬁed Requirement S11 “Longitudinal Strength Stan-

dard,” 1993

8. ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, 2000

9. BV Rules for Steel Ships, 2001

10. RINA Rules, 2001

11. DNV Rules for Classiﬁcation of Ships, 2001

12. NKK Rules and Guidance for the Survey and Construction

of Steel Ships, 2001

13. Salvensen, N., Tuck, E. O. & Faltinsen, O., “Ship Motions

and Sea Loads”, Transactions SNAME, 78: 250–287, 1970

14. Ochi, M.K., “Applied Probability & Stochastic Processes,”

John Wiley & Sons, 1990

15. GWS, “Global Wave Statistics” British Maritime Technol-

ogy Ltd. Feltham, 1986

16. Guedes Soares, C., et al. “Loads (Report of ISSC Commit-

tee I.2),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan & Berge (Eds.),

Pergamon, Norway, 1, 1997

17. Guedes Soares, C., et al. “Loads (Report of ISSC Commit-

tee I.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.),

Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000 ”

18. Chung, T. Y., et al. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC

Committee II.2),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan & Berge

(Eds.), Pergamon, Norway, 1, 1997

19. Temarel, P., et al. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC Com-

mittee II.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi

(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000

20. “Vibration Control in Ships,” A/S. VERITEC Høvik, Nor-

way, 1985

21. Kaminski, M.L., et al. “Ultimate Strength (Report of ISSC

Committee III.1),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo &

Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000

22. Pedersen, P. T., “Ship Grounding and Hull Girder Strength”

Marine Structures, 7, 1994

23. Beck R. F. and Reed A. M., “Modern Seakeeping Computa-

tions for Ships” Proc. 23

rd

Symposium Naval Hydrodynam-

ics Val de Reuil, France, 2000

24. Jensen, J. J. et al., “Extreme Hull Girder Loading,” Report

of Special Task Committee VI.1 Proc. 14th International Ship

and Offshore Structures Congress, Ohtsubo and Sumi (Edi-

tors), 2: 261–320, 2000

25. Rawson, K. J., Tupper E. C., Basic Ship Theory (Fourth edi-

tion), 1 & 2, Longman Scientic & Technical, Essex, UK,

1994

26. Schade, H. A., “The Effective Breath of Stiffened Plating

Under Bending Loads,” Transactions SNAME, 61, 1951

27. Evans, H. J., Ship Structural Design Concepts—Second Cycle,

Cornell Maritime Press, First Edition, Maryland, 1983

28. Heggelund, S. E., Moan, T. and Omar, S., “Global Structural

Analysis of Large Catamarans,” Proceedings Fifth Confer-

ence on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST’99, SNAME, Seat-

tle: 757–771, 1999

29. Rigo, P., “Stiffened Sheathings of Orthotropic Cylindrical

Shells,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118 (4):

926–943, 1992

30. Rigo, P. and Fleury, C., “Scantling Optimization Based on

Convex Linearizations and a Dual Approach,” Marine Struc-

tures, Elsevier Science Ltd., 14 (6): 631–649, 2001

31. Mansour, A. E., “Gross Panel Strength under Combined Load-

ing,” Ship Structure Committee, SSC-270, NTIS, Washing-

ton DC, 1977

32. Hughes, O., Nikolaidis, E., Ayyub, B., White, G. and Hess,

P., “Uncertainty in Strength Models for Marine Structures,”

Ship Structure Committee (375), NTIS, Washington DC,

1994

33. Paik, J. K., Thayamballi, A. and Kim, B., “Advanced Ulti-

mate Strength Formulations for Ship Plating under Com-

bined Biaxial Compression/Tension, Edge Shear and Lateral

Pressure Loads,” Marine Technology, 38, (1): 9–25, 2001

34. Faulkner, D., “A Review of Effective Plating for use in the

Analysis of Stiffened Plating in Bending and Compression,”

Journal of Ship Research, 18 (1): 1–17, 1975

35. Faulkner, D., Adamchak, J., Snyder, G. and Vetter, M., “Syn-

thesis of Welded Grillages to withstand Compression and

Normal Loads,” Computers & Structures, Vol.3, 1973,

pp.221–246.

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-73

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-73 4/28/03 1:31 PM

36. Bleich, F. Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGraw-

Hill, 1952

37. ECCS-56, Buckling of Steel Shells, 4th edition, ECCS—Tech-

nical Working Group 8.4 Stability of Shells, (60), European

Convention for Constructional Steel Work, Brussels, 1988

38. Paik J.K., Thayamballi A.K., Ultimate Limit State Design of

Steel Plated Structures, John Wiley & Sons, London, 2002.

39. Kaminski et al., “Ultimate Strength, Report of Technical

Committee III.1,” Proceedings of the 14th Int. Ship and Off-

shore Structures Congress, Vol.1, Elsevier: 253–321, 2001

40. Dowling et al “Design of Flat Stiffened Plating: Phase 1 Re-

port”, CESLIC Report SP9, Department of Civil Engineer-

ing, Imperial College, London, 1991

41. Mansour, A. E. and Thayamballi A., “Ultimate Strength of a

Ship’s Hull Girder in Plastic and Buckling Modes,” Ship

Structure Committee (299) NTIS, Washington DC, 1980

42. Mansour, A. E., Lin M., Hovem, L. and Thayamballi, A.,

“Probability-Based Ship Design—Phase 1: A Demonstra-

tion,” SSC (368), NTIS, Washington DC, 1993

43. Chen, Q., Zimmerman, T., DeGeer, D. and Kennedy, B.,

“Strength and Stability Testing of Stiffened Plate Compo-

nents,” Ship Structure Committee (399), NTIS, Washington

DC, 1997

44. Paik, J. K. and Kim, D. H., “A Benchmark Study of the Ul-

timate Compressive Strength Formulation for Stiffened Pan-

els,” Journal Research Institute of Industrial Technology, 53,

Pusan National University: 373–405, 1997

45. Rigo, P., Moan, T., Frieze P. and Chryssanthopoulos, M.,

“Benchmarking of Ultimate Strength Predictions for Longi-

tudinally Stiffened Panels,” PRADS’95, 2: 869–882, Seoul,

Korea, 1995,

46. ECCS-60, Recommendations for the Design of Longitudi-

nally Stiffened Webs and of Stiffened Compression Flanges,

1st edition, ECCS—Technical Working Group 8.3—Struc-

tural Stability, (60), European Convention for Constructional

Steel Work, Brussels, 1990

47. Mansour, A. E., Lin, Y. H. and Paik, J. K., “Ultimate Strength

of Ships under Combined Vertical and Horizontal Moments,”

PRADS’95, 2: 844–851, Seoul, Korea, 1995

48. Smith, C. S., “Elastic Analysis of Stiffened Plating under

Lateral Loading,” Transactions RINA, 108, (2): 113–131,

1966

49. Paik, J. K. and Thayamballi, A., “An Empirical Formulation

for Predicting the Ultimate Compressive Strength of Stiff-

ened Panels,” Proceedings of ISOPE’97 Conference, IV:

328–338, 1997

50. Yao, T. et al., “Ultimate Hull Girder Strength (Committee

VI.2),” Proc. of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Else-

vier, Japan, 2: 321–391, 2000

51. Yao, T., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Ship Hull Girder;

Historical Review and State of Art,” International Journal

Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE) 9 (1): 1–9, 1999

52. Chen, Y. K., Kutt, L. M., Piaszczyk, C. M. and Bieniek, M.

P., “Ultimate Strength of Ship Structures,” Transactions

SNAME 91: 149–168, 1983

53. Yao, T., Sumi, Y., Takemoto, H., Kumano, A., Sueoka, H.

and Ohtsubo, H., “Analysis of the Accident of the MV

NAKHODKA, Part 2: Estimation of Structural Strength,”

Journal of Marine Science and Technology (JMST), 3 (4):

181–183, 1998

54. Smith, C. S., “Inﬂuence of Local Compressive Failure on Ul-

timate Longitudinal Strength of a Ship’s Hull, PRADS 77,

Tokyo, Japan: 73–79, 1977

55. Rigo, P., Catalin, T. and Yao, T., “Sensitivity Analysis on Ul-

timate Hull Bending Moment,” In Proceeding of

PRADS’2001, Shanghai, China, 2001

56. Adamchack, J. C., “Approximate Method for Estimating the

Collapse of a Ship’s Hull in Preliminary Design,” Proc. Ship

Structure Symposium’84, SNAME: 37–61, 1984

57. Beghin, D., et al., “Design Principles and Criteria (Report of

ISSC Committee IV.1),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan and

Berge (Eds.), Pergamon Press—Elsevier Science, 1: 351–406,

1997

58. Dow, R. S., Hugill, R. C., Clarke, J. D. and Smith, C. S.,

“Evaluation of Ultimate Ship Hull Strength,” Proceedings of

Symposium on Extreme Loads Response, Arlington: 33–148,

1991

59. Gordo, J. M., Guedes Soares, C., “Approximate Methods to

Evaluate the Hull Girder Collapse Strength,” Marine Struc-

tures 9 (3–4): 449–470, 1996

60. Gordo, J. M. and Guedes Soares, C., “Interaction Equation

for the Collapse of Tankers and Containerships under Com-

bined Vertical and Horizontal Bending Moments,” Journal

of Ship Research 41 (3): 230–240, 1997

61. Yao, T. and Nikolov, P. I., ‘Progressive Collapse Analysis of

a Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending,” Journal of So-

ciety Naval Architects of Japan, 170: 449–461, 1991

62. Yao, T., Nikolov, P. I., “Progressive Collapse Analysis of a

Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending (2nd Report),” Jour-

nal of Society Naval Architects of Japan, 172: 437–446, 1992

63. Rutherford, S. E., Caldwell, J. B., “Ultimate Longitudinal

Strength of Ships: A Case Study,” SNAME Transactions, 98:

441–471, 1990

64. Caldwell, J. B., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength,” Transac-

tions RINA 107: 411–430, 1965

65. Paik, J. K. and Mansour, A. E., “A Simple Formulation for

Predicting the Ultimate Strength of Ships,” Journal Marine

Science and Technology, 1: 52–62, 1995

66. Viner, A. C., “Development of Ship Strength Formulation,”

Proceedings of International. Conference on Advances in

Marine Structures, ARE, Dunfermline, UK: 152–173, 1986

67. Frieze, P. et al, “Applied Design, Report of ISSC Commit-

tee V.1,” 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 2, 1991

68. Sumi, Y. et al, “Calculation Procedures. In Quasi-static Re-

sponse (Report of ISSC Committee II.1),” Proceedings of

13th ISSC, Moan and Berge (eds), Pergamon Press—Else-

vier Science, 1: 128–138, 1997

69. Hu, Y., Zhang A. and Sun J., “Analysis on the Ultimate Lon-

gitudinal Strength of a Bulk Carrier by Using a Simpliﬁed

Method,” Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14: 311–330, 2001

18-74 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-74 4/28/03 1:31 PM

(ICCGS’2001), Technical University of Denmark, Copen-

hagen, 2001

88. Todd, F. H., Ship Hull Vibration, Arnold Ltd, London, 1961

89. Lewis F. M., “The Inertia of Water Surrounding a Vibrating

Ship,” SNAME Transactions, 37, 1929

90. Volcy, G., Baudin, M, Bereau, M. and Besnier, F., “Hydro-

elasticity and Vibration of Internal Steelwork of Tanks,”

SNAME Transactions, 1980

91. Morel, P., Beghin, D. and Baudin, M., “Assessment of the

Vibratory Behavior of Ships,” RINA Conference on Noise

and Vibration, London, UK, 1995

92. Spittaël, L., Zalar, M., Laspalles, P.and Brosset, L., “Mem-

brane LNG FPSO & FSRU—Methodology for Sloshing

Phenomenon,” Proceedings of Gastech’2000, Houston, 2000

93. Fabro, R., “Ship Noise and Vibration Comfort Class: Inter-

national Rules and Shipbuilding Practice,” Proceedings of

NAV2000, Venice, Italy, 2000

94. Blevins, R. D., Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode

Shape, Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, US, 1984

95. Lund. J. W., “Rotor-Bearing Dynamics Design Technol-

ogy,” Part III: Design Handbook for ﬂuid ﬁlm bearings.,

Mech. Tech. Inc., Technical Report AFAPL-TR-65–45, 1965

96. Greene E., Design Guide for Marine Applications of Com-

posites, Ship Structure Committee, SSC-403, NTIS, Wash-

ington DC, USA, 1997

97. Beier, K. P., “Web-Based Virtual Reality in Design and Man-

ufacturing applications,” COMPIT 2000, 1st Int. Euro Con-

ference on Computer Applications and Information

Technology in the Maritime Industry, Potsdam, Germany:

45–55, 2000

98. Jensen, J. J. et al, “Performance of Composite Structures,”

in Report of Technical Committee III.1, Proc. of the 13th

Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 1, Pergamon:

256–263, 1997

99. Ross, J. M., “CAD/CAM/CIM: Using Today’s High-Tech

Tools for State-of-the-Art,” International Conference on

Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS), Society

of Naval Architects of Japan, Yokohama, Japan, 1997

100. Zenkert, D., The Handbook of Sandwich Construction., En-

gineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd., London, UK,

1997

101. Kitamura, O., Kawamoto, Y., Kaneko, E., “A Study of the

Improved Tanker Structure Against Collision and Ground-

ing Damage,” Proceedings of PRADS’98, Elsevier, The

Hague, NL, 1: 173–179, 1998

102. Bishop, R. E., Price N. G., “Some Comments on present-

day ship dynamics,” Philosophical Transactions Royal So-

ciety, London, A 334: 187–187, 1991

103. Porcari, et al., “Quasi-static Response (Report of ISSC Com-

mittee II.1),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi

(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000

104. Basu, R., Kirkhope, K. and Srinivasan, J., “Guidelines for

Evaluation of Finite Elements and Results,” Ship Structure

Committee (387), NTIS, Washington DC, 1996

105. Rigo, P., “A Module-Oriented Tool for Optimum Design of

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-75

70. Paik, J. K., Thayamballi A. K. and Jung S. C. “Ultimate

Strength of Ship Hulls under Combined Vertical Bending,

Horizontal Bending and Shearing Forces,” SNAME Trans-

actions 104: 31–59, 1996

71. IACS “Longitudinal Strength Standard. Requirements Con-

cerning Strength of Ships, IACS (International Association

of Classiﬁcation Societies),” IUR S11 Longitudinal Strength

Standard, S11.1-S11.12, 1993

72. Nitta, A., Arai, H. and Magaino, A., “Basis of IACS Uniﬁed

Longitudinal Strength Standard,” Marine Structures, 5: 1–21,

1992

73. Almar-Naess A. Fatigue-Handbook—Offshore Structures,

Tapir Publication, Trondheim, 1985

74. Fricke, W. et al., “Fatigue and Fracture (Report of ISSC Com-

mittee III.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi

(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1: 323–392, 2000

75. Maddox S. J., Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures, Abing-

ton Publishing, Second Edition, UK, 1994

76. Niemi, E., Stress Determination for Fatigue Analysis of

Welded Components, Abington Publishing, UK, 1995

77. NRC-National Research Council, “Prevention of Fractures

in Ship Structures, Committee on Marine Structures,” Ma-

rine Board, Washington DC, US, 1997

78. Petershagen, H., Fricke, W. and Paetzold, H., Fatigue Strength

of Ship Structures, GL-Technology—Part I: Basic Principles,

Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Hamburg, 1/97, 1997

79. Byers, W.G., Marley, M., Mohammadi, J., Nielsen, R. and

Sarkani, S., “Fatigue Reliability Reassessment Procedures:

State-of- The-Art Paper,” Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE, 123 (3): 227–285, 1997

80. Madsen, H. O., Krenk, S. and Lind, N.C., Methods of Struc-

tural Safety, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986

81. Harris, D.O., Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics, Probabilis-

tic Fracture Mechanics Handbook, Sundarajan, ed., Chap-

man and Hall, New York, N.Y., 1995

82. Miner, M. A., “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,” Trans.

ASME, 67, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 12: 154–164, 1945

83. Wirsching, P.H., Chen, Y. N., “Considerations of Probabil-

ity Based Fatigue Design Criteria for Marine Structures,”

Marine Structures, 1: 23–45, 1988

84. Brown, A., Tikka, K., Daidola, J., Lutzen, M. and Choe, I.,

“Structural Design and Response in Collision and Ground-

ing,” Proceedings of the 2000 SNAME Annual Meeting, Van-

couver, Canada, October, 2000

85. Amdahl, J. and Kavlie, D., “Design of Tankers for Ground-

ing and Collision,” Proceedings of the Int. Conference on

Technologies for Marine Environment Preservation

(MARIENV’95), 1, Tokyo, Japan: 167–174, 1995

86. Ohtsubo, H. et al., “Structural Design Against Collision and

Grounding,” Report of Technical Committee V.4, Proc. of

the 13th Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 2, Perg-

amon: 83–116, 1997

87. Wang, G., Spencer, J. and Chen, Y., “Assessment of a Ship’s

Performance in Accidents,” Proceedings of the 2nd Interna-

tional Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-75 4/28/03 1:31 PM

Stiffened Structures,” Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14 (6):

611–629, 2001

106. Ueda, Y., Rashed, S., “The Idealized Structural Unit Method

and its Application to Deep Girder Structures,” Computers

& Structures, 18 (2): 277–293,1984

107. Paik, J. K. and Hughes, O. F., “Ship Structures,” Chapter 8

in the textbook Computational Analysis of Complex Struc-

tures, Edited by R.E. Melchers, The American Society of

Civil Engineers, 2002

108. Fujikubo, M. and Kaeding, P., ISUM rectangular plate ele-

ment with new lateral shape function (2nd Report) – Stiff-

ened plates under bi-axial thrust—Journal of Society Naval

Architects of Japan: 479–487, 2000

109. Brebbia, C. and Dominguez, J., Boundary Elements: An In-

troductory Course, Computational Mechanics Publications,

Boston, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989

110. Pradillon, J. Y. et al., “Design Method (Report of ISSC Com-

mittee IV.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi

(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, vol.1, 2000

111. Beckers, P., “Recent Developments in Shape Sensitivity

Analysis: the Physical Approach,” Engineering Optimiza-

tion, 18: 67–78, 1991

112. Bendsoe, M. P. and Kikuchi, N., “Generating Optimal

Topologies in Structural Design using a Homogenization

Method,” Comp. Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi-

neering, (71): 187–224, 1988

113. Vanderplaats, G. N., Numerical Optimization Techniques

for Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984

114. Sen, P. and Yang, J. B., Multiple Criteria Decision Support

in Engineering, Springer-Verslag London Ltd, UK, 1998

115. Catley, D. et al., “Design Optimization: A State-of-the-Art

Review,” Marine Structures, Elsevier Science Publications,

5: 343–390, 1990

116. Beghin, D., Jastrzebski, T. and Taczala, M., “Result—A

Computer Code for Evaluation of the Ultimate Longitudi-

nal Strength of Hull Girder,” Proceedings of PRADS-95,

Eds. Kim & Lee, Society of Naval Architects of Korea, 2:

832–843, 1995

117. Birmingham, R., Cleland, G., Driver, R. and Mafﬁn, D. Un-

derstanding Engineering Design, Prentice and Hall, Lon-

don, 1997

118. Chalmers, D. W. Design of Ships’ Structures, Ministry of

Defense, HMSO Eds., London, 1993

119. Moan T. et al., “Report of ISSC Committee IV.1- Design

Philosophy,” 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 1991

120. Karr, D., Beier, K. P., Na, S. S. and Rigo, P., “A Framework

for Simulation Based Design of Ship Structures,” Proceed-

ings of the 2001 Ship Production Symposium, SNAME, Yp-

silanti, Michigan, 2001

121. Parsons, G., Singer, D. and Sauter, J., “A Hybrid Agent Ap-

proach for Set-Based Conceptual Ship Design,” Proceedings

10th ICCAS Conference, Cambridge MA, 2: 207–221, 1999

122. Watson D. G. M. Practical Ship Design, Elsevier Ltd, Ox-

ford, 1, 1998

123. Fleury C., “Mathematical Programming Methods for Con-

strained Optimization: Dual Methods, (Chap7)” and “Re-

cent Developments in Structural Optimization Methods

(Chap9)” in Structural Optimization: Status and Promise,

(M.P. Kamat ed.), series: Progress in Astronautics and Aero-

nautics, AIAA, 150: 123–150 and 183–208, 1993

124. Rigo, P., “Least-Cost Structural Optimisation Oriented Pre-

liminary Design,” Journal of Ship Production, 17 (4):

202–215, 2001

18-76 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

MASTER SET

SDC 18.qxd Page 18-76 4/28/03 1:31 PM

MASTER SET SDC 18.qxd Page 18-2 4/28/03 1:30 PM

18-2

Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

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 Arrangement and Component Design 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 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 Subsection 18.7.2 for ﬁnite element analysis. Optimization is treated in Subsections 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 sci-

entiﬁc, powerful, and versatile method for their structural design

But, even with the development of numerical techniques, design still remains based on the designer’s 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.), and • 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. Hughes, who could be considered as a father of this methodology, (3) further states:

MASTER SET SDC 18.qxd Page 18-3 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure

18-3

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 rule-based. There really were two different methodologies.

**Design Load Direct Load Analysis
**

Study on Ocean Waves Stress Response in Waves Structural analysis by whole ship model Stress response function

Wave Load Response Response function of wave load

Effect on operation

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

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 Table 18.VIII, Subsection 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 shipowner’s 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

Strength Assessment

Yield strength Buckling strength Ultimate strength Fatigue strength

Figure 18.1 Direct Structural Analysis Flow Chart

mass description and loading conditions. spacing. both with respect to geometry description and with respect to hydrodynamic requirements.qxd Page 18-4 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-4 Ship Design & Construction. production aspects are of primary importance in detail design. Volume 1 Structural drawings. but the applications are different from preliminary design and the beneﬁts are likewise different. in comparison to those of static structures and also of other vehicles. Also. In fact. standardization and so on. Since the items being designed are much smaller it is possible to perform full-scale testing.3 Preliminary Design versus Detailed Design For a ship structure. and scantlings of the principal structural members. general interpretation schemes. most of the structural items that come under detail design are similar from ship to ship. In other words. During the detailed design there also are many beneﬁts to be gained by applying modern methods of engineering science. structural design consists of two distinct levels: the Preliminary Design and the Detailed Design about which Hughes (3) states: The preliminary determines the location. In the following an attempt will be made to review the main typologies of loads: physical origins.2. This does not mean that detail design is less important than preliminary design. Strength analysis covers yield (allowable stress). supported by one or more levels of sub models. All the relevant load conditions should be examined 18. connections. to ensure that all dimensioning loads are correctly included. cutouts.).6. Each level is equally important for obtaining an efﬁcient. because of the large number of such items it would be inefﬁcient to attempt to design all of them from ﬁrst principles.7) and vibration (Subsection 18. Sub-models to be used in structural analysis Yes Figure 18.6. 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. must ensure a proper description of local and global moments of inertia around the global ship axes. Hydrodynamic/static loads Verification of model/ loads Structural model including necessary load definitions Verified structural model Verification of load transfer Structural analysis Verification of response Transfer of displacements/forces to sub-model? No Load transfer to structural model 18.MASTER SET SDC 18. Ultimate hydrodynamic loads from the hydrodynamic analysis should be combined with static loads in order to form the basis for the yield. reinforcements. This is done by using a 3D model of the whole ship. and so in-service experience provides a sound basis for their design.2 Strength Analysis Flow Chart (4) vibration assessment of the relevant parts of the vessel. 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. structural connections. 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.8).6). detail design is an area where a rule-based approach is very appropriate. available quantiﬁcation proce- . etc. Instead it is generally more efﬁcient to use design codes and standard designs that have been proven by experience. The detailed design determines the geometry and scantlings of local structure (brackets. which is part of the hydrodynamic load model. A ﬂow chart of strength analysis of global model and sub models is shown in Figure 18. and other structural details.3 LOADS Loads acting on a ship structure are quite varied and peculiar. collision and grounding (Subsection 18. Preliminary design has the greatest inﬂuence on the structure design and hence is the phase that offers very large potential savings.2.6. buckling strength and ultimate strength checks of the ship. In fact. The mass model. The hydrodynamic load model must give a good representation of the wetted surface of the ship. safe and reliable ship. buckling and ultimate strength checks. and since they are more repetitive it is possible to obtain the beneﬁts of mass production. In addition. speciﬁc analyses are requested for fatigue (Subsection 18.

When dealing with strength analysis. The situation to be considered is in principle the worst combination of state variables that occurs within the design time.1 Time Duration Static loads: These are the loads experienced by the ship in still water. This is done by taking into account in the analysis the worst situations as regards loads. represent a contribution to the bending moment acting on the hull girder. wave dynamic actions on a portion of the hull. generally are termed local loads. Falling in this category are loads directly induced by waves. Dynamic loads: When studying responses with frequency components close to the ﬁrst structural resonance modes. However.1.1. 18. 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. They act with time duration well above the range of sea wave periods. considered as a beam (hull girder). This applies to a few types of periodic loads. The simpliﬁcation lies in considering these two situations as contemporary. propeller).4. single beams. The distinction is purely formal. Being related to a speciﬁc load condition.3 Characteristic values for loads Structural veriﬁcations are always based on a limit state equation and on a design operational time. which in general is not the case. generated by wave actions in particular situations (springing) or by mechanical excitation (main engine. in principle all stress cycles contribute (to a different extent. 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. This terminology is typical of simpliﬁed structural analyses. Loads acting on the ship as a whole.1 Classiﬁcation of Loads 18.qxd Page 18-5 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-5 dures and practical methods for their evaluation will be summarized. Also transient impulsive loads that excite free structural vibrations (slamming. as regards capacity (reduced because of corrosion and other degradation effects). if described in terms of a bi-dimensional distribution of pressures over the wet surface. Quasi-static loads: A second class of loads includes those with a period corresponding to wave actions (∼3 to 15 seconds). involves more the study of noise propagation on board than structural design. In a complete 3D model of the whole ship. having been investigated for a long time. 18.1. In fatigue phenomena.3. A large part of ship design is performed on the basis of static and quasi-static loads. as the same external forces can in fact be interpreted as global or local loads. Among them are thermal and accidental loads. but also those generated in the same frequency range by motions of the ship (inertial forces).3. For instance. These loads can be termed quasi-static because the structural response is studied with static models. which does not need to be decomposed. 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.MASTER SET SDC 18. 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. • state variables are stochastically distributed as a function of time. 18. High frequency loads: Loads at frequencies higher than the ﬁrst resonance modes (> 10-20 Hz) also are present on ships: this kind of excitation.3). deﬁned in order to be applied to limited structural models (stiffened panels. This general time-variant problem is simpliﬁed into a time-invariant one. however.3.2 Local and global loads Another traditional classiﬁcation of loads is based on the structural scheme adopted to study the response. whose prediction procedures are quite well established. and. forces on the structure are applied directly in their actual position and the result is a total stress distribution. plate panels). if integrated over the same surface. Loads. while. are named global or primary loads and the ship structural response is accordingly termed global or primary response (see Subsection 18. 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. separately. speciﬁc and imposing requirements can arise for particular ships due to the other load categories. and in some cases sloshing loads) can be classiﬁed in the same category. and • the probability of exceeding the limit state surface in the design time (probability of crisis) is the element subject to evaluation. depending on the range) to . 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. represent a local load for the hull panel.3. the dynamic properties of the structure have to be considered.

2 Deﬁnition of Global Hull Girder Loads The global structural response of the ship is studied with reference to a beam scheme (hull girder). only in terms of forces and moments acting in the transverse sections and applied on the longitudinal axis. All these actions are distributed along the longitudinal axis x.3 Sectional Forces and Moment . 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. but the number of cycles and the shape of the probability distribution of all stress ranges in the design time. ﬁrst yielding. They are used.MASTER SET SDC 18. a monodimensional structural element with sectional characteristics distributed along a longitudinal axis. reference loads are often set with an exceeding probability in the range 10–3 to 10–5. This usually is done. in different types of analyses. (local horizontal axis). and fatigue. therefore. 18. characteristic loads are associated to a higher exceeding probability. usually in the range 10–4 to 10–6. a sectional torque mTg(x) is generated (Figure 18. with a return period of the same order of the ship lifetime. related to sectional forces and moment through equation 1 to 5: VV (x) = ∫ q V (ξ) 0 x dξ [1] M V (x) = ∫ VV ( ξ ) 0 x dξ [2] VH (x) = ∫ q H (ξ ) 0 x dξ [3] M H (x) = ∫ VH ( ξ ) 0 x dξ [4] M T (x) = ∫ m T (ξ) 0 x dξ [5] Due to total equilibrium. on the average. If the latter ones are not symmetric. The exceeding probability for a stochastic variable has the meaning of probability for the variable to overcome a given value. In fatigue analyses (see Subsection 18. usually with the plane of symmetry normal to the still water surface. in addition to the verti- Figure 18. that is. such as ultimate state. The analysis. A further step towards the problem simpliﬁcation is represented by the adoption of characteristic load values in place of statistical distributions. This corresponds to a wave load occurring.6. that is. corresponding to load cycles which. These conditions impose constraints on the distributions of qV.3): a resultant force along the vertical axis of the section (contained in the plane of symmetry). does not regard the magnitude of a single extreme load application. In ﬁrst yielding analyses.qxd Page 18-6 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-6 Ship Design & Construction.2). with different characteristic values. by effect of both amplitude and frequency of occurrence. VV (0) = VV (L) = M V (0) = M V (L) = 0 VH (0) = VH (L) = M H (0) = M H (L) = 0 M T (0) = M T (L) = 0 [6] Global loads for the veriﬁcation of the hull girder are obtained with a linear superimposition of still water and waveinduced global loads. together with vertical gravitational forces.3 Still Water Global Loads Still water loads act on the ship ﬂoating in calm water.3. In this condition.4). 18. only a symmetric distribution of hydrostatic pressure acts on each section. termed horizontal resultant force qH and a moment mT about the x axis. qH and mT. for a beam in free-free conditions (no constraints at ends) all load characteristics have zero values at ends (equations 6). once every 108 cycles. Volume 1 damage accumulation. indicated as vertical resultant force qV. contribute more to the accumulation of fatigue damage in the structure. Five main load components are accordingly generated along the beam. Such adoption implies the deﬁnition of a single reference load value as representative of a whole probability distribution.3. another force in the normal direction. On the basis of this. while the return period indicates the mean time to the ﬁrst occurrence. when calibrating a Partial Safety Factor format for structural checks. as usual with this scheme. for example. all design loads for structural analyses are explicitly or implicitly related to a low exceeding probability. Actions on the beam are described.6. Three components act on each section (Figure 18. Characteristic values for ultimate state analysis are typically represented by loads associated to an exceeding probability of 10–8.

I Wave Coefﬁcient Versus Length (b) Ship Length L 90 ≤ L <300 m Wave Coefﬁcient C 10. are often used in the design development to provide an approximate quantiﬁcation of weight items and their longitudinal distribution on board.1 Standard still water bending moments While buoyancy distribution is known from an early stage of the ship design. To obtain the weight distribution w(x). They can slightly differ among Class Societies. section by section. the total weight and center of gravity is determined summing up contributions from all items present on board between the two bounding sections. 18. is to be accounted for. the ship length is subdivided into portions: for each of them.5). docking conditions aﬂoat. (a) oil tankers. as shown in equation 7 (2). light load at less than maximum draft.3. weight distribution is completely deﬁned only at the end of construction. 7).). regards the wave induced component of bending moment.5 Examples of Reference Still Water Bending Moment Distribution (10). obtained as a difference between buoyancy b(x) and weight w(x). As regards equation 5. Common reference values for still water bending moment at mid-ship are provided by the major Classiﬁcation Societies (equation 8). The resulting approximated weight distribution. depending on the ship type. ballast exchange at sea. applied along the longitudinal axis x of the beam. At an even earlier stage of design. Longitudinal distributions. etc. Statistical formulations. The ﬁrst requirement (6) regards the minimum longitudinal strength modulus and provides implicitly a value for the total bending moment.3. The distribution for w(x) is then usually approximated by a linear (trapezoidal) curve obtained by imposing Figure 18. 18. a derivation.MASTER SET SDC 18.3.4 Sectional Resultant Forces in Still Water (a) TABLE 18. together with the buoyancy distribution.75 10. The direct evaluation procedure requires. ballast conditions. Components of vertical shear and vertical bending can be derived according to equations 1 and 2.I). (Figure 18. The formulations in equation 8 are sometimes explicitly reported in Rules.5 − 15 C B ) (hogging) [8] C L2 B ( 45.qxd Page 18-7 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-7 cal load qSV(x). short voyage or harbor condition. the second one (7).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. parametric formulations can be used to derive directly reference values for still water hull girder loads. for a given loading condition. such as homogenous loading condition at maximum draft. to obtain the torque. of vertical resultants of gravitational (weight) and buoyancy forces. Ms [ N ⋅ m ] = C L2 B (122. and (b) other ship types 300 ≤ L <350 m 350 ≤ L .3.75 – [(300 – L)/150]3/2 Figure 18.75 – [(300 – L)/100]3/2 10. There are no horizontal components of sectional forces in equation 3 and accordingly no components of horizontal shear and bending moment. bulk carriers. ore carriers.5 + 65 C B ) (sagging) where C = wave parameter (Table 18. plus all other conditions that are relevant to the speciﬁc ship (nonhomogeneous loading at maximum draft. if present. but they can anyway be indirectly derived from prescriptions contained in (6. calibrated on similar ships. are provided also. only mTg. q SV (x) = b(x) − w(x) = gA I (x) − m(x)g [7] where AI = transversal immersed area. allows computing shear and bending moment.

like slamming and sloshing. while they are actually oriented along the true vertical. consumables). 18. for example. but also provides ship motions and accelerations. machinery. which can reach up to 10% of the total bending moment. in addition to conventional still water loads acting on each hull considered as a single longitudinal beam. model uncertainties arise from neglecting the longitudinal components of the hydrostatic pressure (Figure 18. bending and torque. grouping together the weights of the ship in lightweight conditions (always present on board) and those (cargo. The procedure is usually applied separately for different types of weight items.3. This lack of precision regards the weight distribution for . On the other hand.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. consumables) typical of a loading condition (Figure 18.3. 18.6).6 Weight Distribution Breakdown for Full Load Condition Figure 18. ballast.3. The latter are directly connected to the quantiﬁcation of inertial loads and provide inputs for the evaluation of other types of loads. Figure 18.8. 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). T apply respectively to longitudinal and transversal beams). causing hull sagging moments.3. also loads in the transversal direction can be signiﬁcant.3. All these compression and bending effects are neglected in the hull beam model. where actual weights of single containers are kept under close control during operation.qxd Page 18-8 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-8 Ship Design & Construction. and L. which generate an axial compressive force on the hull girder. Ship types like bulk carriers are more exposed to uncertainties on the actual distribution of cargo weight than. Volume 1 Figure 18.MASTER SET SDC 18. it leads also to an additional hogging moment. container ships. in particular those related to quantiﬁcation and location on board of weight items. This represents a source of uncertainties. This implies neglecting the static trim angle and to consider an approximate equilibrium position. outﬁtting) but also the distribution of the various components of the deadweight (cargo. 18. As the resultant of such components is generally below the neutral axis of the hull girder. ballast. B.8 Multi-hull Additional Still Water Loads (sketch) the correspondence of area and barycenter of the trapezoid respectively to the total weight and center of gravity of the considered ship portion. giving rise to shear.7). and Q stand for shear. in some vessels (in particular tankers) such action can be locally counterbalanced by internal axial pressures. bending and torque in a transversal direction (see the simpliﬁed scheme of Figure 18.7 Longitudinal Component of Pressure the ship in lightweight condition (hull structure. In addition.4 Other still water global loads In a vessel with a multihull conﬁguration. Another approximation is represented by the fact that buoyancy and weight are assumed in a direction normal to the horizontal longitudinal axis. which accounts only for forces and moments acting in the transverse plane.3 Uncertainties in the evaluation A signiﬁcant contribution to uncertainties in the evaluation of still water loads comes from the inputs to the procedure. The solution of the seakeeping problem yields the loads directly generated by external pressures. where S.

ﬁrst approximation. Such results are in principle obtained for each instantaneous wave pressure distribution.9 Sectional Forces and Moments in Waves MWH [N ⋅ m] 180 C1L2DCB 1600 L2. bending moment and torque can then be derived by integration (equations 1 to 5). the action of waves modiﬁes the pressure distribution along the wet hull surface. while horizontal bending and torque components are larger for oblique wave systems.MASTER SET SDC 18.3. The scheme is analogous to the one described for still water loads.1 TCB 220 L9/4(T + 0. Sometimes. The ship is positioned on a freezed wave of given characteristics in a condition of equilibrium between weight and static buoyancy.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.1 Statistical formulae for global wave loads Simpliﬁed. the concept of equivalent static wave is adopted to associate a longitudinal distribution of TABLE 18. The longitudinal distributions along the hull girder of horizontal and vertical components of shear. expressed as a function of main ship dimensions. it is rarely used to quantify wave loads. q WV (x) = b WV (x) − m(x)a V (x) q WH (x) = b WH (x) − m(x)a H (x) m TW (x) = m Tb (x) − I R (x) θ where IR(x) is the rotational inertia of section x. as well as the total torsional component. 7 (sag) [10] −110 C L ( B ) [9] Horizontal Wave-induced Bending Moment: Similar formulations are available for reference values of horizontal wave induced bending moment. however. formulations are available for the main wave load components.III) and for the inherent longitudinal distributions. Wave-induced Torque: A few reference formulations are given also for reference wave torque at midship (see examples in Table 18. on type and direction of sea encountered and on the ship geometrical and operational characteristics. on the transverse section. 18.4.3. Vertical wave-induced bending moment: IACS classiﬁ- cation societies provide a statistically based reference values for the vertical component of wave-induced bending moment MWV. Analogous components come from the sectional resultants of inertial forces and moments induced on the section by ship’s motions (Figure 18.4. Such reference values for the midlength 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). Simpliﬁed curves for the distribution in the longitudinal direction are also provided.3B)CB 320 L2C T L − 35 / L NKK (12) . are found summing up the components in the same direction (equations 9). as regards global effects. vertical and horizontal resultant forces (bWV and bWH) and a moment component mTb. vertical bending moments tend to be maximized in head waves with length close to the ship length. M WV [ N ⋅ m ] = (hog) 190 C L2 B C B 2 B C + 0 . 18.II. In Table 18.qxd Page 18-9 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-9 In particular. the differential pressure between the situation in waves and in still water generates.9).II Reference Horizontal Bending Moments Class Society ABS (8) BV (9) RINA (10) DNV (11) Figure 18. even though they are not as uniform among different Societies as for the main vertical component. developed mainly on the basis of past experience. on time. 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. Due to its limitations. By deﬁnition. examples are reported of reference values of horizontal bending moment at mid-length for ships with unrestricted navigation. depending therefore. The total vertical and horizontal wave induced forces on the section. In regular (sinusoidal) waves. this procedure neglects all types of dynamic effects.

developed since the early 60s. derived. Other key properties of linear systems that are used in the analysis are: • linear relation between the input and output amplitudes. incompressible and homogeneous ﬂuid in irrotational ﬂow: Laplace equation 11 ∇2Φ = 0 [11] where Φ = 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: — 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). Output spectra can be used to derive short and long-term predictions for the probability distributions of the responses and of their extreme values (see Subsection 18. the base assumptions of the method are . 5 + 0 . Volume 1 TABLE 18. from long term predictions based on other methods.3.3 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 so-called strip theory in the frequency domain (13). The input to the procedure is represented by a spectral representation of the sea encountered by the ship. corresponding to the mean position of the hull: the component of the ﬂuid velocity normal to the hull surface is zero (impermeability condition). 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. and • linear decomposition into additive independent components. In principle.14 0 .4. The output consists of response spectra of point pressures on the hull and of the other derived responses. Φ = Φs + ΦFK + Φd + Φr where: Φs = stationary component due to ship advancing in calm water [12] Φr = radiation component due to the ship motions in calm water ΦFK = excitation component. for example. such as global loads and ship motions.qxd Page 18-10 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-10 Ship Design & Construction. III (2). separately solved for and later summed up (equation 12).4. the input wave system is decomposed into sinusoidal components and a response is found for each of them in terms of amplitude and phase. have been validated over time in several contexts and are extensively used for predictions of wave loads. 7 L 3 190 LB 2 C 2 8. m] (at mid-ship) 2700 LB 2 T ( C W − 0 . for a ship in a given condition. 5 ) [ 2 e 0 . When using linear methods in the frequency domain. — on the hull: considered as a static surface. depend on the input sea characteristics (spectrum and spatial distribution respect to the ship course). and • superposition of effects (sum of inputs corresponds to sum of outputs). 18.1 0 .3. thus avoiding a non-linear feedback between the two. Responses. Here only the key assumptions of the method are presented: • inviscid. due to the incident wave (undisturbed by the presence of the ship): FroudeKrylov Φd = diffraction component.III Examples of Reference Values for Wave Torque Class Society ABS (bulk carrier) Qw [N . The theoretical background of this class of procedures is discussed in detail in PNA Vol.13 − D T ] (e = vertical position of shear center) BV RINA 250 − 0 .5).13 − W 125 pressures to extreme wave loads. strip theory methods.MASTER SET SDC 18. zero pressure. Despite the numerous and demanding simpliﬁcations at the basis of the procedure.

4. 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. variable extrTsy). based on statistical data (7) or on more advanced non-linear methods. results in terms of hydrodynamic pressures are given always up to the still water level. and • the probability distribution of the highest value in the whole stationary period of the phenomenon (extreme value in period Ts. 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). From a structural point of view. Actually. 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(ω) are derived. 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). 18. 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. the response of the system (load) can be modeled as a process having the same characteristics. If the stochastic process representing the wave input to the ship system is modeled as a stationary and ergodic Gaussian process with zero mean. 18. actual values of vertical bending moment show marked differences between the hogging and sagging conditions.3. as the direction of an external input force (weight) depends on the response of the system itself (roll and pitch angles). as it can be adopted to describe stress ranges of fatigue cycles.3. Corrections to account for this effect are often used. This allows expressing the density probability distribution of the Gaussian response y in terms of m0Y (equation 14).qxd Page 18-11 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-11 valid only for small wave excitations. small motion responses and low speed of the ship. In practice. whose theoretical framework (main hypotheses. assumptions and steps) is recalled in the following.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. corresponding to the highest values in each zero-crossing period (peaks: variable p). 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). in a seaway.5 Wave loads probabilistic characterization The most widely adopted method to characterize the loads in the probability domain is the so-called spectral method. both Rayleigh density distributions (see 14). while in reality the pressure distribution extends over the actual wetted surface. while.MASTER SET SDC 18. f Y (y) = 1 − y 2 / 2 m 2 Y) 0 e ( 2π m0Y [14] Equation 14 expresses the distribution of the ﬂuctuating response y at a generic time instant. more interesting data are represented by: • the probability distribution of the response at selected time instants. Dynamic loads are evaluated separately from the static ones and later summed up: this results in an un-physical situation. A third implication of linearization regards the superimposition of static and dynamic loads. The ﬁrst two probability distributions take the form of equations 15 and 16 respectively. fP ( p) = fR ( r ) = p p2 exp − m0 2m0 r r2 exp − 4m0 8m 0 [15] [16] . • the probability distribution of the excursions between the highest and the lowest value in each zero-crossing period (range: variable r). This aspect represents one of the intrinsic non-linearities in the actual system. The distribution in equation 16 is particularly interesting for fatigue checks. having therefore also components in the longitudinal and lateral direction of the ship. This represents a major problem when dealing with local loads in the side region close to the waterline.4. for example. which can be integrated to obtain spectral moments m n of order n (equation 13). where linear superposition of still water and wave loads is largely followed. A consequence is that all the derived global wave loads also have the same characteristics. m ny = ∫ ω n S y (ω)dω 0 ∞ [13] This information is the basis of the spectral method. This effect is often neglected in the practice. which depends on roll and pitch angles. weight forces are directed along the true vertical direction.

Volume 1 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.3.4.qxd Page 18-12 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-12 Ship Design & Construction. If the distribution of variable extrTsy is de-conditioned. the probability of a certain response is to be weighed by the probability of occurrence of the generating sea state (equation18). the conditional hypothesis is to be removed from short-term distributions. One of the most typical formats is the one contained in (15). 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. In this case the result is further processed to get the distribution of the extreme value in the design time Td. a long-term distribution for ranges of single oscillations is obtained (useful data for a fatigue analysis). such as shown in Figure 18. covering all combinations. of all the wave induced load variables of interest both for strength and fatigue checks. relative to the ship life (or any other design period Td which can be described as a series of stationary periods).10 summarizes the various short-term distributions. Probability P(Si) can be derived from collections of sea data based on visual observations from commercial ships and/or on surveys by buoys. F(ySi) = probability for the response to be less than value y. 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. such as: . the extreme on time Td is given by equation 19: Td/Ts F extrTd y = F extrTs y ( ) [ ( )] [19] where F(extrTdy) is the cumulative probability distribution for the highest response peak in time Td (long-term extreme distribution in time Td).3. its angular distribution around the main wave direction (spreading function) and the encounter angle formed with ship advance direction. If a range distribution is processed. conditioned to occurrence of sea state Si (short term prediction).3. It is interesting to note that all the mentioned distributions are expressed in terms of spectral moments of the response.4. a weighed average of the highest peak in time Ts is achieved. The derived distributions (short-term predictions) are conditioned to the occurrence of a particular sea state. which is identiﬁed by the sea spectrum. The process described in equation 18 can be termed deconditioning (that is removing the conditioning hypothesis). 1 F extrTs p = exp − 2∂ ( ) m2 p2 exp − m0 2m0 Ts [17] Figure 18. n = total number of sea states. in the probability domain. and main wave direction. To obtain a long-term prediction. containing classes i= 1 ∑ F ( y S i ) ⋅ P(S i ) n [18] of signiﬁcant wave heights and mean periods. allows the characterization.11 (the subdivision of the world atlas). P(Si) = probability associated to the i-th sea state. where sea states probabilities are organized in bi-dimensional histograms (scatter diagrams).6 Uncertainties in long-term predictions The theoretical framework of the above presented spectral method. a period of a few hours). Seasonal characteristics are also available. In other words. 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. The results of this linear prediction procedure are affected by numerous sources of uncertainties. coupled to linear frequency domain methodologies like those summarized in Subsection 18. Such scatter diagrams are catalogued according to sea zones. F(y) = where: F(y) = probability for the response to be less than value y (unconditioned).MASTER SET SDC 18. 18.10 Short-term Distributions Figure 18.

referred respectively to the situation in still water and in a seaway.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).3. .3. creating differences even between theoretically equivalent methods.3. the model is greatly simpliﬁed. which are nowadays largely based on ultimate limit states (for example. 18. based on a limited number of parameters (generally. scatter diagrams are derived from direct observations on the ﬁeld. • model for the ship’s response: as brieﬂy outlined in Subsection 18. In addition.4. particularly as regards ﬂuid characteristics and boundary conditions. They are once again traditionally divided into static and dynamic loads. pS = ρghS [20] In the case of the external pressure on the hull. Numerical algorithms and speciﬁc procedures adopted for the solution also inﬂuence results. reference (characteristic) local loads. local loads are applied to individual structural members like panels and beams (stiffeners or primary supporting members). are therefore implicitly calibrated at an exceeding probability higher than the 10–8 value adopted in global load strength veriﬁcations. 18. simpliﬁed sea spectral shapes are adopted. in longitudinal strength: ultimate bending moment). as well as the motions and accelerations on which they are based.qxd Page 18-13 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-13 Figure 18. biparametric formulations based on signiﬁcant wave and mean wave period).3.11 Map of Sea Zones of the World (15) • sea description: as above mentioned.3. checks on local structures are still in part implicitly based on more conservative limit states (yield strength). 18.MASTER SET SDC 18.6 External Pressure Loads Static and dynamic pressures generated on the wet surface of the hull belong to external loads.6. hS corresponds to the local draft of the load point (reference is made to design waterline). and • the de-conditioning procedure adopted to derive long term predictions from short term ones can add further uncertainties. They act as local transverse loads for the hull plating and supporting structures. which are affected by a certain degree of indetermination. Contrary to strength veriﬁcations of the hull girder.5 Local Loads As previously stated. In many Rules.

The total pressure (equation 21) can be evaluated in terms of the total acceleration aT.2 Dynamic internal pressure When the ship advances in waves. In a completely full tank. are adopted in Classiﬁcation Rules for the ship in various load cases (Figure 18.7 Internal Loads—Liquid in Tanks Liquid cargoes generate normal pressures on the walls of the containing tank. signiﬁcant ﬂuid inter- nal velocities can arise in the longitudinal and/or transversal directions. for the ullage space pressure (the pressure present at the free surface. Impact loads are very difﬁcult to characterize. 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. The static head hS corresponds here to the vertical distance from the load point to the highest part of the tank. to be added to the hydrostatic one. increased to account for the vertical extension over that point of air pipes (that can be occasionally ﬁlled with liquid) or.12). 18. obtained summing aw to gravity g. This means that its components in the ship reference system depend on roll and pitch angles (in Figure 18. For more details see references 16 and 17. Figure 18. as well as the wet portion of the hull. air trapping in the ﬂuid and response of the structure. different types of motions are generated in the liquid contained in a tank onboard. 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).qxd Page 18-14 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-14 Ship Design & Construction. depending on the period of the ship motions and on the ﬁlling level: the internal pressure distribution varies accordingly. at low ﬁlling levels.12 Example of Simpliﬁed Distribution of External Pressure (10) Figure 18. 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. The gravitational acceleration g is directed according to the true vertical. 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.3. pf = ρaThT [21] In equation 21. kinetic energy tends to concentrate in the ﬂuid and sloshing phenomena are enhanced.2 Dynamic pressures The pressure distribution.7. gravitation acceleration g generates a hydrostatic pressure. producing additional pressure loads (sloshing loads). Experimental techniques as well as 2D and 3D procedures have been developed for the purpose. The resulting pressure ﬁeld can be quite complicated and speciﬁc simulations are needed for a detailed quantiﬁcation.13 on roll angle θr). Simpliﬁed distributions of sloshing and/or impact pressures are often provided by Classiﬁcation Societies for structural veriﬁcation (Figure 18. Approximate distributions of the wave external pressure. stiffeners and primary supporting members of the tank walls.MASTER SET SDC 18. 18.14).13 Internal Fluid Pressure (full tank) . 18. being related to a number of effects. varying again according to equation 20. such as: local shape and velocity of the free surface.7.1 Static internal pressure For a ship in still water.3.3.3. Volume 1 18.6. Pressures and areas of application are in principle obtained solving the general problem of ship motions in a seaway. if applicable. in vertical or sub-vertical plates of the lower part of the tank.13) If the tank is only partially ﬁlled.9). 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. corresponding for example to the setting pressure of outlet valves). Such pressures represent a local transversal load for plate. is modiﬁed for a ship in a seaway with respect to the still water (Figure 18.

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). Such formulations cover both the static and the dynamic cases. The latter case applies. a quantiﬁcation of slamming pressure involves necessarily all the other mentioned phenomena and is very difﬁcult to attain. thus generating considerable impact pressures.3 Dry bulk cargo In the case of a dry bulk cargo. 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). vehicle or other) the local translational accelerations at the centre of gravity are applied to the mass to obtain a distribution of inertial forces. presence and extension of air trapped between ﬂuid and ship bottom and structural dynamic behavior (18.3.3. 18. pallet. From a practical point of view.qxd Page 18-15 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-15 18.15) or by a uniform load applied on the contact area with the structure. for ships with loading conditions corresponding to a low fore Figure 18. Such forces are transferred to the structure in different ways. internal friction forces arise within the cargo itself and between the cargo and the walls of the hold. Generally.19). both from a theoretical and experimental point of view (18. the bottom of the ship can hit the water surface.3. 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.3.3.9 Dynamic Loads 18. local angle formed at impact between the ﬂat part of the hull and the water free surface.7.14 Example of Simpliﬁed Distributions of Sloshing and Impact Pressures (11) Figure 18. 18.9. and on the slope of the wall. usually expressed by the angle of repose for the bulk cargo.8. depending on the number and extension of contact areas and on typology and geometry of the lashing or supporting systems. A full description of the slamming phenomenon involves a number of parameters: amplitude and velocity of ship motions relative to water.8 Inertial Loads—Dry Cargo To account for this effect. As a result.19). the ship can experience such large heave motions that the forebody emerges completely from the water. In the following downward fall. this kind of load is modelled by one or more concentrated forces (Figure 18. Class Societies prescribe. 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. 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 draft. 18.MASTER SET SDC 18.1 Slamming and bow ﬂare loads When sailing in heavy seas.1 Unit cargo In the case of a unit cargo (container. distributions for the components of cargo load are approximated with empirical formulations based on the material frictional characteristics. for example.15 Scheme of Local Forces Transmitted by a Container to the Support System (8) .

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. 18.3.6. Volume 1 draft. The inﬂuence on global loads is accounted for by an additional term for the vertical wave-induced bending moment. with comparatively low resonance frequencies (1. the propeller operates in a non-uniform incident velocity ﬁeld. fall below the vapor saturation pressure. 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. where disturbances in the wake are larger. A quantiﬁcation of bow ﬂare effects implies taking into account the variation of the local breadth of the section as a function of draft. in some cases.4 Main engine excitation Another major source of dynamic excitation for the hull girder is represented by the main engine. Bearing forces and pressures induced on the stern counter by cavitating and non cavitating propellers can be calculated with dedicated numerical simulations (18). The excitation due to the ﬁrst harmonics of low speed diesel engines can be at frequencies close to the ﬁrst natural hull girder frequencies. at the cylinders ﬁring frequency and inherent harmonics (Figure 18. of the ﬁrst natural frequency of ﬂexural vibration of the hull girder. The phenomenon is likely to occur quite frequently on ships prone to it. For particular types of ships. Slamming can also occur in the rear part of the ship. pressure ﬂuctuations are distributed over a longer time period and peak values are lower. . thus representing a possible cause of a global resonance. In this case.2). mainly at the engine revolution frequency. diesel engines generate internally unbalanced forces and moments. For recent developments of research in the ﬁeld (see references 16 and 17).3 Propeller induced pressures and forces Due to the wake generated by the presence of the after part of the hull. but with lower pressures than in bottom slamming. the cavitation pressure ﬁeld contains also other components at higher frequency. It represents a typical non-linear effect (non-linearity due to hull geometry). but the response in terms of deﬂection and stresses is magniﬁed by dynamic effects. In addition to the above frequencies. Such additional pressure is formulated as a function of ship main characteristics. also direction and location of the excitation are important factors: for example. Blade proﬁles experience a varying angle of attack during the revolution and the pressure ﬁeld generated around the blades ﬂuctuates accordingly. 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. Depending on general arrangement and on number of cylinders.9. 18. because not all the blade sections pass simultaneously in the region of the stern counter. The dynamic pressure ﬁeld impinges the hull plating in the stern region. The exciting action has an origin similar to the case of quasi-static wave bending moment and can be studied with the same techniques.2 Springing Another phenomenon which involves the dynamic response of the hull girder is springing. thus producing a resonance for that mode (see also Subsection 18. local draft) and. The phenomenon has been observed in particular on Great Lakes vessels.8. A phenomenon quite similar to bottom slamming can occur also on the forebody of ships with a large bow ﬂare. and at their ﬁrst harmonics.16).9. local structural checks based on an additional external pressure. of local geometry of the ship (width of ﬂat bottom. thus generating an exciting force for the structure. when the ﬂat part of the stern counter is close to surface. Cavitation further enhances pressure ﬂuctuations.3. the local pressure on the back of blade proﬁles can. a category of ships long and ﬂexible. at the blade frequency. Due to the negative dynamic pressure generated by the increased angle of attack.qxd Page 18-16 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-16 Ship Design & Construction. a vapor sheet is generated on the back of the proﬁle (cavitation phenomenon). Propellers with skewed blades perform better as regards induced pressure. All of the three mentioned types of excitation have their main components at the propeller rotational frequency. for any rotation angle. which can produce a signiﬁcant increase (15% and more) in the design value.9.MASTER SET SDC 18. In this case dynamic and (to a lesser extent) impulsive pressures are generated on the sides of V-shaped fore sections. Chapter VI). accordingly. related to the dynamics of the vapor cavity. The incremental effect on vertical bending moment can however be signiﬁcant. 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. 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). In addition to frequency coincidence.3. 18.

T ( φ Wi ) φ A Wi VWi 2 M Wiz = 1 / 2 C Mz ( φ Wi ) φ A Wi L VWi 2 where: φWi = the angle formed by the direction of the wind relative to the ship CMz(φWi). It can be described through coefﬁcients and variables analogous to those of equations 22 and 23. and a moment MWiz about the vertical axis (equation 23).10. Wind: The force due to wind action is mainly directed in the direction of the wind (drag force). loads are exerted from external actions on the mooring system and from there to the local supporting structure. If the ship is constrained. are also present.3. Shaft and Engine Induced Actions (20) In addition to low frequency hull vibrations. with an average value different from zero. and viscous effects. 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. For common ships. a longitudinal one FWiL. which often feature also complicated mooring systems: in those cases the dynamic behavior of the mooring system is to be included in the analysis.10. which is contrary to the normal experience.qxd Page 18-17 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-17 components. If ship motions in the wave direction are not constrained (for example. (usually the area of the cross section) VWi = the wind speed The empirical formulas in equations 22 and 23 account also for the tangential force acting on the ship surfaces parallel to the wind direction. non-linear wave effects are usually neglected. components at higher frequencies from the same sources can give rise to resonance in local structures. due to potential forces of higher order. which can be predicted by suitable dynamic structural models (18. FWiL. signiﬁcant loads arise on the mooring system.MASTER SET SDC 18.3. the main problems being related to the identiﬁcation of the temperature distribution and in particular to the model for constraints. Chapter VI). CFT(φWi) are all coefﬁcients depending on the shape of exposed part of the ship and on angle φWi AWi = the reference area for the surface of the ship exposed to wind. rope or chain) can be [22] [23] Figure 18. whose amplitude can be of the same order of magnitude of the stationary forces due to the other actions. which implies that the warmer part of the structure tends to expand while the rest opposes to this deformation.1 Thermal loads A ship experiences loads as a result of thermal effects. Waves: Linear wave excitation has in principle a sinusoidal time dependence (whose mean value is by deﬁnition zero). the tension in the mooring system (hawser.16 Propeller. 18. Once the total force on the ship is quantiﬁed. waves and current. In this case the action on the mooring system is very small (a few percent of the other actions).T = 1 / 2 C F L. if the anchor chain is not in tension) the ship motion follows the excitation with similar time dependence and a small time lag. It is very difﬁcult to quantify thermal loads. Usually these loads are considered only in a qualitative way (1. A peculiar aspect of this situation is that the portion of the structure in larger elongation is compressed and vice-versa. What actually creates stresses is a non-uniform temperature distribution. In addition to the linear effects discussed above. The magnitude depends on the wind speed and on extension and geometry of the exposed part of the ship.3. CFL(φWi).10 Other Loads 18. all applied at the center of gravity. to solve a speciﬁc motion problem. 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).2 Mooring loads For a moored vessel. and a transverse one FWiT (equation 22). which can be produced by external agents (the sun heating the deck). The main contributions come by wind.19). or internal ones (heat transfer from/to heated or refrigerated cargo). non-linear wave actions. even if a limited component in the orthogonal direction can arise in particular situations. The action due to wind can be described in terms of two force . These components can be signiﬁcant on off-shore ﬂoating structures. 18. formation of vortices.

However.18 Forces during Pivoting . In a second phase. For a successful completion of this complex operation. reproduced from reference 1. among the various types of launch. End Launch: In end launch. Volume 1 derived by force decomposition. organizational and technical elements are to be kept under control (as general reference see Reference 1. xF = their longitudinal positions In a ﬁrst phase of launching. the other distributions change in shape and resultant: the derivation of launching loads is based on the computation of these two distributions. buoyancy and cradle force resultants xW. to distribute the force on a portion of the structure large enough to sustain it. the buoyancy distribution is known and the cradle force resultant and position is derived.qxd Page 18-18 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-18 Ship Design & Construction. with resultant FC).17). BT. Another matter of concern is the concentrated force at the fore end of the cradle. 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. beginning when the cradle starts to rotate (pivoting phase: Figure 18. the ship at launching could still have temporary openings or incomplete structures (lower strength) in the area of maximum bending moment.MASTER SET SDC 18. taking into account the angle formed with the external force in the horizontal and/or vertical plane. While the weight distribution and its resultant force (weight W) are invariant during launching. The total sectional vertical force distribution is found as the sum of the three components (equation 26) and can be [24] [25] integrated according to equations 1 and 2 to derive vertical shear and bending moment. where bending strength is not as high as at midship. a number of practical. It represents a strong local load and often requires additional temporary internal strengthening structures. which can reach a signiﬁcant percentage of the total weight (typically 20–30%). Such computation. The vessel is subjected to vertical sectional forces distributed along the hull girder: weight w(x). The kinetic energy gained during the tilting and dropping phases makes the ship oscillate around her ﬁnal posi- Figure 18. The vertical reaction from ground ways is substituted in a comparatively short time by buoyancy forces when the ship tilts and drops into water. if one is ﬁtted) and it is at the maximum value.19. In that moment the cradle force is concentrated close to the bow. repeated for various positions of the cradle. in which dynamic effects are neglected: quasi static approach).3. when the cradle is still in contact for a certain length with the ground way. Chapter XVII). A considerable sagging moment is present in this situation. buoyancy bL(x) and the sectional force transmitted from the ground way to the cradle and from the latter to the ship’s bottom (in the following: sectional cradle force fC(x). 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. BT + FC – W = 0 xB BT + xF FC – xW W = 0 where: W.17 End Launch: Sketch Figure 18. is based on the global static equilibrium s (equations 24 and 25.3 Launching loads The launch is a unique moment in the life of the ship. FC = (respectively) weight. Chapter XVII). resultant forces and motions are contained in the longitudinal plane of the ship (Figure 18. the most demanding situation for the hull girder corresponds to the instant when pivoting starts. Side Launch: In side launch. the main motion components are directed in the transversal plane of the ship (see Figure 18.18). whose maximum value is usually lower than the design one. Furthermore. at the fore end of the cradle itself (on the fore poppet. only those which present peculiarities as regards ship loads will be considered: end launch and side launch. Here only the aspect of loads acting on the ship will be discussed. but tends to be located in the fore part of the ship. so.10. the buoyancy distribution). 18. xB.

In addition to soil characteristics. Grounding: In grounding. together with the response characteristics of the structure (energy absorption capacity). 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. Contrary to end launch. but need to be investigated with a dynamic analysis. waves. initial speed and direction of the ship relative to ground. From the point of view of energy. 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. (c) spent in deformation work of the ground (if soft: sand.3. and weight. 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. Collision: When deﬁning structural loads due to collisions. full and model scale tests are performed to study grounding events (21). The amplitude of heave and roll motions and accelerations governs the magnitude of hull girder loads. Governing equations for the problem are given by conservation of momentum and of energy. gravel) and (d) converted into gravitational potential energy (work done against the weight force. the general approach is to model the dynamics of the accident itself.20 Sagging Moments for a Grounded Ship: Simulation Results (22) . trajectory and loads cannot be studied as a sequence of quasi-static equilibrium positions. dominant effects are forces and motions in the vertical plane. time domain simulations can evaluate the magnitude of contact forces and the energy. developed at the ﬁrst impact with the ground. Chapter XVII) Figure 18. 18. 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. 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.10. which resists to the vertical raising of the ship barycenter).qxd Page 18-19 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-19 tion at rest. they can be described differently depending on the characteristics of the struck object (ship.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).19 Side Launch (1. main components are contact forces. collision forces between the units. allow an evaluation of the damage penetration (21). current.4 Accidental loads Accidental loads (collision and grounding) are discussed in more detail by ISSC (21). Figure 18. Figure 18. As regards collision forces. key parameters for the description are: slope and geometry of the ground.3. The problem is similar to the one regarding ship motions in waves. Normally. when the bow slides on the ground. which is absorbed by structure deformation: these quantities. then friction. accounting for a number of forces acting during the event: forces induced by propeller. bridge pylon…) with different combinations of rigid. As regards forces. rudder. in order to deﬁne trajectories of the unit(s) involved. In general terms. elastic or an elastic body models. platform. In addition to numerical simulations. 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 dynamics of collision should be formulated in six degrees of freedom. (Subsection 18. hydrodynamic pressure due to motions.MASTER SET SDC 18. Within this framework.4).

3. considering the free surface or (d) the incident wave proﬁle (neglecting the interaction with the hull). as the probability that all design loads occur at the same time is much lower than the one associated to the single component. (c) the ﬂow corresponding to the steady advance of the ship in calm water. Such load cases. New procedures have been proposed in the last decades to improve traditional 2D linear methods. As a practical solution to the problem.12. in the frequency or in the time domain. Some results have been published of viscous ﬂow models based on the solution of Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) equations in the time domain. corresponding to ship advance. However. the deﬁnition of a joint probability distribution of the various loads. with reference to: (a) a free stream at constant velocity. Structural checks are performed for all load cases. This effect is believed to have a major role in the deﬁnition of global loads. which turns out to be the most conservative for the speciﬁc structure. Other non-linear methods account for perturbation terms of a higher order. overcoming some of the simpliﬁcations adopted to treat the problem of ship motions in waves. In this case. depending on the various methods. on the other hand. 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. This procedure needs a higher number of checks (which.2 Body boundary conditions In linear methods. Volume 1 18.qxd Page 18-20 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-20 Ship Design & Construction. without choosing a priori the worst one. the complete formulation of the problem would imply. body boundary conditions are still linear (mean position of the hull).3. represent realistic and.3. For a complete state of the art of computational methods in the ﬁeld. while in other cases an intermediate approach is followed.3.3. but allows considering various load situations (deﬁned with different combinations of the same base loads). in order to quantify the distribution for the total load. (b) a double body ﬂow. 18. the combination problem is expressed in terms of time shift between the instants in which characteristic values occur.4 Fluid characteristics All the methods above recalled are based on an inviscid ﬂuid potential scheme. 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 the probability domain.12.11 Combination of Loads When dealing with the characterization of a set of loads acting simultaneously. 18. 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). can be easily automated today). More evolved (and complex) methods are able to take properly into account the exact body boundary condition (actual wetted surface of the hull). In particular. This cannot be obtained by simple superposition of the characteristic values of single contributing loads. . Perturbation terms take into account.1 2D versus 3D models Three-dimensional extensions of linear methods are available. 18.3.12 New Trends and Load Non-linearities A large part of research efforts is still devoted to a better deﬁnition of wave loads. part in 3D. ﬁrst order variations of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic coefﬁcients around the still water line. in principle. the interest lies in the deﬁnition of a total loading condition with the required exceeding probability (usually the same of the single components). 18. with boundary conditions formulated part in 2D. The result of the veriﬁcation is governed by the one.MASTER SET SDC 18. body boundary conditions are set with reference to the mean position of the hull (in still water). in principle. also this level of statistical characterization is difﬁcult to obtain. each deﬁned by a set of coefﬁcients. equally probable combinations of characteristic values of elementary loads. Works based on fully non-linear formulations of the free surface conditions have also been published. 18.3 Free surface boundary conditions Boundary conditions on free surface can be set. accounting for the disturbance induced by the presence of a fully immersed double body hull on the uniform ﬂow. some non-linear methods have also 3-D features.12. reference is made to (23). In the time domain.12. empirically based load cases are deﬁned in Rules by means of combination coefﬁcients (with values generally ≤ 1) applied to single loads. they account for the actual geometry of wetted hull (non-linear body boundary condition) in the Froude-Krylov potential only. A very coarse classiﬁcation of the main features of the procedures reported in literature is here presented (see also reference 24). but second order variations of the coefﬁcients are accounted for. An approximation would consist in modeling the joint distribution through its ﬁrst and second order moments.

σ2* may also exist and would correspond to the bending of the equally spaced frames between two stiff longitudinal girders. but the general category of primary does not imply a direction.6 Although longitudinal strength under vertical bending moment and vertical shear forces is the ﬁrst important strength consideration in almost all ships. both published by SNAME. For transversally framed panels. Once these responses are known it is necessary to determine whether the structure is adequate to withstand the demands placed upon it.1 Stress and Deﬂection Components The structural response of the hull girder and the associated members can be subdivided into three components (Figure 18. Excessive deﬂection may also limit the structural effectiveness of a member. The associated primary stresses (σ1) are those. for double hull ships: Figure 18. transversally or both. yield. there is also 18. the panel of bottom structure contained between two adjacent transverse bulkheads. • A double bottom behaves as box girder but can bend longitudinally.5 and 18. with torsional strength requiring particular attention on open ships with large hatches arranged close together.MASTER SET SDC 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. for example. More detailed information is available in Lewis (2) and Hughes (3). 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. and Rawson (25). a number of other strength considerations must be considered. buckling. torsional and horizontal bending strength. in the form of stress and deﬂection. The strength of a structural component would be inadequate if it experiences a loss of load-carrying ability through material fracture. For a stiffened panel. thus rendering the system ineffective. etc. In longitudinally framed ships there is also a second type of secondary stresses: σ2* corresponds to the bending under the hydrostatic pressure of the longitudinals between transverse frames (web frames). navigational equipment. Secondary response relates to the global bending of stiffened panels (for single hull ship) or to the behavior of double bottom. or some other failure mechanism in response to the applied loading. All these are brieﬂy presented in this Section. Secondary (Double Bottom and Stiffened Panels) and Tertiary (Plate) Structural Responses (1. Primary response is the response of the entire hull. The present section deals with the determination of the responses. there is the stress (σ2) and deﬂection of the global bending of the orthotropic stiffened panels. In addition... Structural performance criteria and the associated analyses involving stresses are referred to under the general term of strength. and this requires consideration of the different failure modes associated to the limit states. which are usually called the longitudinal bending stresses. Prominent amongst these are transverse. double sides.4.21 Primary (Hull).21). when the ship bends as a beam under the longitudinal distribution of load. etc. 2) . • Stresses in the plating of stiffened panel under lateral pressure may have different origins (σ2 and σ2*). even though material failure does not occur. as discussed in Sections 18.4 is inﬂuenced mainly from Lewis (2). if that deﬂection results in a misalignment or other geometric displacement of vital components of the ship’s machinery. of structural members to the applied loads. Note that the content of Section 18. This global bending induces stress (σ2) and deﬂection.qxd Page 18-21 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-21 18.

once the ship’s main dimensions and general arrangement are ﬁxed. The boundaries are formed by these components (Figure 18. Modeling of this hull girder is the ﬁrst task of the designer.21 (see also Figure 18. The structural naval archi- tect deals principally with beam theory. The global ship structure is usually referred to as being a box girder or hull girder. in such a case. In many instances. An exception is the case of plate (tertiary) deﬂections.22 A Standard Stiffened Panel . is then obtained by a simple superposition of the three component stresses (Subsection 18. there is little or no interaction between the three (primary. and each component may be computed by methods and considerations entirely independent of the other two.4. longitudinal bulkheads.3. • Longitudinal Stiffening includes — longitudinals (equally distributed). Volume 1 the σ2* stress that corresponds to the bending of the longitudinals (for example. • plane cross sections remain plane after deformation. only primary and secondary responses induce stresses in the direction of the members and shear stresses. 18.3 Primary Response 18. 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. In this section.4. In assessing the applicability of this beam theory to ship structures. This means that. will Figure 18.2 Basic Structural Components Structural components are extensively discussed in Chapter 17 – Structure Arrangement Component Design. • Transverse Stiffening includes (Figure 18.4. the longitudinally continuous members such as deck. It is usually done by modeling the hull girder with a series of stiffened panels. σ2. bottom shell. Stiffened panels are the main components of a ship. and continuous or fully effective longitudinal primary or secondary stiffening members. plate theory. only the basic structural component used extensively is presented. which result from the bending of the plate member itself vary through the thickness. — girders (not equally distributed). σ1. side.22). tertiary) component stresses or deﬂections. Tertiary response has no effect on the stiffeners. Tertiary stresses. each response induces longitudinal stresses. all cross sections are the same and there is no openings or discontinuities. σ2* and σ3). for the most part. In stiffeners. These considerations point to the inherent simplicity of the underlying theory. It is basically a stiffened panel. 24 and 36). it is useful to restate the underlying assumptions: • the beam is prismatic. transverse stresses and shear stresses. but may contain a membrane component if the out-of-plane deﬂections are large compared to the plate thickness.23. — the main transverse framing also called web-frames (equally distributed. The resultant stress. used for longitudinally stiffened panels (b) and transversally stiffened panels (c).MASTER SET SDC 18. Primary and secondary responses induce in-plane membrane stresses. 18. Almost any part of the ship can be modeled as stiffened panels (plane or cylindrical).qxd Page 18-22 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-22 Ship Design & Construction.37) the three types of response are shown with their associated stresses (σ1. Both primary and secondary stresses are bending stresses but in plating these stresses look like membrane stresses. nearly uniformly distributed through the plate thickness. used only for the design of longitudinally stiffened panels.1 Beam Model and Hull Section Modulus The structural members involved in the computation of primary stress are.4. and deﬂection due to vertical or lateral hull bending loads.23) — transverse bulkheads (a). Elementary beam theory (equation 29) is usually utilized in computing the component of primary stress. This is due to the Poisson’s Ratio. and combinations of both.7). The panels are joined one to another by connecting lines (edges of the prismatic structures) and have longitudinal and transverse stiffening (Figures 18. large spacing). secondary. the remaining scantling development mainly deals with stiffened panels. which are large compared to the thickness of plate. In Figure 18. In plating. in the inner and outer bottom) between two transverse elements (ﬂoors). that is.

side ports. Since stress concentrations (deck openings. their effects must be included in any comprehensive stress analysis. σ1. in m E = modulus of elasticity of the material. For torsional deformation. etc.3 as they are linked to fatigue. and merely rotate as the beam deﬂects. normal to the OXY plane (Figure 18.24 Behavior of an Elastic Beam under Shear Force and Bending Moment (2) Hull Section Modulus: The plane section assumption together with elastic material behavior results in a longitudinal stress. • transverse (Poisson) effects on strain are neglected. in N.23 Types of Stiffening (Longitudinal and Transverse) not deform in their own planes. are derived from basic mechanic principle presented at Figure 18.MASTER SET SDC 18.) cannot be avoided in a highly complex structure such as a ship.24). equations 27 and 28. the effect of secondary shear and axial stresses due to warping deformations are neglected. 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. Methods dealing with stress concentrations are presented in Subsection 18.m) σ = bending stress (in N/m2) p p2 exp − m0 2m0 [29] .m q(x) = load per unit length in N/m = ∂V(x)/∂x = ∂2M(x)/∂x2 = EI (∂4w/∂x4) [28] [27] Figure 18.6. in m4 M(x) = bending moment. strains) are not coupled. in N/m2 I = moment of inertia of beam cross section about a horizontal axis through its centroid. The elastic linear bending equations. This gives the well-known formula: fP ( p) = where: M = bending moment (in N. • the material behaves elastically: the elasticity modulus in tension and compression is equal.24. EI (∂2w/∂x2) = M(x) or EI (∂4w/∂x4) = q(x) where: w = deﬂection (Figure 18.qxd Page 18-23 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-23 Figure 18.6. in the beam that varies linearly over the depth of the cross section.24). • Shear effects and bending (stresses.

In general. Volume 1 I = Sectional moment of Inertia about the neutral axis (in m4) c = distance from the neutral axis to the extreme member (in m) SM = section modulus (I/c) (in m3) For a given bending moment at a given cross section of a ship.4. and by using both the hogging and sagging moment curves four curves of stress can be obtained. Minimum section modulus most often occurs at the location of a hatch or a deck opening.qxd Page 18-24 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-24 Ship Design & Construction. Lateral Bending Combined with Vertical Bending: Up to this point. bottom and inner bottom. the classiﬁcation societies ordinarily require the maintenance of the midship scantlings throughout the midship four-tenths length. • all longitudinals of deck. 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. is replaced by ∫A E(z) z2 dA. sides. • plating and longitudinal stiffeners of longitudinal bulkheads. for example. the following items may be included in the calculation of the section modulus. The former may be dealt with by methods that are similar to those used for treating the vertical bending loads. As deﬁned in connection with equation 29. A variation on the above beam equations may be of importance in ship structures. As the ship moves through a seaway encountering waves from directions other than directly ahead or astern. The neutral axis is located at such height that ∫A E(z) z dA = 0. one for the top ﬁber (deck) and one for the bottom ﬁber (bottom shell). Dividing the ordinates of the maximum bending-moments curve (the envelope curve of maxima) by the corresponding ordinates of the section-moduli curve yields stress values. • deck and bottom girders. only members that are effective in both tension and compression are assumed to act as part of the hull girder. In general. Calculation of Section Modulus: An important step in routine ship design is the calculation of the midship section modulus. (See Subsection 18.MASTER SET SDC 18.25 Moment of Inertia and Section Modulus (1) . 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. Accordingly. It concerns beams composed of two or more materials of different moduli of elasticity. Note that the response of the ship to the overall hull twisting loading should be considered a primary response. it indicates the bending strength properties of the primary hull structure. steel and aluminum. Figure 18. It is customary.9 for Hull/Superstructure Interaction). respectively. that is. EI. The twisting or torsional loads will require some special consideration. hence two values of c and σ will be obtained for each section for any given bending moment.25.3. In this case. provided they are continuous or effectively developed: • deck plating (strength deck and other effective decks). attention has been focused principally upon the vertical longitudinal bending response of the hull. at any part of the cross section. • shell and inner bottom plating. The neutral axis will seldom be located exactly at half-depth of the section. it will experience lateral bending loads and twisting moments in addition to the vertical loads. the stress may be obtained (σ = M/SM = Mc/I) which is proportional to the distance c of that part from the neutral axis. The combination of vertical and horizontal bending moment has as major effect to increase the stress at the extreme corners of the structure (equation 30). to assume the maximum bending moment to extend over the midship portion of the ship. the ﬂexural rigidity. Theoretically. This practice maintains the midship section area of structure practically at full value in the vicinity of maximum shear as well as providing for possible variation in the precise location of the maximum bending moment. 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. noting that there will be no component of still water bending moment or shear in the lateral direction. however. tension and compression values for both top and bottom extreme ﬁbers. and • continuous longitudinal hatch coamings.

The quantity ν is called Poisson’s Ratio and. that is. for steel and aluminum. has a value of approximately 0. is a constant property of the material. A suitable procedure for estimating these other component stresses may be derived by considering the equations of static equilibrium of the element of plating (Figure 18. are: ∂Nx / ∂x + ∂N / ∂s = 0 ∂Ns / ∂x + ∂N / ∂x = 0 [33-a] [33-b] where Mv. on the upper starboard and lower portside. σx.qxd Page 18-25 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-25 ED: Correction on this equation is unclear. become important.26 Shear Forces (2) . likewise. σs = stresses in the longitudinal and transverse directions. a signiﬁcant improvement may be obtained by considering a longitudinal strength member composed of thin plate with transverse framing. the longitudinal stress. The static equilibrium conditions for a plate element subjected only to in-plane stress.3. deﬁned as the stress multiplied by plate thickness. This might. the transverse stress can be taken. in N/m2 τ = shear stress.2 Shear stress associated to shear forces The simple beam theory expressions given in the preceding section permit evaluation the longitudinal component of the primary stress.6. may be stated in terms of the plate strains (equation 31). is the dominant component. given by | εs / εx | = ν. in N/m2 t = plate thickness. the periodical wave induced horizontal bending moment (Mh) increases stresses. For the case of a plate that is free of constraint in the transverse direction. which is associated with σx. alternatively. for instance. in m In many parts of the ship. is the transverse coordinate measured on the surface of the section from the x-axis as shown in Figure 18. in ﬁrst approximation as: σs = ν σx [32] Equation 32 is only valid to assess the additional stresses in a given direction induced by the stresses in the perpendicular direction computed.26. σ= Mv Mh + I v cv ) (I h ch ) ( [30] an element of side shell or deck plating may. Empirical interaction formulas between vertical bending.3. Ih. represent a portion of the deck structure of a ship that is subject to a longitudinal stress σx. s. This ﬁgure illustrates these as the stress resultants. the two strains will be of opposite sign and the ratio of their absolute values. Hooke’s Law. σx. for example. for the vertical bending and the horizontal bending respectively.26. This shows that the primary response induces both longitudinal (σx) and transversal stresses (σs) in plating. in N/m where: σx. Transverse Stresses: With regards to the validity of the Navier Equation (equation 29). For a given vertical bending (Mv). There are. εs.2. no plate bending. in N/m N = t τ shear stress resultant or shear ﬂow. For vessels without continuous longitudinal bulkheads As transverse plate boundaries are usually constrained (displacements not allowed). Iv. I. which expresses the relation between stress and strain in two dimensions. a direct stress in the transverse direction and a shearing stress. The stress resultants (N/m) are given by the following expressions: Nx = t σx and Ns = t σs stress resultants. ch. cv. it can be seen that Figure 18.4.MASTER SET SDC 18. however. εx. there will exist a transverse strain. locations in which the shear component becomes important and under unusual circumstances the transverse component may. and Mh. c deﬁned in equation 29.26). horizontal bending and shear related to ultimate strength of hull girder are given in Subsection 18. As a result of the longitudinal strain. 18. In Figure 18. εx = 1/E ( σx – v σS) εS = 1/E ( σS – ν σx) [31] In these equations. from the primary bending of the hull girder. and on the upper portside and lower starboard. correspond to the M.5. in general be subject to two other components of stress. with the Navier equation (equation 29). This explains why these areas are usually reinforced.

the shear ﬂow distribution. with m(s) equal to the moment of the shaded area (Figure 18. is the ﬁrst moment (or moment 3 s = of area) about the neutral axis of the cross sectional area of the plating between the origin at the centerline and the variable location designated by s.3. The maximum value of τ occurs in the vicinity of the neutral axis.3 Shear stress associated with torsion In order to develop the twisting equations. members of the hull girder are capable of resisting vertical shear. Under these circumstances.28 is subdivided into two or more closed cells by longitudinal bulkheads. MT. the continuous longitudinal bulkheads if present. This is the crosshatched area of the section shown in Figure 18.28). τ . the problem of ﬁnding the shear ﬂow in the boundaries of these closed cells is statically indeterminate. which is constant along the length as shown in Figure 18.29. but the relative proportions of the part in the bulkhead and the part in the deck are indeterminate.MASTER SET SDC 18. in m . The way to proceed is extensively explained in Lewis (2). 18. tank tops. For vessels with continuous longitudinal bulkheads. Volume 1 (single cell). requires additional information for its determination.26 t(s) = thickness of material at the shear plane I(x) = moment of inertia of the entire section The total vertical shearing force.4. The resulting shear stress may be assumed uniform through the plate thickness and is tangent to the mid-thickness of the material. N(s) is then given by: V(x) N (s) = m (s) I(x) [34] and the shear stress. Ordinarily the maximum value of the shearing force occurs at about one quarter of the vessel’s length from either end. x. the distribution of this sum between the two components in bulkhead and side shell. the expression for shear stress is more complex. single cell. V(x). having transverse symmetry and subject to a bending moment in the vertical plane. However. ∫o t ( s ) z ds.m(s) t(s) I(x) (in N / m 2 ) [35] of the shear ﬂows at two locations lying on a plane cutting the cell walls will still be given by equation 34. where the value of t is usually twice the thickness of the side plating (Figure 18. at any point.27). Equation 34 may be evaluated for the deck and bottom of the center tank space since the plane of symmetry at which the shear ﬂow vanishes. we consider a closed. or nearly vertical. thin-walled prismatic section subject only to a twisting moment. this shear is taken almost entirely by the side shell. Since only the vertical. dθ/dx. The sum Figure 18. and by the webs of any deep longitudinal girders. will be constant along the length.qxd Page 18-26 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-26 Ship Design & Construction. lies within this space and forms a convenient origin for the integration.28 Shear Flow in Multicell Sections (2) . the shear ﬂow in the deck divides. At the deck/bulkhead intersection. Shear Flow in Multicell Sections: If the cross section of the ship shown in Figure 18. or decks.27 Shear Flow in Multicell Sections (1) Figure 18. the deﬂection of the tube will consist of a twisting of the section without distortion of its shape. and the rate of twist. This additional information may be obtained by considering the torsional equilibrium and deﬂection of the cellular section. at any point in the cross section is: t(s) = where: V(x) = total shearing force (in N) in the hull for a given section x m(s) = V(x). in the ship’s length may be obtained by the integration of the load curve up to that point.

30 Twist of Open and Closed Tubes (2) . should be gradually increased to keep the warping stress as small as possible. in N/m2 MT . longitudinal and transverse closed box girders are introduced in the upper side and deck structure. N = tτ. Wave actions tending to bend the hull in a horizontal plane also induce torsion because of the open cross section of the hull. in N.m L = Length of the girder.L (in radians) G Ip [38] 18. The twisting resistance of the thin material of which the tube is composed provides the only resistance to torsion in the case Figure 18. perpendicular to the resultant shear ﬂow at location s: MT = ∫ r N ds = N ∫ r ds = 2 NΩ [36] Here the symbol indicates that the integral is taken entirely around the section and. Figure 18. From previous studies. In order to increase the torsional rigidity of the containership cross sections.ds of the tube wall as shown in Figure 18.3. toward the ship’s ends. 0. therefore. such as container ships. horizontal bending and torsion must be calculated. The magnitude of the moment.29 Torsional Shear Flow (2). one of which has a longitudinal slit over its full length as in Figure 18. N (N/m). Consider two circular tubes. which results in the shear center being below the bottom of the hull. If r is the distance from the axis.4. Since there is no longitudinal load. which have large hatch openings. in m Ip = Polar Inertia. MT.4 Twisting and warping Torsional strength: Although torsion is not usually an important factor in ship design for most ships.MASTER SET SDC 18. is then related to the applied twisting moment by: N = τ.30.29. The equations for the twist of a closed tube (equations 36 to 38) are applicable only to the computation of the torsional response of closed thin-walled sections. On the contrary the torsional rigidity. it does result in signiﬁcant additional stresses on ships. which takes into account the twisting and warping deﬂections. The relative torsional stiffness of closed and open sections may be visualized by means of a very simple example. there will be no longitudinal stress. the shear Modulus. is therefore seen to be constant around the section. Usually. Ω (m2) is the area enclosed by the mid-thickness line of the tubular cross section. t = MT /2Ω [37] For uniform torsion of a closed prismatic section. The constant shear ﬂow. the angle of torsion is: θ= where: MT = Twisting moment (torsion).qxd Page 18-27 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-27 Now consider equilibrium of forces in the x-direction for the element dx. Twisting of opened section: A lateral seaway could induce severe twisting moment that is of the major importance for ships having large deck openings. These warping stresses can be calculated by a beam analysis. There can also be an interaction between horizontal bending and torsion of the hull girder. the section moduli are justiﬁably reduced base on bending. in m4 G = E/2(1+ν). The shear ﬂow. The closed tube will be able to resist a much greater torque per unit angular deﬂection than the open tube because of the inability of the latter to sustain the shear stress across the slot. it has been established that special attention should be paid to the torsional rigidity distribution along the hull. may be computed by integrating the moment of the elementary force arising from this shear ﬂow about any convenient axis. Combined stresses due to vertical bending. especially in the forward hatches. and only the shear stresses at the top and bottom edges need be considered in the expression for static equilibrium.

in m4 = 1/3 = 1 3 n [39] The angle between a deck beam and side frame tends to open on one side and to close on the other side at the top and reverses its action at the bottom. J = torsional constant of the section. ti = thickness) If warping resistance is present. It is a function ∫0 t 3 ds for a thin walled open section s ∑ b i t 3 for a section composed of n different i i =1 = plates (bi= length. in association with their top and bottom brackets.31.). The effect of the concentration of stiff and soft sections results in a distortion pattern in the ship deck that is shown in Figure 18.32 Shear Lag Effect in a Deck (2) . side frames. when bulkheads are widely spaced or where the deck width is small in way of very large hatch openings. The resistance to twist of the entirely open section is given by the St. b. etc.4. if the longitudinal displacement of the elemental strips shown in Figure 18. be/b. double side shell. However. But in certain combinations of loading and structural geometry. another component of torsional resistance is developed through the shear stresses that result from this warping restraint. and this is called shear lag. 3.32). contribute signiﬁcant resistance to racking. With the usual spacing of transverse bulkheads the effectiveness of side frames in resisting racking is negligible. be. is useful to the designer in determining the longitudinal stress along the shear-loaded edge. This is in contrast to the uniform stress distribution predicted in the beam ﬂanges by the elementary beam equation 29. Volume 1 of the open tube without longitudinal restraint.3. which can be approximated by θ/L for uniform torsion and uniform section. to the real breadth.31 Snaking Behavior of a Container Vessel (2). the difference from the value predicted in equation 29 will be small. The term snaking is sometimes used in referring to this behavior and relates to both twisting and racking. warping strength comes from four sources: 1.J ∂θ/∂x (N. of the effective breadth. and 4. in rad. 18. Transverse bulkheads resist racking if the bulkhead spacing is close enough to prevent deﬂection of the shell or deck plating in its own plane.6 Effective breadth and shear lag An important effect of the edge shear loading of a plate member is a resulting nonlinear variation of the longitudinal stress distribution (Figure 18. Racking introduces primarily compressive and shearing forces in the plane of bulkhead plating. the effect referred to by the term shear lag must be taken into consideration if an accurate estimate of the maximum stress in the member is to be made. double wall transverse bulkheads.qxd Page 18-28 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-28 Ship Design & Construction. torsionally stiff parts of the cross section (longitudinal torsion tubes or boxes. Figure 18. 18. In ship structures. 2. In the real plate the longitudinal stress decreases with increasing distance from the shear-loaded edge. In many practical cases. This may be conveniently done by deﬁning an effective breadth of the ﬂange member.3./m. that is. Racking in car-carriers is discussed in Chapters 17 and 34. the closed sections of the structure between hatch openings. closed. Figure 18.30 is constrained.4.MASTER SET SDC 18.5 Racking and snaking Racking is the result of a transverse hull shape distortion and is caused by either dynamic loads due to rolling of the ship or by the transverse impact of seas against the topsides.m) where: ∂θ/∂x = twist angle per unit length. The ratio. Racking stresses due to rolling reach a maximum in a beam sea each time the vessel completes an oscillation in one direction and is about to return. the closed ends of the ship. including double bottom. This is added to the torque given by equation 39. Venant torsion equation: MT = G.

A real situation in which such an alternating load distribution may be encountered is a bulk carrier loaded with a dense ore cargo in alternate holds. which are especially simple to use.MASTER SET SDC 18.3. 18. the bottom pressures are transferred principally to the widely spaced transverse web frames or the transverse bulkheads where Figure 18. therefore. Figure 18. An example of the computation of the effective breadth of bottom and deck plating for such a vessel is given in Chapter VI of Taggart (1). and workmanship. No speciﬁc limits on hull girder deﬂections are given in the classiﬁcation rules. for ﬁrst approximation. also increase ﬂexibility. such as a tanker.09 (2). as ships get larger. are based on a limitation of the L/D ratio range. and may be found in Schade (26). draft limitations and stability requirements may force the L/D ratio up.3. as 0.6.33 gives the effective breadth ratio at mid-length for column loading and harmonic-shaped beam loading. which gradually increase nominal design stress levels.7 Longitudinal deﬂection The longitudinal bending deﬂection of the ship girder is obtainable from the appropriate curvature equations (equations 27 and 28) by integrating twice. modern design requires that more attention be focused on ﬂexibility than formerly. but not its thickness.33 Effective Breath Ratios at Midlength (1) .4. Additionally. together with a common approximation for both cases: be k L = 6 b b [40] w = k ( M L2/EI ) [41] The results are presented in a series of design charts. It is important to distinguish the effective breadth (equation 40) and the effective width (equations 54 and 55) presented later in Subsection 18.33. The same inﬂuences.2 for plate and stiffened plate-buckling analysis. the remainder being empty. The required minimum scantlings however.8 Load diffusion into structure The description of the computation of vertical shear and bending moment by integration of the longitudinal load distribution implies that the external vertical load is resisted directly by the vertical shear carrying members of the hull girder such as the side shell or longitudinal bulkheads. In general. furthermore. though its amount is usually relatively small. In a longitudinally framed ship. using Figure 18.3. deﬂection due to shear is additive to the bending deﬂection. A semi-empirical approximation for bending deﬂection amidships is: where the dimensionless coefﬁcient k may be taken.qxd Page 18-29 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-29 of the external loading applied and the boundary conditions along the plate edges. rigidity of structural components. Actual deﬂection in service is affected also by thermal inﬂuences. 18.4. as well as general design practices.

the principal objective is to determine the distribution of both in-plane Figure 18. This may be accomplished in long superstructures (>0.35 Vertical Stress Distribution in Passenger Vessels having Large Openings above the Passenger Deck . Two opposing schools of thought exist concerning the philosophy of design of such erections. the curvature of the superstructure may not necessarily be equal to that of the hull but depends upon the length of superstructure in relation to the hull and the nature of the connection between the two. Recent works achieved in Norwegian University of Science & Technology have shown that the vertical stress distribution in the side shell is not linear when there are large openings in the side shell as it is currently the case for upper decks of passenger vessels. the superstructure is forced to bend also. The behavior of the superstructure is similar to that of a beam on an elastic foundation loaded by a system of normal forces and shear forces at the bond to the hull. the other purposely isolates the superstructure from the hull so that it carries only localized loads and does not experience stresses and deﬂections associated with bending of the main hull. Aluminum deckhouse construction is another alternative when the different material properties provide the required relief. Further details on the design considerations for deckhouses and superstructures may be found in Evans (27) and Taggart (1).4.34. especially upon the vertical stiffness or foundation modulus of the deck upon which the superstructure is constructed.4. the loading q(x). The stress distributions at the midlength of the superstructure and the differential deﬂection between deckhouse and hull for three different degrees of superstructure effectiveness are shown on Figure 18.5Lpp) by cutting the deckhouse into short segments by means of expansion joints. 18. If its width is less than that of the ship. that is. Approximated stress distributions are presented at Figure 18.9 Hull/superstructure interaction The terms superstructure and deckhouse refer to a structure usually of shorter length than the entire ship and erected above the strength deck of the ship. The reduced slope. by multiplying by E (aluminum)/E (steel) (approximately one-third). for the upper deck has been found equal to 0.σ(z) σ (z) = M x ( I )z Figure 18. If its sides are coplanar with the ship’s sides it is referred to as a superstructure.3.qxd Page 18-30 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-30 Ship Design & Construction. However. This leads to a discontinuity in the shear curve at the bulkheads and webs. Volume 1 they are transferred to the longitudinal bulkheads or side shell. local stress concentrations may be expected at the ends of the house. One attempts to make the superstructure effective in contributing to the overall bending strength of the hull. since here the structure is transformed abruptly from that of a beam consisting of the main hull alone to that of hull plus superstructure. again as localized shear forces. In addition to the overall bending. Thus. As the ship hull experiences a bending deﬂection in response to the wave bending moment. applied to the side shell or the longitudinal bulkhead will consist of a distributed part due to the direct transfer of load into the member from the bottom or deck structure.34 Three Interaction Levels between Superstructure and Hull (1) z Passenger deck Neutral axis σr (z) =θ . it is called a deckhouse. If the erection material differs from that of the hull (aluminum on steel. plus a concentrated part at each bulkhead or web frame.50 for a catamaran passenger vessel (28). in reality.35.MASTER SET SDC 18. 18. The prediction of the structural behavior of a superstructure constructed above the strength deck of the hull has facets involving both the general bending response and important localized effects.4 Secondary Response In the case of secondary structural response. θ. for example) the geometric erection area Af and inertia If must be reduced according to the ratio of the respective material moduli. The areas and inertias can be computed to account for shear lag in decks and bottoms.

y) 4 2 ∂y 2 ∂x ∂x ∂y 4 [42] Figure 18. but more frequently it is found in the free ﬂanges of the stiffeners. An advanced orthotropic procedure has been implemented by Rigo (29.4. The deﬂections and stresses in the resulting continuum are then obtained from a solution of the orthotropic plate deﬂection differential equation: a1 where: a1. First the plate bending behavior (w) and the inplane membrane behavior (u and v) are analyzed simultaneously. A second type of interaction arises from the two-dimensional stress pattern in the plate.qxd Page 18-31 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-31 and normal loading. 3) grillage theory (intersecting beams).4. Fourier series expansions are used to model the loads. typically a cargo hold.36 A Stiffened Panel with Uniformly Distributed Longitudinals.MASTER SET SDC 18.v.y) = is the deﬂection of the plate in the normal direction p(x. The secondary response. Remember that the primary response involves the determination of only the in-plane load.y) can be obtained for each stiffened panel. It is based on the differential equations of stiffened cylindrical shells (linear theory). modiﬁed by the transverse stress effects. Then. deﬂection and stress over the length and width dimensions of a stiffened panel. It has been said that the application of this theory to crossstiffened panels must be restricted to stiffened panels with more than three stiffeners in each direction. in addition to ∂4w ∂4w ∂4w + a2 + a3 = p (x. usually consists of a ﬂat plate surface with its attached stiffeners. 18. and also from the shear stress in the plane of the plate. as plates are particular cases of the cylindrical shells having a very large radius. one having uniform ﬂexural properties in all directions. that is. which are assumed to be distributed uniformly over the width or length of the plate. the structure is idealized by assuming that the structural properties of the stiffeners may be approximated by their average values. which may be thought of as forming a part of the ﬂanges of the stiffeners. The maximum secondary stress may be found in the plate itself.36). Stiffened plates and cylindrical shells can both be considered. is seen to be a two-dimensional problem while the primary response is essentially one-dimensional in character. therefore. Orthotropic plate theory refers to the theory of bending of plates having different ﬂexural rigidities in the two orthogonal directions.w) can also be expanded in sin and cosine. and stress as they vary over the length of the ship. transverse frames and/or girders (Figure 18. A system of three differential equations. each embodying certain simplifying assumptions: 1) orthotropic plate theory. The orthotropic plate method is best suited to a panel in which the stiffeners are uniform in size and spacing and closely spaced. as used in the present context. 4 Webframes. and 3 Girders. The plate contribution to the beam bending stiffness arises from the direct longitudinal stress in the plate adjacent to the stiffener. is a special case of the orthotropic plate problem. is established (8th order coupled differential equations).1 Stiffened panels A stiffened panel of structure. In applying this theory to panels having discrete stiffeners. In principle.30) into a computer-based scheme for the optimum structural design of the midship section. since these ﬂanges are at a greater distance than the plate member from the neutral axis of the combined plate-stiffener. At least four different procedures have been employed for obtaining the structural behavior of stiffened plate panels under normal loading. similar to equation 42. 2) beam-on-elastic- foundation theory. a3 = express the average ﬂexural rigidity of the orthotropic plate in the two directions w(x. and w(x. deﬂection. This procedure can be applied globally to all the stiffened panels that compose a parallel section of a ship. an analytical solution of u. When the plating is absent the module is a grid or grillage of beam members only. and 4) the ﬁnite element method (FEM). . This approach has three main advantages. a2. the solution for the deﬂection and stress in the stiffened panel may be thought of as a solution for the response of a system of orthogonal intersecting beams. rather than a stiffened panel. Assuming that the displacements (u.y) = is the distributed normal pressure load per unit area Note that the behavior of the isotropic plate. v.

the inplane axial. These members considered through Heaviside functions that allow replacing each individual member by a set of 3 forces and 2 bending moment load lines. It includes uniformly distributed longitudinals and web frames. EI where: w = is the deﬂection I = is sectional moment of inertia of the longitudinal stiffener. torsional.5. Equation 44 is in fact a simpliﬁed case of the general one (equation 42).5. orientation. When it is distorted into a parallelogram shape the effect is called racking.2.36 shows a typical stiffened panel that can be considered. In many cases. the proportions.qxd Page 18-32 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-32 Ship Design & Construction.4.6 Transverse Strength Transverse strength refers to the ability of the ship structure to resist those loads that tend to cause distortion of the cross section. Finally. The FEM approach is discussed in detail in section 18. Such a loading is normal to and distributed over the surface of the panel.4. and location of the panel are such that the pressure may be assumed constant over its area.4. We recall that both the primary bending and torsional strength analyses are based upon the assumption of no distortion of the cross section. Stresses and deﬂections are obtained by solving this equation for rectangular plates under a uniform pressure distribution. randomly distributed such as deck and bottom girders. 18.7. including adjacent plating k = is average spring constant per unit length of the transverse stiffeners q(x) = is load per unit length on the longitudinal member The grillage approach models the cross-stiffened panel as a system of discrete intersecting beams (in plane frame). an Orthotropic Plate Theory has to be selected. and they should be in line with or as near as practicable to the ﬂanges of struts.5 Tertiary Response 18.2 Local deﬂections Local deﬂections must be kept at reasonable levels in order for the overall structure to have the proper strength and rigidity. Special attention must be given to rigidity of members under compressive loads to avoid buckling.1 Unstiffened plate Tertiary response refers to the bending stresses and deﬂections in the individual panels of plating that are bounded by the stiffeners of a secondary panel.y) +2 2 2 + = 4 D ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y 4 where: D = plate ﬂexural rigidity E t3 12(1 − ν ) [44] = Et3 / 12(1 – ν) t = the uniform plate thickness p(x. and is given by: ∂4w ∂4w ∂ 4 w p (x. Towards this end. each beam being composed of stiffener and associated effective plating. the classiﬁcation society rules may contain requirements to ensure that local deﬂections are not excessive. Special requirements also apply to stiffeners. 18.4. The validity of modeling the stiffened panel by an intersecting beam (or grillage) may be critical when the ﬂexural rigidities of stiffeners are small compared to the plate stiffness. The torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel and the Poisson ratio effect are neglected. and closely spaced but also for individual members.MASTER SET SDC 18. Tripping brackets are provided to support the ﬂanges. Figure 18. This is done by providing a minimum moment of inertia at the stiffener and associated plating. Each of these members is treated individually as a beam on an elastic foundation. for which the differential equation of deﬂection is. we .y) = distributed unit pressure load Appropriate boundary conditions are to be selected to represent the degree of ﬁxity of the edges of the panel. It is known that the grillage approach may be suitable when the ratio of the stiffener ﬂexural rigidity to the plate bending rigidity (EI/bD with I the moment of inertia of stiffener and D the plate bending rigidity) is greater than 60 (31) otherwise if the bending rigidity of stiffener is smaller. 18. The beam on elastic foundation solution is suitable for a panel in which the stiffeners are uniform and closely spaced in one direction and sparser in the other one. and three prompt elements (girders). In most cases the load that induces this response is a ﬂuid pressure from either the ∂4w + k w = q (x) ∂x 4 [43] water outside the ship or liquid or dry bulk cargo within. the deﬂection response of an isotropic plate panel is obtained as the solution of a special case of the earlier orthotropic plate equation (equation 42). Information (including charts) on a plate subject to uniform load and concentrated load (patch load) is available in Hughes (3). transverse shear and inplane shear rigidities of the stiffeners in the both directions can also be considered. the approach is suited for stiffeners uniform in size and spacing. Volume 1 the ﬂexural rigidity (bending). As previously noted. Thus.

7. Similar cumulative procedure must be achieved for the transverse stresses and the shear stresses. mode of operation. transfer these loads as vertical shears into the side shell. and upon environmental effects. Such analysis can be easily performed using 2D ﬁnite element analysis (FEA). a maximum longitudinal stress induced by the hull girder bending moment. all the longitudinal stresses have to be added. This is the traditional way followed by the classiﬁcation societies. The principal loading consists of the water pressure distribution around the ship. they recommend to combined stresses from secondary response and tertiary response. and • ships with structural features having particular sensitivity to transverse effects. Inﬂuence of longitudinal girders on the frame would be represented by elastic attachments having ﬁnite spring constants (similar to equation 43). The standard procedure used by classiﬁcation societies considers that longitudinal stresses induced by primary response of the hull girder. For buckling assessment. Thus some of the loads acting on the transverse strength members are also the loads of concern in longitudinal strength considerations. the transverse structural response involves pronounced interaction between transverse and longitudinal structural members. in turn.57). several considerations affecting the accuracy and signiﬁcance of the resulting stress values must be borne in mind. from the primary. and tertiary stress presuppose linear elastic behavior of the structural material. secondary and tertiary responses are combined for yielding assessment. Direct analysis does not follow this approach. Unfortunately. can be assessed separately from the other stresses. the tertiary response is discarded. First. a three-dimensional analysis is usually performed in order to obtain results that are useful for more than comparative purposes.6. must be incorporated into the ship in order to insure adequate transverse strength. 18.2). secondary. These are combined through the von Mises criteria and compared to the classiﬁcation requirements. As a ﬁrst approximation. in plating and in members. Since all the methods of calculation of primary. At the end they are combined through a criteria. including transverse bulkheads and deep web frames. For example.2—Structural Finite Element Models (Figure 18. These members provide support to and interact with longitudinal members by transferring loads from one part of a structure to another. • all types of ships: torsional and racking effects caused by asymmetric motions of roll. The loads that cause effects requiring transverse strength analysis may be of several different types.qxd Page 18-33 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-33 see that there is an inherent relationship between transverse strength and both longitudinal and torsional strength. as it does not induce in-plane stresses. the entire ship hull or at least a limited hold-model should be modeled. The general subject of transverse strength includes elements taken from both the primary and secondary strength categories. ships having largely open interior structure (minimum transverse bulkheads) such as auto carriers. a portion of the bottom pressure loading on the hull is transferred via the center girder and the longitudinals to the transverse bulkheads at the ends of theses longitudinals. may be obtained using a theory that involves certain simpliﬁca- .4. In performing and interpreting such a linear superposition. which is usually for ship structure. for example. Certain structural members. Such an uncoupled procedure is convenient to use but does not reﬂect reality.7.7 Superposition of Stresses In plating. Classiﬁcation rules impose through allowable stress and minimal section modulus. the stress intensities computed for the same member may be superimposed in order to obtain a maximum value for the combined stress. the loads and theoretical procedures used in computing the stress components may not be of the same accuracy or reliability. • ore carriers having loaded centerline holds and large empty wing tanks. depending upon the type of ship. each response induces longitudinal stresses. the transverse response of such a frame may be analyzed by a two-dimensional frame response procedure that may or may not allow for support by longitudinal structure. Ideally.MASTER SET SDC 18. On the other hand. transverse stresses and shear stresses. See Subsection 18. its structural arrangement. sway and yaw. For this reason. Typical situations requiring attention to the transverse strength are: • ship out of water: on building ways or on construction or repair dry dock.3). Tertiary stresses should be added for fatigue analysis. the von-Mises criteria (equation 45). All the stresses. • tankers having empty wing tanks and full centerline tanks or vice versa. The primary loading. If calculated individually. With direct analysis such as ﬁnite element analysis (Subsection 18. it is not always possible to separate the different responses. The bulkheads. containers and RO-RO ships. As previously noted. and the weights and inertias of the structure and hold contents. Nevertheless the lateral load can be considered in the buckling formulation (Subsection 18. such a procedure is very sensitive to the spring location and the boundary conditions. These stresses can be calculated individually for each response. as for instance.

and tertiary stress are not necessarily in the same direction or even in the same part of the structure. which gives a reasonably good estimate of the mean stress in deck or bottom but neglects certain localized effects such as shear lag or stress concentrations. In the case of longitudinal stiffeners.1 von Mises equivalent stress The yield strength of the material. due to the Poison coefﬁcient. Volume 1 tions in the hydrodynamics of ship and wave motion. The primary stress (σ1) will act in the longitudinal direction. the point in the structure having the highest stress level will not always be immediately obvious.4. are the center and any side longitudinal girders.21 and 18. there are several theories of material failure in use. of course. The maximum tertiary stress (σ3) happens.qxd Page 18-34 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-34 Ship Design & Construction. The one usually considered the most suitable for ductile materials such as ship steel is referred to as the von Mises Theory: σe = σ2 + σ2 − σx σy + 3 τ2 x y ( ) 1 2 [45] Consider a plane stress ﬁeld in which the component stresses are σx. The second (σ2*) is predominantly longitudinal. Second. in many cases. in this case. The forward and after boundaries of the panel will be at transverse bulkheads. the three stress components may not necessarily occur at the same instant in time as the ship moves through waves. secondary.37 Deﬁnition of Stress Components (4) . and the proper interpretation and assessment of the stress level will require the resolution of the stress pattern into principal stress components. From all these considerations. there will be an appreciable shear stress component present in the plate. the maximum values of primary. (σ2*). The maximum bending moment amidships. is deﬁned as the measured stress at which appreciable nonlinear behavior accompanied by permanent plastic deformation of the material occurs. 18. does not necessarily occur in phase with the maximum local pressure on a midship panel of bottom structure (secondary stress) or panel of plating (tertiary stress). The distortion energy states that Figure 18. The second part. It will be nearly equal in the plating and the stiffeners. is usually larger in the transverse than in the longitudinal direction.7. which vary over the length of the panel. and the transverse web frames. For most shipbuilding steels. as a result of the proportions of the panels of structure. The ﬁrst of these components (σ2). the yield and tensile strengths in tension and compression are assumed equal. σyield. are usually subdivided into two parts in the case of single hull structure. Third. but must be found by considering the combined stress effects at a number of different locations and times. as given by equation 29. consider a panel of bottom structure with longitudinal framing. The secondary stress will probably be greater in the free ﬂanges of the stiffeners than in the plating. The nominal stresses produced from the analysis will be a combination of the stress components shown in Figures 18. and the primary bending stress may be computed by simple beam theory. σy and τ. The ﬁrst part (σ2) is associated with bending of a panel of structure bounded by transverse bulkheads and either the side shell or the longitudinal bulkheads. and will be approximately constant over the length of a midship panel. in the plate where biaxial stresses occur. is the stress resulting from the bending of the smaller panel of plating plus longitudinal stiffeners that is bounded by the deep web frames. which results in the maximum primary stress. There will be a small transverse component in the plating. the maximum panel tertiary stress will act in the transverse direction (normal to the framing system) at the mid-length of a long side. The ultimate strength is the highest level of stress achieved before the test specimen fractures. For this purpose.MASTER SET SDC 18. In order to visualize this. The stress criterion that must be used is one in which it is possible to compare the actual multi-axial stress with the material strength expressed in terms of a single value for the yield or ultimate stress. and a shear stress given by equation 35. The principal stiffeners.37. it is evident that. In certain cases. since the combined neutral axis of the stiffener/plate combination is usually near the plate-stiffener joint. Secondary stresses.

failure modes and methods of predicting their occurrence. σe. This classiﬁcation has recently been adopted by ISO. low-cycle fatigue and brittle fracture.) For special ship types. In practice. fatigue limit state. and to achieve this goal it is necessary for the designer to be aware of the potential limit states.MASTER SET SDC 18.1 Basic Types of Failure Modes Ship structural failure may occur as a result of a variety of causes. Fatigue can be either considered as a third limit state or. Today. the different limit states were divided in 2 major categories: the service limit state and the ultimate limit state. considered as a service limit state. not to mention the dynamic effects resulting from the motions of the ship itself. An ultimate limit state corresponds to collapse/failure. fatigue and accidental limit states because the partial safety factors associated with these limit states are generally different. and 3. there are special strain requirements in way of the bonds for the containment system. a ship may be subjected to bending in the inclined position and to other forces. for LNG carriers. against the permissible stress (or allowable stress). The ultimate limit state is symbolized by the higher point (C) of the moment-curvature curve (M-Φ). Heretofore it has been difﬁcult to arrive at the minimum scantlings for a large ship’s hull by ﬁrst principles alone.qxd Page 18-35 4/28/03 1:30 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-35 failure through yielding will occur if the equivalent von Mises stress. 3. For example.46). The material yield strength may also be expressed through an equivalent stress at failure: σ0 = σyield (= σy). Three major failure modes are deﬁned: 1.4. the s1 factor is usually taken between 0. given by equation 45 exceeds the equivalent stress.95 σy = minimum yield point of the considered steel (mild steel. σο. compressive instability (buckling). tensile or compressive yield of the material (plasticity). high tensile steel. 4. Accordingly. vibration relates to service limit states. etc.2 Permissible stresses (Yielding) In actual service. fracture that includes ductile tensile rupture. for example: excessive deck deﬂection. which in turn can be expressed as equivalent stress requirements.6. functional or maintenance problem. fatigue life must be calculated and a reduced permissible stress may be imposed to prevent fatigue failure (see Subsection 18. collapse occurs later. from the viewpoint of structural design. corresponding to yielding of the material test specimen. Even if it is also a matter of discussion. In practice. σ0. namely: 1. and local cracking due to fatigue. such as those. giving the result: σe ≤ σ0 = s1 × σy where: s1 = partial safety factor deﬁned by classiﬁcation societies.5. it is important to differentiate service. Most of the time. ultimate limit state.6). Yield occurs when the stress in a structural member exceeds a level that results in a permanent plastic deforma- 18. Classically. [46] states. This section presents the basic types of failure modes and associated limit . but basically. and the degree or severity of the failure may vary from a minor esthetic degradation to catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the ship. classically. Typically they relate to aesthetic. First yield is sometimes used to assess the ultimate state. 2. A service limit state corresponds to the situation where the structure can no longer provide the service for which it was conceived. but do not lead to collapse. For local areas subjected to many cycles of load reversal.6. for instance for the ultimate hull bending moment. the margin against yield failure of the structure is obtained by a comparison of the structure’s von Mises equivalent stress. it seems more relevant to use for the steel structures four types of limit states.7. σe. ultimate. it must be assumed that the allowable stress includes an adequate factor of safety. yielding should be considered as a service limit state. elastic buckling in a plate.1. 2. 18. A classic example of ultimate limit state is the ultimate hull bending moment (Figure 18. A more elaborate description of the failure modes and methods to assess the structural capabilities in relation to these failure modes is available in Subsection 18. different permissible stresses may be speciﬁed for different parts of the hull structure. since the forces that the structure might be required to withstand in service conditions are uncertain. including collision and grounding. and accidental limit state. which depends on the loading conditions and method of analysis.85 and 0. service or serviceability limit state. For 20 years North Atlantic conditions (seagoing condition). or margin. for these uncertain loading factors. which induce torsion or side bending in the hull girder. 18.5 LIMIT STATES AND FAILURE MODES Avoidance of structural failure is the goal of all structural designers.

After removal of the load.6 ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY 18. slenderness. High-cycle fatigue involves several millions of cycles of relatively low stress (less than yield) and is typically encountered in machine parts rotating at high speed or in structural components exposed to severe and prolonged vibration.6. especially at low temperatures. after the accumulation of enough such damage. Level 4 (Figure 18.1 Failure Modes Classiﬁcation The types of failure that may occur in ship structures are generally those that are characteristic of structures made up of stiffened panels assembled through welding. rather than material strength. The word grillage should be reserve to a structure com- . with occasional periods of very high stress levels caused by storms.MASTER SET SDC 18. Vibration as well as noise is not a failure mode. The ultimate load that may be carried by a buckled plate is determined by the onset of yielding at some point in the plate material or in the stiffeners. In addition to these three failure modes. which may result in cracks being initiated after several thousand cycles. additional modes are: • collision and grounding. Once begun. Two categories of fatigue damage are generally recognized and they are termed high-cycle and lowcycle fatigue.6. Collision and Grounding is discussed in Subsection 18. 18. exceeding this load by a small margin will not necessarily result in complete collapse of the plate but only in an elastic deﬂection of the central portion of the plate away from its initial plane.44a) is the unstiffened plate between two longitudinals and two transverse frames (also called bare plate). Instability and buckling failure of a structural member loaded in compression may occur at a stress level that is substantially lower than the material yield stress.qxd Page 18-36 4/28/03 1:30 PM 18-36 Ship Design & Construction. in the case of a stiffened panel. up to and beyond yield. The term brittle fracture refers to the fact that below a certain temperature. the ability of the member to withstand loading is reduced below the level of the applied load. Figure 18. Fatigue failure occurs as a result of a cumulative effect in a structural member that is exposed to a stress pattern alternating from tension to compression through many cycles. This stress level is termed the material yield stress. Quality control during construction and in-service inspection form key elements in a program of fracture control. edge support conditions and material elasticity modulus. which grow slowly and which may often be detected and repaired before the structure is endangered. yield may propagate rapidly throughout the entire plate or stiffened panel with further increase in load. and • vibration and noise. Volume 1 tion of the material of which the member is constructed.7 and Vibration in Subsection 18. The prevention of brittle fracture is largely a matter of material selection and proper attention to the design of structural details in order to avoid stress concentrations. The most common example of an instability failure is the buckling of a simple column under a compressive load that equals or exceeds the Euler Critical Load.8. each cycle of stress causes some small but irreversible damage within the material and. Fatigue (Subsection 18. A plate in compression also will have a critical buckling load whose value depends on the plate thickness.6. the ultimate tensile strength of steel diminishes sharply (lower impact energy). The originating crack is usually found to have started as a result of poor design or manufacturing practice. termed the ultimate stress. failure is initiated in the form of small cracks. the plate may return to its original un-deformed conﬁguration (for elastic buckling). Concerning brittle fracture. small cracks suddenly begin to grow and travel almost explosively through a major portion of the structure. while it could fall into the serviceability limit state.6) is often found to play an important role in the initiation and early growth of such originating cracks. fracture of the material occurs.38 presents the different structure levels: the global structure. The load at which instability or buckling occurs is a function of member geometry and material elasticity modulus. Low-cycle fatigue involves higher stress levels. While many structural design criteria are based upon the prevention of any yield whatsoever. At a somewhat higher stress. usually a cargo hold (Level 1). and the selection of steels having a high degree of notch toughness. In contrast to the column. lateral dimensions. however. Conceptually. that is. In high-cycle fatigue. Exposure to such load conditions may result in the occurrence of low-cycle fatigue cracks after an interval of a few years. the orthotropic stiffened panel or grillage (Level 2) and the interframe longitudinally stiffened panel (Level 3) or its simpliﬁed modeling: the beam-column (Level 3b).6. These cracks may grow to serious size if they are not detected and repaired. Yield must be considered as a serviceability limit state. The loading environment that is typical of ships and ocean structures is of such a nature that the cyclical stresses may be of a relatively low level during the greater part of the time. it should be observed that localized yield in some portions of a structure is acceptable. The control of brittle fracture involves a combination of design and inspection standards aimed toward the prevention of stress concentrations.

MASTER SET SDC 18.qxd Page 18-37 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure

18-37

posed of a grid of beams (without attached plating). When the grid is ﬁxed on a plate, orthotropic stiffened panel seems to the authors more adequate to deﬁne a panel that is orthogonally stiffened, and having thus orthotropic properties. The relations between the different failure modes and structure levels can be summarized as follows: • Level 1: Ultimate bending moment, Mu, of the global structure (Figure 18.46). • Level 2: Ultimate strength of compressed orthotropic stiffened panels (σu), σu = min [σu (mode i)], i = I to VI, the 6 considered failure modes. • Level 3: Mode I: Overall buckling collapse (Figure 18.44d), Mode II: Plate/Stiffener Yielding Mode III: Pult of interframe panels with a plate-stif ener combination (Figure 18.44b) using a beam-column model (Level 3b) or an orthotropic model (Level 3), considering:

— plate induced failure (buckling) — stiffener induced failure (buckling or yielding) Mode IV and V: Instability of stiffeners (local buckling, tripping—Figure 18.44c) Mode VI: Gross Yielding • Level 4: Buckling collapse of unstiffened plate (bare plate, Figure 18.44a). To avoid collapse related to the Mode I, a minimal rigidity is generally imposed for the transverse frames so that an interframe panel collapse (Mode III) always occurs prior to overall buckling (Mode I). It is a simple and easy constraint to implement, thus avoiding any complex calculation of overall buckling (mode I). Note that the failure Mode III is inﬂuenced by the buckling of the bare plate (elementary unstiffened plate). Elastic buckling of theses unstiffened plates is usually not considered as an ultimate limit state (failure mode), but rather as a service limit state. Nevertheless, plate buckling (Level 4) may signiﬁcantly affect the ultimate strength of the stiffened panel (Level 3). Sources of the failures associated with the serviceability or ultimate limit states can be classiﬁed as follows: 18.6.1.1 Stiffened panel failure modes Service limit state • Upper and lower bounds (Xmin≤X≤Xmax): plate thickness, dimensions of longitudinals and transverse stiffeners (web, ﬂange and spacing). • Maximum allowable stresses against ﬁrst yield (Subsection 18.4.7) • Panel and plate deﬂections (Subsections 18.4.4.1 and 18.4.5.2), and deﬂection of support members. • Elastic buckling of unstiffened plates between two longitudinals and two transverse stiffeners, frames or bulkheads (Subsection 18.6.3), • Local elastic buckling of longitudinal stiffeners (web and ﬂange). Often the stiffener web/ﬂange buckling does not induce immediate collapse of the stiffened panel as tripping does. It could therefore be considered as a serviceability ultimate limit state. However, this failure mode could also be classiﬁed into the ultimate limit state since the plating may sometimes remain without stiffening once the stiffener web buckles. • Vibration (Sub-ection 18.6.8) • Fatigue (Sub-ection 18.6.6) Ultimate limit state (Subsection 18.6.4).

Figure 18.38 Structural Modeling of the Structure and its Components

• Overall collapse of orthotropic panels (entire stiffened plate structure),

MASTER SET SDC 18.qxd Page 18-38 4/28/03 1:30 PM

18-38

Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1

• Collapse of interframe longitudinally stiffened panel, including torsional-ﬂexural (lateral-torsional) buckling of stiffeners (also called tripping). 18.6.1.2 Frame failure modes Service limit state (Subsection 18.4.6). • Upper and lower bounds (Xmin ≤ X ≤ Xmax), • Minimal rigidity to guarantee rigid supports to the interframe panels (between two transverse frames). • Allowable stresses under the resultant forces (bending, shear, torsion) — Elastic analysis, — Elasto-plastic analysis. • Fatigue (Subsection 18.6.6) Ultimate limit state • Frame bucklings: These failures modes are considered as ultimate limit states rather than a service limit state. If one of them appears, the assumption of rigid supports is no longer valid and the entire stiffened panel can reach the ultimate limit state. — Buckling of the compressed members, — Local buckling (web, ﬂange). 18.6.1.3 Hull Girder Collapse modes Service limit state • Allowable stresses and ﬁrst yield (Subsection 18.4.3.1), • Deﬂection of the global structure and relative deﬂections of components and panels (Subsection 18.4.3.7). Ultimate limit state • Global ultimate strength (of the hull girder/box girder). This can be done by considering an entire cargo hold or only the part between two transverse web frames (Subsection 18.6.5). Collapse of frames is assumed to only appear after the collapse of panels located between these frames. This means that it is sufﬁcient to verify the box girder ultimate strength between two frames to be protected against a more general collapse including, for instance, one or more frame spans. This approach can be un-conservative if the frames are not stiff enough. • Collision and grounding (Subsection 18.6.7), which is in fact an accidental limit state. A relevant comparative list of the limit states was deﬁned by the Ship Structure Committee Report No 375 (32).

18.6.2 Yielding As explained in Subsection 18.5.1 yield occurs when the stress in a structural component exceeds the yield stress. It is necessary to distinguish between ﬁrst yield state and fully plastic state. In bending, ﬁrst yield corresponds to the situation when stress in the extreme ﬁber reaches the yield stress. If the bending moment continues to increase the yield area is growing. The ﬁnal stage corresponds to the Plastic Moment (Mp), where, both the compression and tensile sides are fully yielded (as shown on Figure 18.47). Yield can be assessed using basic bending theory, equation 29, up to complex 3D nonlinear FE analysis. Design criteria related to ﬁrst yield is the von Mises equivalent stress (equation 45). Yielding is discussed in detail in Section 18.4. 18.6.3 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Plates A ship stiffened plate structure can become unstable if either buckling or collapse occurs and may thus fail to perform its function. Hence plate design needs to be such that instability under the normal operation is prevented (Figure 18.44a). The phenomenon of buckling is normally divided into three categories, namely elastic buckling, elastic-plastic buckling and plastic buckling, the last two being called inelastic buckling. Unlike columns, thin plating buckled in the elastic regime may still be stable since it can normally sustain further loading until the ultimate strength is reached, even if the in-plane stiffness signiﬁcantly decreases after the inception of buckling. In this regard, the elastic buckling of plating between stiffeners may be allowed in the design, sometimes intentionally in order to save weight. Since signiﬁcant residual strength of the plating is not expected after buckling occurs in the inelastic regime, however, inelastic buckling is normally considered to be the ultimate strength of the plate. The buckling and ultimate strength of the structure depends on a variety of inﬂuential factors, namely geometric/material properties, loading characteristics, fabrication related imperfections, boundary conditions and local damage related to corrosion, fatigue cracking and denting. 18.6.3.1 Direct Analysis In estimating the load-carrying capacity of plating between stiffeners, it is usually assumed that the stiffeners are stable and fail only after the plating. This means that the stiffeners should be designed with proper proportions that help attain such behavior. Thus, webs, faceplates and ﬂanges of the stiffeners or support members have to be proportioned so that local instability is prevented prior to the failure of plating.

MASTER SET SDC 18.qxd Page 18-39 4/28/03 1:30 PM

Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure

18-39

Four load components, namely longitudinal compression/tension, transverse compression/tension, edge shear and lateral pressure loads, are typically considered to act on ship plating between stiffeners, as shown in Figure 18.39, while the in-plane bending effects on plate buckling are also sometimes accounted for. In actual ship structures, lateral pressure loading arises from water pressure and cargo weight. The still water magnitude of water pressure depends on the vessel draft, and the still water value of cargo pressure is determined by the amount and density of cargo loaded. These still water pressure values may be augmented by wave action and vessel motion. Typically the larger in-plane loads are caused by longitudinal hull girder bending, both in still water and in waves at sea, which is the source of the primary stress as previously noted in Subsection 18.4.3. The elastic plate buckling strength components under single types of loads, that is, σxE for σxav, σyE for σyav and τE for τav, can be calculated by taking into account the related effects arising from in-plane bending, lateral pressure, cut-outs, edge conditions and welding induced residual stresses. The critical (elastic-plastic) buckling strength components under single types of loads, that is, σxB for σxav, σyB for σyav and τB for τav, are typically calculated by plasticity correction of the corresponding elastic buckling strength using the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula, namely: σ E for σ E σB = σF σ F 1 − 4 σ E where: σE = elastic plate buckling strength ≤ 0.5 σ F for σ E > 0.5 σ F [47]

σB = critical buckling strength (that is, τB for shear stress) σF = σY for normal stress 4 = σY √3 for shear stress σY = material yield stress In ship rules and books, equation 47 may appear with somewhat different constants depending on the structural proportional limit assumed. The above form assumes a structural proportional limit of a half the applicable yield value. For axial tensile loading, the critical strength may be considered to equal the material yield stress (σY). Under single types of loads, the critical plate buckling strength must be greater than the corresponding applied stress component with the relevant margin of safety. For combined biaxial compression/tension and edge shear, the following type of critical buckling strength interaction criterion would need to be satisﬁed, for example:

c σ xav σ yav σ yav σ xav + −α σ xB σ yB σ yB σ xB

τ av + τ B

c

≤ η B [48]

c

where: ηB = usage factor for buckling strength, which is typically the inverse of the conventional partial safety factor. ηB = 1.0 is often taken for direct strength calculation, while it is taken less than 1.0 for practical design in accordance with classiﬁcation society rules. Compressive stress is taken as negative while tensile stress is taken as positive and α = 0 if both σxav and σyav are compressive, and α = 1 if either σxav or σyav or both are tensile. The constant c is often taken as c = 2. Figure 18.40 shows a typical example of the axial membrane stress distribution inside a plate element under predominantly longitudinal compressive loading before and after buckling occurs. It is noted that the membrane stress distribution in the loading (x) direction can become nonuniform as the plate element deforms. The membrane stress distribution in the y direction may also become non-uniform with the unloaded plate edges remaining straight, while no membrane stresses will develop in the y direction if the unloaded plate edges are free to move in plane. As evident, the maximum compressive membrane stresses are developed around the plate edges that remain straight, while the minimum membrane stresses occur in the middle of the plate element where a membrane tension ﬁeld is formed by the plate deﬂection since the plate edges remain straight. With increase in the deﬂection of the plate keeping the edges straight, the upper and/or lower ﬁbers inside the middle of the plate element will initially yield by the action of bending. However, as long as it is possible to redistribute

Figure 18.39 A Simply Supported Rectangular Plate Subject to Biaxial Compression/tension, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads

as shown in Figure 18. the possible yield loca- The maximum and minimum membrane stresses of equations 49a and 49b can be expressed in terms of applied stresses. resulting in a rapid increase of lateral plate deﬂection (33). Because of the nature of applied axial compressive loading. (a) Before buckling. (a) Yield at longitudinal mid-edges under longitudinal uniaxial compression. On the other hand. T: Tension. The effect of lateral pressure loads on the plate ultimate edge shear strength may in some cases need to be accounted for. Volume 1 Figure 18. (b) After buckling. by solving the nonlinear governing differential equations of plating. . Also. the plate ultimate edge shear strength.41 Possible Locations for the Initial Plastic Yield at the Plate Edges (Expected yield locations. Note that equation 44 is the linear differential equation. since the plate element can not keep the boundaries straight any further. (a) Yielding at longitudinal edges: σ 2 max − σ x max σ y min + σ 2 min = σ 2 x Y y (b) Yielding at transverse edges: Figure 18. The occurrence of yielding can be assessed by using the von Mises yield criterion (equation 45). The following conditions for the most probable yield locations will then be found. (c) After buckling. the plate element will not collapse. (b) Yield at transverse mid-edges under transverse uniaxial compression) tions are longitudinal mid-edges for longitudinal uniaxial compressive loads and transverse mid-edges for transverse uniaxial compressive loads. with τB instead of σB).41.MASTER SET SDC 18. based on equilibrium and compatibility equations. Collapse will then occur when the most stressed boundary locations yield. an empirical formula obtained by curve ﬁtting based on nonlinear ﬁnite element solutions may be utilized (33). unloaded edges kept straight [49a] σ 2 min − σ x min σ y max + σ 2 max = σ 2 y Y x [49b] the applied loads to the straight plate boundaries by the membrane action.40 Membrane Stress Distribution Inside the Plate Element under Predomianntly Longitudinal Compressive Loads. τu .qxd Page 18-40 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-40 Ship Design & Construction. C: Compression). unloaded edges move freely in plane. is often taken τu =τB (equation 47. lateral pressure loads and fabrication related initial imperfections.

respectively 18.MASTER SET SDC 18. the elastic plate buckling strength components under single types of loads may sometimes be calculated by neglecting the effects of in-plane bending or lateral pressure loads. for different conﬁgurations of rectangular plates in compression. which provides the plate ultimate strength components Here kc is a function of the plate aspect ratio. in the elastic range has been found for a number of cases of interest. Another approximate method is to use the plate effective width concept. as follows: c σ xav σ yav σ yav σ xav + −α σ xu σ yu σ xu σ yu τ av + τ u c ≤ η u [50] c where: α and c = variables deﬁned in equation 48 ηu = usage factors for the ultimate limit state σxu and σyu = solutions of equation 49a with regard to σxav and equation 49b with regard to σyav. the critical buckling shear stress. can also be obtain by equation 51 and the buckling coefﬁcient for simply supported edges is: kc = 5. without rotational restraints along the plate/stiffener junctions. D and E) where Boundary Conditions of Unloaded Edges are: SS: Simply Supported. the boundary conditions on the plate edges and the type of loading. kc = (1 + b2 / a2)2. For long plate in . but replacing the critical buckling strength components by the corresponding ultimate strength components. the last being usually regarded as a given constant secondary load. If the load is applied uniformly to a pair of opposite edges only. The theoretical solution for critical buckling stress. τB. This assumption is relevant when the unloaded edges move freely in plane as that shown in Figure 40(b).qxd Page 18-41 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-41 For combined biaxial compression/tension. B. σB . While the plate edges are often supposed to be simply supported. kc. the plate ultimate strength interaction criterion may also be given by an expression similar to equation 48.2 Simpliﬁed models In the interest of simplicity. α = a/ b. for 5 Conﬁgurations (2) (A. This arises from the increased torsional restraint provided at the plate edges in such cases.42 presents.3. for simply supported edges. that is. For the simpliﬁed prediction of the plate ultimate strength under uniaxial compressive loads. versus the aspect ratio. the resulting elastic buckling strength prediction would be pessimistic. namely σx max = σY for σxav or σy max = σY for σyav. edge shear and lateral pressure loads. Without considering the effect of lateral pressure. and for wide plate (a ≤ b) in compression. and if all four edges are simply supported. particularly for heavy stiffeners. one of the most common approaches is to assume that the plate will collapse if the maximum compressive stress at the plate corner reaches the material yield stress.42 Compressive Buckling Coefﬁcient for Plates in Compression. a/b. C: Clamped.6. For shear force. and F: Free [51] compression (a > b). which is taken as an integer satisfying the condition α = m (m + 1). then kc is given by: m α 2 kc = + α m [52] where m is the number of half-waves of the deﬂected plate in the longitudinal direction. For rectangular plate subject to compressive inplane stress in one direction: σB = kc 2 π2E t 12 (1 − ν 2 ) b Figure 18. kc = 4. the real elastic buckling strength with rotational restraints would of course be increased by a certain percentages. C.34 + 4(b/a)2 [53] Figure 18.

9 0. including an example of reliability-based design and alternative equations to equations 56 and 57. 18. When the panel size is relatively small compared to the entire structure.MASTER SET SDC 18. In addition. but for generality. the following stress components may normally be considered for the buckling control: σ1 = stress from primary response. biaxial in-plane bending and lateral pressure. double bottom bending). In a multiple load component case.9 = + 1− a a β β2 β2 where: σY β= b is the plate slenderness t E E = the Young’s modulus t = the plate thickness c1 . ECCS-56 (37). The stiffeners and webs/girders are attached to only one side of the panel.4. the effect of in-plane bending may not be negligible. this arrangement corresponds to a typical ship stiffened panels (Figure 18. Hughes (3) and Lewis (2). While a number of the plate effective width expressions have been developed. the design strength of plate (unstiffened panels) is detailed in Chapter 19. as shown in Figure 18. the buckling or ultimate strength must be greater than the corresponding applied stress component with an appropriate target partial safety factor.6. σy (buckling control). must therefore not to be included in the buckling control. and σ2 = stress from secondary response (that is.3. The number of load components acting on stiffened steel panels are generally of four types. As the lateral bending effects should be normally included in the buckling strength formulation.9 b 1. Volume 1 under uniaxial compressive stresses (σxu and σyu). c2 = typically taken as c1 = 2 and c2 = 1 The plate ultimate strength components under uniaxial compressive loads are therefore predicted by substituting the plate effective width formulae (equation 55a) into equation 54. namely biaxial loads.4 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Stiffened Panels For the structural capacity analysis of stiffened panels. for a large stiffened panel such as that in side shell of ships. If FE-analysis is performed the local plate bending stress. and local bending of plate (tertiary response). several stress combination must be considered. DNV (4) recommends: • maximum compression. as follows. τ (buckling control). for example. and • maximum equivalent von Mises stress. transverse webs and deep beams are designed with proper proportions and stiffening systems so that their instability is prevented prior to the failure of the stiffened panels they support. σe. it is presumed that the main support members including longitudinal girders. • for longitudinal axial compression (34). edge shear. respectively. Subsection 19. • absolute maximum shear stress. σx. a eu 0. • maximum compression. the inﬂuence of in-plane bending effects may be negligible. the structural safety check is made with equation 48 against buckling and equation 50 against ultimate limit state being satisﬁed.43. 1 for β < 1 b eu c2 = c1 b β − β 2 for β ≥ 1 • for transverse axial compression (35). the stiffeners are usually attached in one direction alone.5. as the maximum longitudinal and transverse [55b] [55a] . τ.3 Design criteria When a single load component is involved. since the panel may collapse by failure of stiff- where aeu and beu are the plate effective length and width at the ultimate limit state. σy. σ3. who suggests an empirical effective width (beu /b) formula for simply supported steel plates. For instance. a typical approach is exempliﬁed by Faulkner. However. stresses from local bending of stiffeners (secondary response). σ3. in a plate ﬁeld and phase angle associated with σx. as follow: σ yu σ xu b a = eu and = eu σY b σY a [54] compression do not occur simultaneously. In many ship stiffened panels. in a plate ﬁeld and phase angle associated with σy. can easily be excluded using membrane stresses.6. Bleich (36). σ2*. To ensure that the possible worst condition is met (buckling and yield) for the ship. the design criteria often consider that the panel can have stiffeners in one direction and webs or girders in the other. τ (buckling control). In order to get σx and σy. in a plate ﬁeld and phase angle associated with σx.43a).qxd Page 18-42 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-42 Ship Design & Construction.1. at given positions (yield control). that is compression or tension. More charts and formulations are available in many books. 18.

For analysis of the ultimate strength capacity of stiffened panels which are supported by longitudinal girders. (a) Elastic buckling of plating between stiffeners (serviceability limit state). material properties of the stiffeners including the yield stress are in some cases different from that of the plate. the stiffened panel typically behaves as an orthotropic plate. direct non-linear strength assessment methods using recognized programs is usual (38). at least approximately. (c) Lateral-torsional buckling of stiffeners (tripping—mode V). it is often assumed that the panel edges are simply supported. In this case. This idealization may provide somewhat pessimistic. with zero deﬂection and zero rotational restraints along four edges. and (b) A Generic Stiffened Panel (38). transverse webs and deep beams. (d) Overall stiffened panel buckling (grillage or gross panel buckling—mode I). It is therefore necessary to take into account this effect in the structural capacity formulations. the ultimate strength is eventually reached by failure of the most highly stressed stiffeners.43 A Stiffened Steel Panel Under Biaxial Compression/Tension. In stiffened panels of ship structures. mode III). The model should (a) (a) (b) (b) (c) (d) Figure 18. the largest values of the axial compressive or tensile stresses applied at the location of the stiffeners are used for the failure analysis of the stiffeners. Figure 18. but adequate predictions of the ultimate strength of stiffened panels supported by heavy longitudinal girders.qxd Page 18-43 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-43 eners which are loaded by largest added portion of axial compression due to in-plane bending moments. When the stiffeners are relatively stiff so that the plating between stiffeners buckles before failure of the stiffeners.44 Modes of Failures by Buckling of a Stiffened Panel (2). the average values of the applied axial stresses may be used by neglecting the inﬂuence of in-plane bending.MASTER SET SDC 18. transverse webs and deep beams (or bulkheads). When the stiffeners are relatively small so that they buckle together with the plating. . In this case. (b) Flexural buckling of stiffeners including plating (plate-stiffener combination. Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads. Biaxial In-plane Bending. (a) Stiffened Panel—Longitudinals and Frames (4). Today. with all edges kept straight.

44d). a few authors provide a complete set of formulations that cover all the feasible failure modes noted previously. and • grillage approach. here. because of the interplay of the various factors previously noted such as geometric and material properties. Formulations of Herzog. Mansour et al (41. the buckling and the ultimate strength is considered.6. • Mode II: Plate induced failure—yielding of the platestiffener combination at panel edges. This leads to the easier alternative wherein one calculates the ultimate strengths for all collapse modes mentioned above separately and then compares them to ﬁnd the minimum value which is then taken to correspond to the real panel ultimate strength.4.38. Hughes (3). This necessitates strength control for both plate induced failure and stiffener-induced failure. considering one or more of the failure modes among those mentioned above. stiffeners) and residual stresses can in some cases signiﬁcantly affect (usually reduce) the ultimate strength of the panel so that they should be taken into account in the strength computations as parameters of inﬂuence.1 Direct analysis The primary modes for the ultimate limit state of a stiffened panel subject to predominantly axial compressive loads may be categorized as follows (Figure 18. These approaches are similar to those presented in Subsection 18. Figure 18. which is usually an important failure mode that must be considered in design. loading. All have the same background but.MASTER SET SDC 18. and more recently Paik (38). The plate-stiffener combination approach (also called beam-column approach) models the stiffened panel behavior by that of a single “beam” consisting of a stiffener together with the attached plating. Hughes and Adamchack are also discussed.qxd Page 18-44 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-44 Ship Design & Construction. • Mode V: Stiffener induced failure—tripping of stiffener. and • Mode VI: Gross yielding. Assessment of different formulations by comparison with experimental and/or FE analysis are available (43-45). The failure mode of stiffened panels is a broad topic that cannot be covered totally within this chapter. 18.1 for linear analysis. level 3b). the Poisson ratio effect and the effect of the intersecting beams are all neglected. Many simpliﬁed design methods have of course been previously developed to estimate the panel ultimate strength. the stiffened panel is idealized as an equivalent orthotropic plate by smearing the stiffeners into the plating. The beam is considered to be subjected to axial and lateral line loads. 18.42). (31. The degree of accuracy of the beamcolumn idealization may become an important consideration when the plate stiffness is relatively large compared to the rigidity of stiffeners and/or under signiﬁcant biaxial loading. Dowling et al (40).4. Volume 1 be capable of capturing all relevant buckling modes and detrimental interactions between them. • Mode IV: Stiffener induced failure—local buckling of stiffener web. fabrication related initial imperfections (initial deﬂection and welding induced residual stresses) and boundary conditions. namely. The beam-column approach is useful for the computation of the panel ultimate strength based on Mode III. In the orthotropic plate approach. Stiffener induced failure: Deﬂection towards the plate associated with yielding in compression in top of the stiffener or torsional buckling of the stiffener. Some of those methods have been reviewed by the ISSC’2000 (39). The orthotropic plate theory will then be useful for computation of the panel ultimate strength for the overall grillage collapse mode (Mode I.6. Stiffened panels are asymmetric in geometry about the plate-plane. as representative of the stiffened panel (Figure 18.2 Simpliﬁed models Existing simpliﬁed methods for predicting the ultimate strength of stiffened panels typically use one or more of the following approaches: • orthotropic plate approach. • Mode III: Plate induced failure—ﬂexural buckling followed by yielding of the plate-stiffener combination at mid-span. Various column strength formulations have been used as .48). On the other hand.46.4. An example of reliability-based assessment of the stiffened panel strength is presented in Chapter 19. The characteristic buckling strength for the plate is to be used. Calculation of the ultimate strength of the stiffened panel under combined loads taking into account all of the possible failure modes noted above is not straightforward.44): • Mode I: Overall collapse after overall buckling. the collapse of stiffened panels is then usually postulated to occur at the lowest value among the various ultimate loads calculated for each of the above collapse patterns. As an approximation. The fabrication related initial imperfections in the form of initial deﬂections (plates. The torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel. • plate-stiffener combination approach (or beam-column approach). Plate induced failure: Deﬂection away from the plate associated with yielding in compression at the connection between plate and stiffener.4.

I. In most design rules of classiﬁcation societies. etc.067 λ 4 [56] and σu σ 1 ≤ 2 = E σY σY λ with b β= t Y σ E Figure 18. without considering an effective plating. based on existing mechanical collapse test data for the ultimate strength of stiffened panels under axial compression and with initial imperfections (initial deﬂections and residual stresses) at an average level. (m) b = spacing between 2 longitudinals. (m) a = span of the stiffeners.qxd Page 18-45 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-45 the basis of the beam-column approach. A stocky panel that has a high elastic buckling strength will not buckle in the elastic regime and will reach the ultimate limit state with a certain degree of plasticity. Figure 18. r.45 A Comparison of the Ultimate Strength Formulations for Plate-stiffener Combinations under Axial Compression (η relates to the initial deﬂection) . As an example of the latter type.188 λ 2 β 2 − 0. • Perry-Robertson formulation. and • empirical formulations obtained by curve ﬁtting experimental or numerical data. (m) Note that A.45 compares the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula (equation 47). relevant empirical formulae for plate-stiffener combination models are also available. (m4) A = cross section of the plate-stiffener combination with full attached plating.. . in the so-called Perry-Robertson formulation. the Perry-Robertson formula and the PaikThayamballi empirical formula (equation 56) for on the column ultimate strength for a plate-stiffener combination varying the column slenderness ratios. In usage of the Perry-Roberson formula.17 β 2 + 0. three of the more common types being the following: • Johnson-Ostenfeld (or Bleich-Ostenfeld) formulation.995 and λ= where: r = radius of gyration 4 = √I / A. slenderness ranges. the Paik-Thayamballi empirical formula for a plate-stiffener combination is given by: σu = σY 1 0. the strength expression assumes that the stiffener with associated plating will collapse as a beam-column when the maximum compressive stress in the extreme ﬁber reaches the yield strength of the material. On the other hand. uncertainty assessment and as constraint in optimization package. the ultimate strength formulations are developed by curve ﬁtting based on mechanical collapse test results or numerical solutions. In empirical approaches. Even if limited to a range of applicability (load types. (m2) t = plate thickness. (m) I = inertia.MASTER SET SDC 18. assumed level of initial imperfections. the so-called Johnson-Ostenfeld formulation is used to account for this behavior (equation 47). refer to the full section of the platestiffener combination. that is. While a vast number of empirical formulations (sometimes called column curves) for ultimate strength of simple beams in steel framed structures have been developed. the lower strength as obtained from either plate induced failure or stiffener-induced failure is adopted herein. Interaction between bending axial a πr σ Y = E σY σE + 0.936 λ 2 + 0. Paik and Thayamballi (49) developed an empirical formula for predicting the ultimate strength of a plate-stiffener combination under axial compression in terms of both column and plate slenderness ratios. Since the ultimate strength of columns (σu) must be less than the elastic column buckling strength (σE)..) they are very useful for preliminary design stage. with selected initial eccentricity and plate slenderness ratios.

The methods include the typical numerical analy- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Figure 18. Two major references related to the ultimate strength of hull girder are. Computation of Mu depends closely on the ultimate strength of the structure’s constituent panels. Accordingly. Yao (51) contains an historical review and a state of art on this matter.47 Typical Stress Distributions Used by Approximate Methods. torsional moment. to determine the global ultimate bending moment (Mu). Basically.46 shows that in sagging. the ultimate bending moment only corresponds to one of the feasible loading cases that induce hull girder collapse.4. Volume 1 compression and lateral pressure can. respectively. Today.6. that is. Mu and the curves M-φ. . or a single design criterion in terms of the real (minimum) ultimate strength components must be satisﬁed.6. (b) Sagging Bending Moment (c) Evans (d) Paik—Mansour (e) Figure 18. The ultimate bending moment (Mu) refers to a combined vertical and horizontal bending moments (Mv. One. These loads induce vertical and horizontal bending moment.47 shows several distributions corresponding to different methods. On the other hand. approximate analysis. both.6. stiffener induced failure or a combined failure of stiffener and plating (see Chapter 19 – Figure 19. Figure 18. one must know in advance • the ultimate strength of each compressed panel (σu). the approximate analysis. the deck is compressed (σdeck) and reaches the ultimate limit state when σdeck = σu. the safety check is similar to a plate. Figure 18. 18. σbottom = σ0 (σ0 being the yield stress).1 Direct analysis The direct analysis corresponds to the Progressive collapse analysis. against individual collapse modes I to VI noted above.11 ). using average applied stress components. leads to three-failure scenario: plate induced failure. 18. to perform a progressive collapse analysis. Either all of the six design criteria. the transverse shear forces (Vv. such as the Caldwell method. For an approximate assessment. Jensen et al (24) and Yao et al (50). For usual seagoing vessels axial force can be neglected. the progressive collapse analysis does not need to know in advance this distribution. vertical and horizontal shear forces and axial force.5 Ultimate Bending Moment of Hull Girder Ultimate hull girder strength relates to the maximum load that the hull girder can support before collapse. and particularly on the ultimate strength in compressed panels or components.46). (a) First Yield.5.3 Design criteria The ultimate strength based design criteria of stiffened panels can also be deﬁned by equation 50. On the other hand. Both present comprehensive works performed by the Special Task Committees of ISSC 2000. The applied axial stress components for safety evaluation of the stiffened panel following Modes II–VI behavior will use the maximum axial stresses at the most highly stressed stiffeners. within the same failure mode (Flexural Buckling—Mode III).MASTER SET SDC 18.Vh) not being considered.qxd Page 18-46 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-46 Ship Design & Construction. point C on Figure 18. Mu is considered as being a relevant design case. ultimate hull girder strength should be evaluated at different locations and for a range of bending moments and shear forces. 18. there exist two main approaches to evaluate the hull girder ultimate strength of a ship’s hull under longitudinal bending moments. The ﬁrst approach. is to calculate the ultimate bending moment directly (Mu. requires an assumption on the longitudinal stress distribution. but using the corresponding stiffened panel ultimate strength and stress parameters. For stiffened panels following Mode I behavior. the bottom is in tensile and reaches its ultimate limit state after complete yielding. Then. As the maximun shear forces and maximum bending moment do not occur at the same place. and • the average stress-average strain relationship (σ−ε). for extreme load and ultimate strength. only the ultimate strength of each compressed panel (σu) is required. Mh). and the other is to perform progressive collapse analysis on a hull girder and obtain.46 The Moment-Curvature Curve (M-Φ) Caldwell Modiﬁed (f) Plastic Bending Moment.

Today.49 Inﬂuence of Element Average Stress-Average Strain Curves (σ−ε) on Progressive Collapse Behavior.qxd Page 18-47 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-47 sis such as Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Idealized structural Element method (ISUM) and Smith’s method.49b.48): A convenient alternative to FEM is the Smith’s progressive collapse analysis (54). the modeling and analysis of a complete hull girder using FEM is an enormous task. Figure 18. Both material and geometrical nonlinearities can be considered. Step 3: To perform progressive collapse analysis. and (b) moment-curvature relationship of crosssection. A 3D analysis of a hold or a ship’s section is fundamentally possible but very difﬁcult to perform. These analyses have to be supplemented by information on the bending and shear loads that act at the fore and aft transverse loaded sections. a typical analysis may concern one frame spacing in a whole compartment (cargo tank). it is feasible to perform progressive collapse analysis on a hull girder subjected to longitudinal bending with ﬁne mesh using ordinary elements. It allows calculating the ultimate bending moment through a 3D progressive collapse analysis of an entire cargo hold. new elements to simulate the actual collapse of deck and bottom plating are actually underdevelopment.49a. FEM: is the most rational way to evaluate the ultimate hull girder strength through a progressive collapse analysis on a ship’s hull girder.48 The Smith’s Progressive Collapse Method (a) (b) Figure 18. Figure 18.MASTER SET SDC 18. Thus. the investigation committee on the causes of the Nakhodka casualty performed elastoplastic large deﬂection analysis with nearly 200 000 elements (53). Such Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has shown that accuracy is limited because of the boundary conditions along the transverse sections where the loading is applied. . Smith’s Method (Figure 18.1. Step 1: Modeling (mesh modeling of the cross-section into elements). For instance. For this reason the analysis is more conveniently performed on a section of the hull that sufﬁciently extends enough in the longitudinal direction to model the characteristic behavior. Nevertheless. This is because a ship’s hull is too large and complicated for such kind of analysis. can also be used to perform progressive collapse analysis. since 1983 results of FEM analyses have been reported (52). Step 2: Derivation of average stress-average strain relationship of each element (σ−ε curve). with the development of computers.7. Idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM): presented in Subsection 18. the position of the neutral axis along the length of the analyzed section and the difﬁculty to model the residual stresses. For that purpose. (a) Average stress-average strain relationships of element. which consists of the following three steps (55).3. However. Figure 18. which is a simpliﬁed procedure to perform progressive collapse analysis.

Yao and Nikolov (61. the average stress-average strain relationship (σ−ε) of this stiffener element is derived under the axial load considering the inﬂuences of buckling and yielding. tripping. Case D is the actual case. and the associated bending moment-curvature relationships (M-φ). stiffener ﬂexural buckling. Individual moments about the neutral axis are then summed to give the total bending moment for a particular curvature φi. Gordo and Guedes Soares (59. This peak value is deﬁned as the ultimate longitudinal bending moment of the hull girder (Mu). and speciﬁcally on its distance from the current position of the neutral axis (Yi). etc. Case C: With buckling but without strength reduction beyond the ultimate strength. interaction between adjacent elements.60) and. • vertical and horizontal curvatures of the hull girder are applied incrementally with the assumption that the plane cross-section remains plane and that the bending occurs about the instantaneous neutral axis of the cross-section. Volume 1 In Step 1.62). it is assumed that the structural components can continue to carry load after attaining their ultimate strength. and is linear. It frequently is used as a reference case (benchmark) by authors to validate methods. the element strength is limited by plate buckling. but the ultimate strength is different in the sagging and the hogging conditions. warping and racking are thus ignored. Beghin et al (57). where yielding takes place but no buckling. deviations such as shear lag. The collapse behavior (M-φ curve) is similar to that of Case B. Dow et al (58). typical element types are: plate element. the bending moment shows a peak value for a certain value of the curvature. As simple linear beam theory is used. and if it is not realized that the transverse frames can deﬂect/fail and signiﬁcantly affect the stiffened plate structure and hull girder bending capacity. Step 3 can be explained as follows: • axial rigidities of individual elements are calculated using the average stress-average strain relationships (σ−ε). For Cases C and D. the maximum bending moment is the fully plastic bending moment (Mp) of the cross-section and its absolute value is the same both in the sagging and the hogging conditions. the deck initially undergoes yielding and then the bottom. since ε = –y φ. where φ is the hull curvature and y is the distance from the neutral axis (simple beam assumption). etc. Many formulations and methods to calculate these average stress-average strain relationships are available: Adamchack (56). For Case C. which are: Case A: Linear relationship (elastic). the capacity of each structural member decreases beyond its ultimate strength. The accuracy of the calculated ultimate bending moment depends on the accuracy of the average stress-average strain relationships of individual elements.MASTER SET SDC 18. The contribution of each element (dM) depends on its location in the section. . The contribution will then also depend on the strain that is applied to it. Case D: With buckling and a strength reduction beyond the ultimate strength (actual behavior). In Case B. beam-column element (stiffener and attached plate) and hard corner. yielded regions spread in the side shell plating and the longitudinal bulkheads towards the plastic neutral axis. The average stress-average strain curve (σ-ε) will then provide an estimate of the longitudinal stress (σi) acting on the section.qxd Page 18-48 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-48 Ship Design & Construction.49 shows typical average stress-average strain relationships. The FEM can even be used to get these curves (Smith 54). Figure 18. since the buckling collapse strength is different in the deck and the bottom. Case B: Bi-linear relationship (elastic-perfectly plastic. With the increase in curvature. The M-φ relationship is free from the inﬂuences of yielding and buckling. In this case. Shortcomings and limitations of the Smith’s method relates to the fact that a typical analysis concerns one frame spacing of a whole cargo hold and not a complete 3D hold. Figure 18. and • incremental curvatures and bending moments of the cross-section as well as incremental strains and stresses of elements are summed up to provide their cumulative values. • ﬂexural rigidity of the cross-section is evaluated using the axial rigidities of elements. Main difﬁculties concern the modeling of initial imperfections (deﬂection and welding residual stress) and the boundary conditions (multi-span model. For most of the methods. In Step 2. the cross-section of a hull girder is divided into elements composed of a longitudinal stiffener and attached plating. In this case. • the corresponding incremental bending moments are evaluated and so the strain and stress increments in individual elements. without buckling).48 shows that the σ−ε curves are used to estimate the bending moment carried by the complete transverse section (Mi). This method may be a little un-conservative if the structure is predominantly subjected to lateral pressure loads as well as axial compression. An interesting well-studied ship that reached its ultimate bending moment is the Energy Concentration (63). Four typical σ−ε curves are considered.).

47). Caldwell introduced a stress reduction factor in the compression side of bending.MASTER SET SDC 18. found that initial yielding strength of the deck can provide in general a little higher but reasonably accurate estimate of the ultimate sagging bending moment. This may cause the overestimation of the ultimate strength in general (Case C. several authors have proposed empirical interac- tion equations to predict the ultimate strength. Based on the different sources of uncertainties (modela Mh + α M hu =1 b [57] . compressive stress cannot reach the yield stress. The ultimate bending moment is then the sum of individual moments of all elements about the plastic neutral axis. reduction in the capacity of structural members beyond their ultimate strength is not explicitly taken into account. and Caldwell Modiﬁed Methods. To estimate the extreme bending moment. To evaluate the ultimate longitudinal strength. In Caldwell’s Method. a simple method based on an Assumed Stress Distribution can be used to obtain a rough estimate of the ultimate bending moment. These in effect can provide a ﬁrst estimate of the ultimate hull girder moment. On the other hand. At later stages. collapse of the section. If buckling takes place at the compression side of bending.72). He introduced a so-called Plastic Design considering the inﬂuence of buckling and yielding of structural members composing a ship’s hull (Figure 18. Empirical Formulations: In contrast to all the previous rational methods. Mansour et al (47) proposes a=1. a more accurate method such as Progressive Collapse Analysis with calculated σ−ε curves (Smith’s Method) or ISUM has to be applied.67). The tracing out of a progressive collapse curve is replaced by the calculation of the ultimate bending moment for a particular distribution of stresses. 18. Such methods aim at providing an estimate of the ultimate bending moment without attempting to provide an insight into the behaviour before.IV). b=2 and α= 0. and more importantly. the plastic neutral axis is estimated using considerations of longitudinal equilibrium. Interactions: In order to raise the problem of combined loads (vertical and horizontal bending moments and shear forces).47). Regarding the wave bending moment.5. various methods can be applied ranging from simple to complicated methods. These methods were reviewed by ISSC (68) and are often formulated as equation 57.8 based on analysis on one container.66 and α= 1. and Gordo and Soares (60) 1. Each load component is supposed to act separately. high (H). one tanker and 2 cruisers. b and α = empirical constants For instance. but more precise discussions can be found in the ISSC 2000 report (24). Hu et al (69) has proposed similar formulations for bulk carriers.6. the initial buckling strength of the bottom plate gives a little lower but accurate estimate of the ultimate hogging bending moment. Each of them is characterized by an assumed stress distribution (Figure 18. He idealised a stiffened cross-section of a ship’s hull to an unstiffened cross-section with equivalent thickness. Figure 18. respectively. the value of the ultimate longitudinal bending moment (capability) has to be compared with the extreme bending moment (load) that may act on a ship’s hull girder.0 for tankers. On this basis. and the fully plastic bending moment (Mp) cannot be attained.2 Simpliﬁed models Caldwell (64) was the ﬁrst who tried to theoretically evaluate the ultimate hull girder strength of a ship subjected to longitudinal bending. The committee concluded that the appropriate methods should be selected according to the designer’s needs and the design stage. the most severe loading condition has to be selected to provide the maximum still water bending moment. It is assumed that at collapse the stresses acting on the members that are in tension are equal to yield throughout whereas the stresses in the members that are in compression are equal to the individual inelastic buckling stresses. Main sensitive model capability with regards to the assessment of ultimate strength can be ranked in 3 classes. The quality of the direct approximate method is directly dependent on the quality of the stress distribution at collapse. That is. In 2000. at early design stage.49).5<a=b<1.5. there are some empirical formulations usually calibrated for a type of speciﬁc vessels (66. after. and the bending moment produced by the reduced stress was considered as the ultimate hull girder strength. many of the available methods were examined and assessed by an ISSC’2000 Committee (50). Paik et al (70) proposes an empirical formulation that includes the shear forces in addition to the bending moments. the IACS uniﬁed requirement is a major reference (71. medium (M) and low (L) consequence of omitting capability (Table 18.qxd Page 18-49 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-49 18.6. Several authors have proposed improvements for the Caldwell formulation (65).3 Design Criteria For design purpose. The grading of each method with respect to each capability is quantitatively performed by scoring 1 through 5. Mv M vu where: Mv and Mh = vertical and horizontal bending moments Mvu and Mhu = ultimate vertical and horizontal bending moments a. Yao et al (50).

Since the ship-loading environment consists in large part of alternating loads.6. deﬁned by classiﬁcation societies. curvature incrementation).1 General Design criteria stated expressly in terms of fatigue damage resistance were in the past seldom employed in ship structural design although cumulative fatigue criteria have been used in offshore structure design. S (or ∆σ) that is expressed in terms of a stress intensity factor. It involves examining crack growth and determining the number of load cycles that are needed for small initial defects to grow into cracks large enough to cause fractures. The .6. This section gives an overview of feasible analysis to be performed. Today. The fatigue strength does not increase according to the yield strength of the steel.6. and • a combination of simpliﬁed and reﬁned techniques. Reliability-based fatigue procedure is presented by Ayyub and Assakkaf in Chapter 19.12 – Chapter 19) Impact H H H H H M M M H ing. and so on. Maddox (75). It was assumed that fatigue resistance is implicitly included in the conventional safety factors or acceptable stress margins based on past experience. the fatigue problem became more imminent. Model Capability Plate buckling Stiffened plate buckling Post buckling behavior Plate welding residual stress M-φ curve (post collapse prediction) Plate initial deﬂection Stiffener initial deﬂection Stiffener welding residual stress Multi-span model (instead of single span) (see Figure 19. To ensure that the structure will fulﬁll its intended function. reinforcements for openings in structural members and so on. A more complete description of the different fatigue procedures. which accounts for the magnitude of the stress. 18. Tools are available [58] but they are time consuming and there is large uncertainty of using simpliﬁed methods. The fracture mechanics approach is obviously more detailed than the S-N curves approach. The higher stress levels in modern hull structures using higher tensile steel have therefore led to a growing number of fatigue crack problems. For intact hull the design criteria for Mu. The growth rate is proportional to the stress range.IV Sensitivity Factors for Ultimate Strength Assessment of Hull Girder. is given by: MS + s1 Mw ≤ s2 MU where: s1 = the partial safety factor for load (typically 1.2 Basic fatigue theories Fatigue analyses can be performed based on: • simpliﬁed analytical expressions. • more reﬁned analysis where loadings/load effects are calculated by numerical analysis. the global uncertainty on the ultimate bending moment is usually large (55). fatigue is maybe the most sensitive point at the detailed design stage. These authors also have contributed to this section. ship structures are highly sensitive to fatigue failures.MASTER SET SDC 18. σ−ε curves. are given in: Almar-Naess (73). The Fracture Mechanics Approach is based on crack growth data assuming that the crack initiation already exists. current crack size.6. fatigue assessment should be carried out for each individual type of structural detail that is subjected to extensive dynamic loading. A bias of 10 to 15% must be considered as acceptable. fatigue considerations become more and more important in the design of details such as hatch corners. and weld and joint details.` There are generally two major technical approaches for fatigue life assessment of welded joints the Fracture Mechanics Approach and the Characteristic S-N Curves Approach. The initiation phase is not modeled as it is assumed that the lifetime can be predicted only using fracture mechanics method of the growing cracks (after initiation).qxd Page 18-50 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-50 Ship Design & Construction. DNV (4). K.85) MS = still water moment Mw = design wave moment (20 year return period) 18. stress concentration factors. Since 1990. Fricke et al (74). It should be noted that every welded joint and attachment or other form of stress concentration is potentially a source of fatigue cracking and should be individually considered. S-N curves.10) s2 = the material partial safety factor (typically 0. Niemi (76). With the introduction of higher tensile steels in hull structures.6. and later in local structures. In fact. at ﬁrst in deck and bottom to increase hull girder strength. Volume 1 TABLE 18. NRC (77) and Petershagen et al (78). fatigue is found to be independent of the yield strength.6 Fatigue and Fracture 18.

for instance. Sm [59] logN = log (∆A) – m log (∆σ) where: [62] ∆ = fatigue damage ratio (≤ 1) log(∆A) = intercept of the S-N curve of the Log N axis –1 / m = slope of the S-N curve. The S-N curve approach related mainly to the crack initiation and a maximum allowable crack size. equation 60 is treated as a stochastic differential equation and C is allowed to vary during the crack growth process. After.50). (Kmax – Kmin) C.qxd Page 18-51 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-51 basic equation that governs crack growth (79) is known as the Paris Law is: da = C . = ∆σ = σmax – σmin Y(a) = function of crack geometry. cracks propagate based on the fracture mechanics concept as shown in Figure 18. N = number of fatigue cycles (fatigue life).50 A Typical S-N Curve [61] Figure 18.51. in more sophisticated models.50) and on the assumption that fatigue damage accumulation is a linear phenomenon (Miner’s rule). ( ∆K) m dN where: a = crack size. (≅3 ≤ m ≤ ≅7) – Se= mean of the Miner’s equivalent stress range Se. According to Miner (82) the total fatigue life under a variety of stress ranges is the weighted sum of the individual lives at constant stress range S as given by the S-N curves (Figure 18. π a .Y(a) . State of art on the Fracture Mechanics Approach is available in Niemi (76) and Harris (81). N= ∆A m k S Se m Figure 18. Se (or the constant amplitude stress range for failure at N cycles) N = fatigue life.50). However. with equation 62 (Figure 18. ∆K = S. S = constant amplitude stress range. Se. range of stress intensity factor. Fatigue life prediction based on the fracture mechanics approach shall be computed according to the following equation: N= 1 C . or number of loading cycles expected during the life of a detail The Miner’s equivalent stress range. Fatigue life strength prediction based on both the S-N approach and Miner’s cumulative damage shall be evaluated with equation 61 or. with each being weighted according to fractional exposure to that level of stress range. m = crack propagation parameters.51 Comparison between the Characteristic S-N Curve and Fracture Mechanics Approach . The propagation is not explicitly considered by the S-N curve approach. information on ship’s routes and operating char- ∫a a 0 da Ym [60] Equation 60 involves a variety of sources of uncertainty and practical difﬁculties to deﬁne. The characteristic S-N curves approach is based on fatigue test data (S-N curves—Figure 18.MASTER SET SDC 18. the a and ao crack size. The most reﬁned model would start with a scatter diagram of sea-states. deﬁned at Table 18.V kS = fatigue stress uncertainty factor – ∆σ = kS. in logarithmic form.V (83). The crack propagation parameter C in this equation is treated as random variable (80). can be evaluated based on the models provided in Table 18.

it is important to note the deﬁnition of the different stress categories (Figure 18. The world wide sailing routes will therefore normally apply. Geometrical imperfections are deﬁned as misalignment. or on summation of damage from each short-term distribution in the scatter diagram (probabilistic and deterministic methods.qxd Page 18-52 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-52 Ship Design & Construction.50). one should consider the average wave environment the vessel is expected to encounter during its design life. etc. Some classiﬁcation societies use 90%. The design S-N curves are based on the mean-minus-two-standard-deviation curves for relevant experimental data (Figure 18. ship type.V).6. The stress range (S or ∆σ): The procedure for the fatigue analysis is based on the assumption that it is only necessary to consider the ranges of cyclic principal stresses in determining the fatigue endurance. consisting of weld discontinuities and geometrical deviations. location on ship. Volume 1 acteristics. will depend on the ﬁneness of the model. structural detail and weld geometry and workmanship. • strength deck in the midship region and forebody. This should be decided upon for each case. Under certain circumstances. Fatigue strength assessment shall normally be carried out for: • longitudinal and transverse element in: — bottom/inner bottom (side). represented by the distribution of Hs and Ts. ships. Time at sea: Vessel response may differ signiﬁcantly for different loading conditions. In practice. representing the sea operation conditions. Surface weld discontinuities are weld toe undercuts.6. for example. the actual probabilities of failure associated with fatigue design lives is usually higher due to uncertainties associated with the calculated stresses. Fatigue areas: The potential for fatigue damage is dependent on weather conditions. typically. This should be used as a reserve if the stress in special areas turns out to be larger than estimated at an earlier stage of the design. corrosion level. such as FEA. 18. and • other highly stressed structural details in the midship region and forebody. the wave exceedance diagram (deterministic method) and the spectral method (probabilistic method) can be employed (Table 18.2 will therefore lead to different levels of result processing in order to complete the fatigue calculations. However. It is therefore of major importance to include response for actual loading conditions. Environmental conditions: The long-term distribution of load responses for fatigue analyses may be estimated using the wave climate. overlaps. ∆. and use of a ship response computer program to provide a detailed history of stress ranges over the service life of the ship. Cumulative damage: The damage may either be calculated on basis of the long-term stress range distribution using Weibull parameters (simpliﬁed method). Nominal stresses are those. other loading conditions may be used. Effect of grinding of welds: For welded joints involving potential fatigue cracking from the weld toe an improvement in strength by a factor of at least 2 on fatigue life can be obtained by controlled local machining or grinding of the weld toe. Since fatigue is a result of numerous cyclic loads.52).3 Stress concentration and hot spot stress The stress level obtained from a structural analysis. Stress concentrations resulting from the gross shape of the structure. like panel knuckles. As guidance to the choice between these data sets. Geometric stresses include nominal stresses and stresses due to structural discontinuities and presence of attachments. For shuttle tankers and vessels that will sail frequently on the North Atlantic. but excluding stresses due to presence of welds. cracks. The potential danger of fatigue damage will also vary according to crack location and number of potential damage points. incomplete penetration. Note that grinding of welds should not be used as a “design tool”. and the critical value of the cumulative fatigue damage ratio. or in other harsh environments. derived from coarse mesh FE models. have to be included in the nominal stresses derived from stress analysis. The different analysis models described in Subsection 18. but rather as a mean to lower the fatigue damage when special circumstances have made it necessary. . angular distortion. some reduction in the fatigue damage accumulation can be credited when parts of the stress cycle range are in compression. S-N curves are obtained from fatigue tests and are available in different design codes for various structural details in bridges. They are thus associated with a 97.V). Geometrical imperfections: The fatigue life of a welded joint is much dependent on the local stress concentrations factors arising from surface imperfections during the fabrication process. — longitudinal and transverse bulkheads. less harsh environmental data may be applied.6% probability of survival. the wave data given in accordance with this should be applied. For such model.MASTER SET SDC 18. Table 18. For vessels that will sail in more smooth sailing routes. and offshore structures. shear lag effects. only the most frequent loading conditions are included in the fatigue analysis. In order to correctly determine the stresses to be used in fatigue analyses. These will normally be ballast and full load condition. the various S-N curve correction factors.7. excessive weld reinforcement and otherwise poor weld shapes.

The resulting K-factor to be used for calculation of notch stress is: K = K1 . However. should be evaluated before one of the approaches is chosen. Hot spot stress is the greatest value of the extrapolation to the weld toe of the geometric stress distribution immediately outside the region affected by the geometry of the weld (Figure 18.52) is only to be used for stresses that are derived from stress concentration models (ﬁne mesh). The notch stress may be calculated by multiplying the hot spot stress by a stress concentration factor.52). are included. is an analysis where all load effects from global and local loads. accuracy of the analysis. FE may be used to directly determine the notch stress. K5 where: K1 = stress concentration factor due to the gross geometry of the detail considered K2 = stress concentration factor due to the weld geometry (notch factor). for example the Spectral Model of Table 18. and must be separately accounted for. This is especially the case for areas where wave or tank pressures in the surface region are of major importance. a very ﬁne mesh is needed. K2 = 1.V. This is due to [65] The relation between the notch stress range to be used together with the S-N-curve and the nominal stress range is S = ∆σ = ∆σ notch = K . from the selection of factors for typical details. Notch stress is the total stress at the weld toe (hot spot location) and includes the geometric stress and the stress due to the presence of the weld. or. For components other than smooth specimens the notch stress is obtained by multiplication of the nominal stress by K-factors (equation 63). The K-factors in this document are thus deﬁned as K= σ notch σ nominal [63] the notch stress. there is unfortunately no standard procedure. ∆σ nominal [64] All stress risers have to be considered when evaluating Figure 18. are normally not included in FEA. however. K3 . Hence.52 Deﬁnition of Stress Categories (4) . etc. Load effects.4 Direct analysis Several S-N fatigue approaches exists. because of the small notch radius and the steep stress gradient at a weld. K2 . This is ensured by use of stress concentration models and direct load transfer to the structural model. The stress extrapolation procedure is speciﬁc to each classiﬁcation societies (74). they all have advantages and disadvantages. K4 . In practice. This can be done by multiplication of Kfactors arising from different causes. The method may. Hot spot stress extrapolation procedure: The hot spot stress extrapolation procedure (Figure 18. The different approaches are therefore suitable for different areas. or more precisely the theoretical notch factor. computer demands. for instance (equation 65). applicable when the nominal stress is derived from simple beam analyses Fatigue cracks are assumed to be independent of principal stress direction within 45° of the normal to the weld toe. all stress components are combined using the correct phasing and without simpliﬁcations or omissions of any stress component. K2 (equation 65). Nominal stresses found from other models should be multiplied with appropriate stress concentration factors (equation 65). The notch stress range governs the fatigue life of a detail. Effects caused by fabrication imperfections as misalignment of structural parts. Today. alternatively. This method usually will be the most exact for determination of fatigue damage and will normally be used together with ﬁne meshed stress concentration models.qxd Page 18-53 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-53 Stresses derived from ﬁne mesh FE models are geometric stresses.MASTER SET SDC 18.6.6. 18. using. Full stochastic fatigue analysis: The full stochastic analysis.5 if not stated otherwise K3 = additional stress concentration factor due to eccentricity tolerance K4 = additionally stress concentration factor due to angular mismatch K5 = additional stress concentration factor for un-symmetrical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels. the stress concentration factors (K-factors) may be determined based on ﬁne mesh FE analyses. not be suitable when non-linearities in the loading are of importance (side longitudinals).

MASTER SET SDC 18. the pressures for all panels of the 3-D diffraction model. bending moments. Wave Exceedance Diagram (Deterministic Method) m Se = ∑ f i S im i nb → Se = m ∑ f i S im i nb Si = stress range Fi = fraction of cycles in the ith stress block nb = number of stress block 2. Spectral Method (Probabilistic Method) m Se = λ(m) tions by use of load/stress ratios. cut-outs and standard hopper knuckles) and areas where side pressure is of importance. 104 cycles. are available (longitudinals. K1. The derived extreme stress response is combined with a calculated Weibull shape parameter. The simpliﬁed design wave approach (Weibull Model. Hi = transfer function for the load component i. This simpliﬁed approach only requires the consideration of one load case. k. Hi. axial force. Suitable areas are components where geometric stress concentration factors. Hi. ∆σ. for the stress response should be determined from the long-term distribution of the dominating load calculated in the hydrodynamic analysis. the internal tank pressures.qxd Page 18-54 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-54 Ship Design & Construction. ∑ AiHi i [66] (2 2 ) f0 m m Γ + 1 2 ∑ γ i f i σ im i λ(m) = rainﬂow correction Γ(. for example. Suitable areas concern components where one load is dominating the response.V) is a simpliﬁcation to the previous component based stochastic fatigue analyses. The Weibull shape parameter. normally include the global hull girder bending sectional forces and moments. to deﬁne the long-term stress range distribution (Table 18. are combined to a total stress transfer function. by a linear complex summation of the different transfer functions (4). The resulting stress range. In this simpliﬁed approach.V). the extreme load response effect over a speciﬁed number of load cycles. that is.) = gamma function γι = fraction of time in ith sea-state fi = frequency of wave loading in ith sea-state σι = RMS of stress process in ith sea-state 3. as: Hσ = where: Ai = stress per unit axial force deﬁned as the local stress response in the considered detail due to a unit sectional load for load component i.6. that is. making it difﬁcult to modify the stress caused by one of the load effects. Table 18. Ησ = total transfer function for the combined local stress. This approach enables the use of separate load factors on each load component and thus includes loads non-linearities. (83) 1.) = gamma function k = Weibull shape parameter Nd = total number of stress ranges in design life the fact that all load effects result in one set of combined stresses. The approach is suitable for areas where the stress concentration factors are unknown (knuckles.6. Few load cases have to be analyzed and it is possible to use simpliﬁed formulas for the area of interest but errors are easily made in the combination of stresses. bracket and ﬂange terminations of main girder. The stress transfer functions. deck areas and other areas without local loading. It is easy and fast to perform but it can only be used if one load dominates the response and the results are very sensitive to selection of design wave.V Commonly Used Expressions for Evaluating Miner’s Equivalent Stress Range (Se). k. 18. Weibull Model for Stress Ranges (Simpliﬁed Method) m Se = ∑ i nb m fi Si → Se = m ∑ f i S im i nb Sd = stress range that is exceeded on the average once out of Nd stress cycles Γ(. is determined. Hi (equation 66).5 Simpliﬁed models The stress component based stochastic fatigue analysis: The idea of the stress component based fatigue analysis is to change the direct load transfer functions calculated from the hydrodynamic load program into stress transfer func- . is then representative for the stress at a probability level of exceedance of 10-4 per cycle. Volume 1 TABLE 18. Hσ. stiffeners subjected to large relative deformations). twisting and lateral load. plating. manual deﬁnition of extra load cases may cause errors and simpliﬁcations are usually made in loading. The load transfer functions.

bulk oil. the integrity of a structure can be checked in two steps. More detailed information is available in Chapter 29 on Oil Tanker. so that the ship can be towed to safe harbor or a repair yard as may be required.MASTER SET SDC 18. the containment of dangerous or pollutant cargoes. and to make sure that the main safety functions of ship structures are not impaired to a signiﬁcant extent during any accidental event or within a certain time period thereafter. crude oil. that the owner had lost payload during 20 years. valuable references are Ohtsubo et al (86).5).1 Present design approaches The OPA 90 and equivalent IMO requirements must be satisﬁed in structural design of ships carrying dangerous or pollutant cargoes. Simpliﬁed models for collision are rather different from those of grounding since both are different in the nature of the mechanics involved. and • hull girder ultimate strength of damaged ships (Section 18.6.5+DWT/20 000 (m) or w =2.qxd Page 18-55 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-55 18.6. Figure 18. but in no case is the height to be less than 1.2 Direct analysis To reduce the probability of outﬂow of hazardous cargo in ship collisions and grounding. tearing and yielding. while post-accident effects such as likely oil outﬂow are evaluated in the second step. is how to arrange or make the scantlings of strength members in the implicated ship structures such that the initial kinetic energy is effectively consumed and the structural performance against an accident will be maximized. 18.6. It usually is taken as being 20 years. OPA and IMO also require that the minimum width. OPA 90 and IMO both require that the minimum vertical height. Structural performance of a ship against collision or grounding can be measured by: • energy absorption capability.6. • spillage amount of hazardous cargo. that is.0 m. the structural detail scantlings were globally overestimated. the hull weight too high and. ﬁre and explosion. For this purpose. and the integrity of critical spaces (reactor compartments of nuclear powered ships or tanks in LNG ships) at the greatest possible levels. Design acceptance criteria may be based on the following parameters (87): .6. the designer’s target is to design structural details for which the fatigue failure happens after. and environmental pollution. it is also necessary keep the residual strength of damaged structures at a certain level. and Kaminski et al (39).0 (m).6. w. therefore.6. If it happens before. where DWT is the deadweight of the ship in tonnes.53 shows direct design procedures of ship structures against collision and grounding (85). the structural crashworthiness of ships in collisions and grounding must be analyzed using accurate and efﬁcient procedures (84).6. and to minimize the release/outﬂow of cargo. whichever is the lesser. additional stress concentration factors and the stress extrapolation procedure are typically deﬁned by the classiﬁcations societies. For the accidental limit state design. In the ﬁrst step.7 Collision and Grounding 18.0 (m). whichever is the lesser. for example. liqueﬁed gas. for example.3 Simpliﬁed models Since the response of ships in collision or grounding accident includes relatively complicated behavior such as crushing. To facilitate a rescue mission.7. 18. the structural performance against design accident events will be assessed. Of crucial importance. The primary concern of the accidental limit state design in such cases is to maintain the water tightness of ship compartments. 18. • maximum penetration in an accident.0 m or B/15 (B = ship’s beam). h. of each double bottom ballast tank or void space is not to be less than 2. As it is impossible to describe them in a limited space. 18. and double sides of a required minimum width.7.7.6 Design criteria The standard fatigue design criterion is basically the expected lifetime before that signiﬁcant damage appears (cracks). for instance. to reduce the outﬂow of pollutant cargoes in ship collision or grounding accident. the ﬁxing cost is very high and induces owner losses. many simpliﬁed models useful for predicting accident induced structural damages and residual strength of damaged ship structures have been developed and continue to be successfully used. chemicals. Partial safety factors. Then. of each wing ballast tank or void space is not to be less than 0. The primary requirements are to arrange a double bottom of a required minimum height.7. However.4 Design criteria The structural design criteria for ship collisions and grounding are based on limiting accidental consequences such as structural damage. If the ﬁrst failure only happens after 30 years or later. existing simpliﬁed methods are not always adequate. then. In no case is w to be less than 1. before the inner shell in contact with the cargo can rupture. 20 years. the kinetic energy loss during the accident should be entirely absorbed by damage of outer structures. In this context.

qxd Page 18-56 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-56 Ship Design & Construction. Reciprocating machinery such as large main propulsion diesel produce important forces at low frequency. • ship speed above which a critical event (breaching of cargo containment) happens.MASTER SET SDC 18. resonant behavior will happen. .53 Structural Design Procedures of Ships for Collision and Grounding (85) • minimum distance of cargo containment from the outer shell. If their frequencies coincide with the structure eigen frequencies. the oil outﬂow following an accident is limited. Volume 1 Figure 18. Vibrations are not explicitly covered by class rules but their prediction is needed to achieve a good design. • allowable quantity of oil outﬂow. 18. deﬁned by classiﬁcation societies. Excitation may originate within the ship or outside the ship by external forces.8 Vibration 18. All these forces can be approximated by a combination of harmonic forces. or • if the cargo tanks are breached.8. minimizing a second chance of pollution.6. Varying hull pressures associated with waves belong also to external excitations. And the design results must satisfy: • cargo tanks/holds are not breached in an accident so that there will be no danger of pollution.6. and • minimum values of section modulus or ultimate hull girder strength. Pressure ﬂuctuations due to propeller at blade rate frequency induce pressure variation on the ship’s hull.1 Present Vibration Design Approaches The traditional design methodology for vibration is based on rules. Ship structures are excited by numerous dynamic oscillating forces. and/or • the ship has adequate residual hull girder strength so that it will survive an accident and will not break apart.

Fluid added mass: Hull girder vibrations induce dis- placement of the surrounding ﬂuid. and short and non-prismatic structures (tug.8 2.8 7. catamaran. So. As a ﬁrst approximation. Lumped mass approach is the simplest one (89) but is only valid for simple prismatic slender shapes. If they do occur. the remedial action will probably be very costly. This phenomenon can be taken into account for the hull girder modes and frequencies calculation as added mass terms. Added mass terms may also be needed for the vibrations of tank walls.0 13 — — Figure 18.54 shows a ﬂuid-structure coupled FE-model of a 230 m long passenger vessel using 150 000 degrees of freedom.) associated with lumped added mass models. cruise ship). Various methods to assess the ﬁrst hull girder frequency can be used at preliminary design stage.).8 5.8 Tug 7.9 2.0 — — VLCC 0.2 Hz Fast monohull LNG 1. for the sea keeping analyses (wave induced motions and loads).VI Typical Values of the First Hull Girder Frequencies (in Hertz) Order (mode) 1 2 3 4 Large Cruise ship 1. Springing may occur for long and/or ﬂexible ships and for high speed craft and it increases the number of cyclic loads contributing to human fatigue. Risk of springing (occurring when ﬁrst hull girder frequency equals wave encounter frequency) has to be detected very early.2 Fluid structure interaction Fluid structure interaction is evidenced in the dynamic behavior of ships. during early design.0 Hz 1. and to propeller and engine excitation.54) and numerical simulations are today predictable with good accuracy (91).MASTER SET SDC 18. Fluid ﬁnite and semi-inﬁnite elements or boundary integral formulation lead to the calculation of more accurate added mass matrices (90).6 Hz 3. container ships.6.9 — — 0. and for a single mode. where hull girder frequency can be close to the propulsion excitation (around 7Hz).VI gives some typical values of the ﬁrst hull girder frequencies in Hz of some ship types. The local deformation of the impacted shells and plating inﬂuences the TABLE 18. Engine/propeller vibration induced: Resonance problems may also appear on small ships like tugs. Table 18. etc. Wave vibration induced: An early determination of hull girder vibration modes and frequencies is important to avoid serious problems that would be difﬁcult to solve at a later stage of the project.5 Hz 2. High vibration levels contribute to human fatigue and dysfunction. Hull girder frequencies and modes should be computed using approximate empirical formulae (88). allow for an accurate determination of hull girder modes and frequencies.7 — — Frigate 1.8 1.54 Fluid/Structure FE-Model of a Passenger Vessel (Principia Marine.9 3. Figure 18. or using 3D ﬁnite element models for complex ships (RO-RO.qxd Page 18-57 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-57 It is of prime importance to avoid global main hull vibrations. Various methods can be used for the determination of added mass term. 18. etc. simple beam models for long prismatic structures (VLCC. Therefore imparting kinetic energy in the ﬂuid. A difﬁcult coupled problem is the ﬂuid impact occurring in slamming or due to sloshing in tanks. The corresponding methods and associated software are available for industrial usage (Figure 18. France) . especially for complex hull forms and appendices study (rudder). LNG. besides the discomfort aspect. the hull girder frequencies must be compared to wave excitation (springing risk).8. the ship is considered as a rigid body. Added mass matrices associated with 3D ﬁnite element model of the structure.

Local analyses also have to be performed. superstructure. including journal and bearing stiffness and whirling effect (95). Dedicated software has also been written for the study of shafting. The Figure 18. though its industrial importance for the design of ship structures (92).6. radar mast. detect possible resonance. air trapped in such an impact may have a cushioning effect. when local modes can be considered as decoupled from global hull girder modes. This can be achieved by balancing all forces in reciprocating and rotary machinery and using special mounts. The main difﬁculty is the determination of the time and space dependent slamming forces.8. they are of little use for simpliﬁed vibration predictions. 18. The numerical simulation of those heavily coupled problems still belongs to the research domain.MASTER SET SDC 18. 18. Prediction of stress ﬂuctuations and vibration levels in var- ious parts of the ship can only be performed by simulation in the time domain based on 3D detailed ﬁnite element models (Figure 18. Beam models associated to database can be used for an approximate determination of hull girder modes and frequencies at early stage of the project.6. Ship owners demand very low vertical velocity levels incabins and public areas (less than 1. A good design. etc. which affects comfort and fatigue. Volume 1 pressures and ﬂuid velocities.8. Moreover.6. Hydrodynamic forces can be reduced by improving the ﬂow around the propeller and siting it clear of the hull.8. The main difﬁculty is to perform this analysis early enough in a very short design cycle. location of pillars. Numerical simulation using 3D ﬁnite element models is the only method to predict ship response (including the various frequency modes) to pressure ﬂuctuation on the ship hull. Decks.55 Hull Girder Vibration—Mode #3 (Principia Marine-France) . and select the number of propeller blades. Excitation frequencies can also be modiﬁed by changing the number of propeller blades. Propulsion using pods can dramatically reduce pressure ﬂuctuations. avoiding cantilevered and stiff or mass discontinuities. based on ﬁnite element models to check the potential risk of vibration of local areas. Decks zones and equipment frequencies may also be estimated by formulas given by reference books (94).qxd Page 18-58 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-58 Ship Design & Construction. appendices (rudder.4 Simpliﬁed models Unfortunately.55).5 Design criteria The most effective way to control vibration resides in the reduction of the excitation. Slamming impacts generate impulsive response of the hull girder (whipping).) can be analyzed to check scantling and avoid the risk of resonance. softening its severity. Such simulation is now used as a design tool to select appropriate scantlings of decks.3 Direct analysis Vibration problems are critical for passenger ships with typically a 12-Hertz blade excitation.2 mm/s in the 5-25 Hz frequency band). contributes to improving the dynamic behavior of the ship. ensuring continuity of vertical bulkheads. 18.

In addition to the classic failure modes of steel and aluminum structures presented in Subsection 18. In compression. etc.9. More general information related to passenger vessels is available in Chapter 37 – Passenger Ships and in reference 68. excessive corrosion and fatigue (77). Local modes determination is difﬁcult at early stage of the design mainly due to the uncertainty on mass distribution. materiel properties. In bending. This means that the basic beam bending formulation is no valid (equation 29). 18.1. Excepted for the integral tanks. Reduction of unavoidable vibration levels can be achieved for local vibrations by dynamic isolation for equipments. Use of multicell structures in side shell and double bottom is recommended. 18. Today. The main reasons were a lack of maintenance. these legs require a particular attention. passive damping solutions (ﬂoating ﬂoors on absorbing material). The complexity of large passenger ships.6.4 Passenger vessels Ship strength analysis is based on a beam model. When supported by legs. Dilatation.qxd Page 18-59 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-59 second action consists in avoiding resonance by modiﬁcation of the hull scantlings. tightness and thermal isolation are important aspects. there are the crimping. the torsional moment distribution must be assessed with care.3 Bulk carriers Casualty of bulk carriers was very high in the early 1990s.9. Due to the large openings and discontinuities. Integral tanks form a structural part of the ship’s hull and are inﬂuenced in the same manner by wave loads. only applicable for local vibrations and nearly impossible for vibrations due to global modes. and addition of pillars. skin wrinkling and dimpling of the honeycomb cores (Figure 18. high-speed vessels and ships sailing in ice conditions. Torsional strength and limitation of the equivalent stress (equation 45) at the hatch corners are the major issues in the evaluation of the strength of main hull structure. Rational approach is necessary to get a realistic understanding of the ﬂux of forces and capture the complex behavior of such ships. 18. Design methodology. with a low resistant deck and wide openings. 18. Moreover. membrane tanks. Moreover. for composites. windows and openings in the side induces a much more complex behavior. composites are subject to speciﬁc failure modes.5 Composite material Fiberglass boat building started in the 1960s. 18. Now.1 LNG Tanks General information on such ships is available in Chapter 32 – Liqueﬁed Gas Carriers.6.MASTER SET SDC 18.9 Special Considerations In addition to the considerations for LNG tank.9. All these curative actions are usually difﬁcult.2 Container ships The design of container ships of 5000 and 6000 TEU having a beam of 40m has increased the standard torsional problem of ships having a large open deck. As hatch covers are not considered as hull strength members.9. costly. The creep behavior and the long-term damage from 18. The general characteristics of container ships are detailed in Chapter 36 – Container Ships. designers are trying to plan composite construction of ships up to 100 meters in length.55).35). the vertical stress distribution is not linear (Figure 18. semi-membranes tanks and integral tanks. Weak point of these ships is the lower part of the side plate at the junction with the bilge hopper.9. omission of hatch covers does not impose any partic- . and dynamic energy absorbers. For architectural reason. The general design practice on bulk carriers is detailed in Chapter 33 – Bulk Carriers. micro and macro mechanic of composites and failures modes are deeply discussed.6.6. Due to large opening in the side shells.6.6. container ship. lounge.56). ISSC committees 1997 and 2000 also provide valuable information on speciﬁc ship types. There are several patented concepts: independent tanks. 3D FEA is usually carried out to design large passenger vessels (Figures 18. bulk carrier and passenger vessel. pillars are often omitted in large public areas (theater. ular effects in the structural design of a main hull structure. A comprehensive guide for the design of ship structures in composites is the Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-403 of Greene (96).6. Today. non-structural mass (outﬁtting and equipments) being of the some order of magnitude as the steelwork part. in order to increase or lower the eigen frequencies. that is. instead of the traditional ﬁrst yield bending moment. classiﬁcation societies are aware about this problem and had updated their rules and associated structural details. special considerations are available in Volume II of this book. the tanks are selfsupporting and are not essential to the hull strength. the design limit load corresponds to the ﬁrst ply failure. racking and stress concentration are two major concerns. Major structural concerns deal with the tanks themselves and with their support legs. These ships contain usually a double hull (sides and bottom).).54 and 18.

as almost all the classiﬁcation societies base their rules on a net scantling. (b) Core shear failure. 18. The main difﬁculty for the use of aluminum use deals with its mechanical properties after welding. The modulus of elasticity of aluminum alloys is one-third of steel.7. . The design. a ship is a one of a kind product. 18. study and production cycle is very short and major decision have to be taken very early in the project. (e) Buckling. For bulk carriers. the marine behavior.70 kN/m3 for aluminum and 7. The yield stress of aluminum alloys may decrease signiﬁcantly after welding (remains at 125 MPa for ALU 5083-O but drop to 140 MPa for ALU 5083-H321). It is well known that the cost of a late modiﬁcation is very high and such a situation has to be avoided. This is an economic choice and not a structural problem. The yield stress of unwelded aluminum alloys can be comparable to mild steel (235 MPa) but changes drastically from one alloy to another (125 MPa for ALU 5083-O and 215 MPa for ALU 5083-H321). The area close to a weld is called Heat Affected Zone (HAZ).qxd Page 18-60 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-60 Ship Design & Construction. even if their origins are dynamic (ﬂow induced).6. for which the structural weight is very important to reach higher speed (for high speed mono hull. which is approximately 3 times higher that mild steel ($/kg). The good extruding capability of aluminum alloys has to be enhanced through scantling standardization. Despite the aforementioned shortcomings aluminum alloys will be more extensively use in the future for the de- sign of fast vessels.9. Loads are assessed separately of the strength structure and.1 Static and quasi-static analysis Static and quasi-static analysis represents the traditional way to perform stress and strength analysis of a ship structure. and their performance in ﬁres are other speciﬁc structural problems of composites. Fire strength is another concerns when using aluminum alloys as it quickly loses its strength when the temperature rises. the reduced speciﬁc weight of aluminum (2. etc. Nevertheless. 18. A review of the performance of composite structures is proposed by Jensen et al (98).MASTER SET SDC 18.70 kN/m3 for steel) is a very interesting property for a ship designer. stiffened panels. The difference between the reduced thickness and the actual one is usually ﬁxed by the classiﬁcation but can also change according to the owner requirements. Shipbuilding is clearly moving in the same direction. 18.9. Numerical analysis clearly is needed to improve the design (innovation) but also to control safety margins. For marine applications ALU 5083. the alloy selection must be done with care with regard to the yield strength before and after welding. even if limited series may exist in some cases. etc. It is characterized by reduced strength properties. which is not possible with simpliﬁed methods. catamaran and trimaran vessels). Thus. 5086 and 6061 can be used.1.1 Motivation for Numerical Analysis In most of the cases. (g) Face dimpling. it gives access to local and detailed analysis. Volume 1 water. The concept of numerical mock up. This assumption may be correct for the hydrostatic pressure but Figure 18.7 Corrosion Corrosion does not present a structural design problem. they are assumed to be static (do not change with the time). thickness reduction due to corrosion is generally assumed to be 5 mm for hold frames and 3 mm for side shell plating.7 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN 18. Also experience-based design can be an obstacle to the introduction of innovation.56 Potential Failure Modes of Sandwich Panels (100). (h) Local indentation. (c-d) Face wrinkling. Moreover. UV and temperature. the mechanical and strength properties of aluminum change a lot with the alloy composition and the production processing.6. (f) Shear crimping. This means that the thickness to consider in analysis (for empirical formulations up to complex FEA) is the reduced thickness (without corrosion allowance) and not the actual thickness.6 Aluminum structures Compared to steel.7. the welding and extruding capabilities. (a) Face yielding/fracture. HAZ is particularly important to assess the buckling and ultimate strength of welded components such as beam-column elements. That helps to lower to production cost ($/man-hour) and compensate the initial higher material cost of aluminum. used in aerospace and car industry has proven its efﬁciency.

associated with increasing demand for accuracy. especially for one of a kind product. and stress concentration models. as it is easier and faster to perform. 18. Progress is expected by the utilization of reliability methods already used in offshore industry. In the future. The results of such costly and difﬁcult analysis are often used to calibrate simpliﬁed methods or rules. initial stresses and strains. whereas experimental approach is nearly impossible and/or too costly. collisions. safety aspects related to structural problems will also be tackled such as ultimate strength using nonlinear methods. The trend is toward one structure description.7.1. The model or sets of models applied is to give a proper representation of the following structure: . Moreover. Hydro-elasticity methods (102) aim taking into account the interaction of the ﬂexible ship structure with the surrounding water. possible dynamic problems can be detected early enough in the design to allow for corrective actions.1. This philosophy can be applied to fatigue and ultimate strength. In the future. diffraction radiation effects contribute to the complexity of the problem. it is very often late in the design and building stage and even in service. fatigue and fracture analysis.7. In traditional sea keeping analysis. used in car crash simulation (101).4 Emerging trends Like the automotive and aerospace industry. will be adapted to speciﬁc aspects of ship structure (size and presence of ﬂuid). Such analysis is also the standard procedure for fatigue assessment to determine the hot spot stress through ﬁne mesh FEA. The ﬁrst difﬁculty is to establish an efﬁcient model of complex physical problems. geometrical defaults. vibration and acoustics analysis.1.4). cargo hold model. the vibration level. 18. This is the ﬁeld for multiphysics and coupling analysis. uncertainties and stochastic nature of loads. blast). material properties are deﬁned as stochastic (non deterministic) data.7. local structure models. is clearly a way to achieve this. ultimate strength and accidental or extreme situations (explosions. frame and girder models. but also to dynamic response. The simulation of catamaran. Numerical mock up or virtual ship approach (97). Collision and grounding damages and improved design to increase ship safety will be studied by numerical simulation. less sensitive to defaults.MASTER SET SDC 18. the ship is considered as a rigid body. 18. this hypothesis is no more valid and a part of the energy is absorbed by ship deformation. Simpliﬁed methods can only predict the ﬁrst hull girder modes frequencies. Advances are expected in the ﬁeld of FE-modeling. leading to a more robust design. one model and several applications. But they are also very useful to understand possible failure modes and mechanical behavior under severe loads. Reliability-based analyses using probabilistic concept are presented in Chapter 19. trimaran and fast monohulls behavior need the development of new methods to take into account the high velocities and the complex 3D phenomena. giving a design tool to comply with ISO or ship owner requirements. leading to the calculation of a probability of failure.qxd Page 18-61 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-61 not when the dynamic wave loads are changed to static loads applied on the side plates of the hull. Numerical ﬁnite element based simulation is mature enough to predict up to second propeller harmonic. The base modeling will be re-used and adapted to perform successively. and corrective actions are costly. 18. where uncertainties and dispersions of the loads. even if the assumption of static loads is not veriﬁed.2 Dynamic analysis When problems occur on a ship due to dynamic effects. The second difﬁculty is the manpower needed to prepare and check the models. tens of experience years have shown that they provide accurate results when stresses and deﬂections assessment are the main target (as deﬁned in Section 18.3 Nonlinearities analysis Nonlinear structural analysis is mainly used to analyze buckling. In addition. Explicit codes. grounding.2 Finite Element Analysis The main aim of using the ﬁnite element method (FEM) in structural analysis is to obtain an accurate calculation of the stress response in the hull structure. there is a clear trend towards the reduction of design cycle time. Required computing power is available and will no longer be a constraint. Several types or levels of FE-models may be used in the analyses: • • • • • global stiffness model. In coupled problems such as slamming situations.7. static analysis will continue to be performed. and vulnerability assessment. • • • • static. Nonlinear effects due to bow and aft part of the ship. imperfections. ship velocity. which will be solved by the development of integrated solutions for ship description and modeling (99). buckling and ultimate strength analysis.

As a standard practice.7. and • transverse shear and bending. The minimum element sizes to be used in a global structural model (coarse mesh) for 4–node elements (ﬁner mesh divisions may of course be used and is welcomed. Flanges may be modeled using beam and truss elements.MASTER SET SDC 18. and • plating: 1 element between 2 longitudinals. 3-node elements should be used instead. and longitudinals or other structural stiffeners. torsion of the hull girder. Volume 1 • • • • longitudinal plating.1 Structural ﬁnite element models Global stiffness model: A relatively coarse mesh that is used to represent the overall stiffness and global stress distribution of the primary members of the total hull length. meaning that the coarser models have meshes producing deformations and/or forces applicable as boundary conditions for the ﬁner mesh models. The scantling is to be modeled with reduced scantling. The ﬁner mesh models are usually referred to as submodels. The mesh density of the model has to be sufﬁcient to describe deformations and nominal stresses from the following effects: • vertical hull girder bending including shear lag effects. Web and ﬂange properties are to be according to the real geometry. The shape of 4-node elements should be as rectangular as possible as skew elements will lead to inaccurate element stiffness properties.2. The element formulation of the 4-node elements requires all four nodes to be in the same plane. These models may be solved separately by transfer of boundary deformations/ boundary forces from the coarser model. • horizontal hull girder bending including shear lag effects.59 Frame and Girder Model (Web Frame). Stiffened panels may be modeled by means of layered elements. that is. corrosion addition is to be deducted from the actual scantling.qxd Page 18-62 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-62 Ship Design & Construction. it is recommended to use 4-node shell or membrane elements in combination with 2-node beam or truss elements are used. (4) . Figure 18.57. the mass of these elements shall nevertheless be included (for vibration). It is important to have a good representation of the overall membrane panel stiffness in the longitudinal/transverse directions. • girders: 3 elements over the height. stringers/girders. The performance of the model is closely linked to the type of elements and the mesh topology that is used. specially with regard to sub-models): • main model: 1 element between transverse frames/girders.57 Global Finite Element Model of Container Vessel Including a 4 Cargo Holds Sub-model (4). anisotropic elements or frequently by a combination of plate and beam elements. • vertical shear distribution between ship side and bulkheads. This requires that the various mesh models are compatible. Structure not contributing to the global strength of the vessel may be disregarded. 18. transverse bulkheads/frames.58 Cargo Hold Model (Based on the Fine Mesh of the Frame Model). Typical models are shown in Figure 18. 1element between structural deck levels and minimum three elements between longitudinal bulkheads. Double curved surfaces should therefore not be modeled with 4-node elements. All girder webs should be modeled with shell elements. Figure 18. (4) Figure 18.

This implies that element sizes in the order of the plate thickness are to be used for the modeling.7. As an example. the areas to model are normally the following for a tanker: • longitudinals in double bottom and adjoining vertical bulkhead members. Several FEA benchmarks of such structural details were performed by ISSC technical committees (68. The magnitude of the stiffener bending stress included in the stress results depends on the mesh division and the element type that is used. These stresses can then be used either directly in the fatigue assessment of given details or as a basis for derivation of stress concentration factors. it will normally be convenient to combine the two analyses into one model. (4) Figure 18. The FEM is basically reliable but many sources of errors can appear. 2 or 8 elements). This model may be included in the cargo hold model.58.59). Stresses in laterally loaded local plates and stiffeners subjected to large relative deformations between girders/frames and bulkheads may be necessary to investigate along with stress increase in critical areas. using FEM. • double side longitudinals and adjoining horizontal bulkhead members. Variation is usually around 10% but is sometime much larger. However. or run separately with prescribed boundary deformations/forces.103). FE stress con- centration models are generally very sensitive to element type and mesh size. For this reason.60 Stiffener Bending Stress with FEM (from left to right: using 1. Frame and girder models: These models are used to analyze nominal stresses in the main framing/girder system (Figure 18.qxd Page 18-63 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-63 Cargo hold model: The model is used to analyze the deformation response and nominal stresses of the primary members of the midship area. mainly induced by inappropriate modeling and wrong data.61 Stress Concentration Model of Hopper Tank Knuckle (4) .2. Typical models are shown in Figure 18. The model will normally cover 1/2+1+1/2 cargo hold/tank length in the midship region.61. A typical detail is presented Figure 18. Stress concentration models are used for fatigue analyses of details were the geometrical stress concentration is unknown. They assess the uncertainties of different FE packages associated with coarse and ﬁne mesh models. The aim of the FE analysis is normally not to calculate directly the notch stress at a detail. the element size in way of the hot spot may have to be reduced to half the plate thickness in case the overall geometry of the weld is included in the model representation. such as brackets with continuous ﬂanges. • hatch corner openings. Uncertainties related to FEA An important issue in structural analysis is the veriﬁcation of the analysis.2.MASTER SET SDC 18. • deck longitudinals and adjoining vertical bulkhead members. If solid modeling is used. One element between ﬂoors results in zero stiffener bending. different Figure 18. but to calculate the geometric stress distribution in the region of the hot spot. if sufﬁcient computer capacity is available. is dependent on the mesh size for 4-node shell elements. and • corrugations and supporting structure. Local structure analyses are used to analyze stresses in local areas.60 shows that the stiffener bending stress. Two elements between ﬂoors result in a linear distribution with approximately zero bending in the middle of the elements. Figure 18. Local FE analyses may be used for calculation of local geometric stresses at the hot spots and for determination of associated K-factors to be used in subsequent fatigue analyses (equation 63). 18. The element mesh is to be ﬁne enough to describe stress increase in critical areas (such as bracket with continuous ﬂange).

2. a weak feature of the conventional FEM is that it requires enormous modeling effort and computing time for non-linear analysis of large sized structures. sub-model boundary displacement/forces. The load transfer can be checked on basis of the structural response or on basis on the load transfer itself. Mesh modeling is discussed in ISSC’2000 by Porcari et al (103). columns. Classiﬁcation Societies also present technical reports and guidelines associated with their own direct analysis package (Table 18. ship structures can be involved in highly non-linear response associated with yielding. Fixation points are often applied in the centerline close to the aft and the forward ends of the vessel. Hundreds of papers are published yearly. two other approaches are presented. crushing and sometimes rupture of individual structural components. at the preliminary design stage.7. • models. Veriﬁcation of loads: Inaccuracy in the load transfer from the hydrodynamic analysis to the structural model is among the main error sources in this type of analysis. • loads and load transfer. in mechanical engineering. Properly formulated structural units or super elements in such an approach can then be used to efﬁciently model the actual non-linear behavior of large structural units. Hughes (3) proposes in Chapter VI and VII of his book published by SNAME an easy way to learn FEM that does not require knowledge of variational calculus or of FEM. which is a type of simpliﬁed non-linear FEM. The ﬁxation points should be located away from areas where stresses are of interest. The boundary conditions for the global structural model should reﬂect simple supporting to avoid built in stresses. buckling. global sectional forces. Sumi et al (68) presents ﬁnite element guidelines and a comprehensive review of the available software. Modeling the object structure with very large sized structural units is perhaps the best way to do that. Many commercial packages are available including pre and post processors and many books are published each year on the subject.7. Such an approach (30. the LBR-5 package founded on the analytical solution of the governing differential equations of stiffened plates is a convenient alternative to standard FEA. However.105) allows structural design optimization to be performed at the earliest design stage but does not have the capability to perform detailed analysis including stress concentration and non-linear analysis. stress levels and distribution. Veriﬁcation of response: The response should be veriﬁed at several levels to ensure correctness of the analysis: • • • • • • global displacement patterns/magnitude. it is necessary in the ISUM approach to develop various ISUM units 18. However. civil engineering.7. rectangular plates and stiffened panels. Since ship structures are composed of several different types of structural members such as beams. One important step in the veriﬁcation is the understanding of the physics and check of deformations and stress ﬂow against expected patterns/levels. For instance. Both are general purpose oriented. • analysis.3. and • strength calculations. • assumptions and simpliﬁcations made in modeling/ analysis. These should be listed such that an evaluation of their inﬂuence on the results can be made.qxd Page 18-64 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-64 Ship Design & Construction. etc. • results. local displacement patterns/magnitude. Veriﬁcations of structural models: Assumptions and simpliﬁcations will have to be made for most structural models. ISSC. most efforts in the development of new non-linear ﬁnite element methods have focused on reducing modeling and computing times. is one of such methods (106). and reaction forces and moments.MASTER SET SDC 18. Therefore.3 FEM background Today the ﬁnite element method is studied worldwide in universities.104). The idealized structural unit method (ISUM). The most obvious way to reduce modeling effort and computing time is to reduce the number of degrees of freedom so that the number of unknowns in the ﬁnite element stiffness equation decreases. Quite accurate solutions of the non-linear structural response can be obtained by application of the conventional FEM. It is not the purpose of this chapter to present the FE theory and a state of art. naval architecture. Volume 1 levels of veriﬁcation of the analysis should be performed in order to ensure trustworthiness of the analysis results. 18. 18. namely: the idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM) and the Boundary Element Method (BEM).VIII). Many others exist but they are usually dedicated to a special purpose. For instance.3 Other Numerical Approaches As an alternative to FEA. Veriﬁcation must be achieved at the following steps: • basic input. The Ship Structure Committee Reports (SSC 387 and 399) contains also Guideline for FEM (43. This topic is reviewed periodically by . all levels of veriﬁcation are important in order to verify the results.1 Idealized structural unit method (ISUM) When subjected to extreme or accidental loading.

qxd Page 18-65 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-65 for each type of structural member in advance.64 show typical FEM and ISUM models for the non-linear analysis. With the existing standard ISUM elements.7. Figure 18. while the conventional FEM uses a mesh (ﬁnite elements) over the entire domain (or volume). More recent developments of BEM together with the basic Figure 18. For a recent state-of-the-art review on ISUM theory and applications to ship structures. ISUM is also not adequate for linear stress analysis.62 Cantilever Box Girder Figure 18.63 and 18. 18. for instance. that is. the main difﬁculty is that computation of the post-collapse behavior in the structural elements beyond their ultimate strength as well as the ﬂexural-torsional collapse behavior of stiffeners is not very successful. Since the publication of an early book on BEM. The former type element cannot be used for the purpose of latter type analysis and vice versa. 108). it is necessary to formulate/develop ISUM elements speciﬁcally. by including buckling and collapse behavior for ultimate strength analysis or by including tearing and crushing for collision strength analysis. BEM typically uses an appropriate numerical integration technique so that the problem is discretized by dividing only the boundary of the integral domain into a number of segments or boundary elements. while higher degree boundary elements must be used for modeling an integral domain with more complex characteristics with the integration generally needing to be carried out numerically.MASTER SET SDC 18. Usage of ISUM is limited to some speciﬁc problems and is not a general-purpose methodology. ISUM elements accommodating post-collapse behavior have previously been already developed but improvements are under development to better accommodate such behavior (107. For a speciﬁc problem with a relatively simple boundary domain. The ISUM super elements so developed are typically used within the framework of a non-linear matrix displacement procedure applying the incremental method. linear or ﬂat boundary elements may be employed so that analytical solutions for the integral equations can be adopted. and sets of stiffness matrices representing the non-linear relationship between the nodal force vector and the nodal displacement vector until the limit state is reached.2 Boundary Element Method (BEM) In contrast to FEM. To solve a problem that involves the boundary integral equations. inside as well as its boundary.65 shows typical FEM and BEM models for analysis of a pressure vessel (109). many engineering applications using BEM have been achieved. The non-linear behavior of each type of structural member is idealized and expressed in the form of a set of failure functions deﬁning the necessary conditions for different failures which may take place in the corresponding ISUM unit. Figure 18. the boundary element method (BEM) is a type of semi-numerical method involving integral equations along the boundary of the integral domain (or volume). In contrast to FEM. the reader is referred to Paik and Hughes (107).3. new closed form expressions of the ultimate strength can be directly utilized by replacing in the existing ISUM element the previous ultimate strength formulations with the new ones.63 A Typical FEM Model for NonLinear Analysis of the Cantilever Box Girder Figure 18. ISUM is very ﬂexible.62 shows a cantilevers box girder and Figures 18.64 A Typical ISUM Model for Nonlinear Analysis of the Cantilever Box Girder . In fact.

4 Presentation of the Stress Result After performing an analysis. such as. Numerical values should also be presented for highly stressed areas or locations where openings are not included in the model. linear or ﬂat boundary elements along the boundary of the integral domain can be used so that we don’t have to carry out numerical integration. inner side including hopper tank top. (a) Typical BEM model.5 Relevant Structural Analysis Methods for Speciﬁc Design Stages Shipbuilding design ofﬁces face very challenging situations (especially for passenger and other complex ships).6. for ﬂuidstructure interaction. shear stresses (_) and equivalent von Mises stress (σe) of the following elements: — — — — — — — bottom. the following stresses are to be presented: (b) • Equivalent stress of plate/membrane elements. otherwise the integration results may not be accurate. to calculate the integral equations using BEM.8. BEM may be more appropriate for linear analysis of solids and for ﬂuid mechanics problems. Author: Please advise what symbold is needed. inner bottom. including ﬂuid ﬂow and diffusion (for example. and for cases in which the integral domain extends to inﬁnity. In this regard. For example. (a) • Axial stress of free ﬂanges. While there are some problem areas to overcome in use of BEM for non-linear analysis. the presentation of the stress and deformation is very important. appropriate numerical techniques should be used. in the form of ISO-stress contours in general. It should be based on stresses acting at the middle of element thickness. side shell. to design the cathodic corrosion protection systems for ships.2). excluding plate-bending stress. deck. For parts of the vessel covered by the local model. and (b) Typical FEM model. resulting in higher accuracy of the results. bending moments and shear forces for beam elements. BEM can also be applied to problems other than stress or temperature analysis.MASTER SET SDC 18. cargo hold model and frame and girder models: • deformed shape for each loading condition.7. • In-plane maximum normal stresses (σx and σy) in the global axis system. • Axial stress of truss elements. with the region of interest extending to inﬁnity. • Deformation of supports for longitudinals subject to large relative deformation when applicable. However.qxd Page 18-66 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-66 Ship Design & Construction. offshore structures and pipelines. Main advantages of BEM are due that very complex expressions of integral equations can be adopted. longitudinal and transverse bulkheads. • Deformations of supporting brackets for main frames including longitudinals connected to these when applicable. BEM can be involved in the usage of more reﬁned mathematical treatment than FEM. If analytical solutions are available the required computing times will be very small and the accuracy high. and longitudinal and transverse girders. • Axial forces.7.65 A Typical FEM/BEM Model for Analysis of the Pressure Vessel (109). The products are one-of-a-kind or at least on short series and the resulting ships are designed and built within two years . it has been suggested that BEM should be employed. Figure 18. The following results should be presented for parts of the vessel covered by the global model. Nevertheless as the required computational times with the BEM is in general signiﬁcant. 18. it has been recognized that BEM is a powerful alternative to FEM particularly for problems involving stress concentration or fracture mechanics. For most linear problems. 18. Subsection 18. Volume 1 idea may be found in Brebbia and Dominguez (109).

The shipyard must be sure that no technical problem will appear later on. etc. Another impact on design activities that is also challenging is that the design overlaps the production.7.VIII). It is very versatile and may be applied to various types of analysis: • global and local strength. Research Institutes and Universities. Classiﬁcation Societies. They mainly use empirical or semi-empirical formulas.5. pressures.1 Basic design The Basic Design is the design activities performed before order. to avoid extra costs not included in the contract.). To clarify the actual situation. 18.2 Production design The most popular method for structural analysis at the production design stage remains the Finite Elements Analysis (FEA). ShipRight PrimeShip BOSUN . The most time consuming task for analysis is the data input. inertias.qxd Page 18-67 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-67 for 20 to 30 years of operation. forced response to the propeller excitation. etc. • Global vibration levels prediction. There are three kinds of early analysis: 1.VIII Classiﬁcation Society Tools Overview (110) Classiﬁcation Society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Bureau Veritas (BV) Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Germanisher Lloyd (GL) Korean Register of shipping (KRS) Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LR) Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK) Product ABS Safe Hull VeriSTAR Electronic Rulebook & Nauticus HULL GL-Rules & POSEIDON KR-RULES. contact. The more detailed are the data more accurate the results. The idea is to include main surfaces and actual scantlings (or from the main section when not available) in a 3D model that can be achieved in one or two weeks. This phase does not overlap with the production but is very short and will become the technical basis for the contract. This is TABLE 18. Two-dimensional (or almost 2D) geometry-based methods: These methods are based on one or more 2D views of the ship sections. loadings are applied (bending moments. • global and local vibration analysis (natural frequencies with or without external water. and • collision and grounding studies. 3. implicit method is used to solve large problems (both linear and non linear) with a matrix-based method. etc. The two main approaches for solving the physical problem are: 1.5. These methods are dedicated to an assessment of the global behavior of the ship. • fatigue life cycle assessment.VII Timing of a Design Project Basic Design Concept Design Preliminary Design Contract Design Receive Order Production Design Complete Functional Design Production Design 1 or 2 months 6–10 months 1 or 2 days About 1 week Months TABLE 18. Simple three-dimensional models: These models are useful when a more detailed response is needed. a common view of the design workﬂow for a commercial ship in the shipyard is shown in Table 18. • Ultimate strength determination. • ultimate strength. • Global strength assessment. This method is commonly used by Shipyards. 2. This approach is mainly dedicated to novel ship designs for which the feedback is rather small.VII. All major Classiﬁcation Societies provide today the designer with such tools (Table 18. and • detailed stress for local fatigue assessment. geometry. First principles methods: Very simpliﬁed geometric representation of the structure. and possibly local.). — Various signiﬁcant sections are described as beam cross section properties (areas.).7. 18.MASTER SET SDC 18. The expected results may be: • Veriﬁcation of main section scantlings.) and then the ship is represented by a beam with variable properties on which global loading is applied. • analysis of various non-linearities (material. etc. KR-TRAS Ruleﬁnder. and • Early assessment of fatigue Two main approaches exist: — The main section of the ship is modeled a 2D way (including geometry and scantlings) then global. The structural analysis carried out in this phase must be as fast as possible because the allocated time is short.

and to improve the hull shape considering the ﬂuid-structure interaction.MASTER SET SDC 18. On the other hand. • Production Design: Optimization can be used for three main purposes: — Scantlings optimization. So the main efforts today are focused on reducing the modeling time. The aim of optimization is to give the designers the opportunity to change design variables (such as thickness. • F(Xi).7. the designer can optimize the scantlings. However. the modeling time is usually assumed to be 70% of the overall calculation time and results exploitation 30%. Catley et al (115). a reduction in structural labor cost achieved by simplifying construction methods may still be worthwhile even if this is obtained at the expense of increasing the steel weight. — Shape optimization (111). • Xi min ≤ Xi ≤ Xi max upper and lower bounds of the Xi design variables: technological bounds (also called side constraints). the objective function to minimize. Figure 18. and 2. • Cj(Xi) ≤ CMj (j = 1. It can be used for instance to ﬁnd out the minimal scantlings for a novel ship for which the yard have a lack of feedback.66. M). It is included today in many software tools and many designers are using it. discrepancies in the thickness…) to provide the designer with a level of reliability for a given result instead of a deterministic value. Minimizing weight is of particular importance in deadweight carriers. Weight is the most usual objective function for structure optimization. shape or topology) to design a better structure for a given objective (lower weight or cost). which gives the user the minimum scantlings for a given structure. — Topology optimization (112) which uses a given scantlings and allows the user to ﬁnd out where to put material. for example. Hughes (3) and Chapter 11 of this book also contain valuable information on structure optimization. N). required area of material (reducing holes in a plate for instance).66 Topology Optimization . Vanderplaats (113).6 Optimization Optimization is a ﬁeld in which much research has been carried out over a long time.qxd Page 18-68 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-68 Ship Design & Construction. which uses a given topology and scantlings to provide the user the minimum. cost is becoming the usual objective function for optimization (124). The computation itself is regarded as negligible (excepted for explicit analysis). in ships required to have a limited draft. it is well know that the lowest weight solution is not usually the lowest acquisition cost. But it can also be applied to non linear calculations when the time step remains rather large (about 1/10 to 1 second). This method allows using different formulations for structural elements (Lagrangian) and ﬂuid elements (Eulerian). This approach introduces uncertainties within the model (non planar plates. Volume 1 the favored method for solving global and local linear strength and vibration problems.1 Scantling optimization procedure A standard optimization problem is deﬁned as follows: • Xi (i = 1. and in fast ﬁne lined ships. Rigo (105) presents extensive review of ship structure optimization focusing on scantling optimization. 18. number and cross section of stiffeners. For the other ship types it is still desirable to minimize steel weight to reduce material cost but only when this can be done without increasing labor costs to an extent that exceeds the saving in material costs. One interesting result from research that is being introduced today is the reliability approach (see Chapter 19).6. the N design variables. Today. For FEA models. explicit method is mainly used for fast dynamics (as collision and grounding or explosion) where time step is quite smaller. residual stresses from welding. and Sen and Yang (114) are standard reference books about optimization techniques. An academic example of topology optimization is given on Figure 18. The number of longitudinals and the frame spacing for a given cargo hold/tank can also be optimized (105). 18. Optimization can be performed both at basic and production design stages: • Basic Design: Even with simpliﬁed models. the M structural and geometrical constraints.7. passenger vessels.

etc. Geometrical constraints that impose relationships between design variables in order to guarantee a functional. 18.). strength and stability treatises. stress. to in-plane loads (compression/tensile and shearing). the web thickness of a stiffener and X2. the ﬂange thickness. • the stress level in an element: σx . the structural analysis phase is concerned with the prediction of the magnitude of the stresses and deﬂections that are developed in the structural members as a result of the action of the sea and other external and internal causes. AA’ and BB’) either by transverse bulkheads or transverse frames. and that differ from empirical and parametric formulations. BEM. and σc = σvon Mises. displacement. For example: σ /σult ≤ 0. etc. In this case. When going from the local to the general (Figure 18. etc. ultimate resistance. particularly those that determine the ultimate strength and collapse of the structure. Note that these parameters must be functions of the design variables. laterally loaded (bending) and submitted. feasible. solid mechanics. Structural constraints represent limit states in order to avoid yielding. Constraints on stiffened panels (Figure 18. etc. etc.8 DESIGN CRITERIA In ship design.5. or to guarantee welding quality and easy access to the welds. For instance. and to limit deﬂection.qxd Page 18-69 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-69 Constraints are linear or nonlinear functions. reliable structure. tripping. cracks. • the safety level related to buckling. stress. and 3) constraints on the global structure. Constraints on the transverse frames (Figure 18.4. either explicit or implicit of the design variables (XI). dead weight. Many of the failure mechanisms. welding a plate of 30 mm thick with one that is 5 mm thick is not recommended. Such standard rational structural constraints can limit: • the deﬂection level (absolute or relative) in a point of the structure. Constraints on the global structure (box girder/hull girder) (Figure 18.22): Panels are limited by their lateral edges (junctions with other panels. Rational equations mean a coherent and homogeneous group of analysis methods based on physics. which are . For each constraint. involve non-linear material and structural behavior that are beyond the range of applicability of the linear structural analysis procedures in Section 18. with: Xi min = a thickness limit dues to corrosion. at their extremities. These behavior models can be so complex that it is no longer possible to explicitly express the relation between the parameters being studied (stress. 2) constraints on transverse frames and transversal stiffening. etc.38). Xi max = a technological limit of manufacturing or assembly. one gener- ally uses a numeric procedure that consists of replacing the implicit function by an explicit approximated function adjusted in the vicinity of the initial values of the design variables (for instance using the ﬁrst or second order Taylor series expansions). are assumed inﬁnitely rigid. They are generally based on good practice rules to avoid local strength failures (web or ﬂange buckling.) and are therefore submitted to combined loads (large bending and compression). there are three types of constraints: 1) constraints on stiffened panels and its components. the constraints can be 0. For example: Xi min = 4mm ≤ Xi ≤ Xi max = 40 mm. buckling. These constraints are analytical translations of the limitations that the user wants to impose on the design variables themselves or to parameters like displacement.5 ≤ X2 / X1 ≤ 2 with X1. ultimate strength. stiffener tripping. These panels are orthotropic plates and shells supported on their four sides. etc. This happens when one uses mathematical models (FEM. At least one constraint should be deﬁned for each failure mode and limit state considered in the Subsection 18.23): The frames take the lateral loads (pressure. in particular those corresponding to the reinforced frames. The rigidity of these frames must be assured in order to respect the hypotheses on panel boundary conditions (undeformable supports).) and the design variables (XI).46): The ultimate strength of the global structure or a section (block) located between two rigid frames (or bulkheads) must be considered as well as the elastic bending moment of the hull girder (against yielding). etc. σy. Panel supports.6. or solid-mechanics phenomenon. ISUM. Global buckling of panels (including the local transverse frames) must also be considered. Hence.1. This means that they can distort themselves signiﬁcantly only after the stiffened panel collapse.MASTER SET SDC 18. So it is possible to distinguish: Technological constraints (or side constraints) that provide the upper and lower bounds of the design variables. This way. the selected behavior model is especially important since this model ﬁxes the quality of the constraint modeling. the optimization process becomes an iterative analysis based on a succession of local approximations of the behavior models. These constraints are based on solid-mechanics phenomena and modeled with rational equations. etc.).

Such criteria are. deterministic method. as an example of one feasible methodology. plate and stiffened plate ultimate strength. semiprobabilistic method. To overcome this.1 Structural Reliability as a Design Basis Three categories of design methodology are basically available. All the actual development in structural reliability and reliability analysis show the huge effort actually done to reach that aims. commercial ships and advanced high-speed catamaran passenger vessels.7. 18. The conventional criteria that are commonly used today in ship structural design are usually stated in terms of acceptable levels of stress in comparison to the yield or ultimate strength of the material.6 for each speciﬁc failure mode (see also Beghin et al (116)). See also Mansour et al (42). and 3. Chapter 19 presents in detail the reliability concept with examples of the reliability-based strength analysis of plates. Here the discussion concerns the procedure from a design point of view and not from the analysis point of view. location of longitudinal bulkheads and transverse bulkheads.5. After performing an analysis.1 Initial Scantling At the basic design stage. longitudinals. stiffened panels. Information related to the design criteria is given in Section 18. • determine initial scantling of structural members within design criteria (rule-based). 18. etc. container. The full probabilistic method is an ideal approach assuming that all the randomness can be exactly considered within a global probabilistic approach. maximum still-water bending moment..9 DESIGN PROCEDURE It does not seem possible to unify all of the design procedures (117-122). • check longitudinal and transverse strength. The deterministic method uses a global safety factor. 2. 18. plate and stiffened plate buckling. principal dimensions. etc. dimensions are random parameters but their distribution is basically not known. double bottom height. intended speciﬁcally for the prevention of yielding (hull girder.8. Such a . strength. Most of the available methods of non-linear structural analysis are brieﬂy introduced in Sections 18. hull form. and • transfer the structural arrangement and scantling to the production design group. Everything is assumed to be deterministic. The semiprobabilistic method corresponds to the current practice used by codes and the major classiﬁcations societies. or as acceptable stress levels compared to the critical buckling strength and ultimate strength of the structural member. This structural design procedure can be deﬁned as follows: • receive general arrangement from the basic design group. have already been determined to meet the owner’s requirements such as deadweight and ship’s speed. failure mode. collision.7. therefore. So. ultimate strength of hull girder. • change the structural arrangement or scantling. Sometimes. the design procedure for commercial vessel such as tanker. partial safety factor are used. One of the difﬁculties facing the structural designer is that linear analysis tools must often be used in predicting the behavior of a structure in which the ultimate capability is governed by non-linear phenomena. frames. • deﬁne structural arrangement based on the general arrangement. grounding. This means that no aspect of randomness is considered. They differ from country to country. the adequacy or inadequacy of the member and/or the entire ship structure must then be judged through comparison with some kind of criterion of performance (Design Criteria). This is an intermediate step between the deterministic and the full probabilistic methods. from shipyard to shipyard and differ between naval ships. etc). hull girder and fatigue.qxd Page 18-70 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-70 Ship Design & Construction. They are usually classiﬁed as: 1.9. these methods are limited in their applicability to a narrow class of problems. Each safety factor corresponds to a load type. This is one of the important sources of uncertainty related to strength assessment. The structural design can also be classiﬁed according to available design tool: • use data of existing ship or past experience—expert system. fatigue. Load. Volume 1 commonly used in design practice. (1st level) • use of a structural analysis software like FEM (2nd level) • use optimization software (3rd level) The adequacy of the relevant analysis method to use for a speciﬁc design stage is discussed in Subsection 18. It corresponds to the actual current shipyard procedure. It assumes that loads and strength are fully determined. vibration and many other failure modes speciﬁc to particular vessel types.MASTER SET SDC 18. The global safety factor is compared to the ratio between the actual strength and the required strength. full probabilistic method. and VLCC is selected.6 and 18.

stiffener spacing. In general. This problem was extensively presented in previous Sections 18. These changes are performed at the third step Structural Design using the results of the Strength Assessment and by comparison with the design criteria. The hull section modulus is calculated easily by using available software. an automatic optimization technique can be used to obtain the minimum weight and/or cost for the longitudinal and transverse structural member. to evaluate quantitatively the strength capability of the initial design.qxd Page 18-71 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-71 parametric design procedure presented in Chapter 11 is relevant for this stage.5 mm for the plate thickness) until the requirement is satisﬁed. this design can be considered as ﬁnished but this design might be too expensive. The constraints and limitations of the optimization process can be the range of each design variable as well as the required hull section modulus and minimum deck/bottom scantlings for the longitudinal members.4. The local strength is automatically satisﬁed if the design is based on the classiﬁcation rules. One is the local strength to avoid collapse. ﬂange width and thickness).9. If the difference is large. even if this design is strong enough. it might be too heavy and/or too expensive and it should be reﬁned.4.9. 18. As all these stresses act simultaneously. This work has to be done in agreement with the basic design team. the initial scantling of transverse members such as height and thickness of web.6). and if the longitudinal strength satisﬁes the rule strength requirement. In practice. the design is completed. and frame spacing. If the difference is small. the designer has to check the transverse strength by comparing the actual stresses in the transverse frames with the allowable stresses given by the classiﬁcation rules. shape of openings. The object function(s) can be structural weight and/or fabrication cost. step by step. The design variables can be longitudinal and transverse spacing. The actual stresses such as equivalent stress and shear stress can be obtained using commercial FEA packages. using either a single object function approach or a multiple objective function method.MASTER SET SDC 18. The designer estimates the in- creased thickness according to the difference between the actual stress and allowable stress. If the calculated hull section modulus at deck part is less than required.1). and allowable bending and shear stresses for the transverse members (see Optimization in Subsection 18. the deck scantling (for example. the superposition of these stresses should not exceed the allowable equivalent stress given by the classiﬁcation rules (equations 45 and 46). stiffener type. reﬁning an already feasible design is a difﬁcult task and requires experience. Then. Figure 18. If the stress in some of elements exceeds the allowable stress. If the section modulus at the deck or at the bottom is less than the required value. it is not necessary to perform a new strength assessment and the design may be completed with only small changes. There are two kinds of strength to design the longitudinal members. But.3 Structural Design If all of local scantlings are determined by the rule minimum values.4 A Generic Design Framework By comparison with the previous standard procedure. 18. and material properties to better ﬁt with the longitudinal strength requirements.6.5 and 18. The initial scantling of longitudinal members such as plate thickness and section area of stiffener can be determined by applying the classiﬁcation rules which give minimum required value to meet the bending. As there are usually no suitable rules for the transverse members. especially the dimensions such as frame spacing.2 Strength Assessment The purpose of the strength assessment is to validate the initial design. shear and buckling strength. The designer also has to modify the scantling (usually plate thickness) of transverse members. Instead of the trial and error procedure discussed above. the structural arrangement is carried out to deﬁne the material property.9.7.67 shows a new generic and advanced design method- . 18. breadth and thickness of ﬂange are determined by reference to similar ships or using empirical shipyard database. secondary and tertiary stresses (Subsection 18. the designer should increase the initial scantling. the longitudinal members are subjected to several kinds of stresses in the sea-going condition: primary. deck/bottom scantlings for the longitudinal and transverse members (web height and thickness. and the other is the longitudinal strength to consider the collapse of the ships’ hull girder. he can increase. plate breadth. If the hull section modulus at bottom or deck part is bigger than the required value. 18. The designer can change the structural arrangement. for which the stress exceeds the allowable value. that is. the design should be drastically changed and it will be necessary to analyze the structure again (see previous step in this Subsection). The hull girder longitudinal strength can be assessed with the hull section modulus (SM) at bottom and deck where the extreme stresses are taken place (equation 29). slot type. For the structural design stage. the designer should change the initial scantlings. 0.

a product model [V] and a process model [W].123): — if the optimizer fails to ﬁnd an improved solution (unfeasible design space). Optimization Steepest Descent Convex Linearization No Conditions Satisfied ? Yes Stop Yes Redesign? No Figure 18. The simulation module [S(T. which is referred to as a response metric (R). Also.) is adopted to ﬁnd a new set of design variables. but presumably any design would have operational parameters. The environmental model [U] includes the still water and wave loading conditions and the product model [V] contains the production information. The optimum design module includes the Design Criteria. X)]].Y.T.qxd Page 18-72 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-72 Ship Design & Construction. economic and production constraints. The process model [W] is built to consider or deﬁne the fabrication sequence. Volume 1 ology where the performance of the system. the system deﬁnition parameter [Y] as well as the design variables [X] and simulation parameters [T]. The structure must perform its function while conforming to structural. A translator (simulation based design translator) assigns some [Y] model parameters to the simulation parameters [T] and design variables [X]. The framework is used within a computerized virtual environment in which CAD product models.[X] and time). evolutionary strategies. Designing ship structures systems involves achieving simultaneous.W)] is used to build an environmental model [U]. Y. These operational parameters are presumed ﬁxed throughout the design. production process models and cost models are used simultaneously by a designer or design team. These parameters are selected based on the available simulation tools [S] that require speciﬁc data ([T]. T. for example.Z) The system deﬁnition module [Y(U. The present design framework consists of establishing the structural system and composite subsystems. which would not be sacriﬁced. Y. The formulation of the design problem is thus the same whether the product or process systems (or both) are considered.114. the operational requirements [Z].Z) Objective Function F(R. shape. Standard algorithms are presented in (113. etc. it is required to change the simulation parameter values [T] and/or design variables selection [X] or even to modify the Model Parameters [Y]. loading and performance constraints while simultaneously considering the manufacturing or fabrication processes in a cost effective manner.V. a simulation module and a design module. Z)]. Based on the results of the Design Assessment (Min(F) and R≤G) several strategies for the design procedure (iterations) can be followed: • if the object function does not reach its minimum value or the response metrics do not satisfy the constraints. X. X.X )] Yes No Is Design Space Feasible? Design Assessment Min (F) ? R<G ? Design Criteria Constraints G(T.X. the manufacturing process of the system and the associated life cycle costs are considered in an integrated fashion (120). an optimization algorithm (steepest descent. time)] is used to produce simulation responses such as Response Metrics [R[S(T. They of course can eventually be changed if no acceptable design is established. Z)] and objective functions [F(R. which optimally satisfy the topology. The constraints are obtained by considering not only the simulation parameters [T] and the design variables [X] but also the operational requirements [Z] and the system deﬁnition parameter [Y].X .X. X. Operational Requirements ParametersZ System Definition Model Parameters Y Environmental Model Product Model Process Model Parameters U ParametersV ParametersW Simulation Based Design Translator Simulation Parameters T Design Variables X Simulations Simulation Response S(T . These are used to assess the design through the Design Assessment component of the module (for example R≤G).67 A Generic Design Framework (120) . The time is needed to consider the dynamic effects and actual dynamic load conditions [U]. dual approach and convex linearization. the objective function [F] is calculated using the response metrics [R].Y. objectives. physics-based models. The general framework consists of a system deﬁnition module. Speciﬁcations for the system must be established in terms of these Response Metrics.time) Response Metrics R [S(T . The performance of the product or process is in general judged by some time independent parameter.MASTER SET SDC 18. though sometimes competing. the Design Assessment and the Optimization components. The design criteria module provides constraints [G(T. The system deﬁnition module receives operational requirements [Z] such as owner’s requirements.

et al. VERITEC Høvik. Basic Ship Theory (Fourth edition).. (1): 9–25. Elsevier. B. “Synthesis of Welded Grillages to withstand Compression and Normal Loads.” Journal of Ship Research. Guedes Soares. E.). “Stiffened Sheathings of Orthotropic Cylindrical Shells.). Y.221–246. 78: 250–287.. IACS Uniﬁed Requirement S7 “Minimum Longitudinal Strength Standards. Technical Report. 1985 Kaminski.. “Ship Grounding and Hull Girder Strength” Marine Structures. 2001 11.. Society of Naval Architects of Japan. J. 20. Moan. Arai H. N.. E. two alternatives are examined: — change the operational requirements parameters [Z]. Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds. White. et al. et al. T. ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels. Elsevier. 2000 Jensen.MASTER SET SDC 18. repeat the previous procedure and to compare with other alternative designs. H. 18. ISSC’2000 Pre-Congress Symposium. and Omar. S. 1. D. C. 23. France. K... 21. B.” Marine Technology. 2001 10. 2000 Pedersen.” Computers & Structures. Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.. 35. 2: 261–320. Moan & Berge (Eds. J. Washington DC. 1997 Temarel. 24. 38. et al. T.” Proceedings Fifth Conference on Fast Sea Transportation. Norway. Longman Scientic & Technical. Calculation Procedures for Direct Global Structural Analysis.. 2000 6.. SNAME. K.. Taggart R.” Proceedings of 14th ISSC. D. DnV 99–0394. Salvensen. J. 23rd Symposium Naval Hydrodynamics Val de Reuil.. Ship Design and Construction. “Evolution of Classiﬁcation Rules for Ships. 1 & 2.. & Faltinsen. et al.” Transactions SNAME. Computer-Aided Optimization Approach. Nikolaidis. SNAME.).2)..” Marine Structures. G. Committee II. Ochi. 34. .” Ship Structure Committee.2). “Loads (Report of ISSC Committee I. 1... Ship Structural Design: A Rationally -Based. 1977 Hughes. Tuck. 2000 ” 18. NTIS. 22. FAST’99. NTIS.” Proceedings of 14th ISSC. “A Review of Effective Plating for use in the Analysis of Stiffened Plating in Bending and Compression. “The Effective Breath of Stiffened Plating Under Bending Loads. Thayamballi.2). 1973. Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds. 1994 Beck R. SSC-270.1–8. A... Seattle: 757–771.1). 1986 16. 2000 “Vibration Control in Ships. and a change of design variable values [X] is performed based on the optimizer solution (in other words a new iteration). 7. the design space is feasible. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC 26. “Global Wave Statistics” British Maritime Technology Ltd. Maryland. J. Japan. Hughes O. New Jersey. “Modern Seakeeping Computations for Ships” Proc.” A/S. Norway. M. 1999 Rigo.” 1989 7. et al. 1988 4.. 1992 Rigo. and Hess. DNV Rules for Classiﬁcation of Ships. 14 (6): 631–649. SNAME.” Proceedings of 13th ISSC. Ohtsubo and Sumi (Editors). 2000 9. pp. Pergamon. 1. O. First Edition. Japan. “Extreme Hull Girder Loading. vol. C. J. “Global Structural Analysis of Large Catamarans. 1990 15. E. 29. “Scantling Optimization Based on Convex Linearizations and a Dual Approach. RINA Rules. and Vetter. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC Committee II. “Gross Panel Strength under Combined Loading.. Ship Structural Design Concepts—Second Cycle.” In Recent Advances in Marine Structures. 1994 Paik. 2001 13. Guedes Soares. UK. P. 2001 Mansour. 30. “Applied Probability & Stochastic Processes. 1.. 19. or — end the design procedure. F.” Ship Structure Committee (375). Principles of Naval Architecture (2nd revision). A. P. 1980 2.qxd Page 18-73 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-73 — otherwise. Washington DC. • if the object function reaches its minimum value and the response metrics satisfy the constraints. G..” Report of Special Task Committee VI. Chung. 1983 Heggelund. C. Snyder. 2001 12. “Loads (Report of ISSC Committee I. 27. IACS Uniﬁed Requirement S11 “Longitudinal Strength Standard. M. Tokyo: 8. 28.” Proceedings of 13th ISSC.. 18 (1): 1–17.” Proceedings of 14th ISSC. M. 2001 Faulkner. SNAME. Moan & Berge (Eds. NKK Rules and Guidance for the Survey and Construction of Steel Ships.” 1993 8. E. C. “Ultimate Strength (Report of ISSC Committee III. 1975 Faulkner.3.. Feltham. ASCE. 2000 Rawson... J. M. BV Rules for Steel Ships. 32.. and Kim. Lewis.). T. and Fleury.1 Proc.. S. Det Norske Veritas. Elsevier Science Ltd.). Japan.. Adamchak. P. P. 1988 3.. and Reed A. 1970 14. Cornell Maritime Press. 1. 1997 17.. O...1.” John Wiley & Sons. Ayyub. Essex. Elsevier.K. P.. Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads. E. 118 (4): 926–943. Norway.” Journal of Structural Engineering. “Uncertainty in Strength Models for Marine Structures.10 REFERENCES 25. Vol.L. 1999 5. New York.. “Ship Motions and Sea Loads”. 61. 1994 Schade. 31. F. V. 33. 1951 Evans. “Advanced Ultimate Strength Formulations for Ship Plating under Combined Biaxial Compression/Tension. 1. GWS. Tupper E. 14th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. A. H.22. Pergamon. Transactions SNAME.2). O.

Bleich.. Historical Review and State of Art. Clarke. “Inﬂuence of Local Compressive Failure on Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Ship’s Hull. Ship Structure Symposium’84. Q. 1983 53. “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Ships: A Case Study. Takemoto. H. A. 1997 58. Recommendations for the Design of Longitudinally Stiffened Webs and of Stiffened Compression Flanges. D. et al. et al. ECCS-60. Vol.. M.” Proceedings of ISOPE’97 Conference. “A Simple Formulation for Predicting the Ultimate Strength of Ships. “Strength and Stability Testing of Stiffened Plate Components. Korea.” Transactions RINA. of 14th ISSC. Zimmerman. “Evaluation of Ultimate Ship Hull Strength. J. Catalin.. European Convention for Constructional Steel Work. Washington DC. 1: 351–406. M.. Buckling of Steel Shells. 1991 68. 53. 46. J. NTIS. J. T.” Journal Marine Science and Technology. ‘Progressive Collapse Analysis of a Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending. “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength.. Report of ISSC Committee V. John Wiley & Sons. Washington DC. “Ultimate Hull Girder Strength (Committee VI.. Dowling et al “Design of Flat Stiffened Plating: Phase 1 Report”. 1999 52. P. C. S.” Journal of Society Naval Architects of Japan. Dow. 1993 43. T. J.” SSC (368). 3 (4): 181–183. Pergamon Press—Elsevier Science. Guedes Soares... Yao.. 1: 128–138. “Elastic Analysis of Stiffened Plating under Lateral Loading. 172: 437–446. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. Volume 1 36.. A. R. A.” Proceedings of 13th ISSC. 1991 62. 2: 321–391. 2001 40. Yao. P. ECCS-56. Report of Technical Committee III. Pusan National University: 373–405. I. F. Hovem. T. 1997 50. Smith. “Sensitivity Analysis on Ultimate Hull Bending Moment.1. K. Elsevier: 253–321.. 1988 38.” International Journal Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE) 9 (1): 1–9.. B... and Kennedy. Yao. and Mansour. 2001 . “Ultimate Strength of Ships under Combined Vertical and Horizontal Moments. and Paik.. Mansour.” Proceedings of Symposium on Extreme Loads Response. “Approximate Methods to Evaluate the Hull Girder Collapse Strength. C.” Proceedings of International.. B. T. 1986 67. 1965 65.. M.. Paik J. 1995 66. and Sun J. C.1). C. H.1). K. E. J.. E.. A. and Bieniek.. 14: 311–330. Y. 1997 69. China. Zhang A. Y. 2001 56. Viner. Mansour. “Progressive Collapse Analysis of a Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending (2nd Report).” Journal of Ship Research 41 (3): 230–240.. DeGeer.” Proceedings of 13th ISSC. China.” PRADS’95.1.. Y. 2.” Ship Structure Committee (299) NTIS. Kaminski et al. A. “Development of Ship Strength Formulation. 170: 449–461. 1st edition. K. London. Ultimate Limit State Design of Steel Plated Structures. 1980 42. 1966 49. McGrawHill.). 2: 869–882.. Buckling Strength of Metal Structures. 1: 52–62.. and Ohtsubo. H.. Nikolov. Moan.. D. L. 98: 441–471. C. C. Conference on Advances in Marine Structures. and Thayamballi. 2000 51.” Transactions RINA 107: 411–430.). 1984 57.. S. “Analysis on the Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Bulk Carrier by Using a Simpliﬁed Method. Mansour.. M. C. Kumano.1. Yao. Department of Civil Engineering. Thayamballi A.K. E. T. Shanghai. P. Yao. 108. Moan and Berge (Eds. Elsevier. ECCS—Technical Working Group 8. 1990 47. “Analysis of the Accident of the MV NAKHODKA. and Nikolov. “Interaction Equation for the Collapse of Tankers and Containerships under Combined Vertical and Horizontal Bending Moments. “Calculation Procedures. J. Arlington: 33–148. European Convention for Constructional Steel Work.” Proceedings of the 14th Int.” PRADS’95. E. 1997 61. Y. Japan.. ARE.” Journal of Society Naval Architects of Japan. and Thayamballi. Beghin. CESLIC Report SP9. “An Empirical Formulation for Predicting the Ultimate Compressive Strength of Stiffened Panels. Korea. 1996 60. Pergamon Press—Elsevier Science. D. Smith.” Transactions SNAME 91: 149–168.. 1952 37. B.. T.. T. Gordo.. 39.” Proc. Imperial College. P. (60).K. S. M. UK: 152–173. “Design Principles and Criteria (Report of ISSC Committee IV. Caldwell.. H.. C. Moan and Berge (eds). ECCS—Technical Working Group 8. “Probability-Based Ship Design—Phase 1: A Demonstration. “Benchmarking of Ultimate Strength Predictions for Longitudinally Stiffened Panels. “A Benchmark Study of the Ultimate Compressive Strength Formulation for Stiffened Panels.Y. Tokyo. Rigo. R. S. Brussels. Hu. 1991 59. Sumi. and Smith. Elsevier.” Proc. Lin. 2: 844–851. Sumi.. “Ultimate Strength of a Ship’s Hull Girder in Plastic and Buckling Modes.. (2): 113–131.. Hugill. J. 1990 64.” Marine Structures 9 (3–4): 449–470. 1997 45. A.” Journal Research Institute of Industrial Technology. Chen. K.” Marine Structures. 1995 48. I. Seoul.. IV: 328–338. 1997 44..4 Stability of Shells.” Journal of Marine Science and Technology (JMST). Paik.... 4th edition. Adamchack. Lin M. London. PRADS 77. Paik. S.MASTER SET SDC 18. “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Ship Hull Girder.2). Rutherford. Frieze P. H. Kutt.” In Proceeding of PRADS’2001. 1992 63. and Yao. C. “Approximate Method for Estimating the Collapse of a Ship’s Hull in Preliminary Design. Wuxi. T. L.qxd Page 18-74 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-74 Ship Design & Construction. Caldwell. “Applied Design. A. Piaszczyk. and Chryssanthopoulos. Washington DC. Rigo. and Thayamballi A. A. Japan: 73–79.. K.” SNAME Transactions. et al.. 1998 54.3—Structural Stability.. Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds. SNAME: 37–61. 2002. Brussels. Paik. J. et al. T. Gordo. NTIS. “Ultimate Strength of Ship Structures.” 11th ISSC Conference. Sueoka. 1977 55. M. “Ultimate Strength. P. Seoul. D. Chen. J.. and Kim. P. Frieze. Dunfermline.. In Quasi-static Response (Report of ISSC Committee II.” Ship Structure Committee (399). 1991 41.. Part 2: Estimation of Structural Strength. (60). 1995. J. and Guedes Soares. E.

Maddox S. 1995 86. “Fatigue and Fracture (Report of ISSC Committee III. “Considerations of Probability Based Fatigue Design Criteria for Marine Structures. 2000 Fabro. 37. Fatigue Strength of Ship Structures. 1997 79. Amdahl. 95. Harris. P. ed. et al. O. Abington Publishing. “Fatigue Reliability Reassessment Procedures: State-of. 102. E. I.. E. and Baudin. 1/97..O. R. 1994 76.. G. G. Kaneko.” COMPIT 2000.. Horizontal Bending and Shearing Forces. J.” Proceedings of the 2000 SNAME Annual Meeting.. 1.. 97. Spencer. J.1). 1993 72.. Nielsen. Y. Elsevier.” Report of Technical Committee V. 1985 74. 1997 Zenkert. 1995 82. 105.. 91.. Washington DC. USA.. Methods of Structural Safety. Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics. Ship Structure Committee. 99. Copenhagen. October. UK.” Ship Structure Committee (387). Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. et al. NJ. 1. 93.. Mech. K..). “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue. 94.. of the 13th Int. Tokyo.. Laspalles. 1929 Volcy. Houston. P. D. Marley. Conference on Technologies for Marine Environment Preservation (MARIENV’95). Second Edition. NL. London. Price N. Krieger Publishing Company. “A Study of the Improved Tanker Structure Against Collision and Grounding Damage. Tapir Publication. “Rotor-Bearing Dynamics Design Technology. M. UK. and Sarkani. and Magaino..” Journal of Structural Engineering.1-S11. N.” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships 88. J. 98. The Handbook of Sandwich Construction. 1992 73.” IUR S11 Longitudinal Strength Standard. Thayamballi A. Committee on Marine Structures. Vancouver. and Chen. P. 101. Trondheim.. Technical Report AFAPL-TR-65–45. 123 (3): 227–285.” Proceedings of Gastech’2000... 96.. Lutzen. Wirsching. Petershagen. G.” SNAME Transactions. 1961 Lewis F.” Marine Board. Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds. “Quasi-static Response (Report of ISSC Committee II. Potsdam. 2000 Basu.. Pergamon: 83–116.G. Krenk.The-Art Paper..” SNAME Transactions. Zalar. A. IACS (International Association of Classiﬁcation Societies). “Some Comments on presentday ship dynamics. 1965 Greene E. Fricke. Pergamon: 256–263. F. (ICCGS’2001). Madsen.” SNAME Transactions 104: 31–59. “Performance of Composite Structures. 1997 Ross. Proc.” Proceedings of the Int. US. W. 100. S. A. J. 2000 Jensen. 1986 81. “Prevention of Fractures in Ship Structures. Wang. 67. S11. Tech. 1988 84. N.. 2000 85. 90. F.. Y. E. IACS “Longitudinal Strength Standard.1. Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds. Fricke. UK. Elsevier. and Srinivasan.. “Ultimate Strength of Ship Hulls under Combined Vertical Bending. New York. 2000 75. and Besnier. et al.” RINA Conference on Noise and Vibration. H.. and Paetzold.. O. Chapman and Hall. Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Handbook. P. Y. “A Module-Oriented Tool for Optimum Design of . 1997 80. London. London. Nitta.. A. 103. Kirkhope.. Japan. Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft. K. H. W. US. D. Design Guide for Marine Applications of Composites. Brown.. W.. J. Florida..and Brosset. D. Proc. Byers. 1995 77. Japan. M. 1: 23–45. 92. “Assessment of a Ship’s Performance in Accidents. R. Ship Hull Vibration. Canada.. P. Beghin... H.. 2000 Blevins. K. 89. L.” Marine Structures... Miner. SSC-403. 1: 323–392. Ohtsubo. 12: 154–164. 1997 Kitamura. J. 1998 Bishop. J. Japan: 167–174. 2001 Todd.). 1996 71.” in Report of Technical Committee III. N. Euro Conference on Computer Applications and Information Technology in the Maritime Industry. M. and Jung S.. H. Arnold Ltd. NTIS. Requirements Concerning Strength of Ships. “Basis of IACS Uniﬁed Longitudinal Strength Standard. S.Y. ASCE. “Membrane LNG FPSO & FSRU—Methodology for Sloshing Phenomenon. Yokohama.. Daidola. “Design of Tankers for Grounding and Collision..H. 2. Almar-Naess A. L..” Proceedings of NAV2000. “Assessment of the Vibratory Behavior of Ships.. Tikka. “Guidelines for Evaluation of Finite Elements and Results. J.. 104. Washington DC. Italy. “Web-Based Virtual Reality in Design and Manufacturing applications. Mohammadi.” Proceedings of 14th ISSC. R. 1945 83. Prentice Hall.. 1991 Porcari. Elsevier. and Kavlie.C. “Hydroelasticity and Vibration of Internal Steelwork of Tanks. M. 5: 1–21. Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape. Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd. Inc. of the 13th Int. 1997 87. R. GL-Technology—Part I: Basic Principles. Chen. H. Paik. 1st Int. J.. Society of Naval Architects of Japan... NRC-National Research Council. Bereau. 1984 Lund. Stress Determination for Fatigue Analysis of Welded Components. Japan. D.. Hamburg. 1995 Spittaël. The Hague. Venice. “Structural Design and Response in Collision and Grounding.” Philosophical Transactions Royal Society. 1. Abington Publishing. Germany: 45–55. W.. Journal of Applied Mechanics. R. Kawamoto.qxd Page 18-75 4/28/03 1:31 PM Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure 18-75 70. Englewood Cliffs. NTIS.” Part III: Design Handbook for ﬂuid ﬁlm bearings. “The Inertia of Water Surrounding a Vibrating Ship. M.” Trans. 1997 78. London. “CAD/CAM/CIM: Using Today’s High-Tech Tools for State-of-the-Art. Fatigue-Handbook—Offshore Structures. J. K.” Proceedings of PRADS’98..” Proceedings of 14th ISSC. M. and Lind. M. et al. UK. 1980 Morel. M. J. 1996 Rigo.12. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. Washington DC. Baudin. Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures. Technical University of Denmark.. D. ASME. H.” International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS).. K.4. “Structural Design Against Collision and Grounding.MASTER SET SDC 18.2). M. Sundarajan.. A. Niemi.. 1: 173–179. A 334: 187–187. 1997 Beier. Arai... and Choe. C. “Ship Noise and Vibration Comfort Class: International Rules and Shipbuilding Practice.” Marine Structures..

“Report of ISSC Committee IV. O. G. D.. Elsevier.” Marine Structures.Ypsilanti. S. Society of Naval Architects of Korea. and Sauter.. Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design.. J. SNAME.1. Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 110. 121. “Design Optimization: A State-of-the-Art 116. and Kikuchi. Cambridge MA.. et al.. S. 117. 108. 1999 Watson D. “The Idealized Structural Unit Method and its Application to Deep Girder Structures. Edited by R.” Comp. Cleland. K. 115. Prentice and Hall. 1995 Birmingham. D. 1998 Catley. 123. P. 119. “A Framework for Simulation Based Design of Ship Structures.” Proceedings of the 2001 Ship Production Symposium. Y. Elsevier Ltd. and Dominguez. 111. Practical Ship Design.. “Ship Structures.. 1988 Vanderplaats. Understanding Engineering Design. W. P. J. 150: 123–150 and 183–208.Y. 5: 343–390. 2000 Beckers. Japan. T. Stiffened Structures. G.1. McGraw-Hill. series: Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. 1991 Bendsoe. UK. and Hughes. HMSO Eds. N. Michigan.” Marine Structures. 1993 Rigo. Beier. and Yang..” Engineering Optimization. (M. J. M. 114. “Least-Cost Structural Optimisation Oriented Preliminary Design. “Design Method (Report of ISSC Committee IV. 2002 Fujikubo. Design of Ships’ Structures.1984 Paik. S. C. “Recent Developments in Shape Sensitivity Analysis: the Physical Approach. ISUM rectangular plate element with new lateral shape function (2nd Report) – Stiffened plates under bi-axial thrust—Journal of Society Naval Architects of Japan: 479–487. G. 18 (2): 277–293. and Taczala.. Boston. Driver. et al. 109. 124. Boundary Elements: An Introductory Course. “Result—A Computer Code for Evaluation of the Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Hull Girder. J. Eds. Oxford. P. P. Na. (71): 187–224. Computational Mechanics Publications. Melchers. Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.qxd Page 18-76 4/28/03 1:31 PM 18-76 Ship Design & Construction.P. M. D. et al. 1.” Journal of Ship Production. London. “Generating Optimal Topologies in Structural Design using a Homogenization Method. New York. D. J. 1998 Fleury C. Springer-Verslag London Ltd. Wuxi. Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering.. 1991 Karr. China. Jastrzebski. P. 2001 Ueda.” Proceedings of PRADS-95. 2001 . Ministry of Defense. 122.. and Mafﬁn. 113.. P. Singer. 120. “A Hybrid Agent Approach for Set-Based Conceptual Ship Design. B. M. 112. 1989 Pradillon. Kim & Lee. (Chap7)” and “Recent Developments in Structural Optimization Methods (Chap9)” in Structural Optimization: Status and Promise. 18: 67–78. “Mathematical Programming Methods for Constrained Optimization: Dual Methods.” Proceedings 10th ICCAS Conference. D. 2001 Parsons. 118. and Rigo. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1993 Moan T. vol.E. 1984 Sen..” Chapter 8 in the textbook Computational Analysis of Complex Structures. 1990 Beghin. 2: 207–221... Volume 1 106. Elsevier.Design Philosophy. Rashed. D.” Proceedings of 14th ISSC. The American Society of Civil Engineers. London.2). K..” 11th ISSC Conference. P.). 2000 Brebbia. 1997 Chalmers.MASTER SET SDC 18. 17 (4): 202–215. F.. N. AIAA. M. 2: 832–843.. 14 (6): 611–629.). R.. 107. Elsevier Science Publications.” Computers & Structures. R. Review.... G. and Kaeding. Kamat ed...

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
- Chapter 18 Analysis and Design
- 532NI_2008_11
- Investigation into the Physics of Ship Capsizing by combined captive and free-running model tests.pdf
- Strength Analysis of Hull Structures in Container Ships - Dnv
- ship Stability
- Broching to Explained Part_6
- Squat
- seakeeping_19301en2
- rudder control
- Hooft - Maneuverability of Frigates in Waves
- 10.1.1.403.388.pdf
- Basic Ship Structure Design
- GL rules
- Explanatory Notes SOLAS Probdam
- Prediction of Speed Loss of a Ship in Waves
- A Technical Review SID 030912
- Hoyle_J_W.Bulbous_Bow_Design_M.1986.TRANS.pdf
- Planning+and+Design+of+Water+Area.unlocked
- B616.360060.021 Calculation of amplitude of roll and rolling period.pdf
- Multi Hull Thesis
- What is Probabilistic and Deterministic Approach for Calculating Damage Stability _ Information to Be Included in the Trim and Stability Booklet
- SPA - Shipyard 01
- Green Sea Loads
- Qalb Mifruda Minn Alla Bid-dnub
- GTS
- Paper 76
- Designing of Fender(2012)
- Resistance
- Probabilistic Model of Underkeel Clearance in Decision Making Process of Port Captain
- Analysis and Design of Ship Structure