“Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati

Faculty of Naval Architecture

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND

HYDROELASTICITY OF SHIPS
- REPORT –

PROFESSOR: STUDENT:
Domnisoru Leonard Albu Gabriela Alexandra
Contents
A. THE ANALYSIS OF THE GLOBAL STRENGTH IN VERTICAL PLANE WITH 3D – FEM HULL MODELS ................. 3
A.1. THE GLOBAL SHIP STRENGTHS ANALYSIS BASED ON 1D – GIRDER CLASSICAL METHOD ......................... 3
A.1.1. THE SHIP EQUIVALENT 1D – GIRDER STILL WATER LOADS ................................................................. 3
A.2. THE GLOBAL – LOCAL SHIP STRENGHTS ANALYSIS BASED ON 3D – FEM MODELS ................................... 6
A.3. THE NUMERICAL GLOBAL – LOCAL STRENGHTS ANALYSIS FOR A SHIP WITH UNIFORM HULL ................ 8
A.3.2. THE 3D-FEM MODEL USED FOR GLOBL-LOCAL STRENGTHS ANALYSIS ............................................ 10
A.4. THE NUMERICAL GLOBAL – LOCAL STRENGHTS ANALYSIS FOR A BUNKERING TANKER SHIP ................ 12
A.4.1. THE 3D-CAD OFFSET LINES TANKER MODEL..................................................................................... 12
A.4.2. THE 3D-CAD OFFSET LINES TANKER MODEL..................................................................................... 13
A.4.3. THE 3D-FEM MODEL USED FOR GLOBL-LOCL TANKER STRENGTHS ANALYSIS................................. 14
A.4.4. NUMERICAL RESULTS........................................................................................................................ 14
B: THE ANALYSIS OF FATIGUE STRENGTHS AND THE ESTIMATION OF THE EXPLOITATION PERIOD OF THE
SHIP HULL STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................................................... 15
B.1. THE STEPS OF THE FATIGUE STRENGHTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 15
B.2. THE S – N DESIGN DIAGRAM ................................................................................................................... 16
B.3. THE CHECK AT THE FATIGUE STRENGHTS................................................................................................ 17
B.3.1. THE ADMISSIBLE VALUES METHOD FOR THE MAXIM PRESCRIBED STRESSES (GL.,ch.1,sec.20.B,2.1)
.................................................................................................................................................................... 17
B.3.2. THE PALMGREN_MINER METHOD, OF THE DAMAGE CUMULATIVE FACTOR 𝐷
(GL.,ch.1,sec.20.B,2.2) ................................................................................................................................ 17
C. REPORT ON NON-LINEAR FEM STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS. FRAME (LOADING – UNLOADING) ..................... 19
C.1. MODEL DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 19
C.1.1 GEOMETRY ......................................................................................................................................... 19
C.1.2. MATERIALS AND THICKNESSES ......................................................................................................... 20
C.1.3 BOUNDARIES AND LOADS.................................................................................................................. 22
C.2 ANALYSIS SETUP........................................................................................................................................ 23
C.3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................... 30
C.4 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 31
A. THE ANALYSIS OF THE GLOBAL STRENGTH IN VERTICAL
PLANE WITH 3D – FEM HULL MODELS
There are considered two types of analysis models: the classical 1D-equivalent ship girder and
the 3D-FEM girder full extended over the ship length. It is pointed out that the full ship length
3D-FEM models makes possible to obtain better results for the global – local stress distribution
at the ship strengths analysis and also it can reveal (locate) the hot spot domains.

For the numerical analyses there are considered the following two test ships: a uniform hull
structure ship and a bunkering tank, each with several load cases.

A.1. THE GLOBAL SHIP STRENGTHS ANALYSIS BASED ON 1D – GIRDER CLASSICAL

METHOD
A.1.1. THE SHIP EQUIVALENT 1D – GIRDER STILL WATER LOADS
The ship weight distribution is obtained based on the ship mass distribution with the following
relation:

𝑔𝑥 (𝑥) = 𝑔 ∙ 𝜇(𝑥) 𝑥 ∈ [−𝐿/2 , 𝐿/2] ⇒ 𝑔𝑥𝑖 = 𝑔 ∙ 𝜇𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 (1)

where: 𝐿 ship length, 𝑔 gravity acceleration, 𝜇(𝑥) mass distribution, 𝑛 ship girder elements over
the 1D-beam model.

Obs. In order to simplify the integrals calculation with trapeze method, there are considered the
significant ship hull transversal sections disposed at the middle of the „n” elements.
𝐿 𝛿𝑥 𝐿/2
𝑥1 = − +
2 2
, 𝑥𝑖+1 = 𝑥𝑖 + 𝛿𝑥 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 − 1 ; 𝛿𝑥 = 𝐿/𝑛 ; ∫−𝐿/2 𝑓 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∙ ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 ) (2)
In order to obtain the ship still water equilibrium position it is necessary to use an iterative
algorithm for given 𝑉 = 𝑐𝐵 𝐿𝐵𝑑 and 𝑥𝐺 (from (𝑥) ), as following:
(0) (0) (0)
𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 0 𝑑𝑖 = 𝑑 → 𝐴𝑛 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 𝑥𝐹 ; 𝑅(0) 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠
(0)
𝐿/2
(0) (0) (0) (0) 𝐿/2
(0) (0) 𝑀𝑦
𝑉 (0) = ∫−𝐿/2 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑀𝑦 = ∫−𝐿/2 𝑥 ∙ 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑥𝐵 = 𝑉 (0)
(0) (0)
(1) (0)𝐿 𝑥𝐺 −𝑥𝐵 (1) (0) 𝐿 𝑥𝐺 −𝑥𝐵
𝑑𝑝𝑝 = 𝑑 − (2 + 𝑥𝐹 ) 𝑑𝑝𝑣 = 𝑑 + (2 + 𝑥𝐹 ) (3)
𝑅 (0) 𝑅 (0)
(𝑘) (𝑘)
(𝑘) (𝑘) 𝑑𝑝𝑣 −𝑑𝑝𝑝 𝐿
𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑘 𝑑𝑖 = 𝑑𝑝𝑝 + (𝑥𝑖 + ) → 𝐴(𝑘)
𝑛
(0)
𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 𝑥𝐹 ; 𝑅(0) 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠
𝐿 2
(𝑘)
𝐿/2
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) 𝐿/2
(𝑘) (𝑘) 𝑀𝑦
𝑉 (𝑘) = ∫−𝐿/2 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑀𝑦 = ∫−𝐿/2 𝑥 ∙ 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑥𝐵 = 𝑉 (𝑘)
(𝑘) (𝑘)
(𝑘+1) (𝑘) 𝑉 (𝑘)−𝑉 (𝑘−1) 𝐿(𝑘) 𝑥𝐺 −𝑥𝐵 (𝑘+1) (𝑘) 𝑉 (𝑘) −𝑉 (𝑘−1) 𝐿 (𝑘) 𝑥𝐺 −𝑥𝐵
𝑑𝑝𝑝 = 𝑑𝑝𝑝 + (𝑘) − (2 + 𝑥𝐹 ) 𝑅 (𝑘)
𝑑𝑝𝑣 = 𝑑𝑝𝑣 + (𝑘) + (2 + 𝑥𝐹 ) 𝑅 (𝑘)
𝐴𝑊𝐿 𝐴𝑊𝐿
 (𝑘)
The convergence criteria are: |𝑉 − 𝑉 (𝑘) | < 0.004𝑉 |𝑥𝐺 − 𝑥𝐵 | < 0.001𝐿
(𝑘) (𝑘)
and also the longitudinal trim angle is: (𝑑𝑝𝑣 − 𝑑𝑝𝑝 )/𝐿.

Obs. There are noted above (3) the following

𝐿/2 𝐼𝑦 𝑀𝑦𝑊𝐿 𝐿/2 𝐿/2
𝐼𝑦 = ∫−𝐿/2 𝑥 2 𝑏(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∙ ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖2 𝑏𝑖 ; 𝑅 = 𝑉
; 𝑥𝐹 = 𝐴𝑊𝐿
; 𝑥𝐺 = ∫−𝐿/2 𝑥 ∙ 𝑔𝑥 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 / ∫−𝐿/2 𝑔𝑥 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥
𝐿/2 𝐿/2
𝐴𝑊𝐿 = ∫−𝐿/2 𝑏(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑏𝑖 ; 𝑀𝑦𝑊𝐿 = ∫−𝐿/2 𝑥 ∙ 𝑏(𝑥) 𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∙ ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 𝑏𝑖 (4)

where: 𝐵 maximal breadth, 𝑑 medium draught amidships, 𝑐𝐵 block coefficient, 𝑏(𝑥) water plane
breadth, 𝑥𝐺 the longitudinal position of the ship weight center.

The still water hydrostatic load distribution results from the following relation:
(𝑘)
𝑎𝑐𝑥 (𝑥) = 𝜌𝑔𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥) 𝑥 ∈ [−𝐿/2 , 𝐿/2] ⇒ 𝑎𝑐𝑥𝑖 = 𝜌𝑔𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 (5)
The ship still water loads results from the following relation:

𝑝𝑐𝑥 (𝑥) = 𝑔𝑥 (𝑥) − 𝑎𝑐𝑥 (𝑥) 𝑥 ∈ [−𝐿/2 , 𝐿/2] ⇒ 𝑝𝑐𝑥𝑖 = 𝑔𝑥𝑖 − 𝑎𝑐𝑥𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 (6)
The still water shear forces and bending moments results from the following relations:
𝑥 𝑥
𝑇𝑐 (𝑥) = ∫−𝐿/2 𝑝𝑐𝑥 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 ; 𝑀𝑐 (𝑥) = ∫−𝐿/2 𝑇𝑐 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 (7)
A.1.2. THE SUPPLEMENTRY SHIP 1D – GIRDER LOADS FROM HED CVASI – STATIC
WAVES

There are considered the loads from cvasi-static head waves (𝜆 = 𝐿 ). The amplitude of the
equivalent wave 𝑎𝑤 = ℎ𝑤 /2, with Smith correction, based on Germanischer Lloyd, I-Part 1,
Section 4, A.2.2 Rules, it results from the following expression:
𝐿
ℎ𝑤 = [25 + 4.1] ∙ 𝑐𝑅𝑊 [𝑚] ; 𝐿 < 90 𝑚
(8)
300−𝐿 3/2
ℎ𝑤 = [10.75 − ( ) ] ∙ 𝑐𝑅𝑊 [𝑚] ; 90 ≤ 𝐿 ≤ 300 𝑚
100

where 𝑐𝑅𝑊 ∈ {1.00 0.90 0.75 0.66 0.60} is the zone navigation coefficient.

In order to take into account of the real ship offset lines, analogue to the case of still water, there
it is used a non-linear iterative procedure with two steps.

In this case 𝑑𝑚 , 𝑑𝑝𝑝 , 𝑑𝑝𝑣 , trim become the parameters that can define the position of the median
plane of the equivalent cvasi-static head wave, taking as reference the base plane of the ship hull.

For the considered loading case there are known: 𝛥, 𝑉, 𝑥𝐺 , 𝐿, the offset lines, the ship
hydrostatics, Bonjean diagram.
Obs. There coordinates system origin is considered at the aft ship 𝑥 ∈ [0, 𝐿].
𝛿𝑥
𝑥1 =
2
, 𝑥𝑖+1 = 𝑥𝑖 + 𝛿𝑥 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 − 1 ; 𝛿𝑥 = 𝐿/𝑛 (9)
Step I – the floting condition
(0) (0) (0) ℎ𝑤 2𝜋𝑥𝑖
𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 0 𝑑𝑚 = 0 ⇒ 𝑑𝑖 = 𝑑𝑚 ± 𝑐𝑜𝑠 ( ) → 𝐴(0)
𝑇𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐵𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑎𝑛
2 𝐿
(0)
𝐿
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)𝐿 𝑀𝑦
𝑉 (0) = ∫0 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑀𝑦 = ∫0 𝑥 ∙ 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑥𝐵 = (10)
𝑉 (0)
(𝑘) (𝑘−1) (𝑘) (𝑘) ℎ𝑤 2𝜋𝑥𝑖
𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑘 𝑑𝑚 = 𝑑𝑚 + 0.001 ⇒ 𝑑𝑖 = 𝑑𝑚 ± 𝑐𝑜𝑠 ( ) → 𝐴(𝑘)
𝑇𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐵𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑛
2 𝐿
(𝑘)
𝐿
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)𝐿 𝑀𝑦
𝑉 (𝑘) = ∫0 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑀𝑦 = ∫0 𝑥 ∙ 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑥𝐵 = 𝑉 (𝑘)

and the iteration is made until 𝑉 (𝑘) ≥ 𝑉.

The solution is refined, using the half domain method, so that at the last iteration „m” it is
achieved the convergence criteria |𝑉 − 𝑉 (𝑚) | < 0.001𝑉.

At the end of the first step, it results the following parameters:

(𝑚) (𝑚)
𝑥𝐵𝐼 = 𝑥𝐵 𝐼
𝑑𝑚 = 𝑑𝑚 → 𝑥𝐹𝐼 , 𝐴𝐼𝑊𝐿 (11)
Step II – the trim condition

𝑥𝐺 > 𝑥𝐵𝐼 → 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 = 0.00001 or 𝑥𝐺 > 𝑥𝐵𝐼 → 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 = −0.00001

(0) (0) (0)
𝐼
𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 0 𝑑𝑚 = 𝑑𝑚 𝑥𝐹 = 𝑥𝐹𝐼 𝐴𝑊𝐿 = 𝐴𝐼𝑊𝐿 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚(0) = 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚
(0)
𝐼 (0) (0) (0) (0)
𝑑𝑝𝑝 = 𝑑𝑚 − 𝑥𝐹 ∙ 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 (0) 𝑑𝑝𝑣 = 𝑑𝑚 + (𝐿 − 𝑥𝐹 ) ∙ 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚(0)
(0) (0) (0) (0) 𝑥 ℎ𝑊 2𝜋𝑥𝑖 (0)
𝑑𝑖 = 𝑑𝑝𝑝 + (𝑑𝑝𝑣 − 𝑑𝑝𝑝 ) 𝐿𝑖 ± 2
𝑐𝑜𝑠 ( 𝐿
) → 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐵𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑎𝑛
(0)
(0) 𝐿 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) 𝐿 𝑀𝑦
𝑉 (0) = ∫0 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑀𝑦 = ∫0 𝑥 ∙ 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑥𝐵 = 𝑉 (0)
(0) (0)
𝑥𝐺 > 𝑥𝐵 → 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 = 0.00001 or 𝑥𝐺 > 𝑥𝐵 → 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 = −0.00001 (12)
(𝑘) (𝑘−1) 𝑉−𝑉 (𝑘−1) (𝑘)
𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑘 𝑑𝑚 = 𝑑𝑚 + (𝑘−1) → 𝑥𝐹 , 𝐴(𝑘)
𝑊𝐿 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 (𝑘) = 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 (𝑘−1) + 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚
𝐴𝑊𝐿

(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

𝑑𝑝𝑝 = 𝑑𝑚 − 𝑥𝐹 ∙ 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚(𝑘) 𝑑𝑝𝑣 = 𝑑𝑚 + (𝐿 − 𝑥𝐹 ) ∙ 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 (𝑘)
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) 𝑥𝑖 ℎ𝑊 2𝜋𝑥𝑖 (𝑘)
𝑑𝑖 = 𝑑𝑝𝑝 + (𝑑𝑝𝑣 − 𝑑𝑝𝑝 ) ± 𝑐𝑜𝑠 ( ) → 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐵𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑒𝑎𝑛
𝐿 2 𝐿
(𝑘)
(𝑘) 𝐿 (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) 𝐿 𝑀𝑦
𝑉 (𝑘) = ∫0 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑀𝑦 = ∫0 𝑥 ∙ 𝐴 𝑇 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 = 𝛿𝑥 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑥𝐵 =
𝑉 (𝑘)
(𝑘) (𝑘)
𝑥𝐺 > 𝑥𝐵 → 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 = 0.00001 or 𝑥𝐺 > 𝑥𝐵 → 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 = −0.00001
and it is iterated until 𝛿𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 is changing the sign.
The solution is refined with the half domain method, so that at the last iteration „m” there are
(𝑚)
satisfied the convergence criteria: |𝑉 − 𝑉 (𝑚) | < 0.001𝑉 |𝑥𝐺 − 𝑥𝐵 | < 0.001𝐿

At the end of the second step there result the following data:
(𝑚) (𝑚) (𝑚) (𝑚)
𝑑𝑚 = 𝑑𝑚 , 𝑑𝑝𝑝 = 𝑑𝑝𝑝 , 𝑑𝑝𝑣 = 𝑑𝑝𝑣 , 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 = 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚 𝑚 , 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 = 𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 (13)
The total vertical load from equivalent cvasi-static head wave has the expression:

𝑝𝑥𝑖 = 𝑔𝑥𝑖 − 𝜌𝑔𝐴 𝑇𝑖 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 → 𝑝𝑥 (𝑥) 𝑥 ∈ [0, 𝐿] (14)

The total shear forces and bending moments from equivalent cvasi-static wave have the
following expressions:
𝑥 𝑥
𝑇(𝑥) = ∫0 𝑝𝑐𝑥 (𝑥)𝑑𝑥 ; 𝑀(𝑥) = ∫0 𝑇(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 𝑥 ∈ [0, 𝐿] (15)
Obs. In the above relations the sign ± make possible to select the hogging (+) and sagging (−)
wave loads cases.

A.2. THE GLOBAL – LOCAL SHIP STRENGHTS ANALYSIS BASED ON 3D – FEM

MODELS
The new method of ship global - local strengths analysis is based on 3D-FEM models developed
over the full length of the ship.

In compare to the classical method the new approach based on 3DFEM models has the following
main advantages:

 the real ship 3D structure is taken into account, with the corresponding geometries and
material proprieties;
 reduced number of boundary conditions;
 the 3D stress and deformations distributions in the ship structure are obtained, pointing
out also the local hot spots domains;
 with no restrictions to the ship hull offset lines form, the floating and trim equilibrium
position is obtained at still water and equivalent cvasi-static statistical head waves.
A.2.1. THE 3D-CAD OF THE SHIP HULL OFFSET LINES

In the first step there is developed the ship offset lines CAD, using specialized programs as
Lines-Tribon (Kockums), Multisurf (AeroHydro), etc. This CAD models are exported as neutral
DXF files format.
A.2.2. THE 3D-CAD OF THE SHIP HULL STRUCTURE

The second step includes the 3D-CAD ship hull geometry modelling, extended over the full ship
length. This approach is based on the ship offset lines CAD files, which can be carried on using
Tribon (Kockums), general CAD programs as AutoCAD (Autodesk), MicroStation (Bentley),
with export of DXF files format, or directly using the FEM program CAD preprocessing
procedures, as those existing at Cosmos/M (SRAC), Marc-Mentat (MSC), etc.

A.2.3. THE 3D-FEM MESH OF THE SHIP HULL STRUCTURE

The third step of the ship strengths analysis includes the generation of the 3D-FEM models,
based on the auto-mesh options that are usual included in the FEM programs. In order to ensure
the convergence of the auto-mesh procedure, it is recommended to use triangular elements rather
then quadratic elements.

A.2.4. THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ON THE 3D-FEM MODEL OF THE SHIP HULL
STRUCTURE

At the fourth analysis step there are modelled the boundary conditions for the 3DFEM ship hull
model full extended over the length, that are of two types:

 the symmetry conditions at the nodes disposed in the diametric plane of the ship, the
model being developed only on one side (for head waves loads case);
 the vertical support conditions at two nodes disposed at the ship hull structure extremities
(in the diametric plane), noted NDpp at the stern (aft) and NDpv at the bow (fore). At the
vertical equilibrium conditions, at still water or equivalent cvasi-static head waves, the
reactions forces in the two vertical supports become zero.
Obs. Based on the vertical force reactions in the two nodes NDpp, NDpv, disposed at ship
extremities, there are defined the objective functions for the convergence control of the ship free
floating and trim numerical procedures.

A.2.5. THE LOADING CONDITIONS. NUMERICL NLYSIS BSED ON 3D-FEM MODELS

At the fifth analysis step there are considered the modelling of the loads conditions and the
effective numerical analysis of the 3D-FEM model developed over the full ship length, in order
to obtain the deformations and stress distributions at the ship global-local strengths analysis.

The loads acting over the ship hull are of three types:

 the gravity loads from the eigen structures weight and other mass components of the
displacement, except the cargo masses;
 the cargo loads, considered as local hydrostatic pressures over the hull structure;
 the equivalent cvasi-static head wave pressure loads for the following cases: ℎ𝑤 = 0 (still
water) and ℎ𝑤 ≠ 0 (according the statistical values from Naval Register Rules).
The iterative procedure includes two main parts:

 the free floating condition, having as objective numerical function the sum of vertical
reaction forces at the two nodes at ship extremities:
𝑅𝐹𝑍𝑒𝑞 = 𝑅𝐹𝑍(𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑝 ) + 𝑅𝐹𝑍(𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑣 ) → 0 (16)
 the free trim & floating condition, having as objective numerical functions the vertical
reactions forces at each two nodes at ship extremities:
𝑅𝐹𝑍(𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑝 ) → 0 𝑅𝐹𝑍(𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑣 ) → 0 (17)
A.2.6. THE LOADING CONDITIONS. NUMERICL NLYSIS BSED ON 3D-FEM MODELS

At the sixth step of the global-local ship strengths analysis, based on 3D-FEM models, there are
obtained the following numerical results:

 the free floating & trim equilibrium parameters (draught & trim angle of reference plane);
 the global and local deformations of the ship hull structure;
 the global and local (hot spots domains) equivalent von Misses stress distributions over
the full ship hull girder length.
Obs. At the numerical analysis of the test ships it will be compared the 3D-FEM model results
with the classical 1D-equivalent girder model results.

A.3. THE NUMERICAL GLOBAL – LOCAL STRENGHTS ANALYSIS FOR A SHIP WITH
UNIFORM HULL
We consider a uniform ship hull structure, cylindrical over length L, with the main dimensions
presented in table 1.

The ship structure is divided in 3 main regions: 0 − 5 𝑚 aft-pick, 5 − 77 𝑚 central part,

77 − 82 𝑚 fore-pick. The cargo is introduced only in the central part 𝐿𝑐ℎ .

Table 1. Test ship main dimensions Table 2. Test ship displacement cases

𝐿 82 𝑚 ∆0 = 𝑀𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 545.4 𝑡
𝐵 11 𝑚 ∆1 = ∆𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙_1 3400.2 𝑡
𝐷 5𝑚 ∆2 = ∆𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙_2 3410.2 𝑡
𝐿𝑐ℎ 72 𝑚 𝑀𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 2854.8 𝑡
𝑥𝐹 0𝑚 𝑀𝑝𝑝_𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 10.0 𝑡
𝑐𝐵 0.991 𝑑𝑚0 = 𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 0.601 𝑚
𝑎0 0.500 𝑚 𝑑𝑚1 = 𝑑𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙_1 3.689 𝑚
𝑑𝑚2 = 𝑑𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙_2 3.710 𝑚
𝜌𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 1.3 𝑡/𝑚3
𝜌𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 7.7 𝑡/𝑚3
𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑝 186
 𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑣 15925
There are considered three displacement cases, that are presented in table 2.

 ∆0 the mass only from the hull steel structure;

 ∆1 the full loading conditions;
 ∆2 the full loading conditions with 10.0 𝑡 supplementary mass at the aft-pick.
A.3.1. THE CLASICL 1D-EQUIVLENT SHIP GIRDER MODEL AT GLOBL STRENGTHS
ANALYSIS

Based on the 1D-equivalent ship girder model, for the amidships section presented in figure 1,
we obtain the characteristic data presented in table 3.

Table 3. Test ship girder amidships chracteristics

𝐴0 0.620 𝑚2
𝐴𝑓0 0.326 𝑚2
𝐼0 2.207 𝑚4
𝑊0 2.207 𝑚3
𝑅𝑒𝐻 235 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
𝜎𝑎𝑑𝑚 175 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
For table 2 displacement cases, considering a uniform cylindrical hull offset lines, there are
obtained the loads over the 1D – equivalent ship girder, shear forces and bending moments. In
the case of ∆0 displacement there is considered only the still water (ℎ𝑤 = 0) condition. For the
∆1 , ∆2 displacement cases there are taken into account the following conditions: still water
(ℎ𝑤 = 0) and Smith equivalent cvasi-static head waves with height ℎ𝑤 = 1 𝑚 and ℎ𝑤 = 2 𝑚.

In figure 2 there is presented the mass distribution over the ship length for displacement ∆2 and
in figure 3 and 4 the corresponding shear forces and bending moments distributions.

Fig 1. Test ship transversal section, uniform Fig 2. Mass distribution on the 1D-girder at
hull ∆2 = 3410.2 𝑡
 Fig 3. Shear forces in the 1D-girder at Fig 4. Bending moments in the 1D-girder at
∆2 = 3410.2 𝑡 ∆2 = 3410.2 𝑡
A.3.2. THE 3D-FEM MODEL USED FOR GLOBL-LOCAL STRENGTHS ANALYSIS
The new approach of ship global-local strengths analyse is based on 3D-FEM models, developed
over the full length of the ship.

In the first step there is developed the 3D-CAD model of the ship hull. In figure 5 there are
presented the surfaces primitives of the 3DCAD model. Using the auto-mesh options there is
generated the 3D-FEM model with 41140 shell3T triangular thick shell elements and 16404
nodes.

The material used is the isotropic steel A naval class, with 𝑅𝑒𝐻 = 235𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 .

The boundary conditions consist in:

 the symmetry condition at the diametric plane of the ship, the model been developed only
one side;
 the vertical support conditions at nodes 𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑝 and 𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑣 , where at the vertical
equilibrium condition of the ship the reaction forces become zero.
Over the eigen weight of the ship there is considered the equivalent Smith cvasi-static head wave
pressure load for the following cases: ℎ𝑤 = 0 𝑚, ℎ𝑤 = 1 𝑚, ℎ𝑤 = 2 𝑚, using an iterative
procedure for the free floating and trim condition equilibrium.

In figure 6 there are presented the bottom and side shells of the test ship with the water pressure
distribution at case wave hw=2m, obtained from the free floating and trim equilibrium condition.

In figure 7 and 8 there is presented the von Mises stress distribution over the test ship full-length
model and in amidships section.
 Fig 6. Bottom and side shell with wave
Fig 5. Primitives of the 3D-CAD ship model
pressure (ℎ𝑤 = 2 𝑚)

Fig 7. 3D-FEM model, von Mises stress Fig 8. Von Mises stress distribution
distribution (𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 ) amidship section (𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )
A.3.3. NUMERICL RESULTS. CONCLUSIONS

From the numerical results there are obtained the following conclusions:

 The differences between draughts values at the 3D-FEM and 1D-girder ship models are
under 1%.
 It results maximum 5.4% stress difference between the classical 1D-equivalent girder and
the 3D-FEM model full extended over the ship length, where the ship geometry,
structures and loads are more precisely idealised.
A.4. THE NUMERICAL GLOBAL – LOCAL STRENGHTS ANALYSIS FOR A BUNKERING
TANKER SHIP
We consider the analysis of a small size bunkering tank figure 9, with the main dimensions
presented in table 4 and the ship offset lines in figure 10.

A.4.1. THE 3D-CAD OFFSET LINES TANKER MODEL

In order to obtain an accurate 3D-CAD Model, the ship hull surface has been divided in 3 main
regions: from 0-10 m aft-pick, 10-40 m central cylindrical part, 40-50 m fore-pick.

For the tanker ship presented in figure 10 and table 4, there is obtained the 3D-CAD model
presented in figure 9.

Table 4. Tanker main dimensions

∆ 1544 𝑡
𝑀𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 294 𝑡
𝑀𝑒𝑞+𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠 170 𝑡
𝑀𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 1080 𝑡
𝐷𝑤 1250 𝑡𝑑𝑤
𝐿 50 𝑚
𝐵 10 𝑚
𝐷 5.5 𝑚
𝑑𝑚 3.687 𝑚
𝑥𝐹 −0.23 𝑚
𝑐𝐵 0.812

Fig 9. Tanker hull model Fig 10. Tanker ship lines

A.4.2. THE 3D-CAD OFFSET LINES TANKER MODEL
Using the classical approach of the ship equivalent 1D-girder, included in the standard Naval
Register Rules, for the tanker amidships section presented in figure 11 we obtain the
characteristic data presented in table 5.

Table 5. Tanker main dimensions

𝐴0 0.658 𝑚2
𝐴𝑓0 0.293 𝑚2
𝐼0 3.089 𝑚2
𝑊0 0.951 𝑚2
For the tanker offset lines, with the mass distribution presented in figure 12, there are obtained
the loads over the ship equivalent 1D-girder, shear forces figure 13 and bending moments figure
14, in the following cases: still water (ℎ𝑤 = 0 𝑚) and Smith equivalent cvasi-static head waves,
with height ℎ𝑤 = 1 𝑚 , ℎ𝑤 = 2 𝑚 and ℎ𝑤 = 3 𝑚.

Fig 12. Mass distribution over the equivalent

Fig 11. Tanker hull section amidships
1D-girder

Fig 13. Shear forces in equivalent ship 1D- Fig 14. Bending moments in equivalent ship
girder 1D-girder
A.4.3. THE 3D-FEM MODEL USED FOR GLOBL-LOCL TANKER STRENGTHS ANALYSIS
In the following there is presented the tanker ship global - local strengths analysis based on 3D-
FEM models developed over the full length.

In figure 15 there is presented the full-developed 3D-CAD tanker model

Using the auto-mesh options is generated the 3DFEM model with 18973 shell3T triangular thick
shell elements and 7661 nodes.

The material used is the isotropic steel A naval class, with 𝑅𝑒𝐻 = 235𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 .

The boundary conditions consist in the symmetry conditions at the diametric plane of the ship,
the model been developed only one side, and the vertical support conditions at nodes 𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑝 and
𝑁𝐷𝑝𝑣 , where at the vertical equilibrium condition of the ship the reaction forces become zero.

Same as previous, over the eigen weight of the ship there is considered the equivalent Smith
cvasi-static head wave pressure load for the following cases: ℎ𝑤 = 0 𝑚, ℎ𝑤 = 1 𝑚, ℎ𝑤 = 2 𝑚,
ℎ𝑤 = 3 𝑚, using an iterative procedure for the free floating and trim condition equilibrium.

In figure 16, 17 there is presented the von Mises stress distribution over the tanker ship full-
length model and in amidships sections (with a bulkhead).

Fig 15. 3D-CAD model of the Fig 16. 3D-FEM tnker ship Fig 17. Von Mises stress
tnker hull girder (only one hull model, von Mises stress distribution midships (with
side) distribution (𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 ) bulkhed) (𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )
A.4.4. NUMERICAL RESULTS
From numerical results there are derived out the following conclusions:

 The differences between draughts values at the 3D-FEM and 1D-girder ship models are
under 1%.
 It results that the classical ship equivalent 1D-girder method cannot put in evidence the
stress hot-spot domains (≈ 2,6 times bigger stress).
 It results maximum 31.4% stress differences for the amidships domain without frames
and bulkheads, between the classical method and the 3D-FEM method, where there are
idealised more precisely the tanker ship geometry, structures and loads.
B: THE ANALYSIS OF FATIGUE STRENGTHS AND THE
ESTIMATION OF THE EXPLOITATION PERIOD OF THE SHIP
HULL STRUCTURE
B.1. THE STEPS OF THE FATIGUE STRENGHTS ANALYSIS
The steps of the fatigue strengths analysis are the following:

 the identify of the structural domains where significant dynamic loads occur;
 the fatigue analysis;
 the evaluation of the alternative constructive solutions with a lower risk from the point of
view of the fatigues strengths.
In the case of the ship structures, the dynamic loads dominant, from the points of view of fatigue
strengths, are the same as in the case of the global ship hull strengths, respective the wave loads.
The dynamic structural response induced from sea waves is obtained with the following
methods:

 the determinist method, of the naval registers, which are based on the ship girder loads
from the equivalent cvasi-static wave. This method is used at the 3D-FEM study of the
ship hull structure, from the point of view of the global ship strengths.
 the spectral method, that requires a solution of the ship hull dynamic response in the
frequency domain and can be applied to the ship rigid body (oscillations) and also to the
ship elastic hull (oscillations and vibrations), but under linear hypothesis of the excitation
forces and of the motion equations. This method is used for the standard seakeeping
analysis (adv) at linear ship hull oscillations, and also for the linear analysis in the
hypothesis of the hydroelasticity theory (hel & dyn_lin) at linear oscillations and linear
springing.
 the time domain analysis method of the stress field distribution, that makes possible
to include the non-linearities from the ship-wave dynamic system, being completed with
a spectral analysis based on the Fourier FFT method. This method is based on the
nonlinear model for the calculation of the ship hull dynamic response, in the
hydroelasticity theory hypothesis (dyn_nln), with the inclusion of the following
phenomena: linear and non-linear springing, slamming (bottom and side) and whipping.
In order to check the fatigue strengths criteria, there can be applied two methods:

 the method of admissible value 𝛥𝜎𝑝 , for the variation of the maximal stresses at the
prescribed extreme loads;
 the method of the damage cumulative factor D, based on the Palmgren-Miner method of
the design curves stress-cycles S-N.
B.2. THE S – N DESIGN DIAGRAM
Def. The S-N design diagram is the low limit of a 95% from the made tests, corresponding to the
survival probability of 97.5%, considering the occurrence further of the significant fatigue
damages in the complex structures. Mathematic, the S-N curve is idealized with a linear relation
between 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝛥𝜎) and 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑁) (fig.18).

Fig 18. The S-N diagram (GL)

According GL., ch.1, sec.20.B, 3.1.2, for the ship steel the S-N diagram is obtained with the
following relations:

𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑁) = 6.69897 + 𝑚 ∙ 𝑄 𝑄 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔(∆𝜎𝑅 /∆𝜎) − 0.39794/𝑚0 (18)

where 𝑚0 = 3 is the inverse of the S-N diagram slope for:

𝑁 ≤ 5 ∙ 106 ; 𝛥𝜎𝑅 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 160/𝑚𝑚2

The slope „m” of the S-N diagram has the following values:

 according GL., ch.1,sec.20, 3.1.3, for cycles with variable amplitude, in the case of ship
hull with random sea waves loads, it is considered:
𝑚 = 𝑚0 𝑄≤0
(19)
𝑚 = 2𝑚0 − 1 𝑄>0

 according GL., ch.1,sec.20, 3.1.4 for cycles with constant amplitude, it is considered:
𝑚 = 𝑚0 𝑄≤0
(20)
𝑚=∞ 𝑄>0
B.3. THE CHECK AT THE FATIGUE STRENGHTS
B.3.1. THE ADMISSIBLE VALUES METHOD FOR THE MAXIM PRESCRIBED STRESSES
(GL.,ch.1,sec.20.B,2.1)
The maxim variation of the stress must to satisfy the following criterion:

∆𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ ∆𝜎𝑝 ≤ 𝑅𝑚 (21)

In the analysis cases when this criterion is not satisfied, it results that the structure has an
expected exploitation life lower as 𝑅 = 20 years and this value is evaluated again using the
damage cumulative factor 𝐷.

B.3.2. THE PALMGREN_MINER METHOD, OF THE DAMAGE CUMULATIVE FACTOR 𝐷

(GL.,ch.1,sec.20.B,2.2)
It is calculated the damage cumulative factor D with the following relation:
𝑛
𝐷 = ∑𝑚 𝑖
𝑖=1 𝑁 ≤ 1 𝑛𝑖 = 𝑝𝑖 ∙ 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑁𝑖 = 𝑓𝑆𝑁 (∆𝜎𝑐𝑖 ) (22)
𝑖

coupled with the histogram of the significant wave height ( 𝑝𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1, 𝑚 ) for the selected
navigation domain, prescribed by the naval registers rules GL, DNV, BV.

In the above relations, there are noted the following:

 𝑚 = 14 the number of the division blocks of the histograms;

 𝑛𝑖 the number of cycles applied to the naval structure for the sea state ℎ1/3𝑖 ;
 𝑁𝑖 the number of cycles from the fatigue strengths condition, based on the S-N diagram
for ∆𝜎𝑐𝑖 , corresponding to the sea state ℎ1/3𝑖 .
Obs. From the linear and non-linear spectral analyses (FFT) on short term, there result the
significant statistic values 𝜎1/3 on oscillation and vibration components associated to the sea
state ℎ1/3 , so that the damage cumulative factor 𝐷 is obtained from the following relations:
𝑛
𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑐 = ∑𝑚
𝑖=1 𝑁
𝑖_𝑜𝑠𝑐
𝑛𝑖_𝑜𝑠𝑐 = 𝑝𝑖 ∙ 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 _𝑜𝑠𝑐 𝑁𝑖_𝑜𝑠𝑐 = 𝑓𝑆𝑁 (∆𝜎𝑐𝑖_𝑜𝑠𝑐 )
𝑖_𝑜𝑠𝑐
𝑛𝑖_𝑣𝑖𝑏
𝐷𝑣𝑖𝑏 = ∑𝑚
𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖_𝑣𝑖𝑏 = 𝑝𝑖 ∙ 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 _𝑣𝑖𝑏 𝑁𝑖_𝑣𝑖𝑏 = 𝑓𝑆𝑁 (∆𝜎𝑐𝑖_𝑣𝑖𝑏 ) (23)
𝑁𝑖_𝑣𝑖𝑏

𝐷 = 𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑐 + 𝐷𝑣𝑖𝑏 ≤ 1

Obs. In the practical cases, there are considered several loading cases „j” during the exploitation
life of the ship and the damage cumulative factor 𝐷 results from relation:

𝐷 = ∑𝑀
𝑗=1 𝑃𝑗 ∙ 𝐷𝑗 ≤ 1 (24)
As example, in the case of the oil-tankers, the naval registers consider two main loading cases:
the full load and ballast, having the same probability of 50%. The combined damage cumulative
factor 𝐷 is calculated in this case with the following relation:

𝐷 = 0.5 ∙ 𝐷𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 + 0.5 ∙ 𝐷𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 ≤ 1 (25)

The estimation of the exploitation life of the ship hull from the fatigue strengths criterion, based
on the calculations made for = 20 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 , results from the following relation:
20
𝐿= [𝑎𝑛𝑖] (26)
𝐷

When < 20 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 , there are necessary constructive changes of the ship structure and even of
the ship offset lines, if the wave dynamic loads are over the admissible limits (as example the
extreme loads from slamming and whipping).
C. REPORT ON NON-LINEAR FEM STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS. FRAME
(LOADING – UNLOADING)
C.1. MODEL DESCRIPTION
C.1.1 GEOMETRY
The model that is analysed in this report is the structure found at the intersection of the
longitudinal and tranverse hatch coaming. The geometry, loads, constraints and properties setup are given
in the figure below.

The modelling of the structure having a mesh size of 100mm was accomplished according to the drawing
and in addition, stiffening elements were modelled for reinforcing the coaming’s web.
C.1.2. MATERIALS AND THICKNESSES

The material used for the analysis is marine grade steel type A, with Reh=235N/mm², elasticity modulus
E=2.1x10⁵N/mm², tangent modulus of Et=0.001N/mm2 and Poisson coefficient of ν=0.3. The settings and
also the thicknesses used can be seen in the next figures.
C.1.3 BOUNDARIES AND LOADS
For the analysis, the model boundary conditions needed are fixed translations and X,Y rotation for the
nodes positioned at the side ends of the structure.
In order to set the loading conditions, a nodal force of 240000N is applied in the X direction, located in
the upper end of the structure.
C.2 ANALYSIS SETUP

For setting the analysis two load sets are defined, one for the case that loads the model with the stated
force of 240kN and one for the unloading case which applies a 0.001N force in the Y direction, both
having set a number of 500 increments and a value for maximum iterations/step of 200.

Having the load sets, the non-linear analysis has to be defined, checking the Use Load Set Options setting.
Next, two analysis cases are generated for which the boundary conditions and load sets are chosen.
C.3 RESULTS

After running the analysis, the first given result is the maximum stress value and the location of the high
stressed area. Changing the maximum value to 235 in can be observed that the stressed area is larger
than initially. To be able to further analyse the structure results for a chosen element can be transposed
in different chart types. The plotted charts in this report are the nonlinear Plate Top Von Misses – Total
Strain and Plastic Strain – Total Strain. The values are indicated for every increment of the analysis.
C.4 CONCLUSIONS

The nonlinear static analysis made on the hatch coaming structure having two cases returned the
following results: the maximum stress value for the loading case and the presence of plastic
deformations for the unloading case.
In the plotted stress strain chart it can be observed that the maximum stress value is 420.27 Mpa,
the total strain value is 0.00218 and the VonMisses stress after unloading the model is around 70
MPa.
In the second chart it can be observed the residual plastic strain value of 0.0017.
Having a maximum stress value which exceeds the steel yielding strength and plastic strain in
the elements analysed, the domain of the structure will change from elatic to plastic, therefore
the structure will fail after applying the 240kN force.
This issue can be solved by increasing the thickness value of the high stressed pannels or of the
brackets. Also a solution might be changing the geometry of the structure by increasing the
radius value at the intersection of the longitudinal and transverse coaming panels.