CLASSIFICATION NOTES

No. 30.8

STRENGTH ANALYSIS OF
HULL STRUCTURES IN

HIGH SPEED AND LIGHT CRAFT

AUGUST 1996

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Høvik, Norway Tel.: +47 67 57 99 00 Fax: +47 67 57 99 11
FOREWORD
DET NORSKE VERITAS (DNV) is an autonomous and independent Foundation with the object of safeguarding life,
property and the environment at sea and ashore.

DET NORSKE VERITAS AS (DNV AS), a fully owned subsidiary Society of the Foundation, undertakes classification and
certification and ensures the quality of ships, mobile offshore units, fixed offshore structures, facilities and systems, and
carries out research in connection with these functions. The Society operates a world-wide network of survey stations and is
authorised by more than 120 national administrations to carry out surveys and, in most cases, issue certificates on their behalf.

Classification Notes

Classification Notes are publications which give practical information on classification of ships and other objects. Examples of
design solutions, calculation methods, specifications of test procedures, as well as acceptable repair methods for some
components are given as interpretations of the more general rule requirements.

An updated list of Classification Notes is available on request. The list is also given in the latest edition of the Introduction-
booklets to the "Rules for Classification of Ships", the "Rules for Classification of Mobile Offshore Units" and the "Rules for
Classification of High Speed and Light Craft".

In "Rules for Classification of Fixed Offshore Installations", only those Classification Notes which are relevant for this type of
structure have been listed.

© Det Norske Veritas AS 1996

Data processed and typeset by Division Technology and Products, Det Norske Veritas AS
03/07/2003 10:43 AM - CN30-8.doc
Printed in Norway by Det Norske Veritas AS
9.96.2000

ERROR! AUTOTEXT ENTRY NOT DEFINED.

CONTENTS
1. GENERAL ...............................................................4 3.5 Reporting............................................................. 15
1.1 Introduction ...........................................................4 4. WATERJET DUCTS............................................ 16
1.2 Definitions .............................................................4 4.1 Introduction......................................................... 16
2. TRANSVERSE WEB FRAME ANALYSIS .........5 4.2 Load conditions................................................... 16
2.1 Introduction ...........................................................5 4.3 Modelling ............................................................ 18
2.2 Procedure ...............................................................5 4.4 Results and stress analysis .................................. 20
2.3 Load conditions .....................................................5 5. HIGH SPEED LIGHT CRAFT SUPPORTED BY
2.4 Beam element modelling .......................................8 FOILS................................................................................. 22
2.5 Finite element modelling .....................................10 5.1 Introduction......................................................... 22
2.6 Stress analysis......................................................10 5.2 Design loads on foil systems............................... 22
3. GLOBAL STRENGTH ANALYSIS....................12 5.3 Strength analyses................................................. 23
3.1 Introduction .........................................................12 5.4 Local analysis...................................................... 23
3.2 Design loads ........................................................12 5.5 Acceptance criteria.............................................. 23
3.3 Modelling.............................................................14 6. APPENDIX A TYPICAL STRUCTURAL
3.4 Design criteria......................................................15 DETAILS ........................................................................... 24

DET NORSKE VERITAS

4 Classification Notes- No. 30.8

August 1996

1. GENERAL 1.2.2 Notations

L = length of the craft in m defined as the length
1.1 Introduction between perpendiculars. Amidships is defined
These guidelines should be considered in connection with as the middle of L
DNV Rules for Classification of High Speed and Light Craft,
B = greatest moulded breadth in m
Pt.3 Ch.2 / Ch.3 Sec.9. The aim of these guidelines is to set a
standard for various types of direct strength calculations D = moulded depth in m
performed in addition to or as a substitute to the specific rule
requirements as given in the Rules for High Speed and Light T = fully loaded draught in m with craft floating
Craft. at rest in calm water
The application of direct stress analysis may be required as:
∆ = fully loaded displacement in tonnes in salt
a) Part of rule scantling determination. In such cases where water at draught T
simplified formulations are not able to take into account
Cb = block coefficient
special stress distributions, boundary conditions or
structural arrangements with sufficient accuracy, direct V = Maximum speed in knots
stress analysis has been required in the rules.
b) Alternative basis for the scantlings. In some cases direct Bwl = greatest moulded breath of the hull in m at the
stress calculations may give reduced scantlings, fully loaded water line, for multihull vessels
especially when optimisation routines are incorporated. Bwl is the net sum of the waterline breadths
1.1.1
g0 = standard acceleration of gravity = 9,81 m/s2
Due to complexity in design and extended need for direct
strength calculations, guidelines are given in excess of direct LCG = Longitudinal Centre of Gravity
rule requirements in some areas. Basis for class approval is
related to the general rule requirements applicable for the acg = vertical design acceleration at LCG (m/s2)
response to specific load conditions.
av = dynamic vertical design acceleration at
When direct calculations are intended as classification different positions along the length of the
documentation, the class should in general be approached craft (m/s2).
prior to submission of final documentation.
at = dynamic transverse acceleration (m/s2)
The aim of this Classification Note is to establish an
acceptable documentation standard with respect to direct ay, ary = as given in the Rules for Classification of
strength calculations as basis for a class approval of a HSLC Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.4 B
design.
ρH = specified uniform cargo load (t/m2)

1.2 Definitions p = design pressure (kN/m2)

1.2.1 E = modulus of elasticity of the material, = 69 000
The following SI-units (International System of units) are N/mm2 for aluminium, = 206 000 N/mm2 for
used in this Note : steel

Mass tonne (t) Cw = wave coefficient

Length millimetre (mm) or meter (m), stated in Hs = significant wave height in m
each case
θ = rolling angle (deg).
Time seconds (s)
Force kilonewton (kN)
Acceleration meters per second square (m/s2).

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Classification Notes- No. 30.8 5

August 1996

When a 3-dimensional analysis is performed, the loads,

2. TRANSVERSE WEB FRAME ANALYSIS
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1
For girders which are part of a complex 2- or 3-dimensional
structural system, the Rules for Classification of High Speed
and Light Craft require a complete structural analysis to be
carried out. The analysis is to show that the stresses are
acceptable for the structure in question when loaded in
accordance with the described load conditions.
Any recognised calculation method or computer program
may be applied, provided the effects of bending, shear, axial
and torsional deformations are considered when relevant.
Strength analysis in accordance with the guidelines outlined
in this Classification Note will normally be accepted as basis
for class approval.
Guidance note:
When web frame strength analysis is submitted as documentation
for class approval of drawings, the following should be included:
model and boundary conditions should correspond to the
approach outlined in this Classification Note.
2.2.3
When pillars are fitted with regular intervals over the length
of the cargo region, modelling of bottom and deck grillages
may be necessary in addition to transverse web frame
analysis. These additional calculations may involve an
iteration process to obtain vertical force balance between the
various grillage models. When this iteration process is
necessary for simpler models, it is also valid to recommend a
bigger 3 dimensional model to include frames, decks and
pillars all together to make this iteration unnecessary.
Bottom structures with longitudinal bottom girders and/or
large fuel or ballast tanks, should be analysed by a 3-
dimensional model. The model should preferably extend
from middle of one compartment to middle of next
compartment.

− reference to drawings
− description of model including boundary conditions
− description of loads
− description of results
− conclusion.

See also 3.5.

End of Guidance note

2.1.2
Strength analysis as described is generally related to a web
frame structure of a High Speed and Light Craft, and unless
otherwise stated related to a 2-dimensional beam element
model.

2.2 Procedure
Figure 2-1 Frame or compartment for web frame
2.2.1 analysis
Calculations of the transverse web frame strength should
generally be performed for a typical frame in the midship
2.3 Load conditions
region for vessels less than 50 m. For larger vessels, and for 2.3.1
vessels with unusual arrangement, several sections along the
length of the vessel should be considered. Load Condition 1, sea pressure, maximum load on decks
(LC1)
2.2.2 This load condition is shown in Figure 2-2, and may be
When maximum response for a transverse web frame is to be decisive for side and deck structures.
established, a frame in the middle of a compartment is
normally analysed, see also Figure 2-1. The design pressures due to cargo loads (including structure)
are to be taken as :
Acceptable calculations may be performed by
p v = ρH ( g 0 + 0,5a v ) (kN/m2)
• 2-dimensional beam element framework analysis
• 3-dimensional framework or ρH = 0,35 t/m2 for accommodation decks, see also the Rules
• finite element calculations. Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.2 C.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

6 Classification Notes- No. 30.8
For wheel loaded decks, the actual wheel loads should be
applied. The worst combination of wheel loads on one frame
should be analysed.
In addition to a load case with point loads representing wheel
loads, an equivalent evenly distributed load should be
considered (minimum 4 kN/m2).
Forces transferred to the analysed frame from surrounding
structure should be applied as point loads (e.g. from
longitudinal girder when considering frame in way of
pillars).
Design sea pressures are to be taken in accordance with the
rules Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.2 C500, and should be applied on all
external surfaces.
Figure 2-2 Load condition 1 (definition of point loads
from surrounding structure indicated schematic for one
pillar on one deck)
DET NORSKE VERITAS
August 1996
2.3.2
Load Condition 2, symmetric bottom slamming (LC2)
This load case is shown in Figure 2-3 and
Figure 2-4, and may be decisive for the bottom structure.
The load case investigates the effect of symmetric impact
pressure on one frame, using the average impact pressure
values as given by the Rules.
The deck load distribution is the same as in LC1.
The bottom slamming pressure is to be found from the Rules
Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.2 C200-C300, and be taken as the greatest of
bottom slamming and pitching slamming. For frames
positioned where the forebody side and bow impact pressure
is largest, the loads must be applied up to main deck or
vertical part of craft side.
The design load area is normally taken as the frame spacing
times the length of the frame between the chine or upper turn
of bilge (m2) for bottom slamming.
For a 3-dimensional model, the bottom slamming pressure
should be applied for one frame, and sea pressure on the
bottom panels of the other frames.
Figure 2-3 Load condition 2. In midship region, bottom
slamming pressure applied. In foreship area bow impact
pressure applied
Classification Notes- No. 30.8 7

August 1996

0 .8 (m)
H L = 0 ,2 2 L ( k c − L)
1000

kc = 0,3 for catamaran, wave-piercer, SES, ACV, and

hydrofoil

kc = 0,5 for SWATH,

the tunnel top slamming pressure is to be replaced with sea

pressure.

In a 3-dimensional model, tunnel top slamming pressure only

needs to be applied to one frame (sea pressure on remaining
Figure 2-4 Definition of turn of bilge/chine for different frames).
hull shapes.

2.3.3
Load condition 3 and 4, asymmetric bottom slamming (LC3
and LC4)

This load case may be decisive for the bottom structure. The
load case investigates the effect of asymmetric impact
pressure on one frame, using the average impact pressure
values as given by the Rules. In the bottom area design loads
are applied on only one side at the time (inside slamming or
outside slamming).

The deck load distribution is the same as in LC1.

The bottom slamming pressure is to be taken from the Rules

Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.2 C200-C300, and be taken as the greatest of
bottom slamming, pitching slamming and forebody and bow
impact pressure.

The design load area is taken as half of the area used in LC2.
In cases where a 3-dimensional analysis is performed, the
slamming pressure only needs to be applied to one frame
(sea pressure on other frames). Figure 2-5 Load condition 5

2.3.4
Load Condition 5, flat cross structure slamming (LC5)
This load case is shown in Fig.2.5, and may be decisive for
the cross structure of a multihull vessel. The load case
investigates the effect of impact pressure on the wet deck,
using the average impact pressure values as given by the
Rules.
The deck load distribution is the same as in LC1, and the sea
pressure from water line to wet deck is taken from the Rules.
The tunnel top slamming pressure is to be taken from the
Rules Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.2 C400. Design sea pressure is applied
from centre line to design water line on the outside of the
hull.
2.3.5
Load condition 6, transverse racking (LC6), monohull
vessels only.
This load case represents the vessel in heeled condition, and
may be decisive for the lower side frames of a monohull. If a
global racking calculation has been carried out, the
transverse and vertical displacements of decks and side
should be given as input, see also 3.3.10 regarding procedure
for global racking calculations.
A simplified check may be performed as indicated below.
The deck vertical design load is taken as:
p v = ρ H g 0 co s θ (kN/m2)

The design load area is taken as the frame spacing times the
distance between the hulls. The deck horizontal design load is taken as:

If the height from the water line to the wet deck is more than p h = 0 ,5 ρ H a t (kN/m2)

DET NORSKE VERITAS

8 Classification Notes- No. 30.8
at = design transverse acceleration (m/s2), to be taken from
the rules Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.2 B302 for multihull vessels in forced
roll, and from Rules for Classification of Ships for monohull
vessels. See also 3.2.10.
θ = maximum roll inclination.
2.3.6
Load condition 7, asymmetric deck load (LC7)
This load case is shown in Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7, and is
only relevant for deck grillage including pillars.
Deck load as for LC1.
Figure 2-6 Load condition 7, transversally asymmetric
deck load
Figure 2-7 Load condition 7, longitudinally asymmetric
deck load
2.4 Beam element modelling
2.4.1
Separate considerations must be made case by case to decide
the extent and position of the model. The following should
be considered when the extent of analysis is decided:
DET NORSKE VERITAS
August 1996
• model transverse frame at pillars or between pillars
• model from side to side or half-model
• longitudinal position(s) of modelled frame(s).
2.4.2
It is assumed that correlation between individual 2-
dimensional models is proven to be satisfactory (e.g. deck
and transverse frame models).
The symbols used are described in Figure 2-8.
2.4.3
Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10 show typical models of
transverse frames for a monohull and a multihull. Racking is
not considered critical for a multihull vessel, and a half-
model with symmetry conditions at centre line is normally
modelled, while a full web frame is modelled for a
monohull.
2.4.4
Areas of the web frame with large curvature should be
modelled with increased number of elements.
Structural discontinuities, as end connections with brackets
or plate knuckles, should be modelled with rigid element
ends offering similar section properties. See also
Figure 2-11.
Additional nodes may have to be modelled at side and decks
in order to represent the loads properly.
Figure 2-8 Symbols
2.4.5
The efficiency of the girder flanges should be considered for
girders with
• a large span
Classification Notes- No. 30.8 9

August 1996

• curved plate or face flanges. l = distance between effective transverse bulkheads

(fixed box ends)
See also Fig.2.12.
n = number of loads along the box

As = actual shear area.

Note that the spring stiffness calculations are based on the

assumption that a frame in the middle of a compartment is
analysed. The formula is only applicable for l / D < 5, else
use 2.4.7.

In areas where the shell plating is not tangential to a typical

spring stiffness axis (program dependent), equivalent axial
bar elements should be used. The length of the “spring
element” may be found by :

EA
Figure 2-9 Transverse web frame model of monohull,
ls = (mm)
K
complete frame modelled between pillars.
A = cross-sectional area of “spring element”

ls = length of “spring element” (lengths exceeding

the length of the surrounding elements should be
avoided).

2.4.7
Transverse frames are often connected by longitudinal deck
girders, bottom girders and longitudinal bulkheads in the
cross structure of multihull vessels. In a 2-dimensional
model, this connection must be represented by springs. The
spring stiffness of slender elements may be calculated by the
following formula :

E
K= (N/mm)
( n + 1)l 3 2,6( n + 1)l
+
384 I 8 As

Figure 2-10 Transverse web frame model of catamaran, l = distance between effective transverse bulkheads
only half of the frame modelled at pillar row. Valid only (fixed box ends) or distance between pillars for
for symmetric load conditions deck beams supported by pillars

2.4.6 n = number of point loads along the box (e.g.

number of frames between pillars)
Vertical and horizontal springs corresponding to the stiffness
of the shell and decks are to be applied. As = actual shear area
The stiffness coefficient for the springs representing the shell I = actual moment of inertia.
and the decks may normally be calculated by the following
formula for l / D < 5:

E
K= (N/mm)
2,6( n + 1)l
8 As

DET NORSKE VERITAS

10
Figure 2-11 Rigid element end
Figure 2-12 Effective flange consideration
2.5 Finite element modelling
2.5.1
A complex 3-dimensional finite element analysis may be
applied to analyse the structural strength of a transverse web
frame.
Normally the model should cover the length of one
compartment in the midship area from base line to upper
deck, and extend from centre of one compartment to centre
of next compartment.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Classification Notes- No. 30.8
August 1996
2.5.2
The mesh fineness and element types used in finite element
models must be sufficient to allow the model to represent the
deformation pattern of the actual structure with respect to
matters such as:
• effective flange (shear lag)
• bending deformation of beam structures
• three dimensional response of curved regions.
2.5.3
In order to obtain sufficiently accurate results, the mesh
fineness should represent the true web frame structure. This
means modelling plating, webs and flanges as separate
elements. It is acceptable that only one frame is modelled
with a fine mesh (the highest loaded frame).
2.5.4
In order to properly consider shear and bending, 3 elements
should be used over the height of the web of the frame, and
with an element length to breadth ratio of 3.
In areas with curved flanges, the element length should be
approximately equal the stiffener spacing.
2.5.5
In areas with discontinuities (ends of flanges, knuckles,
brackets), the model should represent the discontinuity with
increased mesh fineness An alternative solution is to perform
separate analysis by separate local models of such details.
2.5.6
Calculated stresses based on constant stress elements may
have to be considered with respect to the stress variation
within each element length.
2.5.7
Symmetry conditions are to be applied at each end of the
model. If the model only covers half of the breadth of the
vessel, symmetry conditions should also be applied at centre
line. Boundary conditions representing vertical support
should be added as vertical shear forces at the end nodes of
the model, in order to obtain a balanced model.
2.6 Stress analysis
2.6.1
For web frame analysis, the allowable stresses are normally
taken as :
Classification Notes- No. 30.8 11

August 1996

Design loads Plating Stiffeners and 2.6.4

girders Peak stresses as obtained by fine meshed finite element
Dynamic loads (slamming) calculations may be allowed to exceed the values stated
− equivalent stress 220 f1 200 f1 above in local areas close to stress concentration points. The
allowable peak stress is subject to special consideration in
− bending stress 200 f1 180 f1
each case.
Static loading (sea pressure)
− equivalent stress 200 f1 180 f1
− bending stress 180 f1 160 f1 2.6.5
The results from the web frame analysis should be evaluated
Allowable shear stress: 90 f1. with respect to plate buckling of the girder plate flange.
The allowable stresses for dynamic loading are connected to
impact loads.

2.6.2
The allowable stresses given above assume that appropriate
considerations and conditions are taken with respect to the
model definition and result analysis. In particular the
following should be noted:

• areas representing girder flanges must be adjusted for

effective width in accordance with Pt.3 Ch.3 Sec.6 B200.
• structural details not modelled, as termination of flanges,
bracket connections, pillar landings etc., should be
separately evaluated based on forces taken from the
analysis, see also Figure 2-13.

Nominal stresses calculated by finite element calculations

are to be related to the allowable stresses given above to the
extent that such stresses do not refer to local stress
concentrations in the structure or to local modelling
deficiencies.

2.6.3 Figure 2-13 Local structural detail, effective web area

adjusted for cut-outs
Shear stresses in girder webs as obtained by beam- or finite
element calculation may only be related to the allowable
shear stresses outside of areas with openings not modelled.
Corrections for effective web area should be performed in
the case of cut-outs for stiffeners or similar not being
modelled, see also Figure 2-13.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

12 Classification Notes- No. 30.8

August 1996

3. GLOBAL STRENGTH ANALYSIS Load Description Application

Condition
3.1 Introduction LC 1 Still water Monohull/multihull
3.1.1 condition vessels
LC 2 Longitudinal ------- “ ------------
In accordance with the rules Pt.3 Ch.3 Sec.4 A103, a
hogging moment
complete 3-dimensional global analysis is to be performed
LC 3 Longitudinal --------“ ------------
for new designs of large and structurally complex craft. The
sagging moment
requirement for global strength analysis normally applies for
vessels more than 50 m in length. LC 4 Transverse split Multihull vessels
force
LC 5 Torsion moment / Monohull/multihull
3.1.2
pitch connecting vessels
The guidelines given in this Classification Note will provide moment
a framework for the evaluation of the hull structure based on LC 6 Combination Multihull vessels
a global strength analysis, where the analysis may be longitudinal
accepted as basis for approval. bending and
torsion
3.1.3 LC 7 Transverse racking Monohull vessels
Calculations required to be performed are to be carried out Table 3-1 Global load conditions
by computer programs recognised by DNV. Recognised
programs are considered programs used by shipyards where 3.2.4
reliable results have been experienced and accepted by
DNV. Load Condition 1, still water condition (LC1)

3.1.4
General guidelines given by this Classification Note are only
applicable for High Speed Light Craft, and references are
given to the Rules for Classification of High Speed and Light
Craft.
3.2 Design loads
3.2.1
The load calculations should be based on the Tentative Rules
for the Classification of High Speed and Light Craft 1996.
Design values should be agreed between designer and DNV
prior to final analysis.
3.2.2
Alternative loads, i.e. from direct hydrodynamic
calculations, may be used for design calculations. Alternative
design load formulations must be agreed with DNV in each
case. Wave load analysis programs and their application will
only be accepted on a case to case basis.
3.2.3
Table 3-1 describes typical loading conditions and their
applicability with respect to type of design. Each load case is
described below.
Additional load conditions may be considered relevant.
This load case is based on the difference between weight and
buoyancy in still water condition at design draught. A
loading manual is to be prepared to document the various
still water conditions. The load condition should be
accurately modelled to avoid trim of the model due to
different position of Longitudinal Centre of Gravity and
Longitudinal Centre of Buoyancy. The correct transverse and
longitudinal mass distribution should be used.
The load case is a supplement to LC2, LC3 and LC4.
3.2.5
Load Condition 2, longitudinal hogging moment (LC2)
This load case is shown in Figure 3-1 and will be decisive
with regard to allowable longitudinal stresses and buckling
capacity in the bottom area.
The longitudinal hogging moment may be derived from :
• rule crest landing formula, Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.3 A200
• rule hogging moment, Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.3 A500
• direct calculations of hydrodynamic loads
Only the largest needs to be analysed.
An example of acceptable modelling of the load case is
shown in Figure 3-1. The mass distribution of the vessel is
given (go+acg) vertical acceleration, and this load is balanced
with buoyancy line loads around LCG.

In order to verify that the loading is correct, regardless of

modelling for design global moment, it is necessary to
demonstrate that the following have been achieved :

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Classification Notes- No. 30.8 13

August 1996

• the required maximum bending moment SPLIT LOAD CONDITION

• maximum shear at approximately quarter length of vessel
M split
• the LCG is approximately in line with LCB y ⋅F y

1 3
• negligible reaction forces at supporting nodes. ⋅ ⋅ Fy 1 3
⋅ ⋅ Fy x
2 4 2 4
Correct transverse and longitudinal mass distribution is to be 1
used. ⋅ Fy
4
x+ y=h
Longitudinal and transverse mass Aft
distribution multiplied by (go + acg) 3
M split = Fy ⋅ y + M s ,keel
4
LCG
1
M s ,keel = Fy {( x + y ) − ~x}
4

Bouyancy applied at
Boundary conditions only bottom around LCG
to prevent rigid body movement x+ y =h
BASELINE
~
x

Figure 3-1 Load condition 2, only half of the vessel x~ = the “mean” offset line established by measuring the distance
between the keel and the baseline
shown
NOTE : - the sum of the horizontal forces is to act at 75% of the draught
- no mass is required to be modelled in this condition
3.2.6
Load Condition 3, global sagging moment (LC3)
Figure 3-2 Load condition 4, transverse split, split
This load case may be decisive with regard to allowable outwards shown
longitudinal stresses and buckling capacity in the upper
3.2.8
decks.
Load Condition 5, torsion moment / pitch connecting
Modelling of this load case may in principle be as for LC2. moment (LC5)

3.2.7
Load Condition 4, transverse split force (LC4)
This load case is shown in Figure 3-2 (split force acting
outwards) and is decisive for the structure between the hulls,
the side and bulkheads for a multihull vessel. The load case
represents horizontal wave loads acting on the hulls.
This load case is shown in Figure 3-3, and may be decisive
for the cross structure. As indicated in Figure 3-3, the torsion
and pitch connecting moments are combined in the same
load condition. The load condition may be modelled without
a mass distribution.
A full structural model should be applied.

The horizontal transverse split force Fy is found from the 3.2.9

Rules, Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.3 B202. According to the rules, the split
moment caused by the split force should be combined with
the still water transverse bending moment. A combination of
the transverse moments may be obtained by combining LC1
with this load condition. It is advised that both positive and
negative split forces are combined with LC1 and analysed as
two load conditions.
Load Condition 6, combination of longitudinal bending and
torsion (LC6)
This load case is a combination of LC2 and LC5 or LC3 and
LC5. Only the maximum longitudinal bending moment
needs to be combined with LC5. The following
combinations should be analysed:

a) 80 % longitudinal bending and 60 % LC5.

b) 80 % LC5 and 60% longitudinal bending.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

14 Classification Notes- No. 30.8

August 1996

ph

qs
qb

Figure 3-3 Possible modelling of Load condition 5,

alternative ways may be used Figure 3-4 Load condition 7

3.2.10 3.3 Modelling

Load Condition 7, transverse racking, dynamic loads only
(LC7)
This load case is shown if Figure 3-4, and may be decisive
for the lower side frames and transverse bulkheads for a
monohull vessel.
3.3.1
The global finite element model should in general cover the
complete ship. In particular it is necessary that the model
covers the geometrical hull shape, transverse bulkheads,
decks, and any torsional box structures.

A combination of vertical and transverse deck loads should 3.3.2

be applied for the upper decks in accordance with:
Size, type and number of elements should be selected to
monohull vessel: ensure that the effects of bending, shear and torsion of the
hull beam are fully accounted for.
at = g0sinθ + ary m/s2
Typical maximum element size may be influenced by
θ, ary, see Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.4 element type. If four noded elements are used, a typical
B. element size is maximum three elements per frame spacing
in the longitudinal direction and 3 elements for each tier.
− multihull vessels:
2 Normally a length to breadth ratio of 3 is acceptable as
 2π  element size (normally not less than 1 m in breadth).
at =   θ r rr + g0 sin θ m/s 2

 TR  An example of a global Finite Element Model is shown in

Figure 3-5.
TR, θr, rr, see rules for HSLC, Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.2 B.
3.3.3
Dynamic horizontal deck loads are taken as
A basic description of the model is to be provided indicating
ph = 0,5ρHat (kN/m2) the extent of the actual structure to be modelled, and stating
that the model will represent the structural drawings
where ρH is 0,35 t/m2 for passenger deck. adequately and which simplifications have been utilised.
Drawings are to be referenced and, if possible, the modelled
The transverse deck racking loads should be balanced by a areas indicated on these drawings. Input units should be
horizontal line load (qs in Figure 3-4) at the design water line listed.
of the vessel. The resulting moment should be balanced by a
counteracting vertical force couple (qb in Figure 3-4). All
load components should be balanced in order to ensure that
an equilibrium load condition is achieved, with minimised
support node reaction forces.

Figure 3-5 Example of a Finite Element Model

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Classification Notes- No. 30.8
August 1996
3.3.4
Simplified modelling compared to the real structure is
acceptable, but must be clearly identified. A list of
assumptions and simplifications to be specified may include
items such as:
• representation of stiffeners as lumped to the nearest mesh
line and inertia correcting techniques
• element connections
• curved plates modelled as straight
• representation and modelling of cut-outs
• transverse frame lumping techniques
• slight arrangement changes due to nodal locations
• masses lumped as discrete points
• list of internal structure not included.
3.3.5
The correct choice of boundary conditions is essential in
achieving reasonable results from an FEM analysis. The
chosen boundary conditions should reflect symmetry (if so
desired) and prevent numerical errors from occurring.
Attention should always be paid to the stresses and
deflections resulting from the modelled boundary conditions.
Generally the boundary conditions are checked by verifying
that they are in balance without reaction forces, and that only
rigid body movements are prevented.
3.3.6
A verification of the model should be available for result
evaluations. Plots of the model showing boundary
conditions, shell thicknesses, co-ordinate axis orientation
should be given.
3.4 Design criteria
3.4.1
Allowable global stresses are in general to be taken as given
in Pt.3 Ch.3 Sec.4. Where shear-lag effects dominate, stress
distribution and peak stresses should be carefully considered.
Special attention should be given to structural discontinuities
or areas where the stress flow is not properly taken into
account due to a coarse element mesh or simplifications
during modelling.
3.4.2
The results from the analysis should be evaluated with
respect to:
• comparison of main results with simplified calculations
• reaction versus applied loads
• allowable global stresses according to Pt.3 Ch.3 Sec.4 for
aluminium and Pt.3 Ch.2 Sec.4 for steel craft
• combination of global and local stresses according to Pt.3
Ch.3 Sec.9 for aluminium and Pt.3 Ch.2 Sec.9 for steel
craft
DET NORSKE VERITAS
15
• buckling capacity of various panels, stiffeners and girder
systems, Pt.3 Ch.3 Sec.10 for aluminium and Pt.3 Ch.2
Sec.10 for steel craft.
3.4.3
In areas with peak stresses exceeding the allowable rule
values, such as at cut-outs or other structural discontinuities,
the extent of the peak stresses and consequence of yield
should be documented.
3.5 Reporting
3.5.1
In order to accept the global FEM analysis as basis for
approval, the analysis and the results must be reported to the
class.
3.5.2
The following items should as a minimum be covered in the
report from the FEM analysis:
a) Basis for the work that is performed. This should include:
− description of analysis
− reference to program(s) used
− reference to drawings of the analysed structure
− reference to quality plan used during the work with the
analysis.
b) Description of model, including:
− model extent and reference drawings
− element description (type, coarseness of model)
− deviations between model and drawings
− boundary conditions
− input/output units
− global/local co-ordinate system.
c) Description of loads and load conditions.
d) Results from analysis. Based on the purpose of the
analysis, relevant results to present may be:
− stress distribution for all load cases 1)
− stress components for documentation of local strength
(shear, bending, buckling)
− principal stresses for fatigue analysis (separately agreed)
− pillar forces
− deflections (transverse racking, distortion of openings).
1) If contour plots are used instead of numerical plots, this will
require:
narrow bandwidth
colour plots.
e) Conclusion from the analysis:
− summary of the results from the analysis
− summary of modifications found necessary.
16 Classification Notes- No. 30.8

August 1996

4. WATERJET DUCTS
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1
The reaction forces from the waterjet nozzles need to be
transmitted into the hull structure in a manner for which
adequate strength and fatigue life of critical details can be
ensured through careful design.

4.1.2
For steerable jet units the reaction forces will typically arise
from acceleration (thrust) and manoeuvring actions.
For booster nozzles with no steering function reaction forces
arise from acceleration (thrust) forces only.
Additional to this vibration forces from impeller
pulses/cavitation, turbulent waterflow in duct and around
stator vanes, and various other possible sources (shaft
misalignment, shaft/impeller imbalance etc.) will be present.
Figure 4-1 shows a typical steering gear for a waterjet unit,
which through manoeuvring actions will transmit reaction
forces through the bolted connection at the transom to the
duct and hull structure.
Figure 4-2 Typical duct / jet nozzle configuration critical
areas
4.1.5
The duct and the structural details of the duct must be
considered to be experiencing high and low cycle loads and
will therefore have to be considered for fatigue strength. For
this reason it is recommended to design with few welded
details and attachments on the duct itself, and that due
attention is paid to the detail design and execution of welds
(e.g. grinding of welds).

4.2 Load conditions

4.2.1
The critical details of the duct and connections to the hull
structure should be dimensioned for the following static load
conditions (LC) generally specified by the manufacturer of
the waterjet:

Load Condition Description

Figure 4-1 Typical waterjet steering gear
4.1.3
The steering nozzle reaction forces should normally be
transmitted into the hull structure in one of the following
manners:
− through the duct and into transverse frames, bulkheads
and bottom plating
− through additional stiffening structure at transom.
LC 1 Crash stop
LC 2 Maximum loads from reversing
LC 3 Maximum loads from steering
LC 4 Waterjet unit weight accelerated as
cantilever in pitching
In addition, high cycle loads from impeller pulses should be
considered, if available from the manufacturer.
Guidance note :
High cycle loads and loadpaths are generally not specified by
manufacturer and will vary with size and make, so a recommended
way to take account for these loads in duct design is, for each
critical detail, to design to the best possible fatigue class (see part
four for typical details and fatigue classes). Also very important is
shaft alignment at installation, balancing of shaft and impeller and
condition of bearings during service.

4.1.4 End of Guidance note

For a jet unit assembly with the duct constructed from
welded aluminium, where forces are transferred through the
duct, some typical critical details which require attention
during design are illustrated in Figure 4-2.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Classification Notes- No. 30.8 17

August 1996

Figure 4-3 shows typical application of forces to the duct as 4.2.2

they may be split into horizontal and vertical forces and For fatigue life calculations, the long term load distributions
moments. in Table 4-1 should normally be considered:

Long term load distribution Description

Load distribution 1, Reversing loads (LD1) The accumulated sum of stresses will have the profile as shown.

Maximum value, σ max, is taken from analysis of LC2.

Assumption: maximum reversing load 20 times per day.

Total number of cycles in 20 years is

Nreversing= 1,46 x 105

Load distribution 2, Steering loads (LD2) The steering load varies with the angle ranging from corrective
steering 5° (flat water) and full steering 30° (heavy seas).

It may be assumed that steering at any angle varies from port to

starboard at any one cycle, so that stress range at a detail is
double that calculated from the static equivalent at any angle ,
Maximum values may be taken from the analysis of LC3 (for
fatigue assessment of flanges stress range can be considered as
the range from bending stresses and axial stresses when in tension
to only axial stresses in compression).
Assumption : Assuming steering cycle of 20 seconds 12
hours per day for all sea-states.

The total number of steering cycles;

Nsteering= 1,57 x 107

corresponding to 5° steering (1/6 σmax).

Assuming full steering 40 hours per year for 20 years;

Nfull steering= 1,44 x 105

corresponding to 30° steering (σmax).

DET NORSKE VERITAS

18 Classification Notes- No. 30.8

August 1996

Load distribution 3, pitching load (LD3) The vertical accelerations at the stern will cause cyclic cantilever
bending loads from the waterjet.

The maximum value may be found from the analysis of LC4.

The accumulated sum of stresses will have the profile as shown.

Assumption : Assuming 12 hour operation per day.

Assuming linear variation of pitching loads between 0
and maximum and a total number of cycles;

Npitching= 2 x 107

Table 4-1 Long-term load distribution

v
Such model should extend from the transom flange and at
least to the first vertical support, though preferably to the
second (web frame or bulkhead).

Depending on the details involved (flange connections,

discontinuities), the boundary conditions and load
x
applications should be chosen according to the general
principles described below.

Steering Reversing / Crash-stop

4.3.3
The loads on an axi-symmetric model may be applied as a
unit linear load around the circumference. Results may be
Figure 4-3 Manoeuvring force components scaled to the correct values for forces and moments.

4.2.3 Alternatively, if the modelling application used allows, the

Limited data is available for the above load cycles and their
distribution, but should generally be used for design fatigue
calculations.
The curves for steering and cantilever action is linked to a
standard sea load distribution curve.
acting axial load and moment may be applied separately.
That is, the moment may be applied as an asymmetric unit
load with a sinusoidal distribution around the circumference.
The resulting stresses may then be combined to give unit
load stress at any point of interest.

The steering curve does not take into account the long term
distribution for angle of encounter of seas, nor seakeeping
characteristics of particular ship types.

4.3 Modelling
4.3.1
Due to the complex structure, Finite Element Method
analysis should normally be used for the assessment of the Linear unit load Sinusiodal unit load distribution
transom region.

4.3.2 Figure 4-4 Axi-symmetric model, load application

For waterjet ducts with flange connections and/or
discontinuities along the length, an axi-symmetric model
may be used to study and record the stresses in way of
critical details.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Classification Notes- No. 30.8 19

August 1996

4.3.4 This approach will give somewhat high stresses in way of

Boundary conditions should be carefully selected. The duct,
when continuous, should be held against axial and radial
displacement at the forward end. If there are any transverse
web frames with connections to the duct along the modelled
section, these should be taken into account by restricting this
particular point against displacement in the direction
transverse to the duct, see Figure 4-5.
4.3.5
For alternative flange connections, it is in general
recommended to design for a condition where the bolt
pretension of the bolts is lost. This gives a model boundary
condition where the flange is partly restricted to rotate. The
stiffness of the rotational spring will depend on the size of
facing jet bowl flange and size and material of bolts.
This condition should be used as minimum fatigue design
criteria.
As the modelling of a partly stiff flange is uncertain, one
may alternatively consider the two conditions where the
flange is free to rotate (see Figure 4-6) and completely
restricted against rotation (see Figure 4-7).
the transom flange thickness transition, but the maximum
stress will move from the inside of the duct to the outside of
the duct and the difference in magnitude may not be very
large. The condition giving the largest stress should be used
as design criteria.
The significance of these simplified boundary conditions
may be considered negligible on the details further along the
duct.
4.3.6
For a more detailed study of ‘‘standard’’ flange connections
for dimensioning flange connections, bolt pretension, gaskets
and washers with respective geometry and material quality,
and local geometry such as fillet radii of transition between
duct and flange etc., may be included in the model.
Bolt pretension may be modelled using temperature loads or
forced displacement. To study the non linear effects of
gasket and washer compression more advanced methods
need to be applied.
4.3.7
Non-continuous ducts with flange connections along the duct
may be simplified by fixing nodes from the line of the flange
bolts to the outside edge of the flange against axial and radial
displacement, see Figure 4-8.

Ft

Fc

Figure 4-5 Aft part of duct, actual boundary conditions (Ft and Fc are tensile and compressive load respectively).

Ft

Fc

Figure 4-6 Aft part of duct, simplified boundary conditions (Ft and Fc is tensile and compressive load respectively, for
top and bottom)

DET NORSKE VERITAS

20 Classification Notes- No. 30.8

August 1996

Ft

Fc

Figure 4-7 Aft part of duct, simplified boundary conditions (Ft and Fc is tensile and compressive load respectively, for
top and bottom)

Ft

Fc

Figure 4-8 Non-continuous duct, boundary conditions joining flange (Ft and Fc are tensile and compressive loads
respectively)
η = Σ n i / Ni
4.4 Results and stress analysis
4.4.1 Where;
Stresses should be taken from the model as principal stresses η = fatigue damage ratio
along the local element axis.
ni = number of cycles at stress range ∆σi
For static analysis (LC1 to LC4), the allowable stresses are:
Ni = number of cycles to failure at stress range ∆σi.
Load condition Combined axial-and Shear
bending In general the damage ratio at one point is the sum of the
damage ratio from each of the load effects.
LC 1 180 f1 100 f1
LC2, LC3, LC4 160 f1 90 f1 ηtotal = ηrev + ηsteer + ηpitch
For fatigue assessment the stress range at the detail, from
For water jets the steering loads will not act in the same
maximum tension to maximum compression should be used.
point as the others, therefore
4.4.2 ηsteer = 0 when considering the top and bottom parts of
The analysis results should be used to establish areas of high the duct.
and low loading.
The sum of the damage ratio from each of the load effects or
Welded joints in the duct should typically be placed as far in the case of steering the sum for steering alone should be
away from stress ‘hot spots’ as possible. Results from an axi- kept less than one.
symmetric FEA, where linear stresses can be read at the
actual position of the weld, should be used to position and i.e Σ η < 1
design the welded connection with respect to fatigue.
Guidance note :
- The fatigue check for welded aluminium details should be
4.4.3 based on the ECCS "EUROPEAN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ALUMINIUM ALLOY STRUCTURES FATIGUE DESIGN"
The fatigue assessment may be based on the Miner-Palmgren
method for accumulated fatigue damage. - Reference stress for fatigue check is the principal stresses in the
main load carrying member.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Classification Notes- No. 30.8 21

August 1996

- Stress concentrations due to the weld detail itself is included in

the curve.
- For practical purpose, using FEM analysis, the surface stress on
the main member in the principal directions should be used.
- Additional stress concentrations from geometrical effects may
be included by the use of stress concentration factors K. Such
effects may be cut-outs (not covered by an axe-symmetric FEM
model), geometrical transitions or fillet radii.
- For thicknesses of more than 25 mm a correction factor is to be
used on the fatigue strength.
- The reference curves in the ECCS guideline refer to dry Figure 4-10 Critical areas steering with two adjacent jets
environment.
- Parts subjected to corrosion need to be specially evaluated (i.e
parts not coated and exposed to sea-water).

End of Guidance note

4.4.4
When forces are transferred through the duct into the hull
structure, the relative deflection between the duct and the
hull structure may be most prominent at the connection to
the transom. It is therefore necessary to allow this relative
movement (mainly axial) between the transom flange
connection and the vessel’s bottom and sides without
stresses in critical weld connections exceeding those given
by the respective loadcases against yield and fatigue.

A typical critical point in way of connection between

transom and bottom plating is shown in Figure 4-9.

Figure 4-9 Typical critical detail due to duct deflection in

reversing/crash-stop

4.4.5
In situations where two steerable jets are located next to each
other, the total relative displacement should be taken into
account when estimating the stresses. Sufficient distance
between such jets should be ensured to allow sufficient
flexibility in the transom plating usually having a thickness
dimensioned to take the vertical shear forces.

The critical welds in this area should be considered with

respect to fatigue when exposed to the distribution of
steering actions over the lifetime of the vessel.

Below is shown typical critical areas in way of transom for

steering manoeuvres with two adjacent jets.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

22 Classification Notes- No. 30.8

August 1996

5. HIGH SPEED LIGHT CRAFT 5.2.2

SUPPORTED BY FOILS The hydrodynamic loading is generally to be based on
5.1 Introduction extreme loads which may be considerably higher than
“design loads” as expected during normal service. Normally
5.1.1 the extreme loads are to be based on theoretical maximum
As a part of the approval procedure, an extended safety values when cavitation or ventilation starts to occur. It is
evaluation compared to the conventional high speed light considered important that the angular movement of any
craft concept is required. In addition to the general safety rudder function of the foil system is limited at high speeds.
aspects as covered by the rules, the following aspects are to
be especially taken into consideration when the extent of 5.2.3
required documentation is considered :
The loads on the foil system should as a minimum include
• consequence analysis to be documented for accidental the following:
events such as deflection/loss of foil/flaps, loss of “active
ride control” (hull appendages and part of Failure Mode • maximum positive lift
and Effect Analysis (FMEA) for vessel or also subject to • maximum negative lift
structural evaluation) • maximum side force
• type of foils - if horizontal and completely submerged • maximum asymmetric loading (side wave, “broaching”,
foils, the need for active stability control by flaps etc. is extreme rudder functions)
vital, hence the foil system is to be considered as an • drag forces
essential system and treated accordingly • obstruction loading
• extent of lift - if hull completely out of water, the more • secondary loading due to propulsion system (propeller
severe consequences of accidental loss of lift forces, induced forces, internal pressure in water inlets).
hence foil/strut connections to be considered both with
respect to strength and performance of main function as
per rules Pt.1 Ch.1.
5.1.2
It is considered important that well defined full scale test
series of the vessel is to conclude the concept evaluation,
verifying theoretical simulations, model testing and any
important basic assumptions made during the earlier
evaluation.
Controlled prototype testing will provide a better reference
for final definition of operational restrictions related to
navigation in different sea states and manoeuvring
characteristics at high speeds.
5.2 Design loads on foil systems
5.2.1
The builder should provide complete documentation of
design loads for the foil system. Due to the fact that the
profile shape and system configuration of the foil system
affect the level of design loads, no empirical or simplified
expressions should be used for design load calculations, and
Figure 5-1 Schematic example of loads on T-foil
final load cases to be established case by case. The following
parameters affecting the design loads should be considered: 5.2.4
• profile shape and lift coefficient Fatigue loading has to be established based on service
• speed/sea-state combinations and expected lift at various notation and varying parameters, such as :
wave heights, corresponding speed loss at large wave • sea condition
heights
• headings
• physical limitation of profile lift due to ventilation or
• vessel speed and frequency of encounter.
cavitation
• local distribution of loads on foil member (chordwise, 5.2.5
spanwise)
Global load cases for global analysis of hull strength will be
• ratio between maximum values and “in service” values
considered individually based on size of vessel, level of
• long term distribution of loads.
design vertical acceleration and concept evaluation.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Classification Notes- No. 30.8
August 1996
As a minimum the following should be documented from the
yard :
• still water global bending moments
• longitudinal and transverse bending moments in foil-born
condition, subject to design vertical acceleration at
longitudinal centre of gravity.
5.3 Strength analyses
5.3.1
The builder should submit complete documentation for
calculations of forces, stresses and deflections for the foil
system. The quality and extent of the calculations may
influence the settings of operational limitations for the
vessel.
5.3.2
Local strength analyses of each foil system, as well as
strength calculations of hull structure in way of support for
foil system are required.
5.3.3
Based on the structure in question, simplified analysis (such
as beam element analysis) may not be sufficient for a proper
evaluation of the stress distribution. Finite element analysis
of the complete foil structure or parts of the structure may be
required.
5.3.4
Stress analysis
The results from the strength analyses should identify:
• deflections
• distribution of shear forces and bending moment, and
reaction forces at all boundary nodes for the analysis
• stress distribution and identification of areas with
maximum values of stresses
• direction and size of principle stresses for areas later
subject to fatigue assessment
• all forces acting on bolted connections.
5.4 Local analysis
5.4.1
In addition to the general strength assessment of the foil
structure, local analysis may be required. Typical areas
where this may be required are:
− connection between foil system and hull structure
− bolted connections between foil system components
− highly stressed areas in foil structure
− vibration and/or buckling analysis.
5.4.2
Connection between foil system and hull structure
DET NORSKE VERITAS
23
A separate analysis should be performed as a verification of
local strength in way of hull support for the foil system.
Forces acting on the hull, derived from the foil system
analysis, should be considered with regard to structural
strength of the supporting structure. Acceptance criteria are
to be as given in the rules Pt.3 Ch.2 or Pt.3 Ch.3.
5.4.3
Bolted connections between foil system components
Bolted connections should be considered separately. Forces
acting on the bolted connections are to be taken from the
analysis of the foil system. In the analysis of bolted
connections, the following items should be taken into
consideration:
− geometry of the bolted connection
(symmetry/asymmetry, stiffness of flanges, local stress
concentration)
− pretension of bolts (stress in bolts, surface pressure
below nuts/bolthead)
− stiffness of bolts versus stiffness of bolted material (note
that gaskets or similar will reduce the stiffness of the
bolted material, and hence increase the loading of the
bolts)
− distribution of forces through the bolted connection.
5.4.4
Highly stressed areas in foil structure
Highly stressed areas should be specially considered with
respect to local stress concentration and evaluation of stress
concentration factors for fatigue assessment.
5.4.5
Vibration and/or buckling analysis
Vibration analysis should in general be performed. The
safety of local as well as global buckling of the foil system
should be documented.
5.5 Acceptance criteria
5.5.1
For the evaluation of the strength analysis, the following
allowable stresses are applicable:
combination bending/axial stresses : σ = 160 f1
shear stresses : τ = 90 f1
f1 as given in Pt.3 Ch.2 or Pt.3 Ch.3.
Guidance note :
Based on material yield stress (taken as minimum upper yield
stress in N/mm2, not to be taken greater than 70% of the ultimate
tensile strength), the allowable stresses should nowhere exceed
values giving a factor of safety against yield of 1,5. For shafts or
axles the corresponding factor of safety should not exceed 1,8.
The allowable stresses are based on the requirement to the
assessment of fatigue strength of the structure. Where a proper
fatigue analysis is not performed, the allowable stresses may be
reduced.
24 Classification Notes- No. 30.8

August 1996

End of Guidance note Fatigue calculations of critical details should normally be

performed. 20 years lifetime should normally be
5.5.2
documented.

6. APPENDIX A
TYPICAL STRUCTURAL DETAILS
The appendix shows some selected typical structural details
where a good design is found important for life time of
detail. Alternative solutions may be proposed, and the detail
solutions shown in the appendix are to be considered as
guidelines.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Classification Notes- No. 30.8 25

August 1996

DET NORSKE VERITAS