Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Structures
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marstruc

Ultimate strength of container ships subjected to combined

hogging moment and bottom local loads part 1: Nonlinear finite
element analysis
Akira Tatsumi *, Masahiko Fujikubo
Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper is the first of two companion papers concerning the ultimate hull girder strength of
Ultimate hogging strength container ships subjected to combined hogging moment and bottom local loads. In the midship
Bottom local loads part of container ships, upward bottom local loads are usually larger than the downward ones.
Double bottom bending
This leads to the increase of biaxial compression in the outer bottom plating and the reduction of
Container ship
Nonlinear finite element analysis
the ultimate hull girder strength in the hogging condition. In this Part 1, the collapse behavior and
ultimate strength of container ships under combined hogging moment and bottom local loads are
analyzed using nonlinear finite element method. Buckling collapse behavior of bottom stiffened
panels during the progressive collapse of a hull girder is closely investigated. It has been found
that major factors of the reduction of ultimate hogging strength due to bottom local loads are (1)
the increase of the longitudinal compression in the outer bottom and (2) the reduction of the
effectiveness of the inner bottom, which is on the tension side of local bending of the double
bottom. The obtained results will be utilized in the Part 2 paper to develop a simplified method of
progressive collapse analysis of container ships under combined hogging moment and bottom
local loads.

1. Introduction

Ultimate longitudinal bending strength of a hull girder is one of the most fundamental strength of ships. Container ships having a
fine hull shape are subjected to larger buoyancy forces in the midship part than in the fore and aft parts. On the other hand, container
cargoes are loaded over the full length. Container ships are therefore usually in the hogging condition in the still water condition. In
addition, the upward local loads due to bottom sea pressure make convex deflection of a double bottom in each cargo hold as shown in
Fig. 1. As a result, both longitudinal and transverse compressive stresses are generated in the outer bottom plating. These additional
stresses may have a significant influence on the ultimate longitudinal bending strength of container ships in the hogging condition.
An 8000 TEU class container ship, MOL COMFORT, collapsed amidship in the hogging condition in June 2013, and eventually the
hull was separated into two and sank into the Indian ocean. According to the investigation reports of the accident [1,2], one possible
cause of the accident was considered to be the relatively high transverse compressive stresses in the bottom stiffened panels of the
accident ship generated by the bottom local loads.
The effect of bottom local loads on the ultimate hogging strength of a ship’s hull girder has been discussed in relation to the strength

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tatsumi@naoe.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp (A. Tatsumi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2019.102683
Received 22 May 2019; Received in revised form 8 September 2019; Accepted 3 October 2019
Available online 25 October 2019
0951-8339/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 1. Local bending deformation of double bottom.

assessment of bulk carriers in the alternate loading condition. Nonlinear finite element analyses have been employed in the previous
studies. Østvold et al. [3] investigated the effect of double bottom deformation on the hull girder strength of a panamax bulk carrier.
Amlashi and Moan [4,5] analyzed the ultimate hull girder strength of a cape-size bulk carrier and reported a significant reduction of
the ultimate hogging strength due to local bending deformation of the double bottom. They proposed a simplified procedure to
determine the ultimate hogging strength of bulk carriers considering the bottom lateral loads. Kippenes et al. [6] analyzed the ultimate
hogging strength of a cape-size bulk carrier and discussed the effect of initial shape imperfections of bottom members on the ultimate
hogging strength. Shu and Moan [7] performed a series of ultimate hogging strength analyses of cape-size bulk carriers and developed
a practical interaction equation between ultimate hogging strength and average water pressure over the double bottom. Darie et al. [8]
and Toh and Yoshikawa [9] analyzed the ultimate hogging strength of bulk carriers in the alternate loading condition, and discussed
the applicability of a partial safety factor γdb (¼1.25 in hogging) in Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers [10]
which covers the effect of the double bottom bending.
With regard to the container ships, Matsumoto et al. [11] analyzed the ultimate strength of 18 container ships (from 4000 TEU to
over 10,000 TEU) under combined hogging moment and bottom local loads. It was shown that the strength of the double bottom
structure against local lateral loads was closely related to the hull girder ultimate strength. The present authors [12] performed the
FEM analysis of an 8000 TEU class container ship to investigate the effect of bottom local loads on the ultimate hogging strength, and
discussed the major factors inducing the reduction of ultimate hogging strength. Based on the observed behaviors, the authors [13]
proposed a simplified method of progressive collapse analysis of container ships under combined hogging moment and bottom local
loads. However, the subject ship was limited to an 8000 TEU class container ship. Further study is necessary for different ship sizes and
load conditions to make more thorough discussion on the collapse behaviors and validation of the method of collapse analysis.
This paper is the first of two companion papers dealing with the ultimate hull girder strength of container ships subjected to
combined hogging moment and bottom local loads. In the Part 1, the progressive collapse behaviors of 8000 TEU class and 14,000 TEU
class container ships are analyzed by nonlinear finite element method. A region of 1/2 þ 1þ1/2 cargo holds is modelled by shell
elements. The bottom local loads are applied first, and then hogging moment is applied. Two different boundary conditions are
considered when the bottom local loads are applied, in order to examine the effect of the still water bending moment distributions on
the ultimate collapse mode and strength under subsequently applied hogging moment. To capture the full equilibrium path of the
moment-rotation relationships including the post-ultimate regime, the implicit scheme of FE analysis is applied. Based on the results,
the essential effects of the bottom local loads on the ultimate hogging strength of container ships are identified. The obtained results
become the basis of the simplified method of progressive collapse analysis, which will be developed in the Part 2.

2. Model for nonlinear finite element analysis

Nonlinear FE analyses are performed using MSC.Marc. The static implicit method is adopted to accurately obtain the post-ultimate
behavior as well as the ultimate strength. The FE models are generated by MSC. Mentat, which is a pre-post processor of MSC.Marc.

2.1. Subject ship

8000 TEU class and 14,000 TEU class container ships are taken as subject ships. The midship sections are shown in Fig. 2. Although
principal dimensions are omitted, the cargo hold length of the two ships is almost same, i.e. approximately twice the length of a 40 feet
container. The design drafts of 8000 TEU class and 14,000 TEU class container ships are 13.0 m and 14.0 m, respectively.

2
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 2. Midship sections.

3
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 3. 1/2 þ 1þ1/2 hold model (8,000TEU).

Fig. 4. Mesh division for outer bottom plating in the target bay.

Table 1
Material yield stress.
Ship Region Yield Stress [MPa] Young’s modulus [GPa] Poisson ration

8, 000 TEU 1 313.6 206.0 0.3

2 355.0
14,000 TEU 1 352.8
2 392.0
3 460.6

4
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 5. Initial deflections.

Fig. 6. Boundary conditions for deflection of hull girder.

2.2. Modeling region and mesh division

A half breadth part of 1/2 þ 1þ1/2 cargo holds is modelled by shell elements (Element 75 in MSC.Marc). The model for 8000 TEU
class container ship is shown in Fig. 3. A partial bulkhead (PBHD) is located between watertight bulkheads (WBHDs). Symmetric

5
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 7. Equivalent plastic strain at ultimate hull girder strength in pure hogging condition (8000 TEU ship).

Fig. 8. Deformation and equivalent plastic strain in the double bottom in pure hogging condition (8000 TEU ship).

conditions are imposed on the inner and outer bottom plating and floors on the centerline section. The center-girder web is modelled
considering its full thickness and the web deflection is allowed. The contribution of the web is therefore doubled. The boundary
conditions for the displacements in the longitudinal and vertical directions are described in Section 2.5. Fine mesh division is made in
one bay of the middle hold, which is a target region of the collapse analysis. The plate between longitudinal stiffeners is divided into 8

6
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 9. Equivalent plastic strain at ultimate hull girder strength in pure hogging condition (14,000 TEU ship).

Fig. 10. Deformation and equivalent plastic strain in the double bottom in pure hogging condition (14,000 TEU ship).

7
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 11. Longitudinal bending moment-end rotation relationships in pure hogging condition.

shell elements, the stiffener’s web into 6 and flange into 4, respectively, as shown in Fig. 4.

2.3. Material properties

Material properties of steels are listed in Table 1. The bi-linear stress-strain curves of an elastic-perfectly plastic material are
assumed with no consideration of strain-hardening effects. To accelerate the collapse analysis of the target region, the elastoplastic
material behavior is considered only in the deck, side and bottom parts of the middle hold. The two-end holds and the watertight and
partial bulkheads are assumed to behave linear elastically. It has been confirmed that this assumption has little influence on the ul­
timate strength and collapse behavior of the middle hold.

2.4. Initial deflections

In the outer and inner bottoms, the local and global initial deflections of stiffened panels are considered as shown in Fig. 5. Denoting
a floor space by a, a longitudinal space by bp, a girder space by bg and a plate thickness by tp, the initial deflection of a local plate panel
between stiffeners, wl, and the initial global deflection of a stiffened panel between girders, wg, are assumed as
X5
tp �mπx� �πy�
wl ¼ sin sin (1)
m¼1
50 a bp

8
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 12. Localization of plastic deformation in post-collapse range.

Fig. 13. Deformation when water pressure is loaded (8000 TEU, BC1).

a �πx� �πy�
wg ¼ sin sin (2)
1000 a bg

The wl is expressed by the superposition of five deflection components; i.e. all possible buckling modes of target rectangular plates
under biaxial compression are included in the initial deflection. It is known that the initial deflection of which the mode is different
from buckling mode likely resists a development of bucking deformation and that its sticking effect may lead to a convergence failure
of implicit nonlinear FE analyses as well as an unsafe-side prediction of the ultimate strength. The consideration of all possible
deflection modes as in eq. (1) has an advantage of reducing these problems and thus is adopted. The maximum local initial deflection wl
are 1.6 mm in the 8,000TEU container ship and 1.9 mm in the 14,000TEU, which are close to the magnitude of “slight level” by Smith
[14]. More extensive study on the effect of shape and magnitude of initial plate and stiffener deflections are planned as a future work.

2.5. Boundary conditions

The global and local bending moment distributions due to lateral loads depend on the boundary condition for deflection of the hull
girder. Two different boundary conditions, BC1 and BC2, are considered as shown in Fig. 6.
BC1 assumes that the fore and aft end cross sections are rigid; i.e. the cross sections remain plane without change in the cross-
sectional shape. As shown in Fig. 6(a), the master nodes m and n are defined at each end cross section, and all shell-element nodes
are rigidly linked to the master nodes. The model is simply supported at the master nodes. When the lateral loads are uniformly applied
to the bottom, the maximum longitudinal compressive stress is induced in the outer bottom plating near the PBHD due to both local
and global bending effects.
On the other hand, BC2 assumes a more periodic pattern of the deformation of double bottoms. The model is simply supported at
the shell nodes, P1 and P2, located at the intersection of WBHDs and side shell structure as was shown in Fig. 3. The fore and aft end
cross sections are allowed to move in the z direction under the constraint expressed by the following equations:

9
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 14. Equivalent plastic strain at ultimate hull girder strength (8, 000 TEU, BC1).

Fig. 15. Deformation when water pressure is loaded (8000 TEU, BC2).

uix ¼ umx þ zi θmy ; θiy ¼ θmy ; θiz ¼ θmz (3)

where ux, θy and θz are the translation displacement in the x direction, the rotation angles around the y and z axes, respectively. The
subscript m denotes a master node, and i the i–th shell nodes. zi is a vertical distance between the nodes i and m. Because of the
constraint on the rotational DoFs of the double bottom, θiy and θiz, at the both-end cross sections, the double bottom in the middle hold

10
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 16. Equivalent plastic strain (8000 TEU, BC2).

deforms closely in a both-end fixed mode under uniform lateral loads, as illustrated in Fig. 6(b). The maximum compressive stress is
induced in the inner bottom plating near the WBHDs.
In both BC1 and BC2, one master node is allowed to move in the x direction while the other node fixed for keeping the total axial
force zero. The most realistic boundary condition is considered to be in between BC1 and BC2, and thus the essential failure modes and
strength are expected to be found from a comparison of these two extreme cases.

2.6. Loading conditions

Bottom local loads, the water pressure and container load, are applied to the FE model first. The water pressure is distributed over
the outer bottom and side shell. The container load is applied as a concentrated load to the nodes of the inner bottom and the bulkheads
to which four corners of 40 ft containers contact. Keeping the local loads constant, the hogging bending moment is applied at the both-
end master nodes by the forced rotations, θ/2, of the same magnitude but in the opposite direction as shown in Fig. 6. By setting the
zero axial force at the master nodes, pure bending moment can be applied to cross sections considering the shift of neutral axis during
the progressive collapse automatically.
The incremental collapse analysis is performed under the arc length control, which enables the analysis of a post-ultimate path of
the moment-end rotation relationship as well as the ultimate strength.

11
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 17. Longitudinal bending moment-end rotation relationships (8000 TEU).

3. Collapse behavior under pure hogging moment

Collapse behavior of the subject ships under pure hogging moment is analyzed first. Figs. 7 and 9 show distributions of equivalent
plastic strain in the target bay at the ultimate strength. Figs. 8 and 10 show deformation and equivalent plastic strain of the double
bottoms at the ultimate strength and in the post-ultimate state. In the case of 8000 TEU container ship, the buckling and the yielding
spread over the full breadth of the outer bottom. The hull girder reaches the ultimate strength when the buckling subsequently takes
place in the inner bottom. There is little spread of plastic deformation in the deck. On the other hand, the 14,000 TEU container ship
attains the ultimate strength after the deck yields in tension and the outer bottom collapses in compression. The plastic deformation is
not observed in the inner bottom. The difference in the collapse behaviors of the two ships is due to the difference in the height of the
elastic neutral axis relative to the hull depth. The ratio is about 0.454 for the 8000 TEU container ship and 0.410 for the 14,000 TEU
container ship.
The bending moment-end rotation relationships are shown in Fig. 11(a). The ultimate hogging bending strength of the 8000 TEU
container ship is 17.5 GNm and that of the 14,000 TEU container ship is 31.1 GNm. As shown, not only the bending moment but also
the end rotation decrease after the ultimate strength is attained; i.e. a snap-back behavior occurs in both ships. This is because the
bending moment capacity decreases and the plastic deformations increases at the collapsed region (see Fig. 8 (b) and 10 (b)), while
elastic unloading takes place in the rest region of the hull girder. As a result, the total end rotation decreases as the bending moment
capacity decreases; i.e. dropped back behavior occurs as illustrated in Fig. 12. If we look at just the collapsed region, the end rotation
continues to increase as shown in Fig. 11(b). This snap-back behavior cannot be captured by the explicit FEM, in which the end ro­
tations are monotonously increased.

12
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 18. Representative panels taken from outer and inner bottoms (8000 TEU).

Fig. 19. Average compressive stress-average compressive strain relationship of panel OB (8000 TEU).

4. Collapse behavior under combined hogging moment and bottom local loads

4.1. Influence of boundary condition

Collapse behavior of subject ships under combined hogging moment and bottom local loads is analyzed. The influence of boundary
conditions, BC1 and BC2, on the collapse behavior is examined first. Water pressure corresponding to the design draft is applied to the
FE models. As a fundamental case, the container load is not considered and the upward water pressure is applied.
Fig. 13 shows the deformation when the water pressure is applied to the 8000 TEU container ship under the boundary condition
BC1. The global and local upward deflections can be found in the double bottom. The PBHD has some restraining effect against the
local deflection of the double bottom. Fig. 14 shows the distribution of the equivalent plastic strain at the ultimate strength when the
hogging moment is applied after the water pressure. Since the transverse compressive stress in the outer bottom caused by the
deflection of the double bottom is largest near the centerline (see Fig. 1), the buckling collapse of the outer bottom initiates near the
centerline and then develops toward the bilge side. In contrast to the pure bending case, Fig. 7, the collapse region of the outer bottom
plate is confined to the central area of the hold. It should be noticed in Fig. 14 that plastic deformation is not observed in the inner
bottom even at the ultimate strength. The same behavior has been observed in the 14,000 TEU container ship. These results show that

13
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 20. Deformation and equivalent plastic strain of panel OB at hull girder ultimate strength.

Fig. 21. Bending strain under combined hull girder bending and double bottom bending.

Fig. 22. Average compressive stress-average compressive strain relationship of panel IB (8000 TEU).

14
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 23. Stiffened panel model.

Fig. 24. Ultimate strength interaction curve and average stress histories of a stiffened panel.

the inner bottom does not contribute to the ultimate hogging strength when accompanied by the bottom local loads and that the hull
girder reaches the ultimate hogging strength when the outer bottom collapsed. The reason for this will be discussed in detail in Section
4.2.
Fig. 15 shows the deformation when the water pressure is applied to the 8000 TEU container ship under the boundary condition
BC2. Fig. 16 shows the distribution of the equivalent plastic strain before and at the ultimate hogging strength. Under the boundary
condition BC2, the local bending moment in the double bottom due to water pressure alone is largest near the WBHDs. Therefore, the
buckling initially takes place in the inner bottom near the WBHDs as shown in Fig. 16(a), and then it is followed by the buckling of the
outer bottom in the mid-hold area as shown in Fig. 16(b). The ultimate hull girder strength is attained immediately after the buckling of
the outer bottom. This shows that a direct trigger to the ultimate hull girder collapse is the collapse of the outer bottom, even though
the initial failure takes place in the inner bottom near the WBHDs.
The relationship between the bending moment at the collapsed cross section and the end rotation obtained for the 8000 TEU
container ship is shown in Fig. 17. The bending moment was calculated from the equilibrium condition considering the end moments
and lateral loads. The curves BC1 and BC2 start from the bending moment and rotation angle caused by the water pressure. The ul­
timate bending moment obtained for the boundary condition BC1 is about 13.7 GNm, which is 21.6% smaller than the pure bending
strength, 17.5 GNm. The ultimate strength is significantly reduced by the bottom local loads. The ultimate bending strength for the
case of BC2 is close to that for BC1. The collapse mode is also similar; i.e. the outer bottom fails significantly while the inner bottom
fails little at the collapsed hull girder cross section. The effect of the boundary conditions, BC1 and BC2, on the ultimate strength and
collapse mode at the critical cross section is not significant. Hence hereafter the boundary condition BC1, which generates a larger
compressive stress in the outer bottom due to water pressure, is used as a safe-side assessment of the ultimate hull girder strength.

4.2. Major factors of ultimate strength reduction

The upward bottom local loads significantly decrease the ultimate hogging strength of hull girder as shown in Fig. 17. In order to
clarify the major factors of the reduction of ultimate hull girder strength, the buckling/plastic collapse behaviors of stiffened panels
taken from the outer and inner bottoms of the 8000 TEU container ship are investigated.

15
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 25. Flow of the analysis PBC-2.

Fig. 26. An average bi-axial compressive strain history for the analysis PBC-2.

The target panels are shown in Fig. 18. The panel OB is a plate-stiffener combination in the outer bottom extending the 1/2 þ 1/2
stiffener spaces and one floor space. The panel IB is a plate panel in the inner bottom extending the 1/2 þ 1/2 stiffener spaces and one
floor space. Fig. 19 shows the relationship between the average longitudinal compressive stress (σx) and the average longitudinal
compressive strain (εx) calculated for the panel OB. σY and εY are yield stress and yield strain, respectively. The average stress is a mean
of the longitudinal membrane stress of all shell elements in the region OB. The average strain is a ratio of the total shortening to the
original length of one floor space. The starting point A of the solid line correspond to the average stress and average strain caused by
the water pressure.
The ultimate compressive strength of the stiffened panel is reduced from the point C to B by the water pressure. This is primarily
because of the action of the transverse compression due to transverse bending deformation of the double bottom as shown in Fig. 1,
which enhances buckling of the plates in the outer bottom. The local stiffener deflection and bending stress due to the direct action of
water pressure on the bottom plating are also a cause of the ultimate strength reduction. Fig. 20 shows a comparison of collapse mode
of the panel OB between the pure bending and combined bending and water pressure. The collapse mode of the panel OB is similar
between two cases, though the stiffener deflections are larger under combined bending and water pressure than pure bending. Because

16
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Table 2
Bottom local load for series analysis.
Ship Case Water pressure (draft) [m] Container load (applied load/full load) [%] Reduction rate of ultimate strength [%] Remarks

8, 000 TEU A 0.0 0 – Pure bending

3.0 0 3.9
7.0 0 10.5
10.0 0 16.1
13.0 0 21.6
15.0 0 24.2
B 13.0 0 21.6 Included in A
13.0 25 15.2
13.0 50 12.1
13.0 75 9.5
13.0 100 7.5 Full loading
14,000 TEU A 0.0 0 – Pure bending
3.0 0 2.6
7.0 0 7.8
10.0 0 13.2
14.0 0 22.7
15.5 0 24.4
B 14.0 0 22.7 Included in A
14.0 25 15.1
14.0 50 10.6
14.0 75 7.8
14.0 100 4.8 Full loading

of the water pressure, the reserved strength against the hogging bending stress, σ xB - σ xA, is much smaller than the axial stress capacity
when free from the bottom local load, σxC.
The effect of the bottom local loads on the buckling collapse behavior of the inner bottom is discussed next. Fig. 21 schematically
shows the bending strain distribution in the cross section subjected to the combined global bending and bottom local bending. In the
outer bottom, the longitudinal bending strain, which is the sum of global and local bending strains, increases as the global and local
curvatures increase. On the other hand, in the inner bottom, which is on the tension side of the local bending, the compressive strains
due to global and local bending cancel each other. After the outer bottom fails, the tensile strain due to local bending further increases.
As a result, the total compressive strain does not much increases even in the hogging condition. Fig. 22 shows the history of the average
compressive stress and average compressive strain calculated for the panel IB. The points P, Q R, S and T in Fig. 22 correspond to those
on the bending moment-end rotation relationship shown in Fig. 17. The point P indicates the tensile stress and strain caused by the
local loads. With increase in the hogging moment, the compressive stress increases from the point P to Q, where the outer bottom fails
and the hull girder attains the ultimate strength. Then the unloading takes place up to the point R because of the rapid growth of the
local bending deformation of the double bottom. And again the compressive stress and strain increase up to the point S, and finally to
the point T. This shows that the inner bottom does not effectively work as a strength member against hogging moment between the
point Q and R. This reduction of the effectiveness of inner bottom is the second factor of the ultimate strength reduction due to bottom
local loads.

4.3. Effect of transverse compression

In order to investigate the effect of the transverse compression in the bottom plate on the ultimate hogging strength, a local
stiffened panel taken from the outer bottom of 8000 TEU container ship is separately analyzed. The region extending the 1/2 þ 1þ1/2
floor spaces in the longitudinal direction and the 1/2 þ 1þ1/2 stiffener spaces in the transverse direction are considered as shown in
Fig. 23. The floors are not modelled but the panel and stiffener deflections are fixed at the floors. The periodical boundary condition
(PBC) is applied to the boundaries [15]. All edges of the plate panel are kept straight with respect to the in-plane deformation. The
lateral pressure corresponding to the 15 m water height is applied first, and then the biaxial compression is applied keeping the average
stress ratios, σ y/σx, constant [15]. The dotted line with solid circles in Fig. 24 (PBC-1) gives the ultimate strength interaction curve
obtained by the analysis. The curve consists of two regions; i.e. transverse thrust-dominant (σy/σ Y ¼ 0.35–0.45) and longitudinal thrust
dominant. In the former, the collapse occurs due to the plate buckling, while in the latter due to the stiffener buckling.
The solid line with triangles shows a history of the biaxial average stresses that acted on the target stiffened panel (OB in Fig. 14) in
the outer bottom obtained by the global collapse analysis of the hold model (GA). The longitudinal and transverse stresses in all shell
elements within the region of the stiffened panel are averaged. The path OA indicates the biaxial compressive stresses caused by the
water pressure. Under the subsequent hogging moment, the longitudinal stress σx increases along the path AB and reaches the ultimate
longitudinal strength at the point C. This shows that although the biaxial stresses in the hold model reach the ultimate strength
interaction curve calculated for an isolated stiffened panel at the point B on the curve PBC-1, the longitudinal average stress can
increase up to the point C. The resulting ultimate longitudinal strength is close to the ultimate strength when only σx is applied (point
E). In this sense, the influence of the transverse stress caused by the water pressure on the ultimate longitudinal strength of the bottom
stiffened panel is not significant eventually, because of a capability of change in the stress ratio as shown by the path BC.

17
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

Fig. 27. Ultimate hull girder strength obtained by a series analysis.

4.4. Effect of double-bottom curvature on the ultimate longitudinal strength of stiffened panel

It is found from Fig. 24 that the ultimate longitudinal strength of the bottom stiffened panel obtained by the GA of the hold model
(point C) exceeds the ultimate strength given by the interaction curve (PBC-1). To investigate the reason for this, an additional analysis
is performed as shown in Fig. 25, in which the history of the in-plane edge displacements obtained by the GA is applied to the isolated
stiffened panel as forced displacements under the periodic boundary condition (PBC-2). The curvature caused by the global and local
bending deformations of the hold model is not considered, and only in-plane edge displacements are applied.
Fig. 26 shows the history of the average compressive strains εx and εy calculated from the in-plane edge displacements taken from
the GA. The points O, A, B and C correspond to those in Fig. 24. The path OA indicates the bi-axial compressive strains caused by the
water pressure alone. After the point A, εx is increased by the hogging moment and εy is decreased by the Poisson’s effect. εy is increased

18
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

again after the point B. This is due to a large deflection effect after buckling of the plate. Applying this history of biaxial average strains
to the flat stiffened panel, the collapse analysis has been performed. The calculated history of the applied biaxial average stresses is
shown by the chain line in Fig. 24. Even after the bi-axial stresses attain the ultimate strength interaction curve (PBC-1), the stiffened
panel carries further longitudinal stress, which is similar to the result of GA. The resulting ultimate longitudinal strength (point D) is
closer to the interaction curve than the point C. This is probably because the longitudinal curvature due to the global and local bending
deformations of the hold model is not considered in the PBC-2. The longitudinal curvature generates the tensile stress in the flange of
bottom stiffeners. It delays the yielding of the stiffener flange, resulting in the increase of the ultimate longitudinal strength of the
stiffened panel.

4.5. Series analysis

A series of collapse analysis of container ships under combined hogging moment and bottom local loads is performed as shown in
Table 2. In series A, the bottom water pressure is changed without applying container loads. In series B, the container load is changed
under the constant water pressure corresponding to the design draft. Fig. 27 shows the calculated ultimate hogging strength. The
bottom water pressure decreases the ultimate hogging strength, while the container loads increases the ultimate hogging strength. The
reduction rate of the ultimate hogging strength is shown in Table 2. Since the ultimate hogging strength of container ships is highly
influenced by the bottom local loads as shown, it is necessary to develop the simple method to predict the ultimate hull girder strength
considering the local load effects in a reasonable manner. This will be discussed in the Part 2 study.

5. Conclusions

The progressive collapse behavior of the 8,000TEU class and 14,000TEU class container ships subjected to combined hogging
moment and bottom local loads is investigated by the nonlinear finite element analysis of the 1/2 þ 1þ1/2 hold models and the
continuous stiffened panel models. The major factors of the reduction of the ultimate hogging strength due to bottom local loads are
identified. The following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The first major effect of the bottom local loads on the ultimate hogging strength is the increased longitudinal thrust in the outer
bottom plate and the resulting reduction of its buckling strength.
2. The second major effect of the bottom local loads on the ultimate hogging strength is the reduced effectiveness of the inner bottom
which is on the tension side of the local bending of the double bottom.
3. As the result of the above two major factors, the ultimate hogging strength of container ships has been attained immediately after
the buckling collapse of the outer bottom in either size of ships and in all local-load cases considered in the present study.
4. The transverse compressive stress generated in the outer bottom enhances the buckling of local plate, but its influence on the
ultimate longitudinal strength of the bottom plate and the ultimate hogging strength is limited compared to the longitudinal
compressive stress.
5. The longitudinal curvature of the double bottom due to upward local loads generates the tensile stress in the flange of bottom
stiffener and has a significant influence on the ultimate strength of the bottom stiffened panel.

Declaration of competing interest

We declare no conflict of interest associated with the manuscript, “Ultimate Strength of Container Ships Subjected to Combined
Hogging Moment and Bottom Local Loads, Part 1: Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis”.

Acknowledgement

It is acknowledged that the present work has been partially supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(JSPS)
KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP15H02328 and JP16K18321.

References

[1] Class NK. Investigation report on structural safety of large container ship. 2014.
[2] Maritime Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure. Transport and tourism, Japan. 2015. Final report of committee on large container ship safety.
[3] Østvold TK, Steen E, Holtsmark G. Nonlinear strength analyses of a bulk carrier – a case study. In: Proc. 9th Int. Symp. Practical Design of Ships and Other
Floating Structures, PRADS2004; 2004. p. 252–60.
[4] Amlashi HKK, Moan T. Ultimate strength analysis of a bulk carrier hull girder under alternate hold loading condition - a case study. Part 1: nonlinear finite
element modelling and ultimate hull girder capacity. Mar Struct 2008;21:327–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2007.12.006.
[5] Amlashi HKK, Moan T. Ultimate strength analysis of a bulk carrier hull girder under alternate hold loading condition - a case study. Part 2: stress distribution in
the double bottom and simplified approaches. Mar Struct 2009;22:522–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2008.12.005.
[6] Kippenes J, Notaro G, Amlashi H, Steen E. Ultimate strength of cape size bulk carrier under alternate loading. In: Proc. 11th Int. Symp Practical Design of Ships
and Other Floating Structures, PRADS2010; 2010. p. 1114–22.
[7] Shu Z, Moan T. Ultimate hull girder strength of a bulk carrier under combined global and local loads in the hogging and alternate hold loading condition using
nonlinear finite element analysis. J Mar Sci Technol 2012;17:94–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-011-0147-9.
[8] Darie I, Roerup J, Wolf V. Ultimate strength of a cape size bulk carrier under combined global and local loads. In: Proc. 12th Int. Symp. Pract. Des. Ships Other
Float. Struct.; 2013. p. 1173–80.

19
A. Tatsumi and M. Fujikubo Marine Structures 69 (2020) 102683

[9] Toh K, Yoshikawa T. A study on the effect of lateral loads on the hull girder ultimate strength of bulk carriers. In: Anal. des. mar. struct. - proc. 5th Int. conf. mar.
struct. MARSTRUCT 2015; 2015. p. 425–34.
[10] International Association of Classification Society. Common structural rules for bulk carriers and oil tankers. 2014.
[11] Matsumoto T, Shigemi T, Kidogawa M, Ishibashi K, Sugimoto K. In: Examination of effect of lateral loads on the hull girder ultimate strength of large container
ships. OMAE; 2016. p. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2016-54350. 2016.
[12] Tatsumi A, Fujikubo M. Finite element analysis of longitudinal bending collapse of container ship considering bottom local loads. In: Proc. int. conf. offshore
mech. arct. eng., vol. 3. OMAE; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2016-54747.
[13] Fujikubo M, Tatsumi A. Ultimate strength of ship hull girder under combined longitudinal bending and local loads. In: Proc. 2nd Int. conf. on safety and
reliability of ships, offshore and subsea structures - SAROSS2016; 2016.
[14] Smith CS, Davidson Chapman JC, Dowling PJ. Strength and stiffeness of ships’ plating under in-plane compression and tension. Trans. Royal Inst. Naval Archit.
1987;130:277–96.
[15] Fujikubo M, Tatsumi A, Iijima K. Boundary condition for buckling/plastic collapse analysis of continuous stiffened panel under combined thrust and inplane
shear. In: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Thin-Walled Struct. - ICTWS2014; 2014.

20