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

net/publication/245196189

Ultimate load capacities of mooring bollards and hull foundation structures

Article  in  Ocean Engineering · June 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.02.011

CITATION READS

1 31,924

5 authors, including:

Sang-Rai Cho Joonmo Choung

University of Ulsan Inha University
117 PUBLICATIONS   1,111 CITATIONS    151 PUBLICATIONS   1,197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kangsu Lee
Korean Institute of Ocean Science and Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Residual strength of damaged stiffened cylinders under external hydrostatic pressure View project

Stability of Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sang-Rai Cho on 21 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 770–776

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Ultimate load capacities of mooring bollards and hull foundation structures

Sang-Rai Cho a, Joonmo Choung b,, Chang-Min Oh c, Kang-Su Lee d, Jung-Yeob Kim e
a
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea
c
Hyundai Heavy Industries Ulsan, Republic of Korea
d
Korean Register of Shipping, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
e
DNV Software Korea Pusan, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: CSRs (Common Structural Rules for bulker and tanker), which came into effect in 2006, invoke the
Received 26 July 2009 concept of the ultimate strength of hull girders. While numerous studies associated with the ultimate
Accepted 15 February 2010 capacities regarding global hull girders and stiffened panels have been carried out, there are few
Available online 1 March 2010
application cases of the ultimate strengths for deck machineries and their supporting structures. In the
Keywords: present study, nonlinear finite element analyses have been performed to obtain ultimate capacities for a
Mooring fitting size 450 DIN type bollard including hull foundation structures for which elastic strength assessments
Bollard based on allowable stress analyses were jointly carried out by a Mooring Fitting SWL Standardization
SWL (safety working load) Committee consisting of four major Korean shipbuilders (DSME, HHI, HHIC, and SHI) in 2003. The
MBL (minimum breaking load)
plastic hardening property is identified from a comparison of the results of ultimate strength
USD (ultimate strength design)
simulations and a bollard tension tests performed by the committee. It is assumed that the ultimate
ASD (allowable stress design)
Mooring rope load is the corresponding load point when the deformation slope of the bollard column reaches the
Equipment number critical slip angle. It is concluded that the reinforcements appear to be effective with respect to the
allowable stress criterion, but are not substantially effective from the point of view of ultimate
capacities. In other words, structural reinforcements based on allowable stress analyses may noticeably
increase production costs, but do not remarkably raise the ultimate capacities.
Crown Copyright & 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction previous rules. In particular, they incorporate the ultimate

Mooring equipment is mandatory for all kinds of vessels in
order to prevent them from drifting away due to environmental
loads such as tide, current, and wind. Because there are many
types of mooring fittings, viz. winches, chokes, bollards, bitts, etc.,
it is essential to understand the load-carrying capacity of the
mooring fitting under concern. In the initial design stage, the
mooring force is determined from the equipment number
provided by classification rules. The technical background of the
equipment number is garnered from hydrodynamic calculations
for environmental loads. After determination of the mooring force
acting on each mooring rope, generally only hull strength
supporting the mooring fittings is evaluated in most of shipyards;
in other words, the interactions between mooring fittings and hull
foundations are beyond consideration. The present study at-
tempts to verify the effects of these interactions.
Recently, IACS (International Association of Classification
Societies) released CSR for tankers (IACS, 2006b) and CSR for
bulkers (IACS, 2006a), respectively. CSRs are different from
 Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82 32 860 7346 (mobile: +82 16 860 5549).
E-mail address: jmchoung@inha.ac.kr (J. Choung).
strength concept as design criteria for hull girders and stiffened
panels. The ULSD (ultimate limit state design) in CSR, however,
does not cover local strength members such as deck foundation
structures supporting mooring fittings. Most local members are
still designed by the allowable stress criterion based on the initial
yield strength. The present study examines load-resisting capa-
cities of a mooring bollard and foundation hull structures with
two different design criteria: the conventional ASD (allowable
stress design) approach and the USD (ultimate strength design)
approach.
Four Korean shipbuilders, DSME, HHI, HHIC, and SHI, orga-
nized a Mooring Fitting SWL Standardization Committee in 2000
and made plans to establish inter-shipyard design standards of
the mooring fittings applied to tankers. The standard SWLs based
on the use of ASD were proposed for most kinds of mooring
fittings (Mooring Fitting SWL Standardization Committee, 2003).
The works of Mooring Fitting SWL Standardization Committee
also reveal that local hull stresses are higher than stresses of the
fitting itself for most mooring fittings, and therefore SWL is
dependent on hull strength rather than the strength of fittings.
This study re-assesses the bollard strength including hull
foundation structures, one of the mooring items dealt with by the
committee. Nonlinear FE analyses are carried out to obtain

0029-8018/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.02.011
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-R. Cho et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 770–776
ultimate strengths. In order to minimize natural variations of the
FE analysis such as element sizes, load applications, and boundary
conditions, the same FE models provided by the committee are
primarily used. In addition to a structural comparison of ASD and
USD, the production costs are also evaluated.
2. General descriptions of bollards
2.1. Types of bollards
There are two types of bollards: JIS-F2001 (JIS, 1995) and DIN-
82607 (DIN, 2001) types, as shown in Fig. 1. While shipbuilders
have both JIS-F2001 and DIN-82607 type bollards as shipyard
standards, the JIS-F2001 type bollard had been dominantly used
in most Korean shipyards until 2000. Because the DIN-82607 type
bollard is simpler and lighter than JIS-F2001 type bollard for the
same SWL capacities, the DIN-82607 type bollard is currently
preferred.
2.2. Determination of mooring force
There are alternative methods to determine forces acting on
the bollard: the first is to determine the force directly from the
MBL (minimum breaking load) of the actual mooring rope and the
second is to obtain the force from the equipment number
specified in the classification rule. Ship owners generally require
larger size ropes than the rope sizes determined from equipment
numbers. Rope forces determined from equipment numbers are
more reasonable than those derived from the MBL, since
hydrodynamic forces are dependent not on rope size, but rather
vessel deadweight, hull shape, etc. New SOLAS (International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) regulations, which came
into effect in 2007, from the 80th determination of MSC (Maritime
Safety Committee) of IMO (International Marine Organization),
specify use of design loads that is 1.25 times the SWL determined
from the equipment number.
Fig. 1. Types of bollards: (a) JIS type and (b) DIN type.
771
3. Analyses based on allowable stress and ultimate strength
3.1. Arrangement of bollard and load application
As shown in Fig. 2, bollards are arranged in two directions:
along the longitudinal stiffeners (LS type) and transverse
stiffeners (TS type). Flat bar local stiffeners are reinforced under
the deck plate along the bottom perimeter without longitudinal
stiffeners. Reviewing the committee’s works, three types of
tankers, 75K, 150K, and 300K deadweights, are taken into
account. Table 1 explains hull scantlings including deck plate,
transverse girder, local stiffeners, longitudinal space, and frame
space, which had been decided as standard foundation scantlings
by the committee members.
ISO-3913 (ISO, 1977) and JIS-F2001 (JIS, 1995) indicate that a
rope can be wound in a figure-of-eight fashion to produce shear
load or bending moment, respectively. Fig. 3 represents two load
application types where the shear type is a rope wound at the top
plate of a bollard base box whereas the bending type is a rope
wound at 80% of the bollard column height (H1) from the bollard
base box. The present study only considers bending type load
application, because the committee report verified that bending
type load causes larger stress than shear type load.
3.2. FE modeling for allowable stress analyses
This paper introduces allowable stress analysis results of
nominal bollard size 450, provided by the committee, which is
usually installed on deck plates of 75K and 150K tankers. Fig. 4
shows a FE model for a nominal size 450 mooring bollard
longitudinally and transversely mounted on a 75K tanker hull.
Applying a fully fixed boundary along the FE model perimeter
(thick red line in Fig. 4), the FE model includes two transverse
frames and six longitudinal stiffeners to minimize the boundary
effect. All the FE models were constructed using only shell
elements, where element sizes are about 100 mm  100 mm.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
772 S.-R. Cho et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 770–776

Fig. 2. Arrangement of bollards: (a) longitudinal type and (b) transverse type.

Table 1
Scantling of hull foundations (unit:mm).

Vessel type 75K COT 150K COT 300K COT

Thickness/size Material Thickness/size Material Thickness/size Material

Deck plate thickness 15.5 AH32 16.5 AH32 18.0 AH32

Transverse girder (tee bar) 600  10 +150  16 A 800  12 +150  16/A A 800  12 +200  16 A
Deck longitudinal (angle bar) 250  90  12/16 AH32 300  90  13/17 AH32 350  100  12/17 AH32
Original local stiffener (flat bar) 200  12 A 250  14 A 300  14 A
Longitudinal space 850 – 880 – 1180 –
Frame space 3800 – 4800 – 5700 –

bollard column, as shown in Fig. 6. The load cases are summarized

in Table 2.
The allowable stresses of hull structures were assumed to be
the yield stresses of the adopted materials: Nominal yield stresses
of A and AH32 grades are 235 and 315 MPa. A bollard is made of
SS400 steel, a mid-steel with a nominal yield stress of 235 MPa.
MSC.Patran and MSC.Nastran were used for FE modeling and
linear elastic analyses.

3.3. FE modeling for ultimate strength analyses

Shear type Bending type
Fig. 3. Load applications types: (a) shear type and (b) bending type.
According to the committee report, the initial FE models were
constructed based on the scantlings given in Table 1, but very high
stresses were observed in local stiffeners. To improve the hull
resistance for a 75K tanker, the sizes of the local stiffener were
upgraded as shown in Fig. 5, where the red line denotes the
intersection line with the bollard. In the case of the longitudinal
type, local stiffeners in blue elements and red elements in Fig. 5(b)
between L3 and L4 were changed to AH32 grade 300  90  13/17
angle bars and to AH32 grade 250  90  12/16 angle bars,
respectively. In the case of the transverse type, local stiffeners
in green elements were stiffened to AH32 grade 250  90  12/16
angle bars. On the other hand, the hull resistance of the 150K
tanker was also improved by changing the local stiffener sizes and
material to AH 32 grade 200  90  13/17 angle bars for both the
longitudinal and transverse types. Rope force 2P was applied to a
reference node of rigid elements that connect a half circle of the
For a comparative study, the same FE models provided by the
committee were used. Ultimate strength analyses for the load
cases shown in Table 2 are carried out using Simulia.Abaqus,
where an S4R shell element with a reduced integration scheme
was chosen. An elastic–perfect plastic material was assumed (Oh,
2006; Oh et al., 2006), but for ultimate strength analyses it is
necessary to define plastic material properties. Assuming the used
materials follow Swift’s power law, the isotropic flow stress can
be expressed as Eq. (1):
 
ep n
sY ¼ s0 1 þ ð1Þ
e0
where sY is the flow stress and s0 the initial yield stress. 235 MPa
for A grade and SS400 and 315 for AH32 grade, ep the plastic
strain, e0 the initial yield strain (E s0/E), E the elastic modulus
(E206 GPa) and n the plastic hardening exponent.
Since the actual initial yield stress and plastic hardening
exponent are unknown material constants, the nominal value
(235 MPa) is applied to the FE model as the initial yield stress. To
determine the proper plastic hardening exponent, results of
numerical simulations are compared with those of the ultimate
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-R. Cho et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 770–776 773

T2 T2
L1 L1
L2 L2
L3 T1 L3 L4 T1
L4 L5
L5
L6 L6
LS type TS type

Fig. 4. FE model of nominal size 450 mooring bollard with 75K tanker hull: (a) LS type and (b) TS type.

LS type/Original LS type/Reinforced

TS type/Original TS type/Reinforced

Fig. 5. Local reinforcements for 75K tanker hull: (a) LS type/original, (b) LS type/reinforced, (c) TS type/original, and (d) TS type/reinforced.

Table 2
Applied load cases.

Load cases 75K/105K Longitudinal/transverse Original/reinfocred

LC01 75K Longitudinal type Original

LC02 75K Longitudinal type Reinforced
LC03 75K Transverse type Original
LC04 75K Transverse type Reinforced
LC05 105K Longitudinal type Original
LC06 105K Longitudinal type Reinforced
LC07 105K Transverse type Original
LC08 105K Transverse type Reinforced

strength test, performed by the committee, for a DIN type bollard

of nominal size 450, as shown in Fig. 7, where the bollard was
firmly fixed to a test bed plate. Based on one rope winding, the
SWL for the 450 bollard was about 62 tonf, but the final test
Fig. 6. Load application. tension was 282 tonf. At the initial stage of loading, notable

774
Fig. 7. A photo of an ultimate strength test for size 450 DIN type bollard.
400
Experiment
Simulation n=0.00
Simulation n=0.05
Simulation n=0.10
300
Mooring Force [tonf]
200
100
0
0 10 20
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 8. Comparison of force–displacement curves to define the hardening
exponent value.
differences are shown, but the simulation curve with n ¼0.05 fits
the experiment curve well after approximately 10 mm
displacement. It is inferred that initial clearances such as the
actuator itself and decreased rope tension caused the initial
deviation. Considering that the nominal yield stress is the
minimum yield value of the steel under study, the actual yield
stress of the bollard material could be higher than the nominal
yield stress. Hereafter, the plastic hardening exponent for the
ultimate strength calculations is assumed to be 5% for the bollard
and hull materials (Fig. 8).
3.4. Comparison of results based on allowable stress and ultimate
strength
In this paper, the maximum load based on an allowable stress
analysis, F0, is the load when any of the elements reaches the
allowable stress ( ¼initial yield stress). In contrast, the maximum
load based on an ultimate strength analysis, Fu, is the load when
the bollard column angle y from the deck plate in Fig. 9 reaches
the critical slip angle yu or the load when the incremental slope of
the force–displacement curve becomes negative. If the bollard is
deflected more than the critical slip angle, the mooring rope will
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-R. Cho et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 770–776
2P
θ
2Pn
Fig. 9. Schematic for determination of critical slip angle.
lift up from the bollard column. The critical slip angle can be
simply calculated using Eq. (2). Assuming a static friction
coefficient Cf of about 0.15, the critical slip angle is determined
as 8.61, which is equivalent to a lateral displacement of 94 mm
(red line in Fig. 10):
2Pf ¼ 2P sin yu  Cf 2P ð2Þ
Fig. 10 presents a comparison of force–displacement curves for
eight load cases, where blue and pink solid circles denote
intersection points between the ultimate displacement and
ultimate load. Table 3 also presents the strength ratios of F0 and
Fu. It is very interesting that the strength ratios, Fu/F0, range from
3.8 to 7.7. In ASD, a structure is considered to fail to resist the
mooring load when the equivalent stress in any of the elements
exceeds the specified allowable stress. In addition, ASD is too
sensitive to element size and geometry discontinuities, and
therefore it is thought the capacities proposed by ASD are too low.
30 Observing Table 4, which presents the efficiency of structural
reinforcements, the structural improvements based on the
ultimate strength analyses appear to be less effective than those
based on allowable stress analyses. This implies that structural
reinforcements based on allowable stress are not substantially
beneficial in terms of resisting the large mooring forces such as
extreme environmental loads under storm load or broken rope
conditions.
Even though the proposed method to determine the ultimate
strength point does not address uncertainties such as the actual
hardening capacity of the material, weld induced residual stress,
initial imperfections, fabrication misalignments, etc., the design
capacities of mooring equipment should be evaluated based on an
ultimate strength assessment.
3.5. Production cost assessment
Production cost is composed of the weight cost of the adopted
material and man-hour cost for fabrication. Each shipyard
develops its own standards to estimate production cost, but most
yard standards are similar. In this paper, for instance, unit
production cost is estimated based on the standard of a Korean
shipyard. It is found from Table 5 that production cost is increased
more than 1.3 times due to structural reinforcements. Comparing
structural improvement ratios based on ultimate strength
(Table 4) and production cost increase ratios (Table 5), it is
concluded that increased production cost does not help to
upgrade ultimate strength capacities.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-R. Cho et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 770–776 775

400 400
LC01
LC02
LC03 LC05
LC04 LC06
300 300 LC07
Mooring Force [tonf]

Mooring Force [tonf]

LC08

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
LC01-LC04 LC05-LC08

Fig. 10. Comparison of force–displacement curves: (a) LC01-LC04 and (b) LC05-LC08.

Table 3 chosen for ultimate strength calculations. Since the size 450
Comparison of strength ratios. bollard is usually mounted on tankers less than 150K DWT, 75K
and 150K tankers are taken into account. For a comparative study,
Load cases F0 (tonf) Fu (tonf) Fu/F0 (tonf)
the same FE models of bollards and hull foundations generated by
LC01 28.6 220.0 7.7 the committee are used for the ultimate strength assessment.
LC02 67.5 335.0 5.0 The reliability of present analysis is verified through compar-
LC03 37.9 237.0 6.3 ison with a bollard tension test. The material property of the
LC04 62.6 273.0 4.4
plastic hardening exponent is also identified from a comparison of
LC05 35.9 240.0 6.7
LC06 65.7 278.0 4.2 the results of ultimate strength simulations and the bollard
LC07 46.9 262.0 5.6 tension test. In order to determine the ultimate capacities from
LC08 70.3 268.0 3.8 nonlinear numerical simulations, it is assumed that the ultimate
capacity is the load point when the slope of the bollard column
under mooring load reaches the critical slip angle or when the
Table 4 applied mooring load begins to reduce.
Comparison of structural improvement ratios.
Comparison of the strength ratio between the original
Load cases Based on allowable stress Based on ultimate strength structure and reinforced structure provides a good index for
verifying the efficiency of structural reinforcements. Structural
LC02/LC01 67.5/28.6 ¼2.36 335.0/220.0 ¼ 1.52 reinforcements appear to be efficient from the viewpoint of
LC04/LC03 62.6/37.9 ¼1.65 273.0/237.0 ¼ 1.15
allowable stress analyses, but it is shown that the reinforcements
LC06/LC05 65.7/35.9 ¼1.83 278.0/240.0 ¼ 1.16
LC08/LC07 70.3/46.9 ¼1.50 268.0/262.0 ¼ 1.02
do not remarkably raise the ultimate strength. In addition, in spite
of noticeably increased production costs due to structural
reinforcements, the reinforcements are not substantially effective
Table 5 from the point of view of ultimate capacity. It is also expected that
Comparison of weight and cost increase ratios due to structural reinforcements. design based on ultimate strength will reduce production cost.
In order to practically design ship local structural members
Load cases Steel weight increase ratios Production cost increase ratios
based on the ultimate strength, uncertainties regarding material
LC02/LC01 1.73 1.61 properties and fabrication-induced imperfections should be
LC04/LC03 1.81 1.42 studied probabilistically. In future works, a reasonable safety
LC06/LC05 2.98 2.38
factor to determine ultimate strength shall be studied.
LC08/LC07 1.49 1.28

4. Conclusions Acknowledgement

This paper addresses the bollard in standardization works This work was supported by UNIVERSITY OF ULSAN and INHA
proposed by a Mooring Fitting SWL Standardization Committee UNIVERSITY Research Grants.
consisting of four major Korean shipyards. The works include
standard SWLs based on allowable stress analyses for most kinds References
of mooring fittings used for tankers. For advanced derivation of
standard design and standard SWLs of mooring fittings, however, DIN (Deutsche Industrie Normen), 2001. DIN-82607, double bollard.
it is necessary to re-assess the ultimate load capacities of mooring IACS (International Association of Classification Societies), 2006a. Common
structural rules for bulk carriers.
fittings, including hull foundation structures. In this paper, among IACS (International Association of Classification Societies), 2006b. Common
the DIN type bollards described in DIN-82607, nominal size 450 is structural rules for double hull oil tankers.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
776 S.-R. Cho et al. / Ocean Engineering 37 (2010) 770–776

ISO (International Standard Organization), 1977. ISO-3913, shipbuilding-welded
steel bollards.
JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards), 1995. JIS-F2001, bollards.
Mooring Fitting SWL Standardization Committee, 2003. The Report for Standardi-
zation of Mooring Fitting SWL Group E:BOLLARD.
Oh, Chang-Min, 2006. Ultimate strength assessment of bollard and its foundation
structures. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Ulsan.
Oh, Chang-Min, Choung, Joonmo, Cho, Sang-Rai, 2006. Ultimate strength
assessment of mooring bollards and their foundation structures, TEAM 2006,
133–143.

View publication stats