See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334124513

Development of an Empirical Formula for Residual Strength Assessment to

Prevent Sequential Events of Grounded Oil Tankers

Article  in  Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea · June 2019

DOI: 10.3744/SNAK.2019.56.3.263

CITATION READS

1 65

4 authors, including:

Seungjun Baek Sang Jin Kim

Pukyong National University Aalto University
22 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   242 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jung-Min Sohn
Pukyong National University
104 PUBLICATIONS   573 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Propeller Analysis and CFD View project

Impact on marine structures: collision View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sang Jin Kim on 20 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A
Proceedings of the ASME 2018 37th International

tte
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

nd
ee
OMAE2018
June 17-22, 2018, Madrid, Spain

R
ea
d-
O
nl
OMAE2018-77246

y
C
op
y
DEVELOPMENT OF RAPID PREDICTION METHOD FOR RESIDUAL STRENGTH OF
OIL TANKERS SUBJECTED TO SHIP – SHIP COLLISION

Seung Jun Baek Jung Min Sohn

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Department of Naval Architecture and Marine
Systems Engineering, Pukyong National Systems Engineering, Pukyong National
University University
Busan, Republic of Korea Busan, Republic of Korea

Jeom Kee Paik Sang Jin Kim

The Korea Ship and Offshore Research Institute/ The Korea Ship and Offshore Research Institute,
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Pusan National University
Engineering, Pusan National University Busan, Republic of Korea
Busan, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT
Collision and grounding accidents account for more than
half of all accident cases in most cases. Such marine accidents
cause severe structural damage to the ship and lead to marine
pollution as well as life and financial loss. For preventing the loss
of property and pollution, and preparing a countermeasure, it is
needed to predict a residual hull girder strength after accident
regardless of someone’s special skill. The aims of this study are
to i) investigate the residual hull girder strength by quantitative
approach with collision location (height and penetration), ii)
develop an empirical formula for calculating a residual hull
girder strength which whoever can calculate in association with
collision locations. In this study, three kinds of ships such as very
large crude oil carrier, Suezmax, and Aframax class double hull
oil tankers are selected as target struck vessels. And, the
Intelligent Supersize Finite Element Method (ISFEM) is applied
to assess the residual hull girder strength of damaged structures
after collisions. Based on the ISFEM results, an empirical
formula for calculation of residual hull girder strength is
developed as a function of the collision depth and penetration.
The developed formula in this study can be applied by anyone,
and rapidly calculate its strength for preventing sequential events
(collapse, fuel spill, etc.) after collision
INTRODUCTION
Ship and offshore structure is exposed to various accidental
forms such as collision, grounding, fire and explosion during its
operation or mooring state (Figure 1). Among the mentioned
accidents, ship collision is one of the most frequent accidents
(approximately 30% of total accidents) and brings severe
casualties to involved parties, for example ship sinking and
environmental pollution depending on size of the occurred
structural damage.
Figure 1: Causes of large oil spills [1]
Priority in ship safety will become higher when dangerous
cargo is transported in a ship voyage. In particular, oil tankers
carrying large volume of crude oil are highly likely to possibly
cause massive environmental pollution as soon as it collides with
other objects. Oil spillage scenarios can be classified from

1 Copyright © 2018 ASME

spontaneous spill after contact on below of the waterline, and
spill following collapse during structural crash above the
waterline. Figure 2 shows an example of environmental damage
caused by a ship collision. These days, serious attention to
structural damage is addressed in South Korea since previous oil
tanker collision in Tae-An Peninsula on December 7, 2007.
penetration is developed based on the results of analysis. The
developed formula is validated with the results of randomly
selected collision scenarios.
The formula developed in this study can make to rapidly
calculate the residual strength of damaged structure involved by
collisions, and help to prevent a sequential accident such as hull
collapse.

Figure 2: Collision - oil spill in Singapore on 10 Sep. 2012 [2]

In order to reduce damage on sea and structure caused by
ship sinking after collision, many pioneer studies on risk and
structural strength evaluation have been conducted. Liu and
Soares [3] proposed a practical method to analyze the crushing
resistance of web girders subjected to plane loads. In this study,
the drop impact test of web girder was compared with numerical
simulations. In terms of prevention and mitigation, Pedersen [4]
described mathematical procedures to identify economic risk
control options during collision and grounding events. In similar Figure 3: A procedure for development of an empirical formula
for calculating residual hull girder strength
fashion, Otto et al. [5] observed collision and grounding risk of
RoRo ships. Marinatos and Samuelides [6] suggested a
TARGET VESSELS
methodology to conduct numerical simulation for ship structures
subjected to accidental loading conditions. Specific failure Among various ships, tankers may cause serious
modes, such as tension, bending tearing and crushing in environmental damage due to oil spillage in event of a ship
particular were investigated to quantify the effect of material collision. It can be predicted that larger oil tankers lead to severe
modeling. In addition, Youssef [7] assessed structural damage, damage. Therefore, target is determined as large tankers.
environmental casualty and recovery costs during tanker crashes Struck Ship
using risk assessment techniques. Paik et al. [8, 9] carried out a In this study, three kinds of oil tankers, i.e. VLCC (Very
series of residual vertical hull girder strength assessment Large Crude-Oil Carrier), Suezmax, Aframax class double hull
considering damaged areas of the ship as the main variable in oil tanker were selected as struck ship. Table 1 shows principal
case of a collision. However, since methods in these studies are dimensions, and Figure 4 presents illustration of a representative
difficult to be used immediately after a collision accident, it is midship section (VLCC) of the struck ships.
necessary to present a practical technique for predicting
Table 1: Principal dimensions of oil tankers
structural damage and collapse behavior.
The main aim of this study is develop an empirical formula Parameter VLCC Suezmax Aframax
for immediately predicting the residual strength after collision. Overall length (L) 315.0 m 261.0 m 239.0 m
Figure 3 illustrates a procedure of developing the formula in this Breadth (B) 58.0 m 48.0 m 43.8 m
study. Collision scenarios by the quantitative approach with Depth (D) 29.0 m 23.2 m 21.0 m
parameters of collision height and penetration are selected, and Double sides breadth (b) 2.4 m 2.45 m 2.35 m
the residual hull strengths are investigated by using the Double bottoms depth (d) 3.0 m 2.55 m 2.40 m
Intelligent Supersize Finite Element Method (ISFEM). An
empirical formula which is a function of collision height and

2 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 scenarios in this study. Scenarios are combined using the
collision height (H) and penetration depth (X) as variables. In the
scenarios, the progress of the variable X increased 850mm
because it is the same length with the frame spaces. The variable
H was increased from -10m to 10m as to assume a linear
increase. Figure 6 is an example of a collision scenario, which
the side part of the struck ship is damaged by penetration of the
striking ship.

Figure 4: Midship sections of target struck vessels

Striking Ship
Generally, larger size of the striking ship will have more
difficulties in manoeuvring, so that severe damage on the struck
ship can be expected. Based on this assumption, the VLCC class
double hull oil tanker is selected as the striking ship.
Furthermore, the collision scenario occurs in the midship section
(see Figure 5) which has the greatest influence to the vertical
strength and sinking probability during collision.
(a) Height =-5 m, and penetration = 850mm

Figure 5: Ship-ship collisions at midship considered in the

present study

ASSUMED DAMAGE CASES

Table 2. Collision scenarios
H(m)
-10 -5 0 5 10 (b) Height =-5 m, and penetration = 6800mm
X(mm)
Figure 6: Examples of collision scenarios
0 Sce.1-1 2-1 3-1 4-1 5-1
850 1-2 2-2 3-2 4-2 5-2
RESIDUAL STRENGTH OF THE DAMAGED SHIP
1700 1-3 2-3 3-3 4-3 5-3
Analysis Method
2550 1-4 2-4 3-4 4-4 5-4
Vertical ultimate strength of the damaged hull during
3400 1-5 2-5 3-5 4-5 5-5
hogging and sagging was calculated using ALPS/HULL of
4250 1-6 2-6 3-6 4-6 5-6 ISFEM in the current study. Fundamentally, ALPS/HULL
5100 1-7 2-7 3-7 4-7 5-7 calculates the final strength of the hull considering the local and
6800 1-8 2-8 3-8 4-8 5-8 global damage of the ship structure, while the plate-stiffener is
separated from structure as shown Figure 7 [10, 11]. This
The final position of the striking ship was used to define calculation method has better time efficiency compared to other
collision damage scenarios. Table 2 shows the designed collision methods, and the accuracy has been verified through previous

3 Copyright © 2018 ASME

experimental test and other studies [9, 12]. Analysis results for mπ x nπ y
hull ultimate strength is shown in Figure 8 for scenario No. 3-1. w0 pl = A0 sin sin
a b
In this study, it was not considered the inclination of the neutral
πx πy
axis after the damage of the ship. In the previous study, the w0 c = B0 sin sin (1)
difference was small compared with the change in the neutral a b
z πx
axis angle [7]. In addition to applying the developed formula, the w0 s = C0 sin
variables should be minimized for an expeditious judgement in hw a
the case of the accidents.
where, w0 pl , w0c , w0s = initial distortions of plates (local),

panel (global) and stiffeners (sideways), A0 , B0 , C0 =

maximum initial distortion defined by Equation (2), m, n =
half wave numbers in x and y directions, and hw = web height
Figure 7: Plate-stiffener separation model [10] [10].
A0 = 0.1β 2 t p
(2)
B=
0 C=
0 0.0015a
Where, β = plate slenderness ratio, t p = plate thickness, and
a = plate length between transverse frames.

Damage State Modeling

(a) In hogging condition (b) In sagging condition
Figure 8: Examples of ultimate limit states (VLCC class double
hull oil tanker) calculated by ALPS/HULL
Initial Imperfection
Initial imperfections which are welding residual stress and
initial distortion are inevitable during the manufacture of ships.
Especially, the initial distortion should be considered when the
structural analysis is performed, because it affects the structural
response.
The International Association of Classification Societies
(IACS) [13] suggests that during modelling a damaged structure,
the width and depth direction are focused on the idealized
location and extent of damage. For this reason, extent of the
longitudinal damage is not considered. Since damaged elements
do not contribute to hull girder strength (as adopted in damaged
element removal method), they are excluded from the ship model
in evaluating the maximum bending stress of the hull section. As
illustrated in Figure 10, the damaged elements do not act as
structural member in damaged struck ship.

Figure 9: Initial deflection of plate and stiffener

In this study, welding residual stress was not taken into (a) Intact condition (b) Damaged condition
account and only the initial distortions are considered. Figure 9 Figure 10: Examples of intact and damaged struck ship
shows a shape of the initial deflection is assumed in the analysis. modeling
Besides influence of the fabrication stage, deflection due to the
Results of Residual Strength Analysis after Collision
buckling mode (plate) and sideways (stiffener) shape were also
considered (Equation (1)). The hogging condition tended to be bigger than sagging
condition. During sagging, compression occurred on a single
deck while hogging condition is affected by the double bottom.

4 Copyright © 2018 ASME

It can be concluded that the vertical strength was more
influenced by compressive strength capacity of the structural
member than their tensile strength.
VLCC class double hull oil tanker
Figure 11 shows the residual ultimate strength of damaged
VLCC class double hull oil tanker in hogging and sagging
conditions.
(a) In hogging condition
(b) In sagging condition
Figure 11: Residual ultimate strength of damaged VLCC class
double hull oil tanker by collisions
5 Copyright © 2018 ASME
The vertical ultimate strength experienced reduction as
increment of the penetration (X). This phenomenon arose from
decrease reduction in cross-sectional area and secondary area
moment. Under hogging condition, a collision of the same type
of vessel (VLCC) at the same collision height (H = 0m), 16.09%
reduction of the cross-sectional area, caused the residual vertical
strength declining by 11.58%. Thus, results were not satisfied
IMO standard which at least 90% of the strength should be exist
after collision [14]. Also, in collision with H = -5m, the bulbous
bow of the striking ship collided with the double bottom of the
struck ship and resulting an overall low hogging strength.
Meanwhile, the residual strength value was reduced to the
lowest decreased (5.26%) in sagging, because collision height at
H = -10m caused damage to the double bottom. when H = 10m,
there was no damage on the deck until certain collision height.
However, the strength decreased significantly as collision occur
on the double bottom. It was also obtained that sagging condition
with collision height H = 0m did not satisfy the IMO standard.
Suezmax class double hull oil tanker
Suezmax collision cases were applied to analyze collapse
scenario, and the results are shown in Figure 12. Results
indicated that reduction tendency of the vertical strength in
collapse scenarios was similar with VLCC case, but it showed
more damage due to collision occurred with a larger ship.
During hogging with H = 10m, a large area collides with the
bulbous bow of the striking ship at the furthest distance from the
neutral axis resulting a low value as the section modulus
decreases greatly. When the penetration depth increased from
1700mm to 2550mm, the residual strength rapidly decreased
approximately 4.80%. Furthermore, when H = -5m, the greatest
damage occurred on the double bottom and deck portion of the
struck ship causing the value of the residual strength was
decreased by 15.53%.
In sagging case, the striking ship makes a damage on the
deck point of struck ship by the bulbous bow at H = 10m, and
the residual strength value was decreased by 12.02%. For
collision on same baseline height H = 0m, the strength decreased
3.35% when the depth penetration increased from 4250mm to
5100mm. This phenomenon suggested that the fore deck area of
the striking ship experienced heavy damaged due to large
influence in sagging condition during penetration to the deck
area of the struck ship. Suezmax class vessels did not meet the
IMO standards in some of collision scenarios, but the idealized
collided ships of the Suezmax class were similar to most
collisions at the same class and were expected to fulfill the IMO
standards.
 Comparing two conditions, it can be seen that the damage
from hogging was larger than sagging, which factor of large
reduction of cross-sectional area on the double bottom than the
deck. For the case which showed increment trends of the strength
as shown Figure 13(b) (Scenario No.4-7 and 4-8), it was
predicted that the phenomenon occurred when a plate element
suffered large stress (highlighted by red color element in Figure).
Aframax Class Double Hull Oil Tanker
Figure 14 presents the residual vertical ultimate hull girder
strength of damaged Aframax class double hull oil tanker
involved in collisions

(a) In hogging condition

(a) In hogging condition

(b) In sagging condition

Figure 12: Residual ultimate strength of damaged Suezmax
class double hull oil tanker by collisions

(b) In sagging condition

(a) Scenario No. 4-7 (b) Scenario No. 4-8
Figure 14: Residual ultimate strength of damaged Aframax
Figure 13: Stress distribution of damaged conditions at ultimate
class double hull oil tanker by collisions
limit states of Suezmax

6 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 The overall tendency is concluded similar to the VLCC and
Suezmax, while the Aframax, which has a relatively small size
than other observed ship, produced low vertical bending
strength. Furthermore, due to very large size of striking ship, the
residual ultimate strength value of the Aframax decreased
respectively and result provided an indication that the IMO
standard was not fulfilled from penetrated 3400mm (Scenario
No. 4-5 for sagging case).
In hogging case, value of the residual strength decreased
rapidly at H = 10m (Scenario No. 5-3 & 5-4) since the inner
bottom plate was damaged by the striking ship’s bulbous bow.
As a result, the area was 2.35%, and both the secondary area
moment and residual strength decreased by 3.02% and 4.02%,
consecutively. Meanwhile, in sagging case, the residual strength
value experienced the greatest decrease (approximately 17.87%)
at H = -10m. It could be predicted that, deck damage caused by
the bow bulwark part in this scenario was the largest among of
all observed scenarios.
Figure 15: An example of developing the empirical formula
DEVELOPMENT OF EMPIRICAL FORMULA FOR ( M u _ collisionheight = f ( penetration) )
CALCULATING THE RESIDUAL STRENGTH DUE TO
COLLISION VLCC Class Double Hull Oil Tanker

Based on results of the selected scenarios, the vertical Coefficients of developed formula
residual hull strength is plotted to establish an empirical formula The unknown coefficients of the empirical formula are
using regression method in this section. In order to conduct this defined by applying Equation (3) to the values of Figures 11 for
process, the equation was formulated with variables H and X, the VLCC class. The results are presented in Table 3.
during hogging and sagging conditions as presented in Equation Table 3: Coefficients of developed formula for calculating residual
(3). The values of the coefficients a, b, and c would be calculated girder strength of VLCC class double hull oil tanker in collisions
based on the analysis results depending on ships and loading Hogging Sagging
conditions.
H < 0m H ≥ 0m H < 0m H ≥ 0m
M u / M u 0 = aX 2 + bX + c (3.a)
a1 -5.329E-11 3.626E-11 -2.831E-11 6.054E-11
a = a1 H 2 + a2 H + a3 (3.b) 𝑎𝑎2 -7.047E-10 -2.640E-10 -4.765E-10 -4.356E-10
b = b1 H + b2 H + b3
2
(3.c) 𝑎𝑎3 -1.037E-09 -1.037E-09 -1.187E-09 -1.187E-09
c = const. (3.d) 𝑏𝑏1 3.366E-07 -4.698E-07 1.974E-07 -5.747E-07
Where, M u = residual ultimate strength in damaged condition, 𝑏𝑏2 3.691E-06 4.879E-06 2.092E-06 4.788E-06

M u 0 = ultimate strength in intact condition, H = collision 𝑏𝑏3 -1.101E-05 -1.101E-05 -1.129E-05 -1.129E-05
c 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
height in m, X = collision penetration in mm, and a , b , c =
coefficients for the developed formula in this study. Validation of developed formula
Equation (3) can be re-expressed as Equation (4) with all The arbitrary scenario proved validity of the empirical
coefficients. equation by adding the variable collision height H with applied
M u / M u 0 = (a1 H 2 + a2 H + a3 ) X 2 values -7.5m, -2.5m, 2.5m, 6m, and 7.5m, and developing
(4) collapse scenario with penetration depth X. Figure 16 illustrates
+ (b1 H 2 + b2 H + b3 ) X + c the comparison of the calculated ultimate strength values using
the analytical results and the empirical formula. Based on these
Figure 15 shows an example for the process in estimating
results, the tendency was achieved well satisfactory.
empirical formulas. The formula was estimated according to the
penetration in specific collision.

7 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 analytical results and empirical formula, which tendency
explicitly presented good correlation of these methodologies.
Table 4: Coefficients of developed formula for calculating residual
girder strength of Suezmax class double hull oil tanker in collisions
Hogging Sagging
H < 0m H ≥ 0m H < 0m H ≥ 0m
𝑎𝑎1 5.583E-11 6.868E-11 3.376E-11 -9.455E-11
𝑎𝑎2 4.154E-10 -3.042E-10 -4.268E-12 1.401E-09
𝑎𝑎3 -1.308E-09 -1.308E-09 -2.656E-09 -2.656E-09
𝑏𝑏1 5.067E-08 -5.396E-07 7.254E-09 5.060E-07
𝑏𝑏2 1.869E-06 2.266E-06 2.401E-06 -8.434E-06
𝑏𝑏3 -2.368E-06 -2.368E-06 3.719E-06 3.719E-06
c 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

(a) In hogging condition

(a) In hogging condition

(b) In sagging condition

Figure 16: Comparison of residual ultimate strength of VLCC
by the developed formula and ISFEM
Suezmax Class Double Hull Oil Tanker
Coefficients of developed formula
The unknown coefficients of the empirical formula by
applying Equation (3) to the values of Figure 12 for the Suezmax
class are defined and shown in Table 4.
Validation of developed formula
In the arbitrary cases, assumption was established the
collision height variable H equaled to -4m, -1m, 2m, 4m, while
the collapse scenario by penetration depth variable X were
developed. Conclusion of these assumption was presented to
prove validity of the empirical equation. Figure 17 shows the (b) In sagging condition
comparison of the calculated ultimate strength values using the Figure 17: Comparison of residual ultimate strength of
Suezmax by the developed formula and ISFEM

8 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Aframax Class Double Hull Oil Tanker • Suezmax double hull tanker
- Hogging: 96%
Coefficients of developed formula
- Sagging: 93%
The unknown coefficients of the empirical formula by
• Aframax double hull tanker
applying Equation (3) to the values of Figure 14 for the Aframax
- Hogging: 97%
class are defined and shown in Table 5.
- Sagging: 96%
Table 5. Coefficients of developed formula for calculating residual The estimation formula (empirical equation) developed in
strength of Aframax class double hull oil tanker in collisions this study will be useful for rapid calculation of the residual
Hogging Sagging ultimate strength to provide fast follow-up measure and
H < 0m H ≥ 0m H < 0m H ≥ 0m prevention of the triggered secondary accident (e.g. ship sinking
𝑎𝑎1 3.95E-09 -8.42E-09 6.19E-09 -6.99E-09 and oil spillage) when a ship is confronted with any collision
𝑎𝑎2 3.32E-08 1.17E-07 9.26E-08 7.46E-08 phenomenon in the future. Additional variables such as length,
𝑎𝑎3 -1.36E-07 -1.36E-07 4.63E-08 4.63E-08 breadth, types of vessel, etc. should be considered for the
following studies.
𝑏𝑏1 -3.34E-05 6.02E-05 -5.09E-05 5.32E-05
𝑏𝑏2 -1.66E-04 -8.46E-04 -6.06E-04 -6.32E-04
𝑏𝑏3 -6.73E-04 -6.73E-04 -1.75E-03 -1.75E-03
c 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Validation of developed formula

Assumption in the arbitrary cases was selected to be the
collision height (H) with value -8m, -3m, 1m and 7m. As for the
collapse scenario, observed parameter was determined to be the
progressive penetration depth (X). Presented results of the
hogging and sagging in Figure 18 shows the comparison of the
calculated ultimate strength using the analytical method and
empirical formula. The comparison between the developed
formula and the results of ALPS/Hull (ISFEM) indicated that the
development of the empirical equation of Aframax achieved well
satisfactory.
(a) In hogging condition
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Main objective of this study was to develop rapid prediction
technique which can practically evaluate the residual ultimate
strength of large double hull oil tankers, including VLCC,
Suezmax and Aframax classes under ship-ship collision.
Damaged element was removed from the existing structural
model after ship collision. After applying this method, the model
was used for estimating ultimate strength using the progressive
collapse behavior analysis. Developed empirical formulas based
on results of each collision scenarios and comparison with
random collision scenario results for accuracy verification,
presented estimation of the residual ultimate strength by
assessing coefficient R2 which is determination and the
proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is
predictable from the independent variables as follows:
• VLCC class double hull tanker
(b) In sagging condition
- Hogging: 95%
Figure 18: Comparison of residual ultimate strength of
- Sagging: 96% Aframax by the developed formula and ISFEM

9 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 NOMENCLATURE [3] B. Liu and C.G. Soares (2015), Simplified analytical method
for evaluating web girder crushing during ship collision and
B Breadth
grounding, Marine Structures, 42, pp.71-94.
b Double side breadth [4] P.T. Pedersen (2010). Review and application of ship collision
D Depth and grounding analysis procedures. Marine Structures, 23(3),
d Double bottom depth pp.241-262.
H Collision height [5] S. Otto, P.T. Pedersen, M. Samuelides and P.C. Sames (2002).
L Overall length Elements of risk analysis for collision and grounding of a
Mu Ultimate hull girder strength in damage condition RoRo passenger ferry. Marine Structures, 15, pp.461-474.
[6] J.N. Marinatos and M.S. Samuelides (2015). Towards a unified
Mu0 Ultimate hull girder strength in intact condition methodology for the simulation of rupture in collision and
X Collision penetration grounding of ships. Marine Structures, 42, pp.1-32.
[7] S.A.M. Youssef (2015). Quantitative risk assessment of double
hull oil tankers in collisions. Ph.D. thesis. Pusan: Pusan
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS National University, Korea.
[8] J.K. Paik, D.K. Kim, D.H. Park and M.S. Kim (2012). A new
This research was supported by Basic Science Research method for assessing the safety of ships damaged by
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea grounding. Journal of the International Journal of Maritime
(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (Grant No. Engineering, 154(A1), pp.1-20.
2017R1A6A3A11036179). This work is a part of “Development [9] J.K. Paik, D.K. Kim, D.H. Park, H.B. Kim, A.E. Mansour and
of Converter Program for Full Ship Structural Analysis” J.B. Caldwell (2013). Modified Paik-Mansour formula for
supported by KRISO. ultimate strength calculations of ship hulls. Journal of the
Ships and Offshore Structures, 8(3-4), pp.245-260.
[10] J.K. Paik and A.K. Thayamballi (2003). Ultimate limit state
design of steep-plated structures, John Wiley and Sons,
REFERENCES Chichester, UK.
[1] ITOPF (2016). Oil tanker spill statistics 2016, The [11] ALPS/HULL (2012). A computer program for progressive
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation. [Online] collapse analysis of ship hulls, Advanced technology center,
(Updated 10 September 2012) Available at: DRS System Inc., Maryland, USA.
http://www.itopf.com/knowledge-resources/data- [12] ISSC (2012). Committee III.1 ultimate strength, 18th
statistics/statistics/ [Accessed 17 September 2017]. International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Rostock,
[2] Officer of the Watch (2012). Carrier collision causes oil spill Germany, 9-13 September.
in singapore temasek fairway. [Online] (Updated 10 [13] IACS (2014). Common structural rules for bulk carriers and
September 2012) Available at: oil tankers, International Association of Classification
https://officerofthewatch.com/2012/09/10/carrier-collision- Societies, London, UK.
causes-oil-spill-in-singapore-temasek-fairway/ [Accessed 13 [14] IMO (2000). Recommended longitudinal strength, SOLAS/2,
September 2017]. Maritime Safety Committee, International Maritime
Organization, London, UK.

10 Copyright © 2018 ASME

View publication stats