MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-1 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter
18
Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
Philippe Rigo and Enrico Rizzuto
18.1 NOMENCLATURE
For specific symbols, refer to the definitions contained in
the various sections.
ABS
BEM
BV
DNV
FEA
FEM
IACS
ISSC
ISOPE
ISUM
NKK
PRADS
RINA
SNAME
SSC
a
A
B
C
CB
D
g
American Bureau of Shipping
Boundary Element Method
Bureau Veritas
Det Norske Veritas
Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element Method
International Association of Classification Societies
International Ship & Offshore Structures
Congress
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Idealized Structural Unit method
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
Practical Design of Ships and Mobile
Units,
Registro Italiano Navale
Society of naval Architects and marine
Engineers
Ship Structure Committee.
acceleration
area
breadth of the ship
wave coefficient (Table 18.I)
hull block coefficient
depth of the ship
gravity acceleration
m(x)
I(x)
L
M(x)
MT(x)
p
q(x)
T
V(x)
s,w (low case)
v,h (low case)
w(x)
θ
ρ
ω
18.2
longitudinal distribution of mass
geometric moment of inertia (beam section x)
length of the ship
bending moment at section x of a beam
torque moment at section x of a beam
pressure
resultant of sectional force acting on a
beam
draft of the ship
shear at section x of a beam
still water, wave induced component
vertical, horizontal component
longitudinal distribution of weight
roll angle
density
angular frequency
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to present the fundamentals
of direct ship structure analysis based on mechanics and
strength of materials. Such analysis allows a rationally based
design that is practical, efficient, and versatile, and that has
already been implemented in a computer program, tested,
and proven.
Analysis and Design are two words that are very often
associated. Sometimes they are used indifferently one for
the other even if there are some important differences between performing a design and completing an analysis.
18-1
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-2 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-2
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
Analysis refers to stress and strength assessment of the
structure. Analysis requires information on loads and needs
an initial structural scantling design. Output of the structural
analysis is the structural response defined in terms of stresses,
deflections and strength. Then, the estimated response is
compared to the design criteria. Results of this comparison
as well as the objective functions (weight, cost, etc.) will
show if updated (improved) scantlings are required.
Design for structure refers to the process followed to select the initial structural scantlings and to update these scantlings from the early design stage (bidding) to the detailed
design stage (construction). To perform analysis, initial design is needed and analysis is required to design. This explains why design and analysis are intimately linked, but
are absolutely different. Of course design also relates to
topology and layout definition.
The organization and framework of this chapter are based
on the previous edition of the Ship Design and Construction
(1) and on the Chapter IV of Principles of Naval Architecture (2). Standard materials such as beam model, twisting,
shear lag, etc. that are still valid in 2002 are partly duplicated
from these 2 books. Other major references used to write this
chapter are Ship Structural Design (3) also published by
SNAME and the DNV 99-0394 Technical Report (4).
The present chapter is intimately linked with Chapter
11 – Parametric Design, Chapter 17 – Structural Arrangement and Component Design and with Chapter 19 – Reliability-Based Structural Design. References to these
chapters will be made in order to avoid duplications. In addition, as Chapter 8 deals with classification societies, the
present chapter will focus mainly on the direct analysis
methods available to perform a rationally based structural
design, even if mention is made to standard formulations
from Rules to quantify design loads.
In the following sections of this chapter, steps of a global
analysis are presented. Section 18.3 concerns the loads that
are necessary to perform a structure analysis. Then, Sections
18.4, 18.5 and 18.6 concern, respectively, the stresses and
deflections (basic ship responses), the limit states, and the failures modes and associated structural capacity. A review of
the available Numerical Analysis for Structural Design is performed in Section 18.7. Finally Design Criteria (Section
18.8) and Design Procedures (Section 18.9) are discussed.
Structural modeling is discussed in Subsection 18.2.2 and
more extensively in Subsection 18.7.2 for finite element analysis. Optimization is treated in Subsections 18.7.6 and 18.9.4.
Ship structural design is a challenging activity. Hence
Hughes (3) states:
The complexities of modern ships and the demand for
greater reliability, efficiency, and economy require a sci-
entific, powerful, and versatile method for their structural
design
But, even with the development of numerical techniques,
design still remains based on the designer’s experience and
on previous designs. There are many designs that satisfy the
strength criteria, but there is only one that is the optimum
solution (least cost, weight, etc.).
Ship structural analysis and design is a matter of compromises:
• compromise between accuracy and the available time to
perform the design. This is particularly challenging at
the preliminary design stage. A 3D Finite Element
Method (FEM) analysis would be welcome but the time
is not available. For that reason, rule-based design or
simplified numerical analysis has to be performed.
• to limit uncertainty and reduce conservatism in design, it
is important that the design methods are accurate. On the
other hand, simplicity is necessary to make repeated design analyses efficient. The results from complex analyses should be verified by simplified methods to avoid errors
and misinterpretation of results (checks and balances).
• compromise between weight and cost or compromise
between least construction cost, and global owner live
cycle cost (including operational cost, maintenance, etc.),
and
• builder optimum design may be different from the owner
optimum design.
18.2.1 Rationally Based Structural Design versus
Rules-Based Design
There are basically two schools to perform analysis and design of ship structure. The first one, the oldest, is called
rule-based design. It is mainly based on the rules defined
by the classification societies. Hughes (3) states:
In the past, ship structural design has been largely empirical, based on accumulated experience and ship performance, and expressed in the form of structural design codes
or rules published by the various ship classification societies. These rules concern the loads, the strength and the
design criteria and provide simplified and easy-to-use formulas for the structural dimensions, or “scantlings” of a
ship. This approach saves time in the design office and,
since the ship must obtain the approval of a classification
society, it also saves time in the approval process.
The second school is the Rationally Based Structural
Design; it is based on direct analysis. Hughes, who could
be considered as a father of this methodology, (3) further
states:
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-3 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
There are several disadvantages to a completely “rulebook”
approach to design. First, the modes of structural failure
are numerous, complex, and interdependent. With such
simplified formulas the margin against failure remains unknown; thus one cannot distinguish between structural adequacy and over-adequacy. Second, and most important,
these formulas involve a number of simplifying assumptions and can be used only within certain limits. Outside
of this range they may be inaccurate.
For these reasons there is a general trend toward direct
structural analysis.
Even if direct calculation has always been performed,
design based on direct analysis only became popular when
numerical analysis methods became available and were certified. Direct analysis has become the standard procedure
in aerospace, civil engineering and partly in offshore industries. In ship design, classification societies preferred to
offer updated rules resulting from numerical analysis calibration. For the designer, even if the rules were continuously
changing, the design remained rule-based. There really were
two different methodologies.
Design Load
Direct Load Analysis
Stress Response
in Waves
Study on Ocean Waves
Effect on
operation
Wave Load Response
Structural analysis by
whole ship model
Stress response
function
Response function
of wave load
Short term
estimation
Design
Sea State
Short term
estimation
Long term
estimation
Long term
estimation
Nonlinear influence
in large waves
Design wave
Wave impact load
Structural response analysis
Modeling technique
Direct structural
analysis
Investigation on
corrosion
Strength Assessment
Yield
strength
Buckling
strength
Ultimate
strength
Fatigue
strength
Figure 18.1 Direct Structural Analysis Flow Chart
18-3
Hopefully, in 2002 this is no longer true. The advantages
of direct analysis are so obvious that classification societies
include, usually as an alternative, a direct analysis procedure
(numerical packages based on the finite element method,
see Table 18.VIII, Subsection 18.7.5.2). In addition, for new
vessel types or non-standard dimension, such direct procedure is the only way to assess the structural safety. Therefore it seems that the two schools have started a long merging
procedure. Classification societies are now encouraging and
contributing greatly to the development of direct analysis
and rationally based methods. Ships are very complex structures compared with other types of structures. They are subject to a very wide range of loads in the harsh environment
of the sea. Progress in technologies related to ship design
and construction is being made daily, at an unprecedented
pace. A notable example is the fact that the efforts of a majority of specialists together with rapid advances in computer and software technology have now made it possible to
analyze complex ship structures in a practical manner using
structural analysis techniques centering on FEM analysis.
The majority of ship designers strive to develop rational and
optimal designs based on direct strength analysis methods
using the latest technologies in order to realize the
shipowner’s requirements in the best possible way.
When carrying out direct strength analysis in order to
verify the equivalence of structural strength with rule requirements, it is necessary for the classification society to
clarify the strength that a hull structure should have with
respect to each of the various steps taken in the analysis
process, from load estimation through to strength evaluation. In addition, in order to make this a practical and effective method of analysis, it is necessary to give careful
consideration to more rational and accurate methods of direct strength analysis.
Based on recognition of this need, extensive research
has been conducted and a careful examination made, regarding the strength evaluation of hull structures. The results of this work have been presented in papers and reports
regarding direct strength evaluation of hull structures (4,5).
The flow chart given in Figure 18.1 gives an overview
of the analysis as defined by a major classification society.
Note that a rationally based design procedure requires
that all design decisions (objectives, criteria, priorities, constraints…) must be made before the design starts. This is a
major difficulty of this approach.
18.2.2 Modeling and Analysis
General guidance on the modeling necessary for the structural analysis is that the structural model shall provide results suitable for performing buckling, yield, fatigue and
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-4 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-4
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
to ensure that all dimensioning loads are correctly included.
A flow chart of strength analysis of global model and sub
models is shown in Figure 18.2.
Structural drawings,
mass description and
loading conditions.
Verification
of model/
loads
Structural model
including necessary
load definitions
Hydrodynamic/static
loads
Verified structural
model
Load transfer to
structural model
Structural analysis
Sub-models to be
used in structural
analysis
Verification
of load
transfer
Verification
of response
Transfer of
displacements/forces
to sub-model?
Yes
No
Figure 18.2 Strength Analysis Flow Chart (4)
vibration assessment of the relevant parts of the vessel. This
is done by using a 3D model of the whole ship, supported
by one or more levels of sub models.
Several approaches may be applied such as a detailed
3D model of the entire ship or coarse meshed 3D model supported by finer meshed sub models.
Coarse mesh can be used for determining stress results
suited for yielding and buckling control but also to obtain
the displacements to apply as boundary conditions for sub
models with the purpose of determining the stress level in
more detail.
Strength analysis covers yield (allowable stress), buckling strength and ultimate strength checks of the ship. In addition, specific analyses are requested for fatigue (Subsection
18.6.6), collision and grounding (Subsection 18.6.7) and
vibration (Subsection 18.6.8). The hydrodynamic load
model must give a good representation of the wetted surface of the ship, both with respect to geometry description
and with respect to hydrodynamic requirements. The mass
model, which is part of the hydrodynamic load model, must
ensure a proper description of local and global moments of
inertia around the global ship axes.
Ultimate hydrodynamic loads from the hydrodynamic
analysis should be combined with static loads in order to
form the basis for the yield, buckling and ultimate strength
checks. All the relevant load conditions should be examined
18.2.3 Preliminary Design versus Detailed Design
For a ship structure, structural design consists of two distinct levels: the Preliminary Design and the Detailed Design about which Hughes (3) states:
The preliminary determines the location, spacing, and scantlings of the principal structural members. The detailed design determines the geometry and scantlings of local structure
(brackets, connections, cutouts, reinforcements, etc.).
Preliminary design has the greatest influence on the
structure design and hence is the phase that offers very
large potential savings. This does not mean that detail design is less important than preliminary design. Each level
is equally important for obtaining an efficient, safe and reliable ship.
During the detailed design there also are many benefits to be gained by applying modern methods of engineering science, but the applications are different from
preliminary design and the benefits are likewise different.
Since the items being designed are much smaller it is
possible to perform full-scale testing, and since they are
more repetitive it is possible to obtain the benefits of mass
production, standardization and so on. In fact, production
aspects are of primary importance in detail design.
Also, most of the structural items that come under detail design are similar from ship to ship, and so in-service
experience provides a sound basis for their design. In fact,
because of the large number of such items it would be inefficient to attempt to design all of them from first principles. Instead it is generally more efficient to use design
codes and standard designs that have been proven by experience. In other words, detail design is an area where a
rule-based approach is very appropriate, and the rules that
are published by the various ship classification societies
contain a great deal of useful information on the design of
local structure, structural connections, and other structural
details.
18.3
LOADS
Loads acting on a ship structure are quite varied and peculiar, in comparison to those of static structures and also of
other vehicles. In the following an attempt will be made to
review the main typologies of loads: physical origins, general interpretation schemes, available quantification proce-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-5 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
dures and practical methods for their evaluation will be summarized.
18.3.1 Classification of Loads
18.3.1.1 Time Duration
Static loads: These are the loads experienced by the ship in
still water. They act with time duration well above the range
of sea wave periods. Being related to a specific load condition, they have little and very slow variations during a
voyage (mainly due to changes in the distribution of consumables on board) and they vary significantly only during
loading and unloading operations.
Quasi-static loads: A second class of loads includes
those with a period corresponding to wave actions (∼3 to
15 seconds). Falling in this category are loads directly induced by waves, but also those generated in the same frequency range by motions of the ship (inertial forces). These
loads can be termed quasi-static because the structural response is studied with static models.
Dynamic loads: When studying responses with frequency components close to the first structural resonance
modes, the dynamic properties of the structure have to be
considered. This applies to a few types of periodic loads,
generated by wave actions in particular situations (springing) or by mechanical excitation (main engine, propeller).
Also transient impulsive loads that excite free structural vibrations (slamming, and in some cases sloshing loads) can
be classified in the same category.
High frequency loads: Loads at frequencies higher than
the first resonance modes (> 10-20 Hz) also are present on
ships: this kind of excitation, however, involves more the
study of noise propagation on board than structural design.
Other loads: All other loads that do not fall in the above
mentioned categories and need specific models can be generally grouped in this class. Among them are thermal and
accidental loads.
A large part of ship design is performed on the basis of
static and quasi-static loads, whose prediction procedures
are quite well established, having been investigated for a
long time. However, specific and imposing requirements
can arise for particular ships due to the other load categories.
18.3.1.2 Local and global loads
Another traditional classification of loads is based on the
structural scheme adopted to study the response.
Loads acting on the ship as a whole, considered as a
beam (hull girder), are named global or primary loads and
the ship structural response is accordingly termed global or
primary response (see Subsection 18.4.3).
18-5
Loads, defined in order to be applied to limited structural models (stiffened panels, single beams, plate panels),
generally are termed local loads.
The distinction is purely formal, as the same external
forces can in fact be interpreted as global or local loads. For
instance, wave dynamic actions on a portion of the hull, if
described in terms of a bi-dimensional distribution of pressures over the wet surface, represent a local load for the hull
panel, while, if integrated over the same surface, represent
a contribution to the bending moment acting on the hull
girder.
This terminology is typical of simplified structural analyses, in which responses of the two classes of components
are evaluated separately and later summed up to provide
the total stress in selected positions of the structure.
In a complete 3D model of the whole ship, forces on the
structure are applied directly in their actual position and the
result is a total stress distribution, which does not need to
be decomposed.
18.3.1.3 Characteristic values for loads
Structural verifications are always based on a limit state
equation and on a design operational time.
Main aspects of reliability-based structural design and
analysis are (see Chapter 19):
• the state of the structure is identified by state variables
associated to loads and structural capacity,
• state variables are stochastically distributed as a function of time, and
• the probability of exceeding the limit state surface in the
design time (probability of crisis) is the element subject
to evaluation.
The situation to be considered is in principle the worst
combination of state variables that occurs within the design
time. The probability that such situation corresponds to an
out crossing of the limit state surface is compared to a (low)
target probability to assess the safety of the structure.
This general time-variant problem is simplified into a
time-invariant one. This is done by taking into account in
the analysis the worst situations as regards loads, and, separately, as regards capacity (reduced because of corrosion
and other degradation effects). The simplification lies in
considering these two situations as contemporary, which in
general is not the case.
When dealing with strength analysis, the worst load situation corresponds to the highest load cycle and is characterized through the probability associated to the extreme
value in the reference (design) time.
In fatigue phenomena, in principle all stress cycles contribute (to a different extent, depending on the range) to
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-6 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-6
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
damage accumulation. The analysis, therefore, does not regard the magnitude of a single extreme load application, but
the number of cycles and the shape of the probability distribution of all stress ranges in the design time.
A further step towards the problem simplification is represented by the adoption of characteristic load values in
place of statistical distributions. This usually is done, for
example, when calibrating a Partial Safety Factor format for
structural checks. Such adoption implies the definition of a
single reference load value as representative of a whole
probability distribution. This step is often performed by assigning an exceeding probability (or a return period) to each
variable and selecting the correspondent value from the statistical distribution.
The exceeding probability for a stochastic variable has
the meaning of probability for the variable to overcome a
given value, while the return period indicates the mean time
to the first occurrence.
Characteristic values for ultimate state analysis are typically represented by loads associated to an exceeding probability of 10–8. This corresponds to a wave load occurring,
on the average, once every 108 cycles, that is, with a return
period of the same order of the ship lifetime. In first yielding analyses, characteristic loads are associated to a higher
exceeding probability, usually in the range 10–4 to 10–6. In
fatigue analyses (see Subsection 18.6.6.2), reference loads
are often set with an exceeding probability in the range 10–3
to 10–5, corresponding to load cycles which, by effect of both
amplitude and frequency of occurrence, contribute more to
the accumulation of fatigue damage in the structure.
On the basis of this, all design loads for structural analyses are explicitly or implicitly related to a low exceeding
probability.
18.3.2 Definition of Global Hull Girder Loads
The global structural response of the ship is studied with
reference to a beam scheme (hull girder), that is, a monodimensional structural element with sectional characteristics distributed along a longitudinal axis.
Actions on the beam are described, as usual with this
scheme, only in terms of forces and moments acting in the
transverse sections and applied on the longitudinal axis.
Three components act on each section (Figure 18.3): a
Figure 18.3 Sectional Forces and Moment
resultant force along the vertical axis of the section (contained in the plane of symmetry), indicated as vertical resultant force qV; another force in the normal direction, (local
horizontal axis), termed horizontal resultant force qH and a
moment mT about the x axis. All these actions are distributed along the longitudinal axis x.
Five main load components are accordingly generated
along the beam, related to sectional forces and moment
through equation 1 to 5:
x
VV (x) =
∫ q V (ξ)
dξ
[1]
dξ
[2]
dξ
[3]
dξ
[4]
dξ
[5]
0
x
M V (x) =
∫ VV ( ξ )
0
x
VH (x) =
∫ q H (ξ )
0
x
M H (x) =
∫ VH ( ξ )
0
x
M T (x) =
∫ m T (ξ)
0
Due to total equilibrium, for a beam in free-free conditions (no constraints at ends) all load characteristics have
zero values at ends (equations 6).
These conditions impose constraints on the distributions
of qV, qH and mT.
VV (0) = VV (L) = M V (0) = M V (L) = 0
VH (0) = VH (L) = M H (0) = M H (L) = 0
M T (0) = M T (L) = 0
[6]
Global loads for the verification of the hull girder are obtained with a linear superimposition of still water and waveinduced global loads.
They are used, with different characteristic values, in
different types of analyses, such as ultimate state, first yielding, and fatigue.
18.3.3 Still Water Global Loads
Still water loads act on the ship floating in calm water, usually with the plane of symmetry normal to the still water
surface. In this condition, only a symmetric distribution of
hydrostatic pressure acts on each section, together with vertical gravitational forces.
If the latter ones are not symmetric, a sectional torque
mTg(x) is generated (Figure 18.4), in addition to the verti-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-7 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
cal load qSV(x), obtained as a difference between buoyancy
b(x) and weight w(x), as shown in equation 7 (2).
q SV (x) = b(x) − w(x) = gA I (x) − m(x)g
[7]
where AI = transversal immersed area.
Components of vertical shear and vertical bending can
be derived according to equations 1 and 2. There are no horizontal components of sectional forces in equation 3 and accordingly no components of horizontal shear and bending
moment. As regards equation 5, only mTg, if present, is to
be accounted for, to obtain the torque.
18.3.3.1 Standard still water bending moments
While buoyancy distribution is known from an early stage
of the ship design, weight distribution is completely defined
only at the end of construction. Statistical formulations, calibrated on similar ships, are often used in the design development to provide an approximate quantification of
weight items and their longitudinal distribution on board.
The resulting approximated weight distribution, together
with the buoyancy distribution, allows computing shear and
bending moment.
Figure 18.4 Sectional Resultant Forces in Still Water
(a)
18-7
At an even earlier stage of design, parametric formulations can be used to derive directly reference values for still
water hull girder loads.
Common reference values for still water bending moment at mid-ship are provided by the major Classification
Societies (equation 8).
Ms [ N ⋅ m ] =
C L2 B (122.5 − 15 C B ) (hogging)
[8]
C L2 B ( 45.5 + 65 C B ) (sagging)
where C = wave parameter (Table 18.I).
The formulations in equation 8 are sometimes explicitly
reported in Rules, but they can anyway be indirectly derived from prescriptions contained in (6, 7). The first requirement (6) regards the minimum longitudinal strength
modulus and provides implicitly a value for the total bending moment; the second one (7), regards the wave induced
component of bending moment.
Longitudinal distributions, depending on the ship type,
are provided also. They can slightly differ among Class Societies, (Figure 18.5).
18.3.3.2 Direct evaluation of still water global loads
Classification Societies require in general a direct analysis
of these types of load in the main loading conditions of the
ship, such as homogenous loading condition at maximum
draft, ballast conditions, docking conditions afloat, plus all
other conditions that are relevant to the specific ship (nonhomogeneous loading at maximum draft, light load at less
than maximum draft, short voyage or harbor condition, ballast exchange at sea, etc.).
The direct evaluation procedure requires, for a given
loading condition, a derivation, section by section, of vertical resultants of gravitational (weight) and buoyancy
forces, applied along the longitudinal axis x of the beam.
To obtain the weight distribution w(x), the ship length is
subdivided into portions: for each of them, the total weight
and center of gravity is determined summing up contributions
from all items present on board between the two bounding
sections. The distribution for w(x) is then usually approximated by a linear (trapezoidal) curve obtained by imposing
TABLE 18.I Wave Coefficient Versus Length
(b)
Figure 18.5 Examples of Reference Still Water Bending Moment Distribution
(10). (a) oil tankers, bulk carriers, ore carriers, and (b) other ship types
Ship Length L
Wave Coefficient C
90 ≤ L <300 m
10.75 – [(300 – L)/100]3/2
300 ≤ L <350 m
10.75
350 ≤ L
10.75 – [(300 – L)/150]3/2
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-8 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-8
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
Figure 18.6 Weight Distribution Breakdown for Full Load Condition
Figure 18.7 Longitudinal Component of Pressure
Figure 18.8 Multi-hull Additional Still Water Loads (sketch)
the correspondence of area and barycenter of the trapezoid
respectively to the total weight and center of gravity of the
considered ship portion.
The procedure is usually applied separately for different types of weight items, grouping together the weights of
the ship in lightweight conditions (always present on board)
and those (cargo, ballast, consumables) typical of a loading condition (Figure 18.6).
18.3.3.3 Uncertainties in the evaluation
A significant contribution to uncertainties in the evaluation
of still water loads comes from the inputs to the procedure,
in particular those related to quantification and location on
board of weight items.
This lack of precision regards the weight distribution for
the ship in lightweight condition (hull structure, machinery, outfitting) but also the distribution of the various components of the deadweight (cargo, ballast, consumables).
Ship types like bulk carriers are more exposed to uncertainties on the actual distribution of cargo weight than, for
example, container ships, where actual weights of single
containers are kept under close control during operation.
In addition, model uncertainties arise from neglecting the
longitudinal components of the hydrostatic pressure (Figure 18.7), which generate an axial compressive force on the
hull girder.
As the resultant of such components is generally below
the neutral axis of the hull girder, it leads also to an additional hogging moment, which can reach up to 10% of the
total bending moment. On the other hand, in some vessels
(in particular tankers) such action can be locally counterbalanced by internal axial pressures, causing hull sagging
moments.
All these compression and bending effects are neglected
in the hull beam model, which accounts only for forces and
moments acting in the transverse plane. This represents a
source of uncertainties.
Another approximation is represented by the fact that
buoyancy and weight are assumed in a direction normal to
the horizontal longitudinal axis, while they are actually oriented along the true vertical.
This implies neglecting the static trim angle and to consider
an approximate equilibrium position, which often creates the
need for a few iterative corrections to the load curve qsv(x) in
order to satisfy boundary conditions at ends (equations 6).
18.3.3.4 Other still water global loads
In a vessel with a multihull configuration, in addition to
conventional still water loads acting on each hull considered as a single longitudinal beam, also loads in the transversal direction can be significant, giving rise to shear,
bending and torque in a transversal direction (see the simplified scheme of Figure 18.8, where S, B, and Q stand for
shear, bending and torque; and L, T apply respectively to
longitudinal and transversal beams).
18.3.4 Wave Induced Global Loads
The prediction of the behaviour of the ship in waves represents a key point in the quantification of both global and
local loads acting on the ship. The solution of the seakeeping problem yields the loads directly generated by external
pressures, but also provides ship motions and accelerations.
The latter are directly connected to the quantification of inertial loads and provide inputs for the evaluation of other
types of loads, like slamming and sloshing.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-9 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
In particular, as regards global effects, the action of waves
modifies the pressure distribution along the wet hull surface; the differential pressure between the situation in waves
and in still water generates, on the transverse section, vertical and horizontal resultant forces (bWV and bWH) and a
moment component mTb.
Analogous components come from the sectional resultants of inertial forces and moments induced on the section
by ship’s motions (Figure 18.9).
The total vertical and horizontal wave induced forces on
the section, as well as the total torsional component, are
found summing up the components in the same direction
(equations 9).
q WV (x) = b WV (x) − m(x)a V (x)
q WH (x) = b WH (x) − m(x)a H (x)
[9]
m TW (x) = m Tb (x) − I R (x) θ
where IR(x) is the rotational inertia of section x.
The longitudinal distributions along the hull girder of horizontal and vertical components of shear, bending moment
and torque can then be derived by integration (equations 1
to 5).
Such results are in principle obtained for each instantaneous wave pressure distribution, depending therefore, on
time, on type and direction of sea encountered and on the
ship geometrical and operational characteristics.
In regular (sinusoidal) waves, vertical bending moments
tend to be maximized in head waves with length close to
the ship length, while horizontal bending and torque components are larger for oblique wave systems.
18.3.4.1 Statistical formulae for global wave loads
Simplified, first approximation, formulations are available
for the main wave load components, developed mainly on
the basis of past experience.
Vertical wave-induced bending moment: IACS classifi-
18-9
cation societies provide a statistically based reference values
for the vertical component of wave-induced bending moment
MWV, expressed as a function of main ship dimensions.
Such reference values for the midlength section of a ship
with unrestricted navigation are yielded by equation 10 for
hog and sag cases (7) and corresponds to an extreme value
with a return period of about 20 years or an exceeding probability of about 10–8 (once in the ship lifetime).
M WV [ N ⋅ m ] =
(hog)
190 C L2 B C B
[10]
2
−110 C L B ( C B + 0 . 7 ) (sag)
Horizontal Wave-induced Bending Moment: Similar formulations are available for reference values of horizontal
wave induced bending moment, even though they are not
as uniform among different Societies as for the main vertical component.
In Table 18.II, examples are reported of reference values of horizontal bending moment at mid-length for ships
with unrestricted navigation. Simplified curves for the distribution in the longitudinal direction are also provided.
Wave-induced Torque: A few reference formulations are
given also for reference wave torque at midship (see examples in Table 18.III) and for the inherent longitudinal
distributions.
18.3.4.2 Static Wave analysis of global wave loads
A traditional analysis adopted in the past for evaluation of
wave-induced loads was represented by a quasi-static wave
approach. The ship is positioned on a freezed wave of given
characteristics in a condition of equilibrium between weight
and static buoyancy. The scheme is analogous to the one described for still water loads, with the difference that the waterline upper boundary of the immersed part of the hull is
no longer a plane but it is a curved (cylindrical) surface. By
definition, this procedure neglects all types of dynamic effects. Due to its limitations, it is rarely used to quantify wave
loads. Sometimes, however, the concept of equivalent static
wave is adopted to associate a longitudinal distribution of
TABLE 18.II Reference Horizontal Bending Moments
Figure 18.9 Sectional Forces and Moments in Waves
Class Society
MWH [N ⋅ m]
ABS (8)
180 C1L2DCB
BV (9) RINA (10)
1600 L2.1 TCB
DNV (11)
220 L9/4(T + 0.3B)CB
NKK (12)
320 L2C T L − 35 / L
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-10 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-10
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
TABLE 18.III Examples of Reference Values for Wave Torque
Class Society
Qw [N . m] (at mid-ship)
ABS (bulk carrier)
2700 LB 2 T ( C W − 0 . 5 )
[
2
]

e 0 .14  0 . 5 
+ 0 .1  0 .13 − 

 T 
D


(e = vertical position of shear center)
BV RINA

250 − 0 . 7 L  3 
190 LB 2 C 2W  8.13 − 

 
125


pressures to extreme wave loads, derived, for example, from
long term predictions based on other methods.
18.3.4.3 Linear methods for wave loads
The most popular approach to the evaluation of wave loads
is represented by solutions of a linearized potential flow
problem based on the so-called strip theory in the frequency
domain (13).
The theoretical background of this class of procedures
is discussed in detail in PNA Vol. III (2).
Here only the key assumptions of the method are presented:
• inviscid, incompressible and homogeneous fluid in irrotational flow: Laplace equation 11
∇2Φ = 0
[11]
where Φ = velocity potential
• 2-dimensional solution of the problem
• linearized boundary conditions: the quadratic component of velocity in the Bernoulli Equation is reformulated in linear terms to express boundary conditions:
— on free surface: considered as a plane corresponding
to still water: fluid velocity normal to the free surface
equal to velocity of the surface itself (kinematic condition); zero pressure,
— on the hull: considered as a static surface, corresponding to the mean position of the hull: the component of the fluid velocity normal to the hull surface
is zero (impermeability condition), and
• linear decomposition into additive independent components, separately solved for and later summed up (equation 12).
Φ = Φs + ΦFK + Φd + Φr
[12]
where:
Φs = stationary component due to ship advancing in calm
water
Φr = radiation component due to the ship motions in calm
water
ΦFK = excitation component, due to the incident wave
(undisturbed by the presence of the ship): FroudeKrylov
Φd = diffraction component, due to disturbance in the wave
potential generated by the hull
This subdivision also enables the de-coupling of the excitation components from the response ones, thus avoiding
a non-linear feedback between the two.
Other key properties of linear systems that are used in
the analysis are:
• linear relation between the input and output amplitudes,
and
• superposition of effects (sum of inputs corresponds to
sum of outputs).
When using linear methods in the frequency domain,
the input wave system is decomposed into sinusoidal components and a response is found for each of them in terms
of amplitude and phase.
The input to the procedure is represented by a spectral
representation of the sea encountered by the ship. Responses,
for a ship in a given condition, depend on the input sea characteristics (spectrum and spatial distribution respect to the
ship course).
The output consists of response spectra of point pressures on the hull and of the other derived responses, such
as global loads and ship motions. Output spectra can be
used to derive short and long-term predictions for the probability distributions of the responses and of their extreme
values (see Subsection 18.3.4.5).
Despite the numerous and demanding simplifications at
the basis of the procedure, strip theory methods, developed
since the early 60s, have been validated over time in several contexts and are extensively used for predictions of
wave loads.
In principle, the base assumptions of the method are
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-11 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
valid only for small wave excitations, small motion responses and low speed of the ship.
In practice, the field of successful applications extends
far beyond the limits suggested by the preservation of realism in the base assumptions: the method is actually used
extensively to study even extreme loads and for fast vessels.
18.3.4.4 Limits of linear methods for wave loads
Due to the simplifications adopted on boundary conditions
to linearize the problem of ship response in waves, results
in terms of hydrodynamic pressures are given always up to
the still water level, while in reality the pressure distribution extends over the actual wetted surface. This represents
a major problem when dealing with local loads in the side
region close to the waterline.
Another effect of basic assumptions is that all responses
at a given frequency are represented by sinusoidal fluctuations (symmetric with respect to a zero mean value). A consequence is that all the derived global wave loads also have
the same characteristics, while, for example, actual values
of vertical bending moment show marked differences between the hogging and sagging conditions. Corrections to
account for this effect are often used, based on statistical
data (7) or on more advanced non-linear methods.
A third implication of linearization regards the superimposition of static and dynamic loads. Dynamic loads are
evaluated separately from the static ones and later summed
up: this results in an un-physical situation, in which weight
forces (included only in static loads) are considered as acting always along the vertical axis of the ship reference system (as in still water). Actually, in a seaway, weight forces
are directed along the true vertical direction, which depends
on roll and pitch angles, having therefore also components
in the longitudinal and lateral direction of the ship.
This aspect represents one of the intrinsic non-linearities in the actual system, as the direction of an external input
force (weight) depends on the response of the system itself
(roll and pitch angles).
This effect is often neglected in the practice, where linear superposition of still water and wave loads is largely followed.
18.3.4.5 Wave loads probabilistic characterization
The most widely adopted method to characterize the loads
in the probability domain is the so-called spectral method,
used in conjunction with linear frequency-domain methods
for the solution of the ship-wave interaction problem.
From the frequency domain analysis response spectra
Sy(ω) are derived, which can be integrated to obtain spectral moments m n of order n (equation 13).
18-11
∞
m ny = ∫ ω n S y (ω)dω
[13]
0
This information is the basis of the spectral method,
whose theoretical framework (main hypotheses, assumptions and steps) is recalled in the following.
If the stochastic process representing the wave input to
the ship system is modeled as a stationary and ergodic
Gaussian process with zero mean, the response of the system (load) can be modeled as a process having the same characteristics.
The Parseval theorem and the ergodicity property establish a correspondence between the area of the response
spectrum (spectral moment of order 0: m0Y) and the variance of its Gaussian probability distribution (14). This allows expressing the density probability distribution of the
Gaussian response y in terms of m0Y (equation 14).
f Y (y) =
1
− y 2 / 2 m 20 Y )
e (
2π m0Y
[14]
Equation 14 expresses the distribution of the fluctuating
response y at a generic time instant.
From a structural point of view, more interesting data
are represented by:
• the probability distribution of the response at selected
time instants, corresponding to the highest values in each
zero-crossing period (peaks: variable p),
• the probability distribution of the excursions between
the highest and the lowest value in each zero-crossing
period (range: variable r), and
• the probability distribution of the highest value in the
whole stationary period of the phenomenon (extreme
value in period Ts, variable extrTsy).
The aforementioned distributions can be derived from
the underlying Gaussian distribution of the response (equation 14) in the additional hypotheses of narrow band response process and of independence between peaks. The first
two probability distributions take the form of equations 15
and 16 respectively, both Rayleigh density distributions (see
14).
The distribution in equation 16 is particularly interesting for fatigue checks, as it can be adopted to describe stress
ranges of fatigue cycles.
fP ( p) =

p
p2 
exp  −

m0
 2m0 
[15]
fR ( r ) =

r
r2 
exp  −

4m0
 8m 0 
[16]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-12 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-12
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
The distribution for the extreme value in the stationary
period Ts (short term extreme) can be modeled by a Poisson distribution (in equation 17: expression of the cumulative distribution) or other equivalent distributions derived
from the statistics of extremes.
 1
F extrTs p = exp  −
 2 ∂
(
)

m2
p2
exp  −
m0
m0
2

 
 Ts  [17]
 
Figure 18.10 summarizes the various short-term distributions.
It is interesting to note that all the mentioned distributions are expressed in terms of spectral moments of the response, which are available from a frequency domain
solution of the ship motions problem.
The results mentioned previously are derived for the
period Ts in which the input wave system can be considered as stationary (sea state: typically, a period of a few
hours). The derived distributions (short-term predictions)
are conditioned to the occurrence of a particular sea state,
which is identified by the sea spectrum, its angular distribution around the main wave direction (spreading function) and the encounter angle formed with ship advance
direction.
To obtain a long-term prediction, relative to the ship life
(or any other design period Td which can be described as a
series of stationary periods), the conditional hypothesis is
to be removed from short-term distributions. In other words,
the probability of a certain response is to be weighed by the
probability of occurrence of the generating sea state (equation18).
F(y) =
n
∑ F ( y S i ) ⋅ P(S i )
[18]
i= 1
where:
F(y) = probability for the response to be less than value
y (unconditioned).
F(ySi) = probability for the response to be less than value
y, conditioned to occurrence of sea state Si (short
term prediction).
P(Si) = probability associated to the i-th sea state.
n = total number of sea states, covering all combinations.
Probability P(Si) can be derived from collections of sea data
based on visual observations from commercial ships and/or
on surveys by buoys.
One of the most typical formats is the one contained in
(15), where sea states probabilities are organized in bi-dimensional histograms (scatter diagrams), containing classes
Figure 18.10 Short-term Distributions
of significant wave heights and mean periods. Such scatter
diagrams are catalogued according to sea zones, such as
shown in Figure 18.11 (the subdivision of the world atlas),
and main wave direction. Seasonal characteristics are also
available.
The process described in equation 18 can be termed deconditioning (that is removing the conditioning hypothesis).
The same procedure can be applied to any of the variables
studied in the short term and it does not change the nature
of the variable itself. If a range distribution is processed, a
long-term distribution for ranges of single oscillations is
obtained (useful data for a fatigue analysis).
If the distribution of variable extrTsy is de-conditioned, a
weighed average of the highest peak in time Ts is achieved.
In this case the result is further processed to get the distribution of the extreme value in the design time Td. This is
done with an additional application of the concept of statistics of extremes.
In the hypothesis that the extremes of the various sea
states are independent from each other, the extreme on time
Td is given by equation 19:
(
) [ (
)]
Td/Ts
F extrTd y = F extrTs y
[19]
where F(extrTdy) is the cumulative probability distribution
for the highest response peak in time Td (long-term extreme
distribution in time Td).
18.3.4.6 Uncertainties in long-term predictions
The theoretical framework of the above presented spectral
method, coupled to linear frequency domain methodologies like those summarized in Subsection 18.3.4.3, allows
the characterization, in the probability domain, of all the
wave induced load variables of interest both for strength
and fatigue checks.
The results of this linear prediction procedure are affected by numerous sources of uncertainties, such as:
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-13 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18-13
Figure 18.11 Map of Sea Zones of the World (15)
• sea description: as above mentioned, scatter diagrams
are derived from direct observations on the field, which
are affected by a certain degree of indetermination.
In addition, simplified sea spectral shapes are adopted,
based on a limited number of parameters (generally, biparametric formulations based on significant wave and
mean wave period),
• model for the ship’s response: as briefly outlined in Subsection 18.3.4.3, the model is greatly simplified, particularly as regards fluid characteristics and boundary
conditions.
Numerical algorithms and specific procedures adopted
for the solution also influence results, creating differences
even between theoretically equivalent methods, and
• the de-conditioning procedure adopted to derive long
term predictions from short term ones can add further
uncertainties.
18.3.5 Local Loads
As previously stated, local loads are applied to individual
structural members like panels and beams (stiffeners or primary supporting members).
They are once again traditionally divided into static and
dynamic loads, referred respectively to the situation in still
water and in a seaway.
Contrary to strength verifications of the hull girder, which
are nowadays largely based on ultimate limit states (for example, in longitudinal strength: ultimate bending moment),
checks on local structures are still in part implicitly based
on more conservative limit states (yield strength).
In many Rules, reference (characteristic) local loads, as
well as the motions and accelerations on which they are
based, are therefore implicitly calibrated at an exceeding
probability higher than the 10–8 value adopted in global load
strength verifications.
18.3.6 External Pressure Loads
Static and dynamic pressures generated on the wet surface
of the hull belong to external loads. They act as local transverse loads for the hull plating and supporting structures.
18.3.6.1 Static external pressures
Hydrostatic pressure is related through equation 20 to the
vertical distance between the free surface and the load point
(static head hS).
pS = ρghS
[20]
In the case of the external pressure on the hull, hS corresponds to the local draft of the load point (reference is
made to design waterline).
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-14 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-14
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
18.3.6.2 Dynamic pressures
The pressure distribution, as well as the wet portion of the
hull, is modified for a ship in a seaway with respect to the
still water (Figure 18.9). Pressures and areas of application
are in principle obtained solving the general problem of
ship motions in a seaway.
Approximate distributions of the wave external pressure,
to be added to the hydrostatic one, are adopted in Classification Rules for the ship in various load cases (Figure 18.12).
18.3.7 Internal Loads—Liquid in Tanks
Liquid cargoes generate normal pressures on the walls of
the containing tank. Such pressures represent a local transversal load for plate, stiffeners and primary supporting members of the tank walls.
18.3.7.1 Static internal pressure
For a ship in still water, gravitation acceleration g generates a hydrostatic pressure, varying again according to equation 20. The static head hS corresponds here to the vertical
distance from the load point to the highest part of the tank,
increased to account for the vertical extension over that
point of air pipes (that can be occasionally filled with liquid) or, if applicable, for the ullage space pressure (the pressure present at the free surface, corresponding for example
to the setting pressure of outlet valves).
18.3.7.2 Dynamic internal pressure
When the ship advances in waves, different types of motions are generated in the liquid contained in a tank onboard, depending on the period of the ship motions and on
the filling level: the internal pressure distribution varies accordingly.
In a completely full tank, fluid internal velocities relative to the tank walls are small and the acceleration in the
fluid is considered as corresponding to the global ship acceleration aw.
The total pressure (equation 21) can be evaluated in terms
of the total acceleration aT, obtained summing aw to gravity g.
The gravitational acceleration g is directed according to
the true vertical. This means that its components in the ship
reference system depend on roll and pitch angles (in Figure 18.13 on roll angle θr).
pf = ρaThT
nal velocities can arise in the longitudinal and/or transversal directions, producing additional pressure loads (sloshing loads).
If pitch or roll frequencies are close to the tank resonance frequency in the inherent direction (which can be
evaluated on the basis of geometrical parameters and filling ratio), kinetic energy tends to concentrate in the fluid
and sloshing phenomena are enhanced.
The resulting pressure field can be quite complicated
and specific simulations are needed for a detailed quantification. Experimental techniques as well as 2D and 3D procedures have been developed for the purpose. For more
details see references 16 and 17.
A further type of excitation is represented by impacts that
can occur on horizontal or sub-horizontal plates of the upper
part of the tank walls for high filling ratios and, at low filling levels, in vertical or sub-vertical plates of the lower part
of the tank.
Impact loads are very difficult to characterize, being related to a number of effects, such as: local shape and velocity of the free surface, air trapping in the fluid and
response of the structure. A complete model of the phenomenon would require a very detailed two-phase scheme
for the fluid and a dynamic model for the structure including hydro-elasticity effects.
Simplified distributions of sloshing and/or impact pressures are often provided by Classification Societies for structural verification (Figure 18.14).
Figure 18.12 Example of Simplified Distribution of External Pressure (10)
[21]
In equation 21, hT is the distance between the load point
and the highest point of the tank in the direction of the total
acceleration vector aT (Figure 18.13)
If the tank is only partially filled, significant fluid inter-
Figure 18.13 Internal Fluid Pressure (full tank)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-15 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18.3.7.3 Dry bulk cargo
In the case of a dry bulk cargo, internal friction forces arise
within the cargo itself and between the cargo and the walls
of the hold. As a result, the component normal to the wall
has a different distribution from the load corresponding to
a liquid cargo of the same density; also additional tangential components are present.
18.3.8 Inertial Loads—Dry Cargo
To account for this effect, distributions for the components
of cargo load are approximated with empirical formulations
based on the material frictional characteristics, usually expressed by the angle of repose for the bulk cargo, and on
the slope of the wall. Such formulations cover both the static
and the dynamic cases.
18.3.8.1 Unit cargo
In the case of a unit cargo (container, pallet, vehicle or other)
the local translational accelerations at the centre of gravity
are applied to the mass to obtain a distribution of inertial
forces. Such forces are transferred to the structure in different ways, depending on the number and extension of contact areas and on typology and geometry of the lashing or
supporting systems.
Generally, this kind of load is modelled by one or more
concentrated forces (Figure 18.15) or by a uniform load applied on the contact area with the structure.
The latter case applies, for example, to the inertial loads
transmitted by tyred vehicles when modelling the response
of the deck plate between stiffeners: in this case the load is
distributed uniformly on the tyre print.
18.3.9 Dynamic Loads
18.3.9.1 Slamming and bow flare loads
When sailing in heavy seas, the ship can experience such
large heave motions that the forebody emerges completely
from the water. In the following downward fall, the bottom
of the ship can hit the water surface, thus generating considerable impact pressures.
The phenomenon occurs in flat areas of the forward part
of the ship and it is strongly correlated to loading conditions with a low forward draft.
It affects both local structures (bottom panels) and the
global bending behaviour of the hull girder with generation
also of free vibrations at the first vertical flexural modes for
the hull (whipping).
A full description of the slamming phenomenon involves
a number of parameters: amplitude and velocity of ship motions relative to water, local angle formed at impact between
18-15
the flat part of the hull and the water free surface, presence
and extension of air trapped between fluid and ship bottom
and structural dynamic behavior (18,19).
While slamming probability of occurrence can be studied on the basis only of predictions of ship relative motions
(which should in principle include non-linear effects due to
extreme motions), a quantification of slamming pressure
involves necessarily all the other mentioned phenomena
and is very difficult to attain, both from a theoretical and
experimental point of view (18,19).
From a practical point of view, Class Societies prescribe,
for ships with loading conditions corresponding to a low fore
Figure 18.14 Example of Simplified Distributions of Sloshing and Impact
Pressures (11)
Figure 18.15 Scheme of Local Forces Transmitted by a Container to the
Support System (8)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-16 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-16
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
draft, local structural checks based on an additional external pressure.
Such additional pressure is formulated as a function of
ship main characteristics, of local geometry of the ship
(width of flat bottom, local draft) and, in some cases, of the
first natural frequency of flexural vibration of the hull girder.
The influence on global loads is accounted for by an additional term for the vertical wave-induced bending moment, which can produce a significant increase (15% and
more) in the design value.
A phenomenon quite similar to bottom slamming can
occur also on the forebody of ships with a large bow flare.
In this case dynamic and (to a lesser extent) impulsive pressures are generated on the sides of V-shaped fore sections.
The phenomenon is likely to occur quite frequently on
ships prone to it, but with lower pressures than in bottom
slamming. The incremental effect on vertical bending moment can however be significant.
A quantification of bow flare effects implies taking into
account the variation of the local breadth of the section as
a function of draft. It represents a typical non-linear effect
(non-linearity due to hull geometry).
Slamming can also occur in the rear part of the ship,
when the flat part of the stern counter is close to surface.
18.3.9.2 Springing
Another phenomenon which involves the dynamic response
of the hull girder is springing. For particular types of ships,
a coincidence can occur between the frequency of wave excitation and the natural frequency associated to the first
(two-node) flexural mode in the vertical plane, thus producing a resonance for that mode (see also Subsection
18.6.8.2).
The phenomenon has been observed in particular on Great
Lakes vessels, a category of ships long and flexible, with comparatively low resonance frequencies (1, Chapter VI).
The exciting action has an origin similar to the case of
quasi-static wave bending moment and can be studied with
the same techniques, but the response in terms of deflection and stresses is magnified by dynamic effects. For recent developments of research in the field (see references
16 and 17).
18.3.9.3 Propeller induced pressures and forces
Due to the wake generated by the presence of the after part
of the hull, the propeller operates in a non-uniform incident
velocity field.
Blade profiles experience a varying angle of attack during the revolution and the pressure field generated around
the blades fluctuates accordingly.
The dynamic pressure field impinges the hull plating in
the stern region, thus generating an exciting force for the
structure.
A second effect is due to axial and non axial forces and
moments generated by the propeller on the shaft and transmitted through the bearings to the hull (bearing forces).
Due to the negative dynamic pressure generated by the
increased angle of attack, the local pressure on the back of
blade profiles can, for any rotation angle, fall below the
vapor saturation pressure. In this case, a vapor sheet is generated on the back of the profile (cavitation phenomenon).
The vapor filled cavity collapses as soon as the angle of attack decreases in the propeller revolution and the local pressure rises again over the vapor saturation pressure.
Cavitation further enhances pressure fluctuations, because of the rapid displacement of the surrounding water
volume during the growing phase of the vapor bubble and
because of the following implosion when conditions for its
existence are removed.
All of the three mentioned types of excitation have their
main components at the propeller rotational frequency, at
the blade frequency, and at their first harmonics. In addition to the above frequencies, the cavitation pressure field
contains also other components at higher frequency, related
to the dynamics of the vapor cavity.
Propellers with skewed blades perform better as regards
induced pressure, because not all the blade sections pass simultaneously in the region of the stern counter, where disturbances in the wake are larger; accordingly, pressure
fluctuations are distributed over a longer time period and
peak values are lower.
Bearing forces and pressures induced on the stern counter
by cavitating and non cavitating propellers can be calculated
with dedicated numerical simulations (18).
18.3.9.4 Main engine excitation
Another major source of dynamic excitation for the hull
girder is represented by the main engine. Depending on
general arrangement and on number of cylinders, diesel engines generate internally unbalanced forces and moments,
mainly at the engine revolution frequency, at the cylinders
firing frequency and inherent harmonics (Figure 18.16).
The excitation due to the first harmonics of low speed
diesel engines can be at frequencies close to the first natural hull girder frequencies, thus representing a possible cause
of a global resonance.
In addition to frequency coincidence, also direction and
location of the excitation are important factors: for example, a vertical excitation in a nodal point of a vertical flexural mode has much less effect in exciting that mode than
the same excitation placed on a point of maximum modal
deflection.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-17 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18-17
components; a longitudinal one FWiL, and a transverse one
FWiT (equation 22), and a moment MWiz about the vertical
axis (equation 23), all applied at the center of gravity.
FWiL,T = 1 / 2 C F L,T ( φ Wi ) φ A Wi VWi 2
[22]
M Wiz = 1 / 2 C Mz ( φ Wi ) φ A Wi L VWi 2
[23]
where:
Figure 18.16 Propeller, Shaft and Engine Induced Actions (20)
In addition to low frequency hull vibrations, components
at higher frequencies from the same sources can give rise
to resonance in local structures, which can be predicted by
suitable dynamic structural models (18,19).
18.3.10 Other Loads
18.3.10.1 Thermal loads
A ship experiences loads as a result of thermal effects, which
can be produced by external agents (the sun heating the
deck), or internal ones (heat transfer from/to heated or refrigerated cargo).
What actually creates stresses is a non-uniform temperature distribution, which implies that the warmer part of the
structure tends to expand while the rest opposes to this deformation. A peculiar aspect of this situation is that the portion of the structure in larger elongation is compressed and
vice-versa, which is contrary to the normal experience.
It is very difficult to quantify thermal loads, the main
problems being related to the identification of the temperature distribution and in particular to the model for constraints. Usually these loads are considered only in a
qualitative way (1, Chapter VI).
18.3.10.2 Mooring loads
For a moored vessel, loads are exerted from external actions
on the mooring system and from there to the local supporting structure. The main contributions come by wind,
waves and current.
Wind: The force due to wind action is mainly directed in
the direction of the wind (drag force), even if a limited component in the orthogonal direction can arise in particular situations. The magnitude depends on the wind speed and on
extension and geometry of the exposed part of the ship. The
action due to wind can be described in terms of two force
φWi = the angle formed by the direction of the wind relative to the ship
CMz(φWi), CFL(φWi), CFT(φWi) are all coefficients depending
on the shape of exposed part of the ship and on
angle φWi
AWi = the reference area for the surface of the ship exposed
to wind, (usually the area of the cross section)
VWi = the wind speed
The empirical formulas in equations 22 and 23 account
also for the tangential force acting on the ship surfaces parallel to the wind direction.
Current: The current exerts on the immersed part of the
hull a similar action to the one of wind on the emerged part
(drag force). It can be described through coefficients and
variables analogous to those of equations 22 and 23.
Waves: Linear wave excitation has in principle a sinusoidal time dependence (whose mean value is by definition
zero). If ship motions in the wave direction are not constrained (for example, if the anchor chain is not in tension)
the ship motion follows the excitation with similar time dependence and a small time lag. In this case the action on
the mooring system is very small (a few percent of the other
actions).
If the ship is constrained, significant loads arise on the
mooring system, whose amplitude can be of the same order
of magnitude of the stationary forces due to the other actions.
In addition to the linear effects discussed above, non-linear wave actions, with an average value different from zero,
are also present, due to potential forces of higher order, formation of vortices, and viscous effects. These components
can be significant on off-shore floating structures, which
often feature also complicated mooring systems: in those
cases the dynamic behavior of the mooring system is to be
included in the analysis, to solve a specific motion problem. For common ships, non-linear wave effects are usually neglected.
A practical rule-of-thumb for taking into account wave
actions for a ship at anchor in non protected waters is to increase of 75 to 100% the sum of the other force components.
Once the total force on the ship is quantified, the tension in the mooring system (hawser, rope or chain) can be
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-18 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-18
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
derived by force decomposition, taking into account the
angle formed with the external force in the horizontal and/or
vertical plane.
integrated according to equations 1 and 2 to derive vertical
shear and bending moment.
18.3.10.3 Launching loads
The launch is a unique moment in the life of the ship. For
a successful completion of this complex operation, a number of practical, organizational and technical elements are
to be kept under control (as general reference see Reference
1, Chapter XVII).
Here only the aspect of loads acting on the ship will be
discussed, so, among the various types of launch, only those
which present peculiarities as regards ship loads will be
considered: end launch and side launch.
End Launch: In end launch, resultant forces and motions
are contained in the longitudinal plane of the ship (Figure
18.17).
The vessel is subjected to vertical sectional forces distributed along the hull girder: weight w(x), buoyancy bL(x)
and the sectional force transmitted from the ground way to
the cradle and from the latter to the ship’s bottom (in the
following: sectional cradle force fC(x), with resultant FC).
While the weight distribution and its resultant force
(weight W) are invariant during launching, the other distributions change in shape and resultant: the derivation of
launching loads is based on the computation of these two
distributions.
Such computation, repeated for various positions of the
cradle, is based on the global static equilibrium s (equations 24 and 25, in which dynamic effects are neglected:
quasi static approach).
This computation is performed for various intermediate
positions of the cradle during the launching in order to check
all phases. However, the most demanding situation for the
hull girder corresponds to the instant when pivoting starts.
In that moment the cradle force is concentrated close to
the bow, at the fore end of the cradle itself (on the fore poppet, if one is fitted) and it is at the maximum value.
A considerable sagging moment is present in this situation, whose maximum value is usually lower than the design one, but tends to be located in the fore part of the ship,
where bending strength is not as high as at midship.
Furthermore, the ship at launching could still have temporary openings or incomplete structures (lower strength)
in the area of maximum bending moment.
Another matter of concern is the concentrated force at
the fore end of the cradle, which can reach a significant percentage of the total weight (typically 20–30%). It represents
a strong local load and often requires additional temporary
internal strengthening structures, to distribute the force on
a portion of the structure large enough to sustain it.
Side Launch: In side launch, the main motion components are directed in the transversal plane of the ship (see
Figure 18.19, reproduced from reference 1, Chapter XVII).
The vertical reaction from ground ways is substituted in
a comparatively short time by buoyancy forces when the ship
tilts and drops into water.
The kinetic energy gained during the tilting and dropping phases makes the ship oscillate around her final posi-
BT + FC – W = 0
[24]
xB BT + xF FC – xW W = 0
[25]
qVL(x) = w(x) – bL(x) – fC(x)
where:
W, BT, FC = (respectively) weight, buoyancy and cradle
force resultants
xW, xB, xF = their longitudinal positions
In a first phase of launching, when the cradle is still in
contact for a certain length with the ground way, the buoyancy distribution is known and the cradle force resultant
and position is derived.
In a second phase, beginning when the cradle starts to
rotate (pivoting phase: Figure 18.18), the position xF corresponds steadily to the fore end of the cradle and what is
unknown is the magnitude of FC and the actual aft draft of
the ship (and consequently, the buoyancy distribution).
The total sectional vertical force distribution is found as
the sum of the three components (equation 26) and can be
Figure 18.17 End Launch: Sketch
Figure 18.18 Forces during Pivoting
[26]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-19 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
tion at rest. The amplitude of heave and roll motions and
accelerations governs the magnitude of hull girder loads.
Contrary to end launch, trajectory and loads cannot be studied as a sequence of quasi-static equilibrium positions, but
need to be investigated with a dynamic analysis.
The problem is similar to the one regarding ship motions in waves, (Subsection 18.3.4), with the difference that
here motions are due to a free oscillation of the system due
to an unbalanced initial condition and not to an external excitation.
Another difference with respect to end launch is that
both ground reaction (first) and buoyancy forces (later) are
always distributed along the whole length of the ship and
are not concentrated in a portion of it.
18.3.10.4 Accidental loads
Accidental loads (collision and grounding) are discussed
in more detail by ISSC (21).
Collision: When defining structural loads due to collisions, the general approach is to model the dynamics of the
accident itself, in order to define trajectories of the unit(s)
involved.
In general terms, the dynamics of collision should be
formulated in six degrees of freedom, accounting for a number of forces acting during the event: forces induced by propeller, rudder, waves, current, collision forces between the
units, hydrodynamic pressure due to motions.
Normally, theoretical models confine the analysis to
components in the horizontal plane (3 degrees of freedom)
and to collision forces and motion-induced hydrodynamic
pressures. The latter are evaluated with potential methods
of the same type as those adopted for the study of the response of the ship to waves.
As regards collision forces, they can be described differently depending on the characteristics of the struck object (ship, platform, bridge pylon…) with different
combinations of rigid, elastic or an elastic body models.
Figure 18.19 Side Launch (1, Chapter XVII)
18-19
Governing equations for the problem are given by conservation of momentum and of energy. Within this framework, time domain simulations can evaluate the magnitude
of contact forces and the energy, which is absorbed by structure deformation: these quantities, together with the response
characteristics of the structure (energy absorption capacity),
allow an evaluation of the damage penetration (21).
Grounding: In grounding, dominant effects are forces and
motions in the vertical plane.
As regards forces, main components are contact forces,
developed at the first impact with the ground, then friction,
when the bow slides on the ground, and weight.
From the point of view of energy, the initial kinetic energy is (a) dissipated in the deformation of the lower part
of the bow (b) dissipated in friction of the same area against
the ground, (c) spent in deformation work of the ground (if
soft: sand, gravel) and (d) converted into gravitational potential energy (work done against the weight force, which
resists to the vertical raising of the ship barycenter).
In addition to soil characteristics, key parameters for the
description are: slope and geometry of the ground, initial
speed and direction of the ship relative to ground, shape of
the bow (with/without bulb).
The final position (grounded ship) governs the magnitude of the vertical reaction force and the distribution of
shear and sagging moment that are generated in the hull
girder. Figure 18.20 gives an idea of the magnitude of
grounding loads for different combinations of ground slopes
and coefficients of friction for a 150 000 tanker (results of
simulations from reference 22).
In addition to numerical simulations, full and model
scale tests are performed to study grounding events (21).
Figure 18.20 Sagging Moments for a Grounded Ship: Simulation Results (22)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-20 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-20
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
18.3.11 Combination of Loads
When dealing with the characterization of a set of loads
acting simultaneously, the interest lies in the definition of
a total loading condition with the required exceeding probability (usually the same of the single components). This
cannot be obtained by simple superposition of the characteristic values of single contributing loads, as the probability that all design loads occur at the same time is much lower
than the one associated to the single component.
In the time domain, the combination problem is expressed in terms of time shift between the instants in which
characteristic values occur.
In the probability domain, the complete formulation of
the problem would imply, in principle, the definition of a
joint probability distribution of the various loads, in order
to quantify the distribution for the total load. An approximation would consist in modeling the joint distribution
through its first and second order moments, that is mean values and covariance matrix (composed by the variances of
the single variables and by the covariance calculated for
each couple of variables). However, also this level of statistical characterization is difficult to obtain.
As a practical solution to the problem, empirically based
load cases are defined in Rules by means of combination
coefficients (with values generally ≤ 1) applied to single
loads. Such load cases, each defined by a set of coefficients,
represent realistic and, in principle, equally probable combinations of characteristic values of elementary loads.
Structural checks are performed for all load cases. The
result of the verification is governed by the one, which turns
out to be the most conservative for the specific structure.
This procedure needs a higher number of checks (which, on
the other hand, can be easily automated today), but allows
considering various load situations (defined with different
combinations of the same base loads), without choosing a
priori the worst one.
18.3.12 New Trends and Load Non-linearities
A large part of research efforts is still devoted to a better
definition of wave loads. New procedures have been proposed in the last decades to improve traditional 2D linear
methods, overcoming some of the simplifications adopted
to treat the problem of ship motions in waves. For a complete state of the art of computational methods in the field,
reference is made to (23). A very coarse classification of
the main features of the procedures reported in literature is
here presented (see also reference 24).
18.3.12.1 2D versus 3D models
Three-dimensional extensions of linear methods are available; some non-linear methods have also 3-D features, while
in other cases an intermediate approach is followed, with
boundary conditions formulated part in 2D, part in 3D.
18.3.12.2 Body boundary conditions
In linear methods, body boundary conditions are set with
reference to the mean position of the hull (in still water).
Perturbation terms take into account, in the frequency or in
the time domain, first order variations of hydrodynamic and
hydrostatic coefficients around the still water line.
Other non-linear methods account for perturbation terms
of a higher order. In this case, body boundary conditions
are still linear (mean position of the hull), but second order
variations of the coefficients are accounted for.
Mixed or blending procedures consist in linear methods
modified to include non-linear effects in a single component of the velocity potential (while the other ones are treated
linearly). In particular, they account for the actual geometry of wetted hull (non-linear body boundary condition) in
the Froude-Krylov potential only. This effect is believed to
have a major role in the definition of global loads.
More evolved (and complex) methods are able to take
properly into account the exact body boundary condition
(actual wetted surface of the hull).
18.3.12.3 Free surface boundary conditions
Boundary conditions on free surface can be set, depending
on the various methods, with reference to: (a) a free stream
at constant velocity, corresponding to ship advance, (b) a
double body flow, accounting for the disturbance induced
by the presence of a fully immersed double body hull on
the uniform flow, (c) the flow corresponding to the steady
advance of the ship in calm water, considering the free surface or (d) the incident wave profile (neglecting the interaction with the hull).
Works based on fully non-linear formulations of the free
surface conditions have also been published.
18.3.12.4 Fluid characteristics
All the methods above recalled are based on an inviscid
fluid potential scheme.
Some results have been published of viscous flow models based on the solution of Reynolds Averaged Navier
Stokes (RANS) equations in the time domain. These methods represent the most recent trend in the field of ship motions and loads prediction and their use is limited to a few
research groups.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-21 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18.4 STRESSES AND DEFLECTIONS
The reactions of structural components of the ship hull to
external loads are usually measured by either stresses or
deflections. Structural performance criteria and the associated analyses involving stresses are referred to under the general term of strength. The strength of a structural component
would be inadequate if it experiences a loss of load-carrying ability through material fracture, yield, buckling, or
some other failure mechanism in response to the applied
loading. Excessive deflection may also limit the structural
effectiveness of a member, even though material failure
does not occur, if that deflection results in a misalignment
or other geometric displacement of vital components of the
ship’s machinery, navigational equipment, etc., thus rendering the system ineffective.
The present section deals with the determination of the
responses, in the form of stress and deflection, of structural
members to the applied loads. Once these responses are
known it is necessary to determine whether the structure is
adequate to withstand the demands placed upon it, and this
requires consideration of the different failure modes associated to the limit states, as discussed in Sections 18.5 and
18.6
Although longitudinal strength under vertical bending
moment and vertical shear forces is the first important
strength consideration in almost all ships, a number of other
strength considerations must be considered. Prominent
amongst these are transverse, torsional and horizontal bending strength, with torsional strength requiring particular attention on open ships with large hatches arranged close
together. All these are briefly presented in this Section. More
detailed information is available in Lewis (2) and Hughes
(3), both published by SNAME, and Rawson (25). Note
that the content of Section 18.4 is influenced mainly from
Lewis (2).
18.4.1 Stress and Deflection Components
The structural response of the hull girder and the associated members can be subdivided into three components
(Figure 18.21).
Primary response is the response of the entire hull, when
the ship bends as a beam under the longitudinal distribution
of load. The associated primary stresses (σ1) are those, which
are usually called the longitudinal bending stresses, but the
general category of primary does not imply a direction.
Secondary response relates to the global bending of stiffened panels (for single hull ship) or to the behavior of double bottom, double sides, etc., for double hull ships:
18-21
• Stresses in the plating of stiffened panel under lateral
pressure may have different origins (σ2 and σ2*). For a
stiffened panel, there is the stress (σ2) and deflection of
the global bending of the orthotropic stiffened panels,
for example, the panel of bottom structure contained between two adjacent transverse bulkheads. The stiffener
and the attached plating bend under the lateral load and
the plate develops additional plane stresses since the
plate acts as a flange with the stiffeners. In longitudinally
framed ships there is also a second type of secondary
stresses: σ2* corresponds to the bending under the hydrostatic pressure of the longitudinals between transverse frames (web frames). For transversally framed
panels, σ2* may also exist and would correspond to the
bending of the equally spaced frames between two stiff
longitudinal girders.
• A double bottom behaves as box girder but can bend longitudinally, transversally or both. This global bending induces stress (σ2) and deflection. In addition, there is also
Figure 18.21 Primary (Hull), Secondary (Double Bottom and Stiffened Panels)
and Tertiary (Plate) Structural Responses (1, 2)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-22 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-22
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
the σ2* stress that corresponds to the bending of the longitudinals (for example, in the inner and outer bottom)
between two transverse elements (floors).
tect deals principally with beam theory, plate theory, and
combinations of both.
Tertiary response describes the out-of-plane deflection
and associated stress of an individual unstiffened plate panel
included between 2 longitudinals and 2 transverse web
frames. The boundaries are formed by these components
(Figure 18.22).
Primary and secondary responses induce in-plane membrane stresses, nearly uniformly distributed through the plate
thickness. Tertiary stresses, which result from the bending
of the plate member itself vary through the thickness, but
may contain a membrane component if the out-of-plane deflections are large compared to the plate thickness.
In many instances, there is little or no interaction between the three (primary, secondary, tertiary) component
stresses or deflections, and each component may be computed by methods and considerations entirely independent
of the other two. The resultant stress, in such a case, is then
obtained by a simple superposition of the three component
stresses (Subsection 18.4.7). An exception is the case of
plate (tertiary) deflections, which are large compared to the
thickness of plate.
In plating, each response induces longitudinal stresses,
transverse stresses and shear stresses. This is due to the
Poisson’s Ratio. Both primary and secondary stresses are
bending stresses but in plating these stresses look like membrane stresses.
In stiffeners, only primary and secondary responses induce stresses in the direction of the members and shear
stresses. Tertiary response has no effect on the stiffeners.
In Figure 18.21 (see also Figure 18.37) the three types of response are shown with their associated stresses (σ1, σ2, σ2*
and σ3). These considerations point to the inherent simplicity of the underlying theory. The structural naval archi-
18.4.2 Basic Structural Components
Structural components are extensively discussed in Chapter 17 – Structure Arrangement Component Design. In this
section, only the basic structural component used extensively is presented. It is basically a stiffened panel.
The global ship structure is usually referred to as being
a box girder or hull girder. Modeling of this hull girder is
the first task of the designer. It is usually done by modeling the hull girder with a series of stiffened panels.
Stiffened panels are the main components of a ship. Almost any part of the ship can be modeled as stiffened panels (plane or cylindrical).
This means that, once the ship’s main dimensions and
general arrangement are fixed, the remaining scantling development mainly deals with stiffened panels.
The panels are joined one to another by connecting lines
(edges of the prismatic structures) and have longitudinal
and transverse stiffening (Figures 18.23, 24 and 36).
• Longitudinal Stiffening includes
— longitudinals (equally distributed), used only for the
design of longitudinally stiffened panels,
— girders (not equally distributed).
• Transverse Stiffening includes (Figure 18.23)
— transverse bulkheads (a),
— the main transverse framing also called web-frames
(equally distributed; large spacing), used for longitudinally stiffened panels (b) and transversally stiffened panels (c).
18.4.3 Primary Response
18.4.3.1 Beam Model and Hull Section Modulus
The structural members involved in the computation of primary stress are, for the most part, the longitudinally continuous members such as deck, side, bottom shell, longitudinal
bulkheads, and continuous or fully effective longitudinal
primary or secondary stiffening members.
Elementary beam theory (equation 29) is usually utilized in computing the component of primary stress, σ1, and
deflection due to vertical or lateral hull bending loads. In
assessing the applicability of this beam theory to ship structures, it is useful to restate the underlying assumptions:
Figure 18.22 A Standard Stiffened Panel
• the beam is prismatic, that is, all cross sections are the
same and there is no openings or discontinuities,
• plane cross sections remain plane after deformation, will
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-23 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18-23
Figure 18.23 Types of Stiffening (Longitudinal and Transverse)
not deform in their own planes, and merely rotate as the
beam deflects.
• transverse (Poisson) effects on strain are neglected.
• the material behaves elastically: the elasticity modulus
in tension and compression is equal.
• Shear effects and bending (stresses, strains) are not coupled. For torsional deformation, the effect of secondary
shear and axial stresses due to warping deformations are
neglected.
Since stress concentrations (deck openings, side ports,
etc.) cannot be avoided in a highly complex structure such
as a ship, their effects must be included in any comprehensive stress analysis. Methods dealing with stress concentrations are presented in Subsection 18.6.6.3 as they are
linked to fatigue.
The elastic linear bending equations, equations 27 and
28, are derived from basic mechanic principle presented at
Figure 18.24.
EI (∂2w/∂x2) = M(x)
[27]
EI (∂4w/∂x4) = q(x)
[28]
or
where:
w = deflection (Figure 18.24), in m
E = modulus of elasticity of the material, in N/m2
I = moment of inertia of beam cross section about a
horizontal axis through its centroid, in m4
M(x) = bending moment, in N.m
q(x) = load per unit length in N/m
= ∂V(x)/∂x
= ∂2M(x)/∂x2
= EI (∂4w/∂x4)
Figure 18.24 Behavior of an Elastic Beam under Shear Force and Bending
Moment (2)
Hull Section Modulus: The plane section assumption together with elastic material behavior results in a longitudinal stress, σ1, in the beam that varies linearly over the depth
of the cross section.
The simple beam theory for longitudinal strength calculations of a ship is based on the hypothesis (usually attributed to Navier) that plane sections remain plane and in
the absence of shear, normal to the OXY plane (Figure
18.24). This gives the well-known formula:
fP ( p) =

p
p2 
exp  −

m0
 2m0 
where:
M = bending moment (in N.m)
σ = bending stress (in N/m2)
[29]
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-24 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-24
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
I = Sectional moment of Inertia about the neutral axis
(in m4)
c = distance from the neutral axis to the extreme member (in m)
SM = section modulus (I/c) (in m3)
For a given bending moment at a given cross section of
a ship, at any part of the cross section, the stress may be obtained (σ = M/SM = Mc/I) which is proportional to the distance c of that part from the neutral axis. The neutral axis
will seldom be located exactly at half-depth of the section;
hence two values of c and σ will be obtained for each section for any given bending moment, one for the top fiber
(deck) and one for the bottom fiber (bottom shell).
A variation on the above beam equations may be of importance in ship structures. It concerns beams composed of
two or more materials of different moduli of elasticity, for
example, steel and aluminum. In this case, the flexural rigidity, EI, is replaced by ∫A E(z) z2 dA, where A is cross sectional area and E(z) the modulus of elasticity of an element
of area dA located at distance z from the neutral axis. The
neutral axis is located at such height that ∫A E(z) z dA = 0.
Calculation of Section Modulus: An important step in
routine ship design is the calculation of the midship section
modulus. As defined in connection with equation 29, it indicates the bending strength properties of the primary hull
structure. The section modulus to the deck or bottom is obtained by dividing the moment of inertia by the distance
from the neutral axis to the molded deck line at side or to
the base line, respectively.
In general, the following items may be included in the
calculation of the section modulus, provided they are continuous or effectively developed:
ordinates of the section-moduli curve yields stress values,
and by using both the hogging and sagging moment curves
four curves of stress can be obtained; that is, tension and compression values for both top and bottom extreme fibers.
It is customary, however, to assume the maximum bending moment to extend over the midship portion of the ship.
Minimum section modulus most often occurs at the location of a hatch or a deck opening. Accordingly, the classification societies ordinarily require the maintenance of the
midship scantlings throughout the midship four-tenths
length. This practice maintains the midship section area of
structure practically at full value in the vicinity of maximum
shear as well as providing for possible variation in the precise location of the maximum bending moment.
Lateral Bending Combined with Vertical Bending: Up to
this point, attention has been focused principally upon the vertical longitudinal bending response of the hull. As the ship
moves through a seaway encountering waves from directions
other than directly ahead or astern, it will experience lateral
bending loads and twisting moments in addition to the vertical loads. The former may be dealt with by methods that
are similar to those used for treating the vertical bending
loads, noting that there will be no component of still water
bending moment or shear in the lateral direction. The twisting or torsional loads will require some special consideration.
Note that the response of the ship to the overall hull twisting
loading should be considered a primary response.
The combination of vertical and horizontal bending moment has as major effect to increase the stress at the extreme corners of the structure (equation 30).
• deck plating (strength deck and other effective decks).
(See Subsection 18.4.3.9 for Hull/Superstructure Interaction).
• shell and inner bottom plating,
• deck and bottom girders,
• plating and longitudinal stiffeners of longitudinal bulkheads,
• all longitudinals of deck, sides, bottom and inner bottom, and
• continuous longitudinal hatch coamings.
In general, only members that are effective in both tension
and compression are assumed to act as part of the hull girder.
Theoretically, a thorough analysis of longitudinal strength
would include the construction of a curve of section moduli
throughout the length of the ship as shown in Figure 18.25.
Dividing the ordinates of the maximum bending-moments
curve (the envelope curve of maxima) by the corresponding
Figure 18.25 Moment of Inertia and Section Modulus (1)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-25 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18-25
ED: Correction on this equation is unclear.
σ=
Mv
Mh
+
I
I
c
( v v ) ( h ch )
[30]
where Mv, Iv, cv, and Mh, Ih, ch, correspond to the M, I, c
defined in equation 29, for the vertical bending and the horizontal bending respectively.
For a given vertical bending (Mv), the periodical wave
induced horizontal bending moment (Mh) increases stresses,
alternatively, on the upper starboard and lower portside, and
on the upper portside and lower starboard. This explains
why these areas are usually reinforced.
Empirical interaction formulas between vertical bending, horizontal bending and shear related to ultimate strength
of hull girder are given in Subsection 18.6.5.2.
Transverse Stresses: With regards to the validity of the
Navier Equation (equation 29), a significant improvement
may be obtained by considering a longitudinal strength
member composed of thin plate with transverse framing.
This might, for example, represent a portion of the deck
structure of a ship that is subject to a longitudinal stress σx,
from the primary bending of the hull girder. As a result of
the longitudinal strain, εx, which is associated with σx, there
will exist a transverse strain, εs. For the case of a plate that
is free of constraint in the transverse direction, the two
strains will be of opposite sign and the ratio of their absolute values, given by | εs / εx | = ν, is a constant property
of the material. The quantity ν is called Poisson’s Ratio and,
for steel and aluminum, has a value of approximately 0.3.
Hooke’s Law, which expresses the relation between stress
and strain in two dimensions, may be stated in terms of the
plate strains (equation 31). This shows that the primary response induces both longitudinal (σx) and transversal
stresses (σs) in plating.
εx = 1/E ( σx – v σS)
εS = 1/E ( σS – ν σx)
an element of side shell or deck plating may, in general be
subject to two other components of stress, a direct stress in
the transverse direction and a shearing stress.
This figure illustrates these as the stress resultants, defined as the stress multiplied by plate thickness.
The stress resultants (N/m) are given by the following
expressions:
Nx = t σx and Ns = t σs stress resultants, in N/m
N = t τ shear stress resultant or shear flow, in N/m
where:
σx, σs = stresses in the longitudinal and transverse directions, in N/m2
τ = shear stress, in N/m2
t = plate thickness, in m
In many parts of the ship, the longitudinal stress, σx, is
the dominant component. There are, however, locations in
which the shear component becomes important and under
unusual circumstances the transverse component may, likewise, become important. A suitable procedure for estimating these other component stresses may be derived by
considering the equations of static equilibrium of the element of plating (Figure 18.26). The static equilibrium conditions for a plate element subjected only to in-plane stress,
that is, no plate bending, are:
∂Nx / ∂x + ∂N / ∂s = 0
[33-a]
∂Ns / ∂x + ∂N / ∂x = 0
[33-b]
In these equations, s, is the transverse coordinate measured on the surface of the section from the x-axis as shown
in Figure 18.26.
For vessels without continuous longitudinal bulkheads
[31]
As transverse plate boundaries are usually constrained
(displacements not allowed), the transverse stress can be
taken, in first approximation as:
σs = ν σx
[32]
Equation 32 is only valid to assess the additional stresses
in a given direction induced by the stresses in the perpendicular direction computed, for instance, with the Navier
equation (equation 29).
18.4.3.2 Shear stress associated to shear forces
The simple beam theory expressions given in the preceding section permit evaluation the longitudinal component
of the primary stress, σx. In Figure 18.26, it can be seen that
Figure 18.26 Shear Forces (2)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-26 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-26
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
(single cell), having transverse symmetry and subject to a
bending moment in the vertical plane, the shear flow distribution, N(s) is then given by:
V(x) 
N (s) = 
m (s)
 I(x) 
[34]
and the shear stress, τ , at any point in the cross section is:
t(s) =
V(x).m(s)
t(s) I(x)
(in N / m 2 )
[35]
where:
V(x) = total shearing force (in N) in the hull for a given
section x
m(s) =
s
∫o t ( s ) z ds, in m , is the first moment (or moment
3
= of area) about the neutral axis of the cross sectional
area of the plating between the origin at the centerline and the variable location designated by s.
This is the crosshatched area of the section shown
in Figure 18.26
t(s) = thickness of material at the shear plane
I(x) = moment of inertia of the entire section
The total vertical shearing force, V(x), at any point, x,
in the ship’s length may be obtained by the integration of
the load curve up to that point. Ordinarily the maximum
value of the shearing force occurs at about one quarter of
the vessel’s length from either end.
Since only the vertical, or nearly vertical, members of
the hull girder are capable of resisting vertical shear, this
shear is taken almost entirely by the side shell, the continuous longitudinal bulkheads if present, and by the webs of
any deep longitudinal girders.
The maximum value of τ occurs in the vicinity of the
neutral axis, where the value of t is usually twice the thickness of the side plating (Figure 18.27). For vessels with continuous longitudinal bulkheads, the expression for shear
stress is more complex.
Shear Flow in Multicell Sections: If the cross section of
the ship shown in Figure 18.28 is subdivided into two or
more closed cells by longitudinal bulkheads, tank tops, or
decks, the problem of finding the shear flow in the boundaries of these closed cells is statically indeterminate.
Equation 34 may be evaluated for the deck and bottom
of the center tank space since the plane of symmetry at
which the shear flow vanishes, lies within this space and
forms a convenient origin for the integration. At the
deck/bulkhead intersection, the shear flow in the deck divides, but the relative proportions of the part in the bulkhead and the part in the deck are indeterminate. The sum
of the shear flows at two locations lying on a plane cutting
the cell walls will still be given by equation 34, with m(s)
equal to the moment of the shaded area (Figure 18.28).
However, the distribution of this sum between the two components in bulkhead and side shell, requires additional information for its determination.
This additional information may be obtained by considering the torsional equilibrium and deflection of the cellular section. The way to proceed is extensively explained
in Lewis (2).
18.4.3.3 Shear stress associated with torsion
In order to develop the twisting equations, we consider a
closed, single cell, thin-walled prismatic section subject
only to a twisting moment, MT, which is constant along the
length as shown in Figure 18.29. The resulting shear stress
may be assumed uniform through the plate thickness and
is tangent to the mid-thickness of the material. Under these
circumstances, the deflection of the tube will consist of a
twisting of the section without distortion of its shape, and
the rate of twist, dθ/dx, will be constant along the length.
Figure 18.27 Shear Flow in Multicell Sections (1)
Figure 18.28 Shear Flow in Multicell Sections (2)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-27 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
Now consider equilibrium of forces in the x-direction for
the element dx.ds of the tube wall as shown in Figure 18.29.
Since there is no longitudinal load, there will be no longitudinal stress, and only the shear stresses at the top and bottom edges need be considered in the expression for static
equilibrium. The shear flow, N = tτ, is therefore seen to be
constant around the section.
The magnitude of the moment, MT, may be computed
by integrating the moment of the elementary force arising
from this shear flow about any convenient axis. If r is the
distance from the axis, 0, perpendicular to the resultant shear
flow at location s:
MT =
∫ r N ds = N ∫ r ds = 2 NΩ
[36]
Here the symbol indicates that the integral is taken entirely around the section and, therefore, Ω (m2) is the area
enclosed by the mid-thickness line of the tubular cross section. The constant shear flow, N (N/m), is then related to
the applied twisting moment by:
N = τ. t = MT /2Ω
[37]
For uniform torsion of a closed prismatic section, the
angle of torsion is:
θ=
MT .L
(in radians)
G Ip
where:
MT = Twisting moment (torsion), in N.m
L = Length of the girder, in m
Ip = Polar Inertia, in m4
G = E/2(1+ν), the shear Modulus, in N/m2
Figure 18.29 Torsional Shear Flow (2).
[38]
18-27
18.4.3.4 Twisting and warping
Torsional strength: Although torsion is not usually an important factor in ship design for most ships, it does result
in significant additional stresses on ships, such as container
ships, which have large hatch openings. These warping
stresses can be calculated by a beam analysis, which takes
into account the twisting and warping deflections. There
can also be an interaction between horizontal bending and
torsion of the hull girder. Wave actions tending to bend the
hull in a horizontal plane also induce torsion because of the
open cross section of the hull, which results in the shear center being below the bottom of the hull. Combined stresses
due to vertical bending, horizontal bending and torsion must
be calculated.
In order to increase the torsional rigidity of the containership cross sections, longitudinal and transverse closed
box girders are introduced in the upper side and deck structure.
From previous studies, it has been established that special attention should be paid to the torsional rigidity distribution along the hull. Usually, toward the ship’s ends, the
section moduli are justifiably reduced base on bending. On
the contrary the torsional rigidity, especially in the forward
hatches, should be gradually increased to keep the warping
stress as small as possible.
Twisting of opened section: A lateral seaway could induce severe twisting moment that is of the major importance
for ships having large deck openings. The equations for the
twist of a closed tube (equations 36 to 38) are applicable
only to the computation of the torsional response of closed
thin-walled sections.
The relative torsional stiffness of closed and open sections may be visualized by means of a very simple example.
Consider two circular tubes, one of which has a longitudinal slit over its full length as in Figure 18.30. The closed
tube will be able to resist a much greater torque per unit angular deflection than the open tube because of the inability
of the latter to sustain the shear stress across the slot. The
twisting resistance of the thin material of which the tube is
composed provides the only resistance to torsion in the case
Figure 18.30 Twist of Open and Closed Tubes (2)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-28 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-28
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
of the open tube without longitudinal restraint. The resistance to twist of the entirely open section is given by the St.
Venant torsion equation:
MT = G.J ∂θ/∂x (N.m)
[39]
where:
∂θ/∂x = twist angle per unit length, in rad./m, which can be
approximated by θ/L for uniform torsion and uniform section.
J = torsional constant of the section, in m4
= 1/3
=
1
3
s
∫0 t 3 ds for a thin walled open section
n
∑ b i t 3i for a section composed of n different
i =1
= plates (bi= length, ti = thickness)
If warping resistance is present, that is, if the longitudinal displacement of the elemental strips shown in Figure
18.30 is constrained, another component of torsional resistance is developed through the shear stresses that result
from this warping restraint. This is added to the torque given
by equation 39.
In ship structures, warping strength comes from four
sources:
1. the closed sections of the structure between hatch openings,
2. the closed ends of the ship,
3. double wall transverse bulkheads, and
4. closed, torsionally stiff parts of the cross section (longitudinal torsion tubes or boxes, including double bottom, double side shell, etc.).
18.4.3.5 Racking and snaking
Racking is the result of a transverse hull shape distortion and
is caused by either dynamic loads due to rolling of the ship
or by the transverse impact of seas against the topsides. Transverse bulkheads resist racking if the bulkhead spacing is close
enough to prevent deflection of the shell or deck plating in
its own plane. Racking introduces primarily compressive and
shearing forces in the plane of bulkhead plating.
With the usual spacing of transverse bulkheads the effectiveness of side frames in resisting racking is negligible.
However, when bulkheads are widely spaced or where the
deck width is small in way of very large hatch openings,
side frames, in association with their top and bottom brackets, contribute significant resistance to racking. Racking in
car-carriers is discussed in Chapters 17 and 34.
Racking stresses due to rolling reach a maximum in a
beam sea each time the vessel completes an oscillation in
one direction and is about to return.
The angle between a deck beam and side frame tends to
open on one side and to close on the other side at the top
and reverses its action at the bottom. The effect of the concentration of stiff and soft sections results in a distortion pattern in the ship deck that is shown in Figure 18.31. The term
snaking is sometimes used in referring to this behavior and
relates to both twisting and racking.
18.4.3.6 Effective breadth and shear lag
An important effect of the edge shear loading of a plate
member is a resulting nonlinear variation of the longitudinal stress distribution (Figure 18.32). In the real plate the
longitudinal stress decreases with increasing distance from
the shear-loaded edge, and this is called shear lag. This is
in contrast to the uniform stress distribution predicted in
the beam flanges by the elementary beam equation 29. In
many practical cases, the difference from the value predicted in equation 29 will be small. But in certain combinations of loading and structural geometry, the effect referred
to by the term shear lag must be taken into consideration
if an accurate estimate of the maximum stress in the member is to be made. This may be conveniently done by defining an effective breadth of the flange member.
The ratio, be/b, of the effective breadth, be, to the real
breadth, b, is useful to the designer in determining the longitudinal stress along the shear-loaded edge. It is a function
Figure 18.31 Snaking Behavior of a Container Vessel (2).
Figure 18.32 Shear Lag Effect in a Deck (2)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-29 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
of the external loading applied and the boundary conditions
along the plate edges, but not its thickness. Figure 18.33
gives the effective breadth ratio at mid-length for column
loading and harmonic-shaped beam loading, together with
a common approximation for both cases:
be k L
=
6 b
b
[40]
The results are presented in a series of design charts,
which are especially simple to use, and may be found in
Schade (26).
A real situation in which such an alternating load distribution may be encountered is a bulk carrier loaded with
a dense ore cargo in alternate holds, the remainder being
empty.
An example of the computation of the effective breadth
of bottom and deck plating for such a vessel is given in
Chapter VI of Taggart (1), using Figure 18.33.
It is important to distinguish the effective breadth (equation 40) and the effective width (equations 54 and 55) presented later in Subsection 18.6.3.2 for plate and stiffened
plate-buckling analysis.
18.4.3.7 Longitudinal deflection
The longitudinal bending deflection of the ship girder is obtainable from the appropriate curvature equations (equations 27 and 28) by integrating twice. A semi-empirical
approximation for bending deflection amidships is:
w = k ( M L2/EI )
18-29
[41]
where the dimensionless coefficient k may be taken, for first
approximation, as 0.09 (2).
Actual deflection in service is affected also by thermal
influences, rigidity of structural components, and workmanship; furthermore, deflection due to shear is additive to
the bending deflection, though its amount is usually relatively small.
The same influences, which gradually increase nominal
design stress levels, also increase flexibility. Additionally,
draft limitations and stability requirements may force the
L/D ratio up, as ships get larger. In general, therefore, modern design requires that more attention be focused on flexibility than formerly.
No specific limits on hull girder deflections are given in
the classification rules. The required minimum scantlings
however, as well as general design practices, are based on
a limitation of the L/D ratio range.
18.4.3.8 Load diffusion into structure
The description of the computation of vertical shear and
bending moment by integration of the longitudinal load distribution implies that the external vertical load is resisted
directly by the vertical shear carrying members of the hull
girder such as the side shell or longitudinal bulkheads. In a
longitudinally framed ship, such as a tanker, the bottom
pressures are transferred principally to the widely spaced
transverse web frames or the transverse bulkheads where
Figure 18.33 Effective Breath Ratios at Midlength (1)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-30 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-30
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
they are transferred to the longitudinal bulkheads or side
shell, again as localized shear forces. Thus, in reality, the
loading q(x), applied to the side shell or the longitudinal
bulkhead will consist of a distributed part due to the direct
transfer of load into the member from the bottom or deck
structure, plus a concentrated part at each bulkhead or web
frame. This leads to a discontinuity in the shear curve at the
bulkheads and webs.
18.4.3.9 Hull/superstructure interaction
The terms superstructure and deckhouse refer to a structure
usually of shorter length than the entire ship and erected
above the strength deck of the ship. If its sides are coplanar
with the ship’s sides it is referred to as a superstructure. If
its width is less than that of the ship, it is called a deckhouse.
The prediction of the structural behavior of a superstructure constructed above the strength deck of the hull
has facets involving both the general bending response and
important localized effects. Two opposing schools of thought
exist concerning the philosophy of design of such erections.
One attempts to make the superstructure effective in contributing to the overall bending strength of the hull, the other
purposely isolates the superstructure from the hull so that
it carries only localized loads and does not experience
stresses and deflections associated with bending of the main
hull. This may be accomplished in long superstructures
(>0.5Lpp) by cutting the deckhouse into short segments by
means of expansion joints. Aluminum deckhouse construction is another alternative when the different material
properties provide the required relief.
As the ship hull experiences a bending deflection in response to the wave bending moment, the superstructure is
forced to bend also. However, the curvature of the superstructure may not necessarily be equal to that of the hull but
depends upon the length of superstructure in relation to the
hull and the nature of the connection between the two, especially upon the vertical stiffness or foundation modulus
of the deck upon which the superstructure is constructed.
The behavior of the superstructure is similar to that of a
beam on an elastic foundation loaded by a system of normal forces and shear forces at the bond to the hull.
The stress distributions at the midlength of the superstructure and the differential deflection between deckhouse
and hull for three different degrees of superstructure effectiveness are shown on Figure 18.34.
The areas and inertias can be computed to account for
shear lag in decks and bottoms. If the erection material differs from that of the hull (aluminum on steel, for example)
the geometric erection area Af and inertia If must be reduced
according to the ratio of the respective material moduli; that
is, by multiplying by E (aluminum)/E (steel) (approximately
one-third). Further details on the design considerations for
deckhouses and superstructures may be found in Evans (27)
and Taggart (1).
In addition to the overall bending, local stress concentrations may be expected at the ends of the house, since here the
structure is transformed abruptly from that of a beam consisting of the main hull alone to that of hull plus superstructure.
Recent works achieved in Norwegian University of Science & Technology have shown that the vertical stress distribution in the side shell is not linear when there are large
openings in the side shell as it is currently the case for upper
decks of passenger vessels. Approximated stress distributions are presented at Figure 18.35. The reduced slope, θ,
for the upper deck has been found equal to 0.50 for a catamaran passenger vessel (28).
18.4.4 Secondary Response
In the case of secondary structural response, the principal
objective is to determine the distribution of both in-plane
Figure 18.34 Three Interaction Levels between Superstructure and Hull (1)
z
Passenger deck
Neutral axis
σr (z) =θ .σ(z)
( I )z
σ (z) = M
x
Figure 18.35 Vertical Stress Distribution in Passenger Vessels having Large
Openings above the Passenger Deck
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-31 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
and normal loading, deflection and stress over the length
and width dimensions of a stiffened panel. Remember that
the primary response involves the determination of only the
in-plane load, deflection, and stress as they vary over the
length of the ship. The secondary response, therefore, is
seen to be a two-dimensional problem while the primary
response is essentially one-dimensional in character.
18.4.4.1 Stiffened panels
A stiffened panel of structure, as used in the present context, usually consists of a flat plate surface with its attached
stiffeners, transverse frames and/or girders (Figure 18.36).
When the plating is absent the module is a grid or grillage
of beam members only, rather than a stiffened panel.
In principle, the solution for the deflection and stress in
the stiffened panel may be thought of as a solution for the
response of a system of orthogonal intersecting beams.
A second type of interaction arises from the two-dimensional stress pattern in the plate, which may be thought
of as forming a part of the flanges of the stiffeners. The plate
contribution to the beam bending stiffness arises from the
direct longitudinal stress in the plate adjacent to the stiffener, modified by the transverse stress effects, and also from
the shear stress in the plane of the plate. The maximum secondary stress may be found in the plate itself, but more frequently it is found in the free flanges of the stiffeners, since
these flanges are at a greater distance than the plate member from the neutral axis of the combined plate-stiffener.
At least four different procedures have been employed for
obtaining the structural behavior of stiffened plate panels
under normal loading, each embodying certain simplifying
assumptions: 1) orthotropic plate theory, 2) beam-on-elastic-
Figure 18.36 A Stiffened Panel with Uniformly Distributed Longitudinals, 4
Webframes, and 3 Girders.
18-31
foundation theory, 3) grillage theory (intersecting beams), and
4) the finite element method (FEM).
Orthotropic plate theory refers to the theory of bending
of plates having different flexural rigidities in the two orthogonal directions. In applying this theory to panels having discrete stiffeners, the structure is idealized by assuming
that the structural properties of the stiffeners may be approximated by their average values, which are assumed to
be distributed uniformly over the width or length of the
plate. The deflections and stresses in the resulting continuum are then obtained from a solution of the orthotropic
plate deflection differential equation:
a1
∂4w
∂4w
∂4w
+ a2
+ a3
= p (x,y)
4
2
2
∂x
∂x ∂y
∂y 4
[42]
where:
a1, a2, a3 = express the average flexural rigidity of the orthotropic plate in the two directions
w(x,y) = is the deflection of the plate in the normal direction
p(x,y) = is the distributed normal pressure load per unit
area
Note that the behavior of the isotropic plate, that is, one
having uniform flexural properties in all directions, is a special case of the orthotropic plate problem. The orthotropic
plate method is best suited to a panel in which the stiffeners are uniform in size and spacing and closely spaced. It
has been said that the application of this theory to crossstiffened panels must be restricted to stiffened panels with
more than three stiffeners in each direction.
An advanced orthotropic procedure has been implemented by Rigo (29,30) into a computer-based scheme for
the optimum structural design of the midship section. It is
based on the differential equations of stiffened cylindrical
shells (linear theory). Stiffened plates and cylindrical shells
can both be considered, as plates are particular cases of the
cylindrical shells having a very large radius. A system of
three differential equations, similar to equation 42, is established (8th order coupled differential equations). Fourier
series expansions are used to model the loads. Assuming
that the displacements (u,v,w) can also be expanded in sin
and cosine, an analytical solution of u, v, and w(x,y) can be
obtained for each stiffened panel.
This procedure can be applied globally to all the stiffened panels that compose a parallel section of a ship, typically a cargo hold.
This approach has three main advantages. First the plate
bending behavior (w) and the inplane membrane behavior
(u and v) are analyzed simultaneously. Then, in addition to
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-32 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-32
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
the flexural rigidity (bending), the inplane axial, torsional,
transverse shear and inplane shear rigidities of the stiffeners in the both directions can also be considered. Finally,
the approach is suited for stiffeners uniform in size and
spacing, and closely spaced but also for individual members, randomly distributed such as deck and bottom girders. These members considered through Heaviside functions
that allow replacing each individual member by a set of 3
forces and 2 bending moment load lines. Figure 18.36 shows
a typical stiffened panel that can be considered. It includes
uniformly distributed longitudinals and web frames, and
three prompt elements (girders).
The beam on elastic foundation solution is suitable for a
panel in which the stiffeners are uniform and closely spaced
in one direction and sparser in the other one. Each of these
members is treated individually as a beam on an elastic foundation, for which the differential equation of deflection is,
EI
∂4w
+ k w = q (x)
∂x 4
[43]
where:
w = is the deflection
I = is sectional moment of inertia of the longitudinal
stiffener, including adjacent plating
k = is average spring constant per unit length of the
transverse stiffeners
q(x) = is load per unit length on the longitudinal member
The grillage approach models the cross-stiffened panel
as a system of discrete intersecting beams (in plane frame),
each beam being composed of stiffener and associated effective plating. The torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel
and the Poisson ratio effect are neglected. The validity of
modeling the stiffened panel by an intersecting beam (or grillage) may be critical when the flexural rigidities of stiffeners are small compared to the plate stiffness. It is known
that the grillage approach may be suitable when the ratio
of the stiffener flexural rigidity to the plate bending rigidity (EI/bD with I the moment of inertia of stiffener and D
the plate bending rigidity) is greater than 60 (31) otherwise
if the bending rigidity of stiffener is smaller, an Orthotropic
Plate Theory has to be selected.
The FEM approach is discussed in detail in section 18.7.2.
18.4.5 Tertiary Response
18.4.5.1 Unstiffened plate
Tertiary response refers to the bending stresses and deflections in the individual panels of plating that are bounded by
the stiffeners of a secondary panel. In most cases the load
that induces this response is a fluid pressure from either the
water outside the ship or liquid or dry bulk cargo within.
Such a loading is normal to and distributed over the surface
of the panel. In many cases, the proportions, orientation, and
location of the panel are such that the pressure may be assumed constant over its area.
As previously noted, the deflection response of an
isotropic plate panel is obtained as the solution of a special
case of the earlier orthotropic plate equation (equation 42),
and is given by:
∂4w
∂4w
∂ 4 w p (x,y)
+2 2 2 +
=
4
D
∂x
∂x ∂y
∂y 4
[44]
where:
D = plate flexural rigidity
E t3
12(1 − ν )
= Et3 / 12(1 – ν)
t = the uniform plate thickness
p(x,y) = distributed unit pressure load
Appropriate boundary conditions are to be selected to
represent the degree of fixity of the edges of the panel.
Stresses and deflections are obtained by solving this equation for rectangular plates under a uniform pressure distribution. Equation 44 is in fact a simplified case of the general
one (equation 42).
Information (including charts) on a plate subject to uniform load and concentrated load (patch load) is available
in Hughes (3).
18.4.5.2 Local deflections
Local deflections must be kept at reasonable levels in order
for the overall structure to have the proper strength and
rigidity. Towards this end, the classification society rules may
contain requirements to ensure that local deflections are not
excessive.
Special requirements also apply to stiffeners. Tripping
brackets are provided to support the flanges, and they should
be in line with or as near as practicable to the flanges of struts.
Special attention must be given to rigidity of members under
compressive loads to avoid buckling. This is done by providing a minimum moment of inertia at the stiffener and associated plating.
18.4.6 Transverse Strength
Transverse strength refers to the ability of the ship structure to resist those loads that tend to cause distortion of the
cross section. When it is distorted into a parallelogram shape
the effect is called racking. We recall that both the primary
bending and torsional strength analyses are based upon the
assumption of no distortion of the cross section. Thus, we
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-33 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
see that there is an inherent relationship between transverse
strength and both longitudinal and torsional strength. Certain structural members, including transverse bulkheads and
deep web frames, must be incorporated into the ship in order
to insure adequate transverse strength. These members provide support to and interact with longitudinal members by
transferring loads from one part of a structure to another.
For example, a portion of the bottom pressure loading on
the hull is transferred via the center girder and the longitudinals to the transverse bulkheads at the ends of theses longitudinals. The bulkheads, in turn, transfer these loads as
vertical shears into the side shell. Thus some of the loads
acting on the transverse strength members are also the loads
of concern in longitudinal strength considerations.
The general subject of transverse strength includes elements taken from both the primary and secondary strength
categories. The loads that cause effects requiring transverse
strength analysis may be of several different types, depending upon the type of ship, its structural arrangement,
mode of operation, and upon environmental effects.
Typical situations requiring attention to the transverse
strength are:
• ship out of water: on building ways or on construction
or repair dry dock,
• tankers having empty wing tanks and full centerline tanks
or vice versa,
• ore carriers having loaded centerline holds and large
empty wing tanks,
• all types of ships: torsional and racking effects caused
by asymmetric motions of roll, sway and yaw, and
• ships with structural features having particular sensitivity to transverse effects, as for instance, ships having
largely open interior structure (minimum transverse bulkheads) such as auto carriers, containers and RO-RO ships.
As previously noted, the transverse structural response
involves pronounced interaction between transverse and
longitudinal structural members. The principal loading consists of the water pressure distribution around the ship, and
the weights and inertias of the structure and hold contents.
As a first approximation, the transverse response of such a
frame may be analyzed by a two-dimensional frame response procedure that may or may not allow for support by
longitudinal structure. Such analysis can be easily performed
using 2D finite element analysis (FEA). Influence of longitudinal girders on the frame would be represented by elastic attachments having finite spring constants (similar to
equation 43). Unfortunately, such a procedure is very sensitive to the spring location and the boundary conditions.
For this reason, a three-dimensional analysis is usually performed in order to obtain results that are useful for more
18-33
than comparative purposes. Ideally, the entire ship hull or
at least a limited hold-model should be modeled. See Subsection 18.7.2—Structural Finite Element Models (Figure
18.57).
18.4.7 Superposition of Stresses
In plating, each response induces longitudinal stresses, transverse stresses and shear stresses. These stresses can be calculated individually for each response. This is the traditional
way followed by the classification societies. With direct
analysis such as finite element analysis (Subsection 18.7.2),
it is not always possible to separate the different responses.
If calculated individually, all the longitudinal stresses
have to be added. Similar cumulative procedure must be
achieved for the transverse stresses and the shear stresses.
At the end they are combined through a criteria, which is
usually for ship structure, the von-Mises criteria (equation
45).
The standard procedure used by classification societies
considers that longitudinal stresses induced by primary response of the hull girder, can be assessed separately from
the other stresses. Classification rules impose through allowable stress and minimal section modulus, a maximum
longitudinal stress induced by the hull girder bending moment.
On the other hand, they recommend to combined stresses
from secondary response and tertiary response, in plating
and in members. These are combined through the von Mises
criteria and compared to the classification requirements.
Such an uncoupled procedure is convenient to use but
does not reflect reality. Direct analysis does not follow this
approach. All the stresses, from the primary, secondary and
tertiary responses are combined for yielding assessment.
For buckling assessment, the tertiary response is discarded,
as it does not induce in-plane stresses. Nevertheless the lateral load can be considered in the buckling formulation
(Subsection 18.6.3). Tertiary stresses should be added for
fatigue analysis.
Since all the methods of calculation of primary, secondary, and tertiary stress presuppose linear elastic behavior of the structural material, the stress intensities computed
for the same member may be superimposed in order to obtain a maximum value for the combined stress. In performing
and interpreting such a linear superposition, several considerations affecting the accuracy and significance of the resulting stress values must be borne in mind.
First, the loads and theoretical procedures used in computing the stress components may not be of the same accuracy or reliability. The primary loading, for example, may
be obtained using a theory that involves certain simplifica-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-34 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-34
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
tions in the hydrodynamics of ship and wave motion, and
the primary bending stress may be computed by simple
beam theory, which gives a reasonably good estimate of the
mean stress in deck or bottom but neglects certain localized
effects such as shear lag or stress concentrations.
Second, the three stress components may not necessarily occur at the same instant in time as the ship moves
through waves. The maximum bending moment amidships,
which results in the maximum primary stress, does not necessarily occur in phase with the maximum local pressure
on a midship panel of bottom structure (secondary stress)
or panel of plating (tertiary stress).
Third, the maximum values of primary, secondary, and
tertiary stress are not necessarily in the same direction or
even in the same part of the structure. In order to visualize
this, consider a panel of bottom structure with longitudinal
framing. The forward and after boundaries of the panel will
be at transverse bulkheads. The primary stress (σ1) will act
in the longitudinal direction, as given by equation 29. It will
be nearly equal in the plating and the stiffeners, and will be
approximately constant over the length of a midship panel.
There will be a small transverse component in the plating,
due to the Poison coefficient, and a shear stress given by
equation 35. The secondary stress will probably be greater
in the free flanges of the stiffeners than in the plating, since
the combined neutral axis of the stiffener/plate combination is usually near the plate-stiffener joint. Secondary
stresses, which vary over the length of the panel, are usually subdivided into two parts in the case of single hull structure. The first part (σ2) is associated with bending of a panel
of structure bounded by transverse bulkheads and either the
side shell or the longitudinal bulkheads. The principal stiffeners, in this case, are the center and any side longitudinal
girders, and the transverse web frames. The second part,
(σ2*), is the stress resulting from the bending of the smaller
panel of plating plus longitudinal stiffeners that is bounded
by the deep web frames. The first of these components (σ2),
as a result of the proportions of the panels of structure, is
usually larger in the transverse than in the longitudinal direction. The second (σ2*) is predominantly longitudinal.
The maximum tertiary stress (σ3) happens, of course, in the
plate where biaxial stresses occur. In the case of longitudinal stiffeners, the maximum panel tertiary stress will act in
the transverse direction (normal to the framing system) at
the mid-length of a long side.
In certain cases, there will be an appreciable shear stress
component present in the plate, and the proper interpretation and assessment of the stress level will require the resolution of the stress pattern into principal stress components.
From all these considerations, it is evident that, in many
cases, the point in the structure having the highest stress level
will not always be immediately obvious, but must be found
by considering the combined stress effects at a number of
different locations and times.
The nominal stresses produced from the analysis will be
a combination of the stress components shown in Figures
18.21 and 18.37.
18.4.7.1 von Mises equivalent stress
The yield strength of the material, σyield, is defined as the
measured stress at which appreciable nonlinear behavior
accompanied by permanent plastic deformation of the material occurs. The ultimate strength is the highest level of
stress achieved before the test specimen fractures. For most
shipbuilding steels, the yield and tensile strengths in tension and compression are assumed equal.
The stress criterion that must be used is one in which it
is possible to compare the actual multi-axial stress with the
material strength expressed in terms of a single value for
the yield or ultimate stress.
For this purpose, there are several theories of material
failure in use. The one usually considered the most suitable
for ductile materials such as ship steel is referred to as the
von Mises Theory:
(
σ e = σ 2x + σ 2y − σ x σ y + 3 τ 2
)
1
2
[45]
Consider a plane stress field in which the component
stresses are σx, σy and τ. The distortion energy states that
Figure 18.37 Definition of Stress Components (4)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-35 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
failure through yielding will occur if the equivalent von
Mises stress, σe, given by equation 45 exceeds the equivalent stress, σο, corresponding to yielding of the material test
specimen. The material yield strength may also be expressed
through an equivalent stress at failure: σ0 = σyield (= σy).
18.4.7.2 Permissible stresses (Yielding)
In actual service, a ship may be subjected to bending in the
inclined position and to other forces, such as those, which
induce torsion or side bending in the hull girder, not to mention the dynamic effects resulting from the motions of the
ship itself. Heretofore it has been difficult to arrive at the
minimum scantlings for a large ship’s hull by first principles alone, since the forces that the structure might be required to withstand in service conditions are uncertain.
Accordingly, it must be assumed that the allowable stress
includes an adequate factor of safety, or margin, for these
uncertain loading factors.
In practice, the margin against yield failure of the structure is obtained by a comparison of the structure’s von Mises
equivalent stress, σe, against the permissible stress (or allowable stress), σ0, giving the result:
σe ≤ σ0 = s1 × σy
[46]
where:
s1 = partial safety factor defined by classification societies,
which depends on the loading conditions and method
of analysis. For 20 years North Atlantic conditions
(seagoing condition), the s1 factor is usually taken between 0.85 and 0.95
σy = minimum yield point of the considered steel (mild
steel, high tensile steel, etc.)
For special ship types, different permissible stresses may
be specified for different parts of the hull structure. For example, for LNG carriers, there are special strain requirements in way of the bonds for the containment system, which
in turn can be expressed as equivalent stress requirements.
For local areas subjected to many cycles of load reversal, fatigue life must be calculated and a reduced permissible stress may be imposed to prevent fatigue failure (see
Subsection 18.6.6).
18.5 LIMIT STATES AND FAILURE MODES
Avoidance of structural failure is the goal of all structural
designers, and to achieve this goal it is necessary for the designer to be aware of the potential limit states, failure modes
and methods of predicting their occurrence. This section
presents the basic types of failure modes and associated limit
18-35
states. A more elaborate description of the failure modes and
methods to assess the structural capabilities in relation to
these failure modes is available in Subsection 18.6.1.
Classically, the different limit states were divided in 2
major categories: the service limit state and the ultimate
limit state. Today, from the viewpoint of structural design,
it seems more relevant to use for the steel structures four
types of limit states, namely:
1.
2.
3.
4.
service or serviceability limit state,
ultimate limit state,
fatigue limit state, and
accidental limit state.
This classification has recently been adopted by ISO.
A service limit state corresponds to the situation where
the structure can no longer provide the service for which it
was conceived, for example: excessive deck deflection, elastic buckling in a plate, and local cracking due to fatigue.
Typically they relate to aesthetic, functional or maintenance
problem, but do not lead to collapse.
An ultimate limit state corresponds to collapse/failure,
including collision and grounding. A classic example of ultimate limit state is the ultimate hull bending moment (Figure 18.46). The ultimate limit state is symbolized by the
higher point (C) of the moment-curvature curve (M-Φ).
Fatigue can be either considered as a third limit state or,
classically, considered as a service limit state. Even if it is
also a matter of discussion, yielding should be considered
as a service limit state. First yield is sometimes used to assess the ultimate state, for instance for the ultimate hull
bending moment, but basically, collapse occurs later. Most
of the time, vibration relates to service limit states.
In practice, it is important to differentiate service, ultimate, fatigue and accidental limit states because the partial
safety factors associated with these limit states are generally different.
18.5.1 Basic Types of Failure Modes
Ship structural failure may occur as a result of a variety of
causes, and the degree or severity of the failure may vary
from a minor esthetic degradation to catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the ship. Three major failure modes are
defined:
1. tensile or compressive yield of the material (plasticity),
2. compressive instability (buckling), and
3. fracture that includes ductile tensile rupture, low-cycle
fatigue and brittle fracture.
Yield occurs when the stress in a structural member exceeds a level that results in a permanent plastic deforma-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-36 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-36
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
tion of the material of which the member is constructed. This
stress level is termed the material yield stress. At a somewhat higher stress, termed the ultimate stress, fracture of
the material occurs. While many structural design criteria
are based upon the prevention of any yield whatsoever, it
should be observed that localized yield in some portions of
a structure is acceptable. Yield must be considered as a serviceability limit state.
Instability and buckling failure of a structural member
loaded in compression may occur at a stress level that is substantially lower than the material yield stress. The load at
which instability or buckling occurs is a function of member geometry and material elasticity modulus, that is, slenderness, rather than material strength. The most common
example of an instability failure is the buckling of a simple
column under a compressive load that equals or exceeds
the Euler Critical Load. A plate in compression also will
have a critical buckling load whose value depends on the
plate thickness, lateral dimensions, edge support conditions
and material elasticity modulus. In contrast to the column,
however, exceeding this load by a small margin will not
necessarily result in complete collapse of the plate but only
in an elastic deflection of the central portion of the plate away
from its initial plane. After removal of the load, the plate
may return to its original un-deformed configuration (for
elastic buckling). The ultimate load that may be carried by
a buckled plate is determined by the onset of yielding at some
point in the plate material or in the stiffeners, in the case of
a stiffened panel. Once begun, yield may propagate rapidly
throughout the entire plate or stiffened panel with further
increase in load.
Fatigue failure occurs as a result of a cumulative effect
in a structural member that is exposed to a stress pattern alternating from tension to compression through many cycles. Conceptually, each cycle of stress causes some small
but irreversible damage within the material and, after the
accumulation of enough such damage, the ability of the
member to withstand loading is reduced below the level of
the applied load. Two categories of fatigue damage are generally recognized and they are termed high-cycle and lowcycle fatigue. In high-cycle fatigue, failure is initiated in
the form of small cracks, which grow slowly and which
may often be detected and repaired before the structure is
endangered. High-cycle fatigue involves several millions
of cycles of relatively low stress (less than yield) and is typically encountered in machine parts rotating at high speed
or in structural components exposed to severe and prolonged
vibration. Low-cycle fatigue involves higher stress levels,
up to and beyond yield, which may result in cracks being
initiated after several thousand cycles.
The loading environment that is typical of ships and
ocean structures is of such a nature that the cyclical stresses
may be of a relatively low level during the greater part of
the time, with occasional periods of very high stress levels
caused by storms. Exposure to such load conditions may
result in the occurrence of low-cycle fatigue cracks after an
interval of a few years. These cracks may grow to serious
size if they are not detected and repaired.
Concerning brittle fracture, small cracks suddenly begin
to grow and travel almost explosively through a major portion of the structure. The term brittle fracture refers to the
fact that below a certain temperature, the ultimate tensile
strength of steel diminishes sharply (lower impact energy).
The originating crack is usually found to have started as a
result of poor design or manufacturing practice. Fatigue
(Subsection 18.6.6) is often found to play an important role
in the initiation and early growth of such originating cracks.
The prevention of brittle fracture is largely a matter of material selection and proper attention to the design of structural details in order to avoid stress concentrations. The
control of brittle fracture involves a combination of design
and inspection standards aimed toward the prevention of
stress concentrations, and the selection of steels having a
high degree of notch toughness, especially at low temperatures. Quality control during construction and in-service inspection form key elements in a program of fracture control.
In addition to these three failure modes, additional modes
are:
• collision and grounding, and
• vibration and noise.
Collision and Grounding is discussed in Subsection
18.6.7 and Vibration in Subsection 18.6.8. Vibration as well
as noise is not a failure mode, while it could fall into the
serviceability limit state.
18.6 ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURAL
CAPACITY
18.6.1 Failure Modes Classification
The types of failure that may occur in ship structures are
generally those that are characteristic of structures made up
of stiffened panels assembled through welding. Figure 18.38
presents the different structure levels: the global structure,
usually a cargo hold (Level 1), the orthotropic stiffened
panel or grillage (Level 2) and the interframe longitudinally stiffened panel (Level 3) or its simplified modeling:
the beam-column (Level 3b). Level 4 (Figure 18.44a) is the
unstiffened plate between two longitudinals and two transverse frames (also called bare plate).
The word grillage should be reserve to a structure com-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-37 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
posed of a grid of beams (without attached plating). When
the grid is fixed on a plate, orthotropic stiffened panel seems
to the authors more adequate to define a panel that is orthogonally stiffened, and having thus orthotropic properties.
The relations between the different failure modes and
structure levels can be summarized as follows:
• Level 1: Ultimate bending moment, Mu, of the global
structure (Figure 18.46).
• Level 2: Ultimate strength of compressed orthotropic
stiffened panels (σu),
σu = min [σu (mode i)], i = I to VI,
the 6 considered failure modes.
• Level 3:
Mode I: Overall buckling collapse (Figure 18.44d),
Mode II: Plate/Stiffener Yielding
Mode III: Pult of interframe panels with a plate-stif
ener combination (Figure 18.44b) using a beam-column model (Level 3b) or an orthotropic model (Level
3), considering:
18-37
— plate induced failure (buckling)
— stiffener induced failure (buckling or yielding)
Mode IV and V: Instability of stiffeners (local buckling, tripping—Figure 18.44c)
Mode VI: Gross Yielding
• Level 4: Buckling collapse of unstiffened plate (bare
plate, Figure 18.44a).
To avoid collapse related to the Mode I, a minimal rigidity is generally imposed for the transverse frames so that an
interframe panel collapse (Mode III) always occurs prior to
overall buckling (Mode I). It is a simple and easy constraint
to implement, thus avoiding any complex calculation of
overall buckling (mode I).
Note that the failure Mode III is influenced by the buckling of the bare plate (elementary unstiffened plate). Elastic buckling of theses unstiffened plates is usually not
considered as an ultimate limit state (failure mode), but
rather as a service limit state. Nevertheless, plate buckling
(Level 4) may significantly affect the ultimate strength of
the stiffened panel (Level 3).
Sources of the failures associated with the serviceability or ultimate limit states can be classified as follows:
18.6.1.1 Stiffened panel failure modes
Service limit state
• Upper and lower bounds (Xmin≤X≤Xmax): plate thickness, dimensions of longitudinals and transverse stiffeners (web, flange and spacing).
• Maximum allowable stresses against first yield (Subsection 18.4.7)
• Panel and plate deflections (Subsections 18.4.4.1 and
18.4.5.2), and deflection of support members.
• Elastic buckling of unstiffened plates between two longitudinals and two transverse stiffeners, frames or bulkheads (Subsection 18.6.3),
• Local elastic buckling of longitudinal stiffeners (web
and flange). Often the stiffener web/flange buckling does
not induce immediate collapse of the stiffened panel as
tripping does. It could therefore be considered as a serviceability ultimate limit state. However, this failure mode
could also be classified into the ultimate limit state since
the plating may sometimes remain without stiffening
once the stiffener web buckles.
• Vibration (Sub-ection 18.6.8)
• Fatigue (Sub-ection 18.6.6)
Ultimate limit state (Subsection 18.6.4).
Figure 18.38 Structural Modeling of the Structure and its Components
• Overall collapse of orthotropic panels (entire stiffened
plate structure),
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-38 4/28/03 1:30 PM
18-38
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
• Collapse of interframe longitudinally stiffened panel,
including torsional-flexural (lateral-torsional) buckling
of stiffeners (also called tripping).
18.6.1.2 Frame failure modes
Service limit state (Subsection 18.4.6).
• Upper and lower bounds (Xmin ≤ X ≤ Xmax),
• Minimal rigidity to guarantee rigid supports to the interframe panels (between two transverse frames).
• Allowable stresses under the resultant forces (bending,
shear, torsion)
— Elastic analysis,
— Elasto-plastic analysis.
• Fatigue (Subsection 18.6.6)
Ultimate limit state
• Frame bucklings: These failures modes are considered
as ultimate limit states rather than a service limit state.
If one of them appears, the assumption of rigid supports
is no longer valid and the entire stiffened panel can reach
the ultimate limit state.
— Buckling of the compressed members,
— Local buckling (web, flange).
18.6.1.3 Hull Girder Collapse modes
Service limit state
• Allowable stresses and first yield (Subsection 18.4.3.1),
• Deflection of the global structure and relative deflections of components and panels (Subsection 18.4.3.7).
Ultimate limit state
• Global ultimate strength (of the hull girder/box girder).
This can be done by considering an entire cargo hold or
only the part between two transverse web frames (Subsection 18.6.5). Collapse of frames is assumed to only
appear after the collapse of panels located between these
frames. This means that it is sufficient to verify the box
girder ultimate strength between two frames to be protected against a more general collapse including, for instance, one or more frame spans. This approach can be
un-conservative if the frames are not stiff enough.
• Collision and grounding (Subsection 18.6.7), which is
in fact an accidental limit state.
A relevant comparative list of the limit states was defined by the Ship Structure Committee Report No 375 (32).
18.6.2 Yielding
As explained in Subsection 18.5.1 yield occurs when the
stress in a structural component exceeds the yield stress.
It is necessary to distinguish between first yield state and
fully plastic state. In bending, first yield corresponds to the
situation when stress in the extreme fiber reaches the yield
stress. If the bending moment continues to increase the yield
area is growing. The final stage corresponds to the Plastic
Moment (Mp), where, both the compression and tensile sides
are fully yielded (as shown on Figure 18.47).
Yield can be assessed using basic bending theory, equation 29, up to complex 3D nonlinear FE analysis. Design
criteria related to first yield is the von Mises equivalent
stress (equation 45).
Yielding is discussed in detail in Section 18.4.
18.6.3 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Plates
A ship stiffened plate structure can become unstable if either buckling or collapse occurs and may thus fail to perform its function. Hence plate design needs to be such that
instability under the normal operation is prevented (Figure
18.44a). The phenomenon of buckling is normally divided
into three categories, namely elastic buckling, elastic-plastic buckling and plastic buckling, the last two being called
inelastic buckling. Unlike columns, thin plating buckled in
the elastic regime may still be stable since it can normally
sustain further loading until the ultimate strength is reached,
even if the in-plane stiffness significantly decreases after the
inception of buckling. In this regard, the elastic buckling of
plating between stiffeners may be allowed in the design,
sometimes intentionally in order to save weight. Since significant residual strength of the plating is not expected after
buckling occurs in the inelastic regime, however, inelastic
buckling is normally considered to be the ultimate strength
of the plate.
The buckling and ultimate strength of the structure depends on a variety of influential factors, namely geometric/material properties, loading characteristics, fabrication
related imperfections, boundary conditions and local damage related to corrosion, fatigue cracking and denting.
18.6.3.1 Direct Analysis
In estimating the load-carrying capacity of plating between
stiffeners, it is usually assumed that the stiffeners are stable and fail only after the plating. This means that the stiffeners should be designed with proper proportions that help
attain such behavior. Thus, webs, faceplates and flanges of
the stiffeners or support members have to be proportioned
so that local instability is prevented prior to the failure of
plating.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-39 4/28/03 1:30 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
Four load components, namely longitudinal compression/tension, transverse compression/tension, edge shear and
lateral pressure loads, are typically considered to act on ship
plating between stiffeners, as shown in Figure 18.39, while
the in-plane bending effects on plate buckling are also sometimes accounted for. In actual ship structures, lateral pressure loading arises from water pressure and cargo weight.
The still water magnitude of water pressure depends on the
vessel draft, and the still water value of cargo pressure is determined by the amount and density of cargo loaded.
These still water pressure values may be augmented by
wave action and vessel motion. Typically the larger in-plane
loads are caused by longitudinal hull girder bending, both
in still water and in waves at sea, which is the source of the
primary stress as previously noted in Subsection 18.4.3.
The elastic plate buckling strength components under
single types of loads, that is, σxE for σxav, σyE for σyav and
τE for τav, can be calculated by taking into account the related effects arising from in-plane bending, lateral pressure,
cut-outs, edge conditions and welding induced residual
stresses.
The critical (elastic-plastic) buckling strength components under single types of loads, that is, σxB for σxav, σyB
for σyav and τB for τav, are typically calculated by plasticity
correction of the corresponding elastic buckling strength
using the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula, namely:
 σ E for σ E

σB = 
σF

 σ F  1 − 4 σ
E

≤ 0.5 σ F

 for σ E > 0.5 σ F

where:
σE = elastic plate buckling strength
Figure 18.39 A Simply Supported Rectangular Plate Subject to Biaxial
Compression/tension, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads
[47]
18-39
σB = critical buckling strength (that is, τB for
shear stress)
σF = σY for
4 normal stress
= σY √3 for shear stress
σY = material yield stress
In ship rules and books, equation 47 may appear with
somewhat different constants depending on the structural
proportional limit assumed. The above form assumes a structural proportional limit of a half the applicable yield value.
For axial tensile loading, the critical strength may be
considered to equal the material yield stress (σY).
Under single types of loads, the critical plate buckling
strength must be greater than the corresponding applied
stress component with the relevant margin of safety. For
combined biaxial compression/tension and edge shear, the
following type of critical buckling strength interaction criterion would need to be satisfied, for example:
c
σ xav σ yav  σ yav
 σ xav 
+

 −α
σ xB σ yB  σ yB
 σ xB 
c
  τ av
 +  τ

B
c

 ≤ η B [48]

where:
ηB = usage factor for buckling strength, which is typically
the inverse of the conventional partial safety factor.
ηB = 1.0 is often taken for direct strength calculation, while
it is taken less than 1.0 for practical design in accordance with classification society rules.
Compressive stress is taken as negative while tensile
stress is taken as positive and α = 0 if both σxav and σyav are
compressive, and α = 1 if either σxav or σyav or both are tensile. The constant c is often taken as c = 2.
Figure 18.40 shows a typical example of the axial membrane stress distribution inside a plate element under predominantly longitudinal compressive loading before and
after buckling occurs. It is noted that the membrane stress
distribution in the loading (x) direction can become nonuniform as the plate element deforms. The membrane stress
distribution in the y direction may also become non-uniform with the unloaded plate edges remaining straight, while
no membrane stresses will develop in the y direction if the
unloaded plate edges are free to move in plane. As evident,
the maximum compressive membrane stresses are developed
around the plate edges that remain straight, while the minimum membrane stresses occur in the middle of the plate
element where a membrane tension field is formed by the
plate deflection since the plate edges remain straight.
With increase in the deflection of the plate keeping the
edges straight, the upper and/or lower fibers inside the middle of the plate element will initially yield by the action of
bending. However, as long as it is possible to redistribute
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-40 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-40
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
Figure 18.41 Possible Locations for the Initial Plastic Yield at the Plate Edges
(Expected yield locations, T: Tension, C: Compression); (a) Yield at longitudinal
mid-edges under longitudinal uniaxial compression, (b) Yield at transverse
mid-edges under transverse uniaxial compression)
tions are longitudinal mid-edges for longitudinal uniaxial
compressive loads and transverse mid-edges for transverse
uniaxial compressive loads, as shown in Figure 18.41.
The occurrence of yielding can be assessed by using the
von Mises yield criterion (equation 45). The following conditions for the most probable yield locations will then be
found.
(a) Yielding at longitudinal edges:
σ 2x max − σ x max σ y min + σ 2y min = σ 2Y
[49a]
(b) Yielding at transverse edges:
Figure 18.40 Membrane Stress Distribution Inside the Plate Element under
Predomianntly Longitudinal Compressive Loads; (a) Before buckling, (b) After
buckling, unloaded edges move freely in plane, (c) After buckling, unloaded
edges kept straight
the applied loads to the straight plate boundaries by the
membrane action, the plate element will not collapse. Collapse will then occur when the most stressed boundary locations yield, since the plate element can not keep the
boundaries straight any further, resulting in a rapid increase
of lateral plate deflection (33). Because of the nature of applied axial compressive loading, the possible yield loca-
σ 2x min − σ x min σ y max + σ 2y max = σ 2Y
[49b]
The maximum and minimum membrane stresses of equations 49a and 49b can be expressed in terms of applied
stresses, lateral pressure loads and fabrication related initial imperfections, by solving the nonlinear governing differential equations of plating, based on equilibrium and
compatibility equations. Note that equation 44 is the linear
differential equation.
On the other hand, the plate ultimate edge shear strength,
τu , is often taken τu =τB (equation 47, with τB instead of σB).
Also, an empirical formula obtained by curve fitting based
on nonlinear finite element solutions may be utilized (33).
The effect of lateral pressure loads on the plate ultimate edge
shear strength may in some cases need to be accounted for.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-41 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18-41
For combined biaxial compression/tension, edge shear
and lateral pressure loads, the last being usually regarded
as a given constant secondary load, the plate ultimate
strength interaction criterion may also be given by an expression similar to equation 48, but replacing the critical
buckling strength components by the corresponding ultimate strength components, as follows:
c
σ xav σ yav  σ yav
 σ xav 
+

 −α
σ xu σ yu
 σ xu 
 σ yu
c
  τ av
 +  τ

u
c

 ≤ η u [50]

where:
α and c = variables defined in equation 48
ηu = usage factors for the ultimate limit state
σxu and σyu = solutions of equation 49a with regard to σxav
and equation 49b with regard to σyav, respectively
18.6.3.2 Simplified models
In the interest of simplicity, the elastic plate buckling strength
components under single types of loads may sometimes be
calculated by neglecting the effects of in-plane bending or
lateral pressure loads. Without considering the effect of lateral pressure, the resulting elastic buckling strength prediction would be pessimistic. While the plate edges are often
supposed to be simply supported, that is, without rotational
restraints along the plate/stiffener junctions, the real elastic
buckling strength with rotational restraints would of course
be increased by a certain percentages, particularly for heavy
stiffeners. This arises from the increased torsional restraint
provided at the plate edges in such cases.
The theoretical solution for critical buckling stress, σB ,
in the elastic range has been found for a number of cases
of interest. For rectangular plate subject to compressive inplane stress in one direction:
σB = kc
2
π2E
 t
12 (1 − ν 2 )  b 
[51]
Here kc is a function of the plate aspect ratio, α = a/ b,
the boundary conditions on the plate edges and the type of
loading. If the load is applied uniformly to a pair of opposite edges only, and if all four edges are simply supported,
then kc is given by:
m α 2
kc =  + 
 α m
[52]
where m is the number of half-waves of the deflected plate
in the longitudinal direction, which is taken as an integer
satisfying the condition α = m (m + 1). For long plate in
Figure 18.42 Compressive Buckling Coefficient for Plates in Compression; for
5 Configurations (2) (A, B, C, D and E) where Boundary Conditions of Unloaded
Edges are: SS: Simply Supported, C: Clamped, and F: Free
compression (a > b), kc = 4, and for wide plate (a ≤ b) in
compression, kc = (1 + b2 / a2)2, for simply supported edges.
For shear force, the critical buckling shear stress, τB, can
also be obtain by equation 51 and the buckling coefficient
for simply supported edges is:
kc = 5.34 + 4(b/a)2
[53]
Figure 18.42 presents, kc, versus the aspect ratio, a/b, for
different configurations of rectangular plates in compression.
For the simplified prediction of the plate ultimate strength
under uniaxial compressive loads, one of the most common approaches is to assume that the plate will collapse if the maximum compressive stress at the plate corner reaches the material
yield stress, namely σx max = σY for σxav or σy max = σY for σyav.
This assumption is relevant when the unloaded edges
move freely in plane as that shown in Figure 40(b). Another
approximate method is to use the plate effective width concept, which provides the plate ultimate strength components
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-42 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-42
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
under uniaxial compressive stresses (σxu and σyu), as follow:
σ yu
σ xu
b
a
= eu and
= eu
σY
b
σY
a
[54]
where aeu and beu are the plate effective length and width at
the ultimate limit state, respectively.
While a number of the plate effective width expressions
have been developed, a typical approach is exemplified by
Faulkner, who suggests an empirical effective width (beu /b)
formula for simply supported steel plates, as follows,
• for longitudinal axial compression (34),
1 for β < 1
b eu

c2
=  c1
b
 β − β 2 for β ≥ 1

[55a]
• for transverse axial compression (35),
a eu
0.9 b 1.9 
0.9 
=
+
1−

a
a β 
β2
β2 
[55b]
where:
σY
β= b
is the plate slenderness
t
E
E = the Young’s modulus
t = the plate thickness
c1 , c2 = typically taken as c1 = 2 and c2 = 1
The plate ultimate strength components under uniaxial
compressive loads are therefore predicted by substituting
the plate effective width formulae (equation 55a) into equation 54.
More charts and formulations are available in many
books, for example, Bleich (36), ECCS-56 (37), Hughes
(3) and Lewis (2). In addition, the design strength of plate
(unstiffened panels) is detailed in Chapter 19, Subsection
19.5.4.1, including an example of reliability-based design
and alternative equations to equations 56 and 57.
18.6.3.3 Design criteria
When a single load component is involved, the buckling or
ultimate strength must be greater than the corresponding applied stress component with an appropriate target partial
safety factor. In a multiple load component case, the structural safety check is made with equation 48 against buckling and equation 50 against ultimate limit state being
satisfied.
To ensure that the possible worst condition is met (buckling and yield) for the ship, several stress combination must
be considered, as the maximum longitudinal and transverse
compression do not occur simultaneously. For instance,
DNV (4) recommends:
• maximum compression, σx, in a plate field and phase
angle associated with σy, τ (buckling control),
• maximum compression, σy, in a plate field and phase
angle associated with σx, τ (buckling control),
• absolute maximum shear stress, τ, in a plate field and
phase angle associated with σx, σy (buckling control),
and
• maximum equivalent von Mises stress, σe, at given positions (yield control).
In order to get σx and σy, the following stress components may normally be considered for the buckling control:
σ1 = stress from primary response, and
σ2 = stress from secondary response (that is, double
bottom bending).
As the lateral bending effects should be normally included in the buckling strength formulation, stresses from
local bending of stiffeners (secondary response), σ2*, and
local bending of plate (tertiary response), σ3, must therefore not to be included in the buckling control. If FE-analysis is performed the local plate bending stress, σ3, can easily
be excluded using membrane stresses.
18.6.4 Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Stiffened
Panels
For the structural capacity analysis of stiffened panels, it is
presumed that the main support members including longitudinal girders, transverse webs and deep beams are designed with proper proportions and stiffening systems so
that their instability is prevented prior to the failure of the
stiffened panels they support.
In many ship stiffened panels, the stiffeners are usually
attached in one direction alone, but for generality, the design criteria often consider that the panel can have stiffeners in one direction and webs or girders in the other, this
arrangement corresponds to a typical ship stiffened panels
(Figure 18.43a). The stiffeners and webs/girders are attached to only one side of the panel.
The number of load components acting on stiffened steel
panels are generally of four types, namely biaxial loads, that
is compression or tension, edge shear, biaxial in-plane bending and lateral pressure, as shown in Figure 18.43. When the
panel size is relatively small compared to the entire structure,
the influence of in-plane bending effects may be negligible.
However, for a large stiffened panel such as that in side
shell of ships, the effect of in-plane bending may not be
negligible, since the panel may collapse by failure of stiff-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-43 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
eners which are loaded by largest added portion of axial
compression due to in-plane bending moments.
When the stiffeners are relatively small so that they
buckle together with the plating, the stiffened panel typically behaves as an orthotropic plate. In this case, the average values of the applied axial stresses may be used by
neglecting the influence of in-plane bending. When the stiffeners are relatively stiff so that the plating between stiffeners buckles before failure of the stiffeners, the ultimate
strength is eventually reached by failure of the most highly
stressed stiffeners. In this case, the largest values of the axial
compressive or tensile stresses applied at the location of the
stiffeners are used for the failure analysis of the stiffeners.
In stiffened panels of ship structures, material properties of
the stiffeners including the yield stress are in some cases
18-43
different from that of the plate. It is therefore necessary to
take into account this effect in the structural capacity formulations, at least approximately.
For analysis of the ultimate strength capacity of stiffened
panels which are supported by longitudinal girders, transverse webs and deep beams, it is often assumed that the
panel edges are simply supported, with zero deflection and
zero rotational restraints along four edges, with all edges
kept straight.
This idealization may provide somewhat pessimistic,
but adequate predictions of the ultimate strength of stiffened
panels supported by heavy longitudinal girders, transverse
webs and deep beams (or bulkheads).
Today, direct non-linear strength assessment methods
using recognized programs is usual (38). The model should
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 18.44 Modes of Failures by Buckling of a Stiffened Panel (2).
(a) Elastic buckling of plating between stiffeners (serviceability limit state).
(b) Flexural buckling of stiffeners including plating (plate-stiffener combination,
Figure 18.43 A Stiffened Steel Panel Under Biaxial Compression/Tension,
mode III).
Biaxial In-plane Bending, Edge Shear and Lateral Pressure Loads. (a) Stiffened
(c) Lateral-torsional buckling of stiffeners (tripping—mode V).
Panel—Longitudinals and Frames (4), and (b) A Generic Stiffened Panel (38).
(d) Overall stiffened panel buckling (grillage or gross panel buckling—mode I).
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-44 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-44
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
be capable of capturing all relevant buckling modes and
detrimental interactions between them. The fabrication related initial imperfections in the form of initial deflections
(plates, stiffeners) and residual stresses can in some cases
significantly affect (usually reduce) the ultimate strength of
the panel so that they should be taken into account in the
strength computations as parameters of influence.
18.6.4.1 Direct analysis
The primary modes for the ultimate limit state of a stiffened
panel subject to predominantly axial compressive loads may
be categorized as follows (Figure 18.44):
• Mode I: Overall collapse after overall buckling,
• Mode II: Plate induced failure—yielding of the platestiffener combination at panel edges,
• Mode III: Plate induced failure—flexural buckling followed by yielding of the plate-stiffener combination at
mid-span,
• Mode IV: Stiffener induced failure—local buckling of
stiffener web,
• Mode V: Stiffener induced failure—tripping of stiffener,
and
• Mode VI: Gross yielding.
Calculation of the ultimate strength of the stiffened panel
under combined loads taking into account all of the possible failure modes noted above is not straightforward, because of the interplay of the various factors previously noted
such as geometric and material properties, loading, fabrication related initial imperfections (initial deflection and
welding induced residual stresses) and boundary conditions.
As an approximation, the collapse of stiffened panels is then
usually postulated to occur at the lowest value among the
various ultimate loads calculated for each of the above collapse patterns.
This leads to the easier alternative wherein one calculates the ultimate strengths for all collapse modes mentioned
above separately and then compares them to find the minimum value which is then taken to correspond to the real
panel ultimate strength. The failure mode of stiffened panels is a broad topic that cannot be covered totally within this
chapter. Many simplified design methods have of course
been previously developed to estimate the panel ultimate
strength, considering one or more of the failure modes
among those mentioned above. Some of those methods have
been reviewed by the ISSC’2000 (39). On the other hand,
a few authors provide a complete set of formulations that
cover all the feasible failure modes noted previously, namely,
Dowling et al (40), Hughes (3), Mansour et al (41,42), and
more recently Paik (38).
Assessment of different formulations by comparison
with experimental and/or FE analysis are available (43-45).
An example of reliability-based assessment of the stiffened panel strength is presented in Chapter 19. Formulations of Herzog, Hughes and Adamchack are also discussed.
18.6.4.2 Simplified models
Existing simplified methods for predicting the ultimate
strength of stiffened panels typically use one or more of the
following approaches:
• orthotropic plate approach,
• plate-stiffener combination approach (or beam-column
approach), and
• grillage approach.
These approaches are similar to those presented in Subsection 18.4.4.1 for linear analysis. All have the same background but, here, the buckling and the ultimate strength is
considered.
In the orthotropic plate approach, the stiffened panel is
idealized as an equivalent orthotropic plate by smearing the
stiffeners into the plating. The orthotropic plate theory will
then be useful for computation of the panel ultimate strength
for the overall grillage collapse mode (Mode I, Figure
18.44d), (31,46,48).
The plate-stiffener combination approach (also called
beam-column approach) models the stiffened panel behavior by that of a single “beam” consisting of a stiffener together with the attached plating, as representative of the
stiffened panel (Figure 18.38, level 3b). The beam is considered to be subjected to axial and lateral line loads. The
torsional rigidity of the stiffened panel, the Poisson ratio effect and the effect of the intersecting beams are all neglected. The beam-column approach is useful for the
computation of the panel ultimate strength based on Mode
III, which is usually an important failure mode that must be
considered in design. The degree of accuracy of the beamcolumn idealization may become an important consideration when the plate stiffness is relatively large compared to
the rigidity of stiffeners and/or under significant biaxial
loading.
Stiffened panels are asymmetric in geometry about the
plate-plane. This necessitates strength control for both plate
induced failure and stiffener-induced failure.
Plate induced failure: Deflection away from the plate associated with yielding in compression at the connection between plate and stiffener. The characteristic buckling
strength for the plate is to be used.
Stiffener induced failure: Deflection towards the plate associated with yielding in compression in top of the stiffener
or torsional buckling of the stiffener.
Various column strength formulations have been used as
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-45 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
the basis of the beam-column approach, three of the more
common types being the following:
• Johnson-Ostenfeld (or Bleich-Ostenfeld) formulation,
• Perry-Robertson formulation, and
• empirical formulations obtained by curve fitting experimental or numerical data.
A stocky panel that has a high elastic buckling strength
will not buckle in the elastic regime and will reach the ultimate limit state with a certain degree of plasticity. In most
design rules of classification societies, the so-called Johnson-Ostenfeld formulation is used to account for this behavior (equation 47). On the other hand, in the so-called
Perry-Robertson formulation, the strength expression assumes that the stiffener with associated plating will collapse
as a beam-column when the maximum compressive stress in
the extreme fiber reaches the yield strength of the material.
In empirical approaches, the ultimate strength formulations are developed by curve fitting based on mechanical
collapse test results or numerical solutions. Even if limited
to a range of applicability (load types, slenderness ranges,
assumed level of initial imperfections, etc.) they are very
useful for preliminary design stage, uncertainty assessment
and as constraint in optimization package. While a vast number of empirical formulations (sometimes called column
curves) for ultimate strength of simple beams in steel framed
structures have been developed, relevant empirical formulae for plate-stiffener combination models are also available.
As an example of the latter type, Paik and Thayamballi (49)
developed an empirical formula for predicting the ultimate
strength of a plate-stiffener combination under axial compression in terms of both column and plate slenderness ratios, based on existing mechanical collapse test data for the
ultimate strength of stiffened panels under axial compression and with initial imperfections (initial deflections and
residual stresses) at an average level. Since the ultimate
strength of columns (σu) must be less than the elastic column buckling strength (σE), the Paik-Thayamballi empirical formula for a plate-stiffener combination is given by:
σu
=
σY
1
0.995
+ 0.936 λ 2 + 0.17 β 2 + 0.188 λ 2 β 2 − 0.067 λ 4
18-45
and
λ=
a
πr
σ
Y
=
E
σY
σE
where:
r = radius
4 of gyration
= √I / A, (m)
I = inertia, (m4)
A = cross section of the plate-stiffener combination with full
attached plating, (m2)
t = plate thickness, (m)
a = span of the stiffeners, (m)
b = spacing between 2 longitudinals, (m)
Note that A, I, r, ... refer to the full section of the platestiffener combination, that is, without considering an effective plating.
Figure 18.45 compares the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula
(equation 47), the Perry-Robertson formula and the PaikThayamballi empirical formula (equation 56) for on the column ultimate strength for a plate-stiffener combination
varying the column slenderness ratios, with selected initial
eccentricity and plate slenderness ratios. In usage of the
Perry-Roberson formula, the lower strength as obtained
from either plate induced failure or stiffener-induced failure is adopted herein. Interaction between bending axial
[56]
and
σu
σ
1
≤ 2 = E
σY
σY
λ
with
Figure 18.45 A Comparison of the Ultimate Strength Formulations for
b
β=
t
Y
σ
E
Plate-stiffener Combinations under Axial Compression (η relates to the
initial deflection)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-46 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-46
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
compression and lateral pressure can, within the same failure mode (Flexural Buckling—Mode III), leads to three-failure scenario: plate induced failure, stiffener induced failure
or a combined failure of stiffener and plating (see Chapter
19 – Figure 19.11 ).
18.6.4.3 Design criteria
The ultimate strength based design criteria of stiffened panels can also be defined by equation 50, but using the corresponding stiffened panel ultimate strength and stress
parameters. Either all of the six design criteria, that is, against
individual collapse modes I to VI noted above, or a single design criterion in terms of the real (minimum) ultimate strength
components must be satisfied. For stiffened panels following Mode I behavior, the safety check is similar to a plate,
using average applied stress components. The applied axial
stress components for safety evaluation of the stiffened panel
following Modes II–VI behavior will use the maximum axial
stresses at the most highly stressed stiffeners.
18.6.5 Ultimate Bending Moment of Hull Girder
Ultimate hull girder strength relates to the maximum load
that the hull girder can support before collapse. These loads
induce vertical and horizontal bending moment, torsional
moment, vertical and horizontal shear forces and axial force.
For usual seagoing vessels axial force can be neglected. As
the maximun shear forces and maximum bending moment
do not occur at the same place, ultimate hull girder strength
should be evaluated at different locations and for a range of
bending moments and shear forces.
The ultimate bending moment (Mu) refers to a combined
vertical and horizontal bending moments (Mv, Mh); the
transverse shear forces (Vv,Vh) not being considered. Then,
the ultimate bending moment only corresponds to one of
the feasible loading cases that induce hull girder collapse.
Today, Mu is considered as being a relevant design case.
Two major references related to the ultimate strength of
hull girder are, respectively, for extreme load and ultimate
strength, Jensen et al (24) and Yao et al (50). Both present
comprehensive works performed by the Special Task Committees of ISSC 2000. Yao (51) contains an historical review and a state of art on this matter.
Computation of Mu depends closely on the ultimate
strength of the structure’s constituent panels, and particularly
on the ultimate strength in compressed panels or components.
Figure 18.46 shows that in sagging, the deck is compressed
(σdeck) and reaches the ultimate limit state when σdeck = σu.
On the other hand, the bottom is in tensile and reaches its ultimate limit state after complete yielding, σbottom = σ0 (σ0
being the yield stress).
Basically, there exist two main approaches to evaluate
the hull girder ultimate strength of a ship’s hull under longitudinal bending moments. One, the approximate analysis, is to calculate the ultimate bending moment directly
(Mu, point C on Figure 18.46), and the other is to perform
progressive collapse analysis on a hull girder and obtain,
both, Mu and the curves M-φ.
The first approach, approximate analysis, requires an
assumption on the longitudinal stress distribution. Figure
18.47 shows several distributions corresponding to different methods. On the other hand, the progressive collapse
analysis does not need to know in advance this distribution.
Accordingly, to determine the global ultimate bending
moment (Mu), one must know in advance
• the ultimate strength of each compressed panel (σu), and
• the average stress-average strain relationship (σ−ε), to
perform a progressive collapse analysis.
For an approximate assessment, such as the Caldwell
method, only the ultimate strength of each compressed panel
(σu) is required.
18.6.5.1 Direct analysis
The direct analysis corresponds to the Progressive collapse
analysis. The methods include the typical numerical analy-
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 18.47 Typical Stress Distributions Used by Approximate Methods. (a)
First Yield. (b) Sagging Bending Moment (c) Evans (d) Paik—Mansour (e)
Figure 18.46 The Moment-Curvature Curve (M-Φ)
Caldwell Modified (f) Plastic Bending Moment.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-47 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
sis such as Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Idealized
structural Element method (ISUM) and Smith’s method,
which is a simplified procedure to perform progressive collapse analysis.
FEM: is the most rational way to evaluate the ultimate
hull girder strength through a progressive collapse analysis
on a ship’s hull girder. Both material and geometrical nonlinearities can be considered.
A 3D analysis of a hold or a ship’s section is fundamentally possible but very difficult to perform. This is because a ship’s hull is too large and complicated for such kind
of analysis. Nevertheless, since 1983 results of FEM analyses have been reported (52). Today, with the development
of computers, it is feasible to perform progressive collapse
analysis on a hull girder subjected to longitudinal bending
with fine mesh using ordinary elements. For instance, the
investigation committee on the causes of the Nakhodka casualty performed elastoplastic large deflection analysis with
nearly 200 000 elements (53).
However, the modeling and analysis of a complete hull
girder using FEM is an enormous task. For this reason the
analysis is more conveniently performed on a section of the
hull that sufficiently extends enough in the longitudinal direction to model the characteristic behavior. Thus, a typical analysis may concern one frame spacing in a whole
compartment (cargo tank). These analyses have to be supplemented by information on the bending and shear loads
that act at the fore and aft transverse loaded sections. Such
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has shown that accuracy is
limited because of the boundary conditions along the transverse sections where the loading is applied, the position of
the neutral axis along the length of the analyzed section and
the difficulty to model the residual stresses.
Idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM): presented in
Subsection 18.7.3.1, can also be used to perform progressive collapse analysis. It allows calculating the ultimate
bending moment through a 3D progressive collapse analysis of an entire cargo hold. For that purpose, new elements
to simulate the actual collapse of deck and bottom plating
are actually underdevelopment.
Smith’s Method (Figure 18.48): A convenient alternative to FEM is the Smith’s progressive collapse analysis
(54), which consists of the following three steps (55).
Step 1: Modeling (mesh modeling of the cross-section
into elements),
Step 2: Derivation of average stress-average strain relationship of each element (σ−ε curve), Figure
18.49a.
Step 3: To perform progressive collapse analysis, Figure
18.49b.
18-47
Figure 18.48 The Smith’s Progressive Collapse Method
(a)
(b)
Figure 18.49 Influence of Element Average Stress-Average Strain Curves
(σ−ε) on Progressive Collapse Behavior. (a) Average stress-average strain
relationships of element, and (b) moment-curvature relationship of crosssection.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-48 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-48
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
In Step 1, the cross-section of a hull girder is divided
into elements composed of a longitudinal stiffener and attached plating. In Step 2, the average stress-average strain
relationship (σ−ε) of this stiffener element is derived under
the axial load considering the influences of buckling and
yielding. Step 3 can be explained as follows:
• axial rigidities of individual elements are calculated using
the average stress-average strain relationships (σ−ε),
• flexural rigidity of the cross-section is evaluated using
the axial rigidities of elements,
• vertical and horizontal curvatures of the hull girder are
applied incrementally with the assumption that the plane
cross-section remains plane and that the bending occurs
about the instantaneous neutral axis of the cross-section,
• the corresponding incremental bending moments are
evaluated and so the strain and stress increments in individual elements, and
• incremental curvatures and bending moments of the
cross-section as well as incremental strains and stresses
of elements are summed up to provide their cumulative
values.
Figure 18.48 shows that the σ−ε curves are used to estimate the bending moment carried by the complete transverse section (Mi). The contribution of each element (dM)
depends on its location in the section, and specifically on
its distance from the current position of the neutral axis (Yi).
The contribution will then also depend on the strain that is
applied to it, since ε = –y φ, where φ is the hull curvature
and y is the distance from the neutral axis (simple beam assumption). The average stress-average strain curve (σ-ε)
will then provide an estimate of the longitudinal stress (σi)
acting on the section. Individual moments about the neutral axis are then summed to give the total bending moment
for a particular curvature φi.
The accuracy of the calculated ultimate bending moment depends on the accuracy of the average stress-average strain relationships of individual elements. Main
difficulties concern the modeling of initial imperfections
(deflection and welding residual stress) and the boundary
conditions (multi-span model, interaction between adjacent
elements, etc.).
Many formulations and methods to calculate these average stress-average strain relationships are available:
Adamchack (56), Beghin et al (57), Dow et al (58), Gordo
and Guedes Soares (59,60) and, Yao and Nikolov (61,62).
The FEM can even be used to get these curves (Smith 54).
For most of the methods, typical element types are: plate
element, beam-column element (stiffener and attached plate)
and hard corner.
An interesting well-studied ship that reached its ultimate
bending moment is the Energy Concentration (63). It frequently is used as a reference case (benchmark) by authors
to validate methods.
Figure 18.49 shows typical average stress-average strain
relationships, and the associated bending moment-curvature relationships (M-φ). Four typical σ−ε curves are considered, which are:
Case A: Linear relationship (elastic). The M-φ relationship
is free from the influences of yielding and buckling, and is linear.
Case B: Bi-linear relationship (elastic-perfectly plastic,
without buckling).
Case C: With buckling but without strength reduction beyond the ultimate strength.
Case D: With buckling and a strength reduction beyond
the ultimate strength (actual behavior).
In Case B, where yielding takes place but no buckling,
the deck initially undergoes yielding and then the bottom.
With the increase in curvature, yielded regions spread in the
side shell plating and the longitudinal bulkheads towards
the plastic neutral axis.
In this case, the maximum bending moment is the fully
plastic bending moment (Mp) of the cross-section and its
absolute value is the same both in the sagging and the hogging conditions.
For Cases C and D, the element strength is limited by
plate buckling, stiffener flexural buckling, tripping, etc. For
Case C, it is assumed that the structural components can continue to carry load after attaining their ultimate strength.
The collapse behavior (M-φ curve) is similar to that of Case
B, but the ultimate strength is different in the sagging and
the hogging conditions, since the buckling collapse strength
is different in the deck and the bottom.
Case D is the actual case; the capacity of each structural
member decreases beyond its ultimate strength. In this case,
the bending moment shows a peak value for a certain value
of the curvature. This peak value is defined as the ultimate
longitudinal bending moment of the hull girder (Mu).
Shortcomings and limitations of the Smith’s method relates to the fact that a typical analysis concerns one frame
spacing of a whole cargo hold and not a complete 3D hold.
As simple linear beam theory is used, deviations such
as shear lag, warping and racking are thus ignored. This
method may be a little un-conservative if the structure is
predominantly subjected to lateral pressure loads as well as
axial compression, and if it is not realized that the transverse frames can deflect/fail and significantly affect the stiffened plate structure and hull girder bending capacity.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-49 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18.6.5.2 Simplified models
Caldwell (64) was the first who tried to theoretically evaluate the ultimate hull girder strength of a ship subjected to
longitudinal bending. He introduced a so-called Plastic Design considering the influence of buckling and yielding of
structural members composing a ship’s hull (Figure 18.47).
He idealised a stiffened cross-section of a ship’s hull to
an unstiffened cross-section with equivalent thickness. If
buckling takes place at the compression side of bending,
compressive stress cannot reach the yield stress, and the fully
plastic bending moment (Mp) cannot be attained. Caldwell
introduced a stress reduction factor in the compression side
of bending, and the bending moment produced by the reduced
stress was considered as the ultimate hull girder strength.
Several authors have proposed improvements for the
Caldwell formulation (65). Each of them is characterized
by an assumed stress distribution (Figure 18.47). Such methods aim at providing an estimate of the ultimate bending
moment without attempting to provide an insight into the
behaviour before, and more importantly, after, collapse of
the section. The tracing out of a progressive collapse curve
is replaced by the calculation of the ultimate bending moment for a particular distribution of stresses. The quality of
the direct approximate method is directly dependent on the
quality of the stress distribution at collapse. It is assumed
that at collapse the stresses acting on the members that are
in tension are equal to yield throughout whereas the stresses
in the members that are in compression are equal to the individual inelastic buckling stresses. On this basis, the plastic neutral axis is estimated using considerations of
longitudinal equilibrium. The ultimate bending moment is
then the sum of individual moments of all elements about
the plastic neutral axis.
In Caldwell’s Method, and Caldwell Modified Methods,
reduction in the capacity of structural members beyond their
ultimate strength is not explicitly taken into account. This
may cause the overestimation of the ultimate strength in
general (Case C, Figure 18.49).
Empirical Formulations: In contrast to all the previous
rational methods, there are some empirical formulations
usually calibrated for a type of specific vessels (66,67). Yao
et al (50), found that initial yielding strength of the deck
can provide in general a little higher but reasonably accurate estimate of the ultimate sagging bending moment. On
the other hand, the initial buckling strength of the bottom
plate gives a little lower but accurate estimate of the ultimate hogging bending moment. These in effect can provide
a first estimate of the ultimate hull girder moment.
Interactions: In order to raise the problem of combined
loads (vertical and horizontal bending moments and shear
forces), several authors have proposed empirical interac-
18-49
tion equations to predict the ultimate strength. Each load
component is supposed to act separately. These methods
were reviewed by ISSC (68) and are often formulated as
equation 57.
 Mv

 M vu
a
 Mh

 + α
 M hu

b

 =1

[57]
where:
Mv and Mh = vertical and horizontal bending moments
Mvu and Mhu = ultimate vertical and horizontal bending moments
a, b and α = empirical constants
For instance, Mansour et al (47) proposes a=1, b=2 and
α= 0.8 based on analysis on one container, one tanker and
2 cruisers, and Gordo and Soares (60) 1.5<a=b<1.66 and
α= 1.0 for tankers. Hu et al (69) has proposed similar formulations for bulk carriers. Paik et al (70) proposes an empirical formulation that includes the shear forces in addition
to the bending moments.
18.6.5.3 Design Criteria
For design purpose, the value of the ultimate longitudinal
bending moment (capability) has to be compared with the
extreme bending moment (load) that may act on a ship’s hull
girder. To estimate the extreme bending moment, the most
severe loading condition has to be selected to provide the
maximum still water bending moment. Regarding the wave
bending moment, the IACS unified requirement is a major
reference (71,72), but more precise discussions can be found
in the ISSC 2000 report (24).
To evaluate the ultimate longitudinal strength, various
methods can be applied ranging from simple to complicated
methods. In 2000, many of the available methods were examined and assessed by an ISSC’2000 Committee (50). The
grading of each method with respect to each capability is
quantitatively performed by scoring 1 through 5. The committee concluded that the appropriate methods should be selected according to the designer’s needs and the design
stage. That is, at early design stage, a simple method based
on an Assumed Stress Distribution can be used to obtain a
rough estimate of the ultimate bending moment. At later
stages, a more accurate method such as Progressive Collapse Analysis with calculated σ−ε curves (Smith’s Method)
or ISUM has to be applied.
Main sensitive model capability with regards to the assessment of ultimate strength can be ranked in 3 classes, respectively, high (H), medium (M) and low (L) consequence
of omitting capability (Table 18.IV).
Based on the different sources of uncertainties (model-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-50 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-50
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
TABLE 18.IV Sensitivity Factors for Ultimate Strength
Assessment of Hull Girder.
Model Capability
Plate buckling
Impact
H
Stiffened plate buckling
H
Post buckling behavior
H
Plate welding residual stress
H
M-φ curve (post collapse prediction)
H
Plate initial deflection
M
Stiffener initial deflection
M
Stiffener welding residual stress
M
Multi-span model (instead of single span)
(see Figure 19.12 – Chapter 19)
H
ing, σ−ε curves, curvature incrementation), the global uncertainty on the ultimate bending moment is usually large
(55). A bias of 10 to 15% must be considered as acceptable.
For intact hull the design criteria for Mu, defined by classification societies, is given by:
MS + s1 Mw ≤ s2 MU
but they are time consuming and there is large uncertainty
of using simplified methods.
With the introduction of higher tensile steels in hull structures, at first in deck and bottom to increase hull girder
strength, and later in local structures, the fatigue problem
became more imminent. The fatigue strength does not increase according to the yield strength of the steel. In fact,
fatigue is found to be independent of the yield strength. The
higher stress levels in modern hull structures using higher
tensile steel have therefore led to a growing number of fatigue crack problems.
To ensure that the structure will fulfill its intended function, fatigue assessment should be carried out for each individual type of structural detail that is subjected to extensive
dynamic loading. It should be noted that every welded joint
and attachment or other form of stress concentration is potentially a source of fatigue cracking and should be individually considered.
This section gives an overview of feasible analysis to be
performed. A more complete description of the different fatigue procedures, S-N curves, stress concentration factors,
and so on, are given in: Almar-Naess (73), DNV (4), Fricke
et al (74), Maddox (75), Niemi (76), NRC (77) and Petershagen et al (78). Reliability-based fatigue procedure is presented by Ayyub and Assakkaf in Chapter 19. These authors
also have contributed to this section.
[58]
where:
18.6.6.2 Basic fatigue theories
Fatigue analyses can be performed based on:
s1 = the partial safety factor for load (typically 1.10)
s2 = the material partial safety factor (typically 0.85)
MS = still water moment
Mw = design wave moment (20 year return period)
• simplified analytical expressions,
• more refined analysis where loadings/load effects are
calculated by numerical analysis, and
• a combination of simplified and refined techniques.`
18.6.6 Fatigue and Fracture
18.6.6.1 General
Design criteria stated expressly in terms of fatigue damage
resistance were in the past seldom employed in ship structural design although cumulative fatigue criteria have been
used in offshore structure design. It was assumed that fatigue resistance is implicitly included in the conventional
safety factors or acceptable stress margins based on past
experience.
Today, fatigue considerations become more and more
important in the design of details such as hatch corners, reinforcements for openings in structural members and so on.
Since the ship-loading environment consists in large part
of alternating loads, ship structures are highly sensitive to
fatigue failures. Since 1990, fatigue is maybe the most sensitive point at the detailed design stage. Tools are available
There are generally two major technical approaches for
fatigue life assessment of welded joints the Fracture Mechanics Approach and the Characteristic S-N Curves Approach.
The Fracture Mechanics Approach is based on crack
growth data assuming that the crack initiation already exists. The initiation phase is not modeled as it is assumed that
the lifetime can be predicted only using fracture mechanics method of the growing cracks (after initiation). The fracture mechanics approach is obviously more detailed than
the S-N curves approach. It involves examining crack growth
and determining the number of load cycles that are needed
for small initial defects to grow into cracks large enough to
cause fractures. The growth rate is proportional to the stress
range, S (or ∆σ) that is expressed in terms of a stress intensity factor, K, which accounts for the magnitude of the
stress, current crack size, and weld and joint details. The
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-51 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
basic equation that governs crack growth (79) is known as
the Paris Law is:
da
= C . ( ∆K) m
dN
[59]
where:
a = crack size,
N = number of fatigue cycles (fatigue life),
∆K = S.Y(a) . π a , range of stress intensity factor, (Kmax
– Kmin)
C, m = crack propagation parameters,
S = constant amplitude stress range,
= ∆σ = σmax – σmin
Y(a) = function of crack geometry.
Fatigue life prediction based on the fracture mechanics
approach shall be computed according to the following
equation:
N=
1
C . Sm
a
∫a
0
da
Ym
logN = log (∆A) – m log (∆σ)
∆A
m
k Sm S e
[62]
where:
∆ = fatigue damage ratio (≤ 1)
log(∆A) = intercept of the S-N curve of the Log N axis
–1 / m = slope of the S-N curve, (≅3 ≤ m ≤ ≅7)
–
Se= mean of the Miner’s equivalent stress range Se, defined at Table 18.V
kS = fatigue stress uncertainty factor
–
∆σ = kS. Se (or the constant amplitude stress range for failure at N cycles)
N = fatigue life, or number of loading cycles expected during the life of a detail
The Miner’s equivalent stress range, Se, can be evaluated based on the models provided in Table 18.V (83). The
most refined model would start with a scatter diagram of
sea-states, information on ship’s routes and operating char-
[60]
Equation 60 involves a variety of sources of uncertainty
and practical difficulties to define, for instance, the a and ao
crack size. The crack propagation parameter C in this equation is treated as random variable (80). However, in more
sophisticated models, equation 60 is treated as a stochastic
differential equation and C is allowed to vary during the
crack growth process. State of art on the Fracture Mechanics Approach is available in Niemi (76) and Harris (81).
The characteristic S-N curves approach is based on fatigue test data (S-N curves—Figure 18.50) and on the assumption that fatigue damage accumulation is a linear
phenomenon (Miner’s rule). According to Miner (82) the
total fatigue life under a variety of stress ranges is the
weighted sum of the individual lives at constant stress range
S as given by the S-N curves (Figure 18.50), with each being
weighted according to fractional exposure to that level of
stress range.
The S-N curve approach related mainly to the crack initiation and a maximum allowable crack size. After, cracks
propagate based on the fracture mechanics concept as shown
in Figure 18.51. The propagation is not explicitly considered by the S-N curve approach.
Fatigue life strength prediction based on both the S-N
approach and Miner’s cumulative damage shall be evaluated with equation 61 or, in logarithmic form, with equation 62 (Figure 18.50).
N=
18-51
[61]
Figure 18.50 A Typical S-N Curve
Figure 18.51 Comparison between the Characteristic S-N Curve and Fracture
Mechanics Approach
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-52 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-52
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
acteristics, and use of a ship response computer program to
provide a detailed history of stress ranges over the service
life of the ship. For such model, the wave exceedance diagram (deterministic method) and the spectral method (probabilistic method) can be employed (Table 18.V).
S-N curves are obtained from fatigue tests and are available in different design codes for various structural details
in bridges, ships, and offshore structures. The design S-N
curves are based on the mean-minus-two-standard-deviation curves for relevant experimental data (Figure 18.50).
They are thus associated with a 97.6% probability of survival. Some classification societies use 90%.
In practice, the actual probabilities of failure associated
with fatigue design lives is usually higher due to uncertainties associated with the calculated stresses, the various
S-N curve correction factors, and the critical value of the
cumulative fatigue damage ratio, ∆.
Cumulative damage: The damage may either be calculated
on basis of the long-term stress range distribution using
Weibull parameters (simplified method), or on summation of
damage from each short-term distribution in the scatter diagram (probabilistic and deterministic methods, Table 18.V).
The stress range (S or ∆σ): The procedure for the fatigue analysis is based on the assumption that it is only necessary to consider the ranges of cyclic principal stresses in
determining the fatigue endurance. However, some reduction in the fatigue damage accumulation can be credited
when parts of the stress cycle range are in compression.
Fatigue areas: The potential for fatigue damage is dependent on weather conditions, ship type, corrosion level,
location on ship, structural detail and weld geometry and
workmanship. The potential danger of fatigue damage will
also vary according to crack location and number of potential damage points. Fatigue strength assessment shall
normally be carried out for:
• longitudinal and transverse element in:
— bottom/inner bottom (side),
— longitudinal and transverse bulkheads.
• strength deck in the midship region and forebody, and
• other highly stressed structural details in the midship region and forebody, like panel knuckles.
Time at sea: Vessel response may differ significantly for
different loading conditions. It is therefore of major importance to include response for actual loading conditions.
Since fatigue is a result of numerous cyclic loads, only the
most frequent loading conditions are included in the fatigue
analysis. These will normally be ballast and full load condition. Under certain circumstances, other loading conditions may be used.
Environmental conditions: The long-term distribution
of load responses for fatigue analyses may be estimated
using the wave climate, represented by the distribution of
Hs and Ts, representing the sea operation conditions. As
guidance to the choice between these data sets, one should
consider the average wave environment the vessel is expected to encounter during its design life. The world wide
sailing routes will therefore normally apply. For shuttle
tankers and vessels that will sail frequently on the North Atlantic, or in other harsh environments, the wave data given
in accordance with this should be applied. For vessels that
will sail in more smooth sailing routes, less harsh environmental data may be applied. This should be decided upon
for each case.
Geometrical imperfections: The fatigue life of a welded
joint is much dependent on the local stress concentrations
factors arising from surface imperfections during the fabrication process, consisting of weld discontinuities and geometrical deviations. Surface weld discontinuities are weld
toe undercuts, cracks, overlaps, incomplete penetration, etc.
Geometrical imperfections are defined as misalignment, angular distortion, excessive weld reinforcement and otherwise poor weld shapes.
Effect of grinding of welds: For welded joints involving
potential fatigue cracking from the weld toe an improvement in strength by a factor of at least 2 on fatigue life can
be obtained by controlled local machining or grinding of
the weld toe. Note that grinding of welds should not be used
as a “design tool”, but rather as a mean to lower the fatigue
damage when special circumstances have made it necessary.
This should be used as a reserve if the stress in special areas
turns out to be larger than estimated at an earlier stage of
the design.
18.6.6.3 Stress concentration and hot spot stress
The stress level obtained from a structural analysis, such as
FEA, will depend on the fineness of the model. The different analysis models described in Subsection 18.7.2 will
therefore lead to different levels of result processing in order
to complete the fatigue calculations.
In order to correctly determine the stresses to be used in
fatigue analyses, it is important to note the definition of the
different stress categories (Figure 18.52).
Nominal stresses are those, typically, derived from coarse
mesh FE models. Stress concentrations resulting from the
gross shape of the structure, for example, shear lag effects,
have to be included in the nominal stresses derived from
stress analysis.
Geometric stresses include nominal stresses and stresses
due to structural discontinuities and presence of attachments, but excluding stresses due to presence of welds.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-53 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
Stresses derived from fine mesh FE models are geometric
stresses. Effects caused by fabrication imperfections as misalignment of structural parts, are normally not included in
FEA, and must be separately accounted for, using, for instance (equation 65).
Hot spot stress is the greatest value of the extrapolation
to the weld toe of the geometric stress distribution immediately outside the region affected by the geometry of the
weld (Figure 18.52).
Notch stress is the total stress at the weld toe (hot spot
location) and includes the geometric stress and the stress
due to the presence of the weld. The notch stress may be
calculated by multiplying the hot spot stress by a stress concentration factor, or more precisely the theoretical notch
factor, K2 (equation 65).
FE may be used to directly determine the notch stress.
However, because of the small notch radius and the steep
stress gradient at a weld, a very fine mesh is needed.
In practice, the stress concentration factors (K-factors)
may be determined based on fine mesh FE analyses, or, alternatively, from the selection of factors for typical details.
The notch stress range governs the fatigue life of a detail. For components other than smooth specimens the notch
stress is obtained by multiplication of the nominal stress by
K-factors (equation 63). The K-factors in this document are
thus defined as
K=
σ notch
σ nominal
[63]
The relation between the notch stress range to be used
together with the S-N-curve and the nominal stress range
is
S = ∆σ = ∆σ notch = K . ∆σ nominal
[64]
All stress risers have to be considered when evaluating
Figure 18.52 Definition of Stress Categories (4)
18-53
the notch stress. This can be done by multiplication of Kfactors arising from different causes. The resulting K-factor to be used for calculation of notch stress is:
K = K1 . K2 . K3 . K4 . K5
[65]
where:
K1 = stress concentration factor due to the gross geometry
of the detail considered
K2 = stress concentration factor due to the weld geometry
(notch factor); K2 = 1.5 if not stated otherwise
K3 = additional stress concentration factor due to eccentricity tolerance
K4 = additionally stress concentration factor due to angular mismatch
K5 = additional stress concentration factor for un-symmetrical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels, applicable
when the nominal stress is derived from simple beam
analyses
Fatigue cracks are assumed to be independent of principal stress direction within 45° of the normal to the weld toe.
Hot spot stress extrapolation procedure: The hot spot
stress extrapolation procedure (Figure 18.52) is only to be
used for stresses that are derived from stress concentration
models (fine mesh). Nominal stresses found from other
models should be multiplied with appropriate stress concentration factors (equation 65). The stress extrapolation
procedure is specific to each classification societies (74).
Today, there is unfortunately no standard procedure.
18.6.6.4 Direct analysis
Several S-N fatigue approaches exists, they all have advantages and disadvantages. The different approaches are
therefore suitable for different areas. Load effects, accuracy of the analysis, computer demands, etc. should be evaluated before one of the approaches is chosen.
Full stochastic fatigue analysis: The full stochastic analysis, for example the Spectral Model of Table 18.V, is an
analysis where all load effects from global and local loads,
are included. This is ensured by use of stress concentration
models and direct load transfer to the structural model.
Hence, all stress components are combined using the correct phasing and without simplifications or omissions of
any stress component.
This method usually will be the most exact for determination of fatigue damage and will normally be used together
with fine meshed stress concentration models. The method
may, however, not be suitable when non-linearities in the
loading are of importance (side longitudinals). This is especially the case for areas where wave or tank pressures in
the surface region are of major importance. This is due to
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-54 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-54
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
TABLE 18.V Commonly Used Expressions for Evaluating
Miner’s Equivalent Stress Range (Se), (83)
1. Wave Exceedance Diagram (Deterministic Method)
S em =
nb
∑ f i S im
→ Se = m
nb
∑ f i S im
i
i
Si = stress range
tions by use of load/stress ratios, Hi (equation 66). The load
transfer functions, Hi, normally include the global hull girder
bending sectional forces and moments, the pressures for all
panels of the 3-D diffraction model, the internal tank pressures.
The stress transfer functions, Hi, are combined to a total
stress transfer function, Hσ, by a linear complex summation
of the different transfer functions (4), as:
Hσ =
Fi = fraction of cycles in the ith stress block
where:
2. Spectral Method (Probabilistic Method)
(2 2 )
m
f0
m
Γ  + 1
 2

∑ γ i f i σ im
i
λ(m) = rainflow correction
Γ(.) = gamma function
γι = fraction of time in ith sea-state
fi = frequency of wave loading in ith sea-state
σι = RMS of stress process in ith sea-state
3. Weibull Model for Stress Ranges (Simplified Method)
S em =
nb
∑
f i S im → S e = m
i
[66]
i
nb = number of stress block
S em = λ ( m )
∑ AiHi
nb
∑ f i S im
i
Sd = stress range that is exceeded on the average once out of
Nd stress cycles
Γ(.) = gamma function
k = Weibull shape parameter
Nd = total number of stress ranges in design life
the fact that all load effects result in one set of combined
stresses, making it difficult to modify the stress caused by
one of the load effects.
The approach is suitable for areas where the stress concentration factors are unknown (knuckles, bracket and flange
terminations of main girder, stiffeners subjected to large
relative deformations).
18.6.6.5 Simplified models
The stress component based stochastic fatigue analysis:
The idea of the stress component based fatigue analysis is
to change the direct load transfer functions calculated from
the hydrodynamic load program into stress transfer func-
Ai = stress per unit axial force defined as the local stress
response in the considered detail due to a unit sectional load for load component i.
Ησ = total transfer function for the combined local stress,
Hi = transfer function for the load component i, that is, axial
force, bending moments, twisting and lateral load.
This approach enables the use of separate load factors on
each load component and thus includes loads non-linearities.
Few load cases have to be analyzed and it is possible to use
simplified formulas for the area of interest but errors are easily made in the combination of stresses, manual definition of
extra load cases may cause errors and simplifications are usually made in loading. Suitable areas are components where
geometric stress concentration factors, K1, are available (longitudinals, plating, cut-outs and standard hopper knuckles)
and areas where side pressure is of importance.
The simplified design wave approach (Weibull Model,
Table 18.V) is a simplification to the previous component
based stochastic fatigue analyses. In this simplified approach, the extreme load response effect over a specified
number of load cycles, for example, 104 cycles, is determined. The resulting stress range, ∆σ, is then representative for the stress at a probability level of exceedance of
10-4 per cycle. The derived extreme stress response is combined with a calculated Weibull shape parameter, k, to define the long-term stress range distribution (Table 18.V).
The Weibull shape parameter, k, for the stress response
should be determined from the long-term distribution of the
dominating load calculated in the hydrodynamic analysis.
This simplified approach only requires the consideration of one load case. It is easy and fast to perform but it
can only be used if one load dominates the response and
the results are very sensitive to selection of design wave.
Suitable areas concern components where one load is dominating the response, that is, deck areas and other areas without local loading.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-55 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
18.6.6.6 Design criteria
The standard fatigue design criterion is basically the expected lifetime before that significant damage appears
(cracks). It usually is taken as being 20 years. Then, the designer’s target is to design structural details for which the
fatigue failure happens after, for instance, 20 years. If it
happens before, the fixing cost is very high and induces
owner losses. If the first failure only happens after 30 years
or later, the structural detail scantlings were globally overestimated, the hull weight too high and, therefore, that the
owner had lost payload during 20 years.
Partial safety factors, additional stress concentration factors and the stress extrapolation procedure are typically defined by the classifications societies.
18.6.7 Collision and Grounding
18.6.7.1 Present design approaches
The OPA 90 and equivalent IMO requirements must be satisfied in structural design of ships carrying dangerous or pollutant cargoes, for example, chemicals, bulk oil, liquefied
gas. The primary requirements are to arrange a double bottom of a required minimum height, and double sides of a
required minimum width. In this context, to reduce the outflow of pollutant cargoes in ship collision or grounding accident, OPA 90 and IMO both require that the minimum
vertical height, h, of each double bottom ballast tank or void
space is not to be less than 2.0 m or B/15 (B = ship’s beam),
whichever is the lesser, but in no case is the height to be
less than 1.0 m. OPA and IMO also require that the minimum width, w, of each wing ballast tank or void space is
not to be less than 0.5+DWT/20 000 (m) or w =2.0 (m),
whichever is the lesser, where DWT is the deadweight of
the ship in tonnes. In no case is w to be less than 1.0 (m).
More detailed information is available in Chapter 29 on Oil
Tanker.
18.6.7.2 Direct analysis
To reduce the probability of outflow of hazardous cargo in
ship collisions and grounding, the kinetic energy loss during the accident should be entirely absorbed by damage of
outer structures, that is, before the inner shell in contact
with the cargo can rupture. Of crucial importance, then, is
how to arrange or make the scantlings of strength members
in the implicated ship structures such that the initial kinetic
energy is effectively consumed and the structural performance against an accident will be maximized. For this purpose, the structural crashworthiness of ships in collisions
and grounding must be analyzed using accurate and efficient
procedures (84).
Figure 18.53 shows direct design procedures of ship
18-55
structures against collision and grounding (85). For the accidental limit state design, the integrity of a structure can
be checked in two steps. In the first step, the structural performance against design accident events will be assessed,
while post-accident effects such as likely oil outflow are
evaluated in the second step.
The primary concern of the accidental limit state design
in such cases is to maintain the water tightness of ship compartments, the containment of dangerous or pollutant cargoes, and the integrity of critical spaces (reactor compartments of nuclear powered ships or tanks in LNG ships) at
the greatest possible levels, and to minimize the release/outflow of cargo. To facilitate a rescue mission, it is also necessary keep the residual strength of damaged structures at
a certain level, so that the ship can be towed to safe harbor
or a repair yard as may be required.
18.6.7.3 Simplified models
Since the response of ships in collision or grounding accident includes relatively complicated behavior such as crushing, tearing and yielding, existing simplified methods are
not always adequate. However, many simplified models
useful for predicting accident induced structural damages
and residual strength of damaged ship structures have been
developed and continue to be successfully used. Simplified
models for collision are rather different from those of
grounding since both are different in the nature of the mechanics involved. As it is impossible to describe them in a
limited space, valuable references are Ohtsubo et al (86),
and Kaminski et al (39).
18.6.7.4 Design criteria
The structural design criteria for ship collisions and grounding are based on limiting accidental consequences such as
structural damage, fire and explosion, and environmental
pollution, and to make sure that the main safety functions
of ship structures are not impaired to a significant extent during any accidental event or within a certain time period
thereafter.
Structural performance of a ship against collision or
grounding can be measured by:
• energy absorption capability,
• maximum penetration in an accident,
• spillage amount of hazardous cargo, for example, crude
oil, and
• hull girder ultimate strength of damaged ships (Section
18.6.5).
Design acceptance criteria may be based on the following parameters (87):
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-56 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-56
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
Figure 18.53 Structural Design Procedures of Ships for Collision and Grounding (85)
• minimum distance of cargo containment from the outer
shell,
• ship speed above which a critical event (breaching of
cargo containment) happens,
• allowable quantity of oil outflow, and
• minimum values of section modulus or ultimate hull
girder strength.
And the design results must satisfy:
• cargo tanks/holds are not breached in an accident so that
there will be no danger of pollution, or
• if the cargo tanks are breached, the oil outflow following an accident is limited, and/or
• the ship has adequate residual hull girder strength so that
it will survive an accident and will not break apart, minimizing a second chance of pollution.
18.6.8 Vibration
18.6.8.1 Present Vibration Design Approaches
The traditional design methodology for vibration is based on
rules, defined by classification societies. Vibrations are not
explicitly covered by class rules but their prediction is needed
to achieve a good design. Ship structures are excited by numerous dynamic oscillating forces. Excitation may originate
within the ship or outside the ship by external forces. Reciprocating machinery such as large main propulsion diesel
produce important forces at low frequency. Pressure fluctuations due to propeller at blade rate frequency induce pressure variation on the ship’s hull. Varying hull pressures
associated with waves belong also to external excitations. All
these forces can be approximated by a combination of harmonic forces. If their frequencies coincide with the structure
eigen frequencies, resonant behavior will happen.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-57 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
It is of prime importance to avoid global main hull vibrations. If they do occur, the remedial action will probably be very costly. So, during early design, the hull girder
frequencies must be compared to wave excitation (springing risk), and to propeller and engine excitation. Table 18.VI
gives some typical values of the first hull girder frequencies in Hz of some ship types.
Hull girder frequencies and modes should be computed
using approximate empirical formulae (88), simple beam
models for long prismatic structures (VLCC, container ships,
etc.) associated with lumped added mass models, or using
3D finite element models for complex ships (RO-RO, cruise
ship), LNG, and short and non-prismatic structures (tug,
catamaran, etc.).
18.6.8.2 Fluid structure interaction
Fluid structure interaction is evidenced in the dynamic behavior of ships. As a first approximation, the ship is considered as a rigid body, for the sea keeping analyses (wave
induced motions and loads).
Wave vibration induced: An early determination of hull
girder vibration modes and frequencies is important to avoid
serious problems that would be difficult to solve at a later
stage of the project.
Risk of springing (occurring when first hull girder frequency equals wave encounter frequency) has to be detected
very early. Springing may occur for long and/or flexible
ships and for high speed craft and it increases the number
of cyclic loads contributing to human fatigue. Various methods to assess the first hull girder frequency can be used at
preliminary design stage.
Engine/propeller vibration induced: Resonance problems may also appear on small ships like tugs, where hull
girder frequency can be close to the propulsion excitation
(around 7Hz). High vibration levels contribute to human
fatigue and dysfunction, besides the discomfort aspect.
Fluid added mass: Hull girder vibrations induce dis-
18-57
placement of the surrounding fluid. Therefore imparting kinetic energy in the fluid. This phenomenon can be taken
into account for the hull girder modes and frequencies calculation as added mass terms. Various methods can be used
for the determination of added mass term. Lumped mass approach is the simplest one (89) but is only valid for simple
prismatic slender shapes, and for a single mode. Fluid finite and semi-infinite elements or boundary integral formulation lead to the calculation of more accurate added
mass matrices (90), especially for complex hull forms and
appendices study (rudder). Added mass matrices associated
with 3D finite element model of the structure, allow for an
accurate determination of hull girder modes and frequencies. Added mass terms may also be needed for the vibrations of tank walls. The corresponding methods and
associated software are available for industrial usage (Figure 18.54) and numerical simulations are today predictable
with good accuracy (91). Figure 18.54 shows a fluid-structure coupled FE-model of a 230 m long passenger vessel
using 150 000 degrees of freedom.
A difficult coupled problem is the fluid impact occurring in slamming or due to sloshing in tanks. The local deformation of the impacted shells and plating influences the
TABLE 18.VI Typical Values of the First Hull Girder
Frequencies (in Hertz)
Order
(mode)
Large
Cruise
ship
1
1.0 Hz
1.8
2
1.5 Hz
2.9
3
2.6 Hz
4
3.2 Hz
Fast
monohull LNG
VLCC
Frigate
Tug
0.9
0.8
1.9
2.0
1.7
3.8
—
—
—
5.8
—
—
—
—
7.8
—
7.0
13
Figure 18.54 Fluid/Structure FE-Model of a Passenger Vessel (Principia
Marine, France)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-58 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-58
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
pressures and fluid velocities. Moreover, air trapped in such
an impact may have a cushioning effect, softening its severity. The numerical simulation of those heavily coupled problems still belongs to the research domain, though its
industrial importance for the design of ship structures (92).
18.6.8.3 Direct analysis
Vibration problems are critical for passenger ships with typically a 12-Hertz blade excitation. Ship owners demand very
low vertical velocity levels incabins and public areas (less
than 1.2 mm/s in the 5-25 Hz frequency band).
Numerical simulation using 3D finite element models is
the only method to predict ship response (including the various frequency modes) to pressure fluctuation on the ship
hull. Such simulation is now used as a design tool to select
appropriate scantlings of decks, location of pillars, detect
possible resonance, and select the number of propeller
blades. The main difficulty is to perform this analysis early
enough in a very short design cycle.
Local analyses also have to be performed, based on finite element models to check the potential risk of vibration
of local areas, when local modes can be considered as decoupled from global hull girder modes. Decks, superstructure, appendices (rudder, radar mast, etc.) can be analyzed
to check scantling and avoid the risk of resonance.
Slamming impacts generate impulsive response of the
hull girder (whipping), which affects comfort and fatigue.
Prediction of stress fluctuations and vibration levels in var-
ious parts of the ship can only be performed by simulation
in the time domain based on 3D detailed finite element models (Figure 18.55). The main difficulty is the determination
of the time and space dependent slamming forces.
18.6.8.4 Simplified models
Unfortunately, they are of little use for simplified vibration
predictions. Beam models associated to database can be
used for an approximate determination of hull girder modes
and frequencies at early stage of the project. Decks zones
and equipment frequencies may also be estimated by formulas given by reference books (94).
Dedicated software has also been written for the study
of shafting, including journal and bearing stiffness and
whirling effect (95).
18.6.8.5 Design criteria
The most effective way to control vibration resides in the
reduction of the excitation. This can be achieved by balancing all forces in reciprocating and rotary machinery and
using special mounts. Hydrodynamic forces can be reduced
by improving the flow around the propeller and siting it
clear of the hull. Propulsion using pods can dramatically reduce pressure fluctuations. Excitation frequencies can also
be modified by changing the number of propeller blades.
A good design, ensuring continuity of vertical bulkheads,
avoiding cantilevered and stiff or mass discontinuities, contributes to improving the dynamic behavior of the ship. The
Figure 18.55 Hull Girder Vibration—Mode #3 (Principia Marine-France)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-59 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
second action consists in avoiding resonance by modification of the hull scantlings, and addition of pillars, in order
to increase or lower the eigen frequencies.
Reduction of unavoidable vibration levels can be
achieved for local vibrations by dynamic isolation for equipments, passive damping solutions (floating floors on absorbing material), and dynamic energy absorbers. All these
curative actions are usually difficult, costly, only applicable for local vibrations and nearly impossible for vibrations
due to global modes. Local modes determination is difficult at early stage of the design mainly due to the uncertainty on mass distribution, non-structural mass (outfitting
and equipments) being of the some order of magnitude as
the steelwork part.
18.6.9 Special Considerations
In addition to the considerations for LNG tank, container
ship, bulk carrier and passenger vessel, special considerations are available in Volume II of this book. Moreover,
ISSC committees 1997 and 2000 also provide valuable information on specific ship types, that is, high-speed vessels
and ships sailing in ice conditions.
18.6.9.1 LNG Tanks
General information on such ships is available in Chapter
32 – Liquefied Gas Carriers. These ships contain usually a
double hull (sides and bottom). Major structural concerns
deal with the tanks themselves and with their support legs.
Dilatation, tightness and thermal isolation are important aspects. There are several patented concepts: independent
tanks, membrane tanks, semi-membranes tanks and integral tanks. Excepted for the integral tanks, the tanks are selfsupporting and are not essential to the hull strength. When
supported by legs, these legs require a particular attention.
Integral tanks form a structural part of the ship’s hull and
are influenced in the same manner by wave loads.
18.6.9.2 Container ships
The design of container ships of 5000 and 6000 TEU having a beam of 40m has increased the standard torsional problem of ships having a large open deck. Torsional strength
and limitation of the equivalent stress (equation 45) at the
hatch corners are the major issues in the evaluation of the
strength of main hull structure. Use of multicell structures
in side shell and double bottom is recommended. Moreover, the torsional moment distribution must be assessed
with care.
As hatch covers are not considered as hull strength members, omission of hatch covers does not impose any partic-
18-59
ular effects in the structural design of a main hull structure.
The general characteristics of container ships are detailed
in Chapter 36 – Container Ships.
18.6.9.3 Bulk carriers
Casualty of bulk carriers was very high in the early 1990s.
The main reasons were a lack of maintenance, excessive corrosion and fatigue (77). Weak point of these ships is the
lower part of the side plate at the junction with the bilge
hopper. Now, classification societies are aware about this
problem and had updated their rules and associated structural details. The general design practice on bulk carriers is
detailed in Chapter 33 – Bulk Carriers.
18.6.9.4 Passenger vessels
Ship strength analysis is based on a beam model. The complexity of large passenger ships, with a low resistant deck
and wide openings, windows and openings in the side induces a much more complex behavior. Rational approach
is necessary to get a realistic understanding of the flux of
forces and capture the complex behavior of such ships.
Due to the large openings and discontinuities, racking and
stress concentration are two major concerns. For architectural reason, pillars are often omitted in large public
areas (theater, lounge, etc.). Today, 3D FEA is usually carried out to design large passenger vessels (Figures 18.54
and 18.55). Due to large opening in the side shells, the vertical stress distribution is not linear (Figure 18.35). This
means that the basic beam bending formulation is no valid
(equation 29). More general information related to passenger vessels is available in Chapter 37 – Passenger Ships
and in reference 68.
18.6.9.5 Composite material
Fiberglass boat building started in the 1960s. Today, designers are trying to plan composite construction of ships
up to 100 meters in length. A comprehensive guide for the
design of ship structures in composites is the Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-403 of Greene (96). Design
methodology, materiel properties, micro and macro mechanic of composites and failures modes are deeply discussed.
In addition to the classic failure modes of steel and aluminum structures presented in Subsection 18.6.1, composites are subject to specific failure modes.
In compression, there are the crimping, skin wrinkling
and dimpling of the honeycomb cores (Figure 18.56). In
bending, instead of the traditional first yield bending moment, for composites, the design limit load corresponds to
the first ply failure.
The creep behavior and the long-term damage from
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-60 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-60
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
water, UV and temperature, and their performance in fires
are other specific structural problems of composites. A review of the performance of composite structures is proposed by Jensen et al (98).
18.6.9.6 Aluminum structures
Compared to steel, the reduced specific weight of aluminum
(2.70 kN/m3 for aluminum and 7.70 kN/m3 for steel) is a very
interesting property for a ship designer. The yield stress of
unwelded aluminum alloys can be comparable to mild steel
(235 MPa) but changes drastically from one alloy to another (125 MPa for ALU 5083-O and 215 MPa for ALU
5083-H321). The modulus of elasticity of aluminum alloys
is one-third of steel.
The main difficulty for the use of aluminum use deals
with its mechanical properties after welding. The yield stress
of aluminum alloys may decrease significantly after welding (remains at 125 MPa for
ALU 5083-O but drop to 140 MPa for ALU 5083-H321).
The area close to a weld is called Heat Affected Zone (HAZ).
It is characterized by reduced strength properties. HAZ is
particularly important to assess the buckling and ultimate
strength of welded components such as beam-column elements, stiffened panels, etc.
For marine applications ALU 5083, 5086 and 6061 can
be used. Nevertheless, the mechanical and strength properties of aluminum change a lot with the alloy composition
and the production processing. Thus, the alloy selection
must be done with care with regard to the yield strength before and after welding, the welding and extruding capabilities, the marine behavior, etc.
Fire strength is another concerns when using aluminum
alloys as it quickly loses its strength when the temperature
rises.
Despite the aforementioned shortcomings aluminum alloys will be more extensively use in the future for the de-
Figure 18.56 Potential Failure Modes of Sandwich Panels (100), (a) Face
yielding/fracture, (b) Core shear failure, (c-d) Face wrinkling, (e) Buckling, (f)
Shear crimping, (g) Face dimpling, (h) Local indentation.
sign of fast vessels, for which the structural weight is very
important to reach higher speed (for high speed mono hull,
catamaran and trimaran vessels). The good extruding capability of aluminum alloys has to be enhanced through
scantling standardization. That helps to lower to production cost ($/man-hour) and compensate the initial higher
material cost of aluminum, which is approximately 3 times
higher that mild steel ($/kg).
18.6.9.7 Corrosion
Corrosion does not present a structural design problem, as
almost all the classification societies base their rules on a
net scantling. This means that the thickness to consider in
analysis (for empirical formulations up to complex FEA)
is the reduced thickness (without corrosion allowance) and
not the actual thickness. The difference between the reduced
thickness and the actual one is usually fixed by the classification but can also change according to the owner requirements. This is an economic choice and not a structural
problem.
For bulk carriers, thickness reduction due to corrosion
is generally assumed to be 5 mm for hold frames and 3 mm
for side shell plating.
18.7 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL
DESIGN
18.7.1 Motivation for Numerical Analysis
In most of the cases, a ship is a one of a kind product, even
if limited series may exist in some cases. The design, study
and production cycle is very short and major decision have
to be taken very early in the project. It is well known that
the cost of a late modification is very high and such a situation has to be avoided. Also experience-based design can
be an obstacle to the introduction of innovation. Numerical
analysis clearly is needed to improve the design (innovation) but also to control safety margins. Moreover, it gives
access to local and detailed analysis, which is not possible
with simplified methods. The concept of numerical mock up,
used in aerospace and car industry has proven its efficiency.
Shipbuilding is clearly moving in the same direction.
18.7.1.1 Static and quasi-static analysis
Static and quasi-static analysis represents the traditional
way to perform stress and strength analysis of a ship structure. Loads are assessed separately of the strength structure
and, even if their origins are dynamic (flow induced), they
are assumed to be static (do not change with the time). This
assumption may be correct for the hydrostatic pressure but
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-61 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
not when the dynamic wave loads are changed to static loads
applied on the side plates of the hull.
In the future, even if the assumption of static loads is not
verified, static analysis will continue to be performed, as it
is easier and faster to perform. In addition, tens of experience years have shown that they provide accurate results
when stresses and deflections assessment are the main target (as defined in Section 18.4).
Such analysis is also the standard procedure for fatigue
assessment to determine the hot spot stress through fine
mesh FEA.
18.7.1.2 Dynamic analysis
When problems occur on a ship due to dynamic effects, it
is very often late in the design and building stage and even
in service, and corrective actions are costly. Simplified methods can only predict the first hull girder modes frequencies.
Numerical finite element based simulation is mature enough
to predict up to second propeller harmonic, the vibration
level, giving a design tool to comply with ISO or ship owner
requirements. Moreover, possible dynamic problems can
be detected early enough in the design to allow for corrective actions.
18.7.1.3 Nonlinearities analysis
Nonlinear structural analysis is mainly used to analyze buckling, ultimate strength and accidental or extreme situations
(explosions, collisions, grounding, blast). The results of
such costly and difficult analysis are often used to calibrate
simplified methods or rules. But they are also very useful
to understand possible failure modes and mechanical behavior under severe loads.
18.7.1.4 Emerging trends
Like the automotive and aerospace industry, there is a clear
trend towards the reduction of design cycle time. Numerical mock up or virtual ship approach (97), especially for one
of a kind product, is clearly a way to achieve this. Required
computing power is available and will no longer be a constraint. The first difficulty is to establish an efficient model
of complex physical problems, associated with increasing
demand for accuracy. The second difficulty is the manpower
needed to prepare and check the models, which will be
solved by the development of integrated solutions for ship
description and modeling (99).
Advances are expected in the field of FE-modeling. The
trend is toward one structure description, one model and several applications. This is the field for multiphysics and coupling analysis. The base modeling will be re-used and
adapted to perform successively,
•
•
•
•
18-61
static, fatigue and fracture analysis,
buckling and ultimate strength analysis,
vibration and acoustics analysis, and
vulnerability assessment.
Progress is expected by the utilization of reliability methods already used in offshore industry, where uncertainties
and dispersions of the loads, geometrical defaults, initial
stresses and strains, material properties are defined as stochastic (non deterministic) data, leading to the calculation
of a probability of failure. This philosophy can be applied
to fatigue and ultimate strength, but also to dynamic response, leading to a more robust design, less sensitive to
defaults, imperfections, uncertainties and stochastic nature
of loads. Reliability-based analyses using probabilistic concept are presented in Chapter 19.
In the future, safety aspects related to structural problems will also be tackled such as ultimate strength using nonlinear methods. Collision and grounding damages and
improved design to increase ship safety will be studied by
numerical simulation, whereas experimental approach is
nearly impossible and/or too costly. Explicit codes, used in
car crash simulation (101), will be adapted to specific aspects of ship structure (size and presence of fluid). In traditional sea keeping analysis, the ship is considered as a
rigid body. In coupled problems such as slamming situations, this hypothesis is no more valid and a part of the energy is absorbed by ship deformation. Hydro-elasticity
methods (102) aim taking into account the interaction of the
flexible ship structure with the surrounding water. Nonlinear effects due to bow and aft part of the ship, ship velocity, diffraction radiation effects contribute to the complexity
of the problem. The simulation of catamaran, trimaran and
fast monohulls behavior need the development of new methods to take into account the high velocities and the complex 3D phenomena.
18.7.2 Finite Element Analysis
The main aim of using the finite element method (FEM) in
structural analysis is to obtain an accurate calculation of the
stress response in the hull structure. Several types or levels
of FE-models may be used in the analyses:
•
•
•
•
•
global stiffness model,
cargo hold model,
frame and girder models,
local structure models, and
stress concentration models.
The model or sets of models applied is to give a proper
representation of the following structure:
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-62 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-62
•
•
•
•
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
longitudinal plating,
transverse bulkheads/frames,
stringers/girders, and
longitudinals or other structural stiffeners.
The finer mesh models are usually referred to as submodels. These models may be solved separately by transfer of boundary deformations/ boundary forces from the
coarser model. This requires that the various mesh models
are compatible, meaning that the coarser models have
meshes producing deformations and/or forces applicable as
boundary conditions for the finer mesh models.
18.7.2.1 Structural finite element models
Global stiffness model: A relatively coarse mesh that is used
to represent the overall stiffness and global stress distribution of the primary members of the total hull length. Typical models are shown in Figure 18.57. The mesh density of
the model has to be sufficient to describe deformations and
nominal stresses from the following effects:
The minimum element sizes to be used in a global structural model (coarse mesh) for 4–node elements (finer mesh
divisions may of course be used and is welcomed, specially
with regard to sub-models):
• main model: 1 element between transverse frames/girders; 1element between structural deck levels and minimum three elements between longitudinal bulkheads,
• girders: 3 elements over the height, and
• plating: 1 element between 2 longitudinals.
Figure 18.57 Global Finite Element Model of Container Vessel Including a 4
Cargo Holds Sub-model (4).
• vertical hull girder bending including shear lag effects,
• vertical shear distribution between ship side and bulkheads,
• horizontal hull girder bending including shear lag effects, torsion of the hull girder, and
• transverse shear and bending.
Stiffened panels may be modeled by means of layered
elements, anisotropic elements or frequently by a combination of plate and beam elements. It is important to have
a good representation of the overall membrane panel stiffness in the longitudinal/transverse directions. Structure not
contributing to the global strength of the vessel may be disregarded; the mass of these elements shall nevertheless be
included (for vibration). The scantling is to be modeled with
reduced scantling, that is, corrosion addition is to be deducted from the actual scantling.
All girder webs should be modeled with shell elements.
Flanges may be modeled using beam and truss elements.
Web and flange properties are to be according to the real
geometry.
The performance of the model is closely linked to the
type of elements and the mesh topology that is used. As a
standard practice, it is recommended to use 4-node shell or
membrane elements in combination with 2-node beam or
truss elements are used. The shape of 4-node elements
should be as rectangular as possible as skew elements will
lead to inaccurate element stiffness properties. The element
formulation of the 4-node elements requires all four nodes
to be in the same plane. Double curved surfaces should
therefore not be modeled with 4-node elements. 3-node elements should be used instead.
Figure 18.58 Cargo Hold Model (Based on the Fine Mesh of the Frame
Model), (4)
Figure 18.59 Frame and Girder Model (Web Frame), (4)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-63 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
Cargo hold model: The model is used to analyze the deformation response and nominal stresses of the primary
members of the midship area. The model will normally
cover 1/2+1+1/2 cargo hold/tank length in the midship region. Typical models are shown in Figure 18.58.
Frame and girder models: These models are used to analyze nominal stresses in the main framing/girder system
(Figure 18.59). The element mesh is to be fine enough to
describe stress increase in critical areas (such as bracket
with continuous flange). This model may be included in the
cargo hold model, or run separately with prescribed boundary deformations/forces. However, if sufficient computer
capacity is available, it will normally be convenient to combine the two analyses into one model.
Local structure analyses are used to analyze stresses in
local areas. Stresses in laterally loaded local plates and stiffeners subjected to large relative deformations between girders/frames and bulkheads may be necessary to investigate
along with stress increase in critical areas, such as brackets with continuous flanges.
As an example, the areas to model are normally the following for a tanker:
• longitudinals in double bottom and adjoining vertical
bulkhead members,
• deck longitudinals and adjoining vertical bulkhead members,
• double side longitudinals and adjoining horizontal bulkhead members,
• hatch corner openings, and
• corrugations and supporting structure.
The magnitude of the stiffener bending stress included
in the stress results depends on the mesh division and the
element type that is used. Figure 18.60 shows that the stiffener bending stress, using FEM, is dependent on the mesh
size for 4-node shell elements. One element between floors
results in zero stiffener bending. Two elements between
floors result in a linear distribution with approximately zero
bending in the middle of the elements.
Stress concentration models are used for fatigue analyses of details were the geometrical stress concentration is
unknown. A typical detail is presented Figure 18.61.
Local FE analyses may be used for calculation of local
geometric stresses at the hot spots and for determination of
associated K-factors to be used in subsequent fatigue analyses (equation 63). The aim of the FE analysis is normally
not to calculate directly the notch stress at a detail, but to
calculate the geometric stress distribution in the region of
the hot spot. These stresses can then be used either directly
in the fatigue assessment of given details or as a basis for
derivation of stress concentration factors. FE stress con-
18-63
centration models are generally very sensitive to element
type and mesh size.
Several FEA benchmarks of such structural details were
performed by ISSC technical committees (68,103). They assess the uncertainties of different FE packages associated
with coarse and fine mesh models. Variation is usually
around 10% but is sometime much larger.
This implies that element sizes in the order of the plate
thickness are to be used for the modeling. If solid modeling is used, the element size in way of the hot spot may
have to be reduced to half the plate thickness in case the
overall geometry of the weld is included in the model representation.
18.7.2.2. Uncertainties related to FEA
An important issue in structural analysis is the verification
of the analysis. The FEM is basically reliable but many
sources of errors can appear, mainly induced by inappropriate modeling and wrong data. For this reason, different
Figure 18.60 Stiffener Bending Stress with FEM (from left to right: using 1, 2
or 8 elements), (4)
Figure 18.61 Stress Concentration Model of Hopper Tank Knuckle (4)
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-64 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-64
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
levels of verification of the analysis should be performed
in order to ensure trustworthiness of the analysis results. Verification must be achieved at the following steps:
• basic input,
• assumptions and simplifications made in modeling/
analysis,
• models,
• loads and load transfer,
• analysis,
• results, and
• strength calculations.
One important step in the verification is the understanding
of the physics and check of deformations and stress flow
against expected patterns/levels. However, all levels of verification are important in order to verify the results.
Verifications of structural models: Assumptions and simplifications will have to be made for most structural models. These should be listed such that an evaluation of their
influence on the results can be made.
The boundary conditions for the global structural model
should reflect simple supporting to avoid built in stresses. The
fixation points should be located away from areas where
stresses are of interest. Fixation points are often applied in the
centerline close to the aft and the forward ends of the vessel.
Verification of loads: Inaccuracy in the load transfer from
the hydrodynamic analysis to the structural model is among
the main error sources in this type of analysis. The load
transfer can be checked on basis of the structural response
or on basis on the load transfer itself.
Verification of response: The response should be verified at several levels to ensure correctness of the analysis:
•
•
•
•
•
•
global displacement patterns/magnitude,
local displacement patterns/magnitude,
global sectional forces,
stress levels and distribution,
sub-model boundary displacement/forces, and
reaction forces and moments.
18.7.2.3 FEM background
Today the finite element method is studied worldwide in universities, in mechanical engineering, civil engineering, naval
architecture, etc. Hundreds of papers are published yearly.
Many commercial packages are available including pre and
post processors and many books are published each year on
the subject. Classification Societies also present technical
reports and guidelines associated with their own direct
analysis package (Table 18.VIII).
It is not the purpose of this chapter to present the FE theory and a state of art. This topic is reviewed periodically by
ISSC. For instance, Sumi et al (68) presents finite element
guidelines and a comprehensive review of the available software. Mesh modeling is discussed in ISSC’2000 by Porcari et al (103). Hughes (3) proposes in Chapter VI and VII
of his book published by SNAME an easy way to learn
FEM that does not require knowledge of variational calculus or of FEM. The Ship Structure Committee Reports (SSC
387 and 399) contains also Guideline for FEM (43,104).
18.7.3 Other Numerical Approaches
As an alternative to FEA, two other approaches are presented, namely: the idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM)
and the Boundary Element Method (BEM). Both are general purpose oriented. Many others exist but they are usually dedicated to a special purpose. For instance, at the
preliminary design stage, the LBR-5 package founded on the
analytical solution of the governing differential equations of
stiffened plates is a convenient alternative to standard FEA.
Such an approach (30,105) allows structural design optimization to be performed at the earliest design stage but does
not have the capability to perform detailed analysis including stress concentration and non-linear analysis.
18.7.3.1 Idealized structural unit method (ISUM)
When subjected to extreme or accidental loading, ship structures can be involved in highly non-linear response associated with yielding, buckling, crushing and sometimes
rupture of individual structural components. Quite accurate
solutions of the non-linear structural response can be obtained by application of the conventional FEM. However,
a weak feature of the conventional FEM is that it requires
enormous modeling effort and computing time for non-linear analysis of large sized structures. Therefore, most efforts in the development of new non-linear finite element
methods have focused on reducing modeling and computing times.
The most obvious way to reduce modeling effort and
computing time is to reduce the number of degrees of freedom so that the number of unknowns in the finite element
stiffness equation decreases. Modeling the object structure
with very large sized structural units is perhaps the best way
to do that. Properly formulated structural units or super elements in such an approach can then be used to efficiently
model the actual non-linear behavior of large structural
units. The idealized structural unit method (ISUM), which
is a type of simplified non-linear FEM, is one of such methods (106). Since ship structures are composed of several
different types of structural members such as beams,
columns, rectangular plates and stiffened panels, it is necessary in the ISUM approach to develop various ISUM units
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-65 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
for each type of structural member in advance. The non-linear behavior of each type of structural member is idealized
and expressed in the form of a set of failure functions defining the necessary conditions for different failures which
may take place in the corresponding ISUM unit, and sets
of stiffness matrices representing the non-linear relationship
between the nodal force vector and the nodal displacement
vector until the limit state is reached. The ISUM super elements so developed are typically used within the framework of a non-linear matrix displacement procedure
applying the incremental method.
Figure 18.62 shows a cantilevers box girder and Figures
18.63 and 18.64 show typical FEM and ISUM models for
the non-linear analysis. For a recent state-of-the-art review
on ISUM theory and applications to ship structures, the
reader is referred to Paik and Hughes (107).
With the existing standard ISUM elements, the main difficulty is that computation of the post-collapse behavior in
the structural elements beyond their ultimate strength as
well as the flexural-torsional collapse behavior of stiffeners is not very successful.
In fact, ISUM elements accommodating post-collapse
behavior have previously been already developed but improvements are under development to better accommodate
such behavior (107, 108).
Usage of ISUM is limited to some specific problems and
is not a general-purpose methodology. In contrast to FEM,
for instance, it is necessary to formulate/develop ISUM elements specifically; by including buckling and collapse behavior for ultimate strength analysis or by including tearing
and crushing for collision strength analysis. The former type
element cannot be used for the purpose of latter type analysis and vice versa. ISUM is also not adequate for linear
stress analysis.
ISUM is very flexible, new closed form expressions of
the ultimate strength can be directly utilized by replacing
in the existing ISUM element the previous ultimate strength
formulations with the new ones.
18.7.3.2 Boundary Element Method (BEM)
In contrast to FEM, the boundary element method (BEM)
is a type of semi-numerical method involving integral equations along the boundary of the integral domain (or volume). To solve a problem that involves the boundary integral
equations, BEM typically uses an appropriate numerical integration technique so that the problem is discretized by dividing only the boundary of the integral domain into a
number of segments or boundary elements, while the conventional FEM uses a mesh (finite elements) over the entire domain (or volume), that is, inside as well as its
boundary. For a specific problem with a relatively simple
18-65
boundary domain, linear or flat boundary elements may be
employed so that analytical solutions for the integral equations can be adopted, while higher degree boundary elements must be used for modeling an integral domain with
more complex characteristics with the integration generally needing to be carried out numerically. Figure 18.65
shows typical FEM and BEM models for analysis of a pressure vessel (109).
Since the publication of an early book on BEM, many
engineering applications using BEM have been achieved.
More recent developments of BEM together with the basic
Figure 18.62 Cantilever Box Girder
Figure 18.63 A Typical FEM Model for NonLinear Analysis of the Cantilever
Box Girder
Figure 18.64 A Typical ISUM Model for Nonlinear Analysis of the
Cantilever Box Girder
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-66 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-66
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
idea may be found in Brebbia and Dominguez (109). While
there are some problem areas to overcome in use of BEM
for non-linear analysis, it has been recognized that BEM is
a powerful alternative to FEM particularly for problems involving stress concentration or fracture mechanics, and for
cases in which the integral domain extends to infinity. For
example, to design the cathodic corrosion protection systems for ships, offshore structures and pipelines, it has been
suggested that BEM should be employed, with the region
of interest extending to infinity. BEM can also be applied
to problems other than stress or temperature analysis, including fluid flow and diffusion (for example, for fluidstructure interaction, Subsection 18.6.8.2).
Main advantages of BEM are due that very complex expressions of integral equations can be adopted, resulting in
higher accuracy of the results.
In this regard, BEM can be involved in the usage of more
refined mathematical treatment than FEM. However, to calculate the integral equations using BEM, appropriate numerical techniques should be used, otherwise the integration
results may not be accurate. For most linear problems, linear or flat boundary elements along the boundary of the integral domain can be used so that we don’t have to carry
out numerical integration. If analytical solutions are available the required computing times will be very small and
(a)
the accuracy high. Nevertheless as the required computational times with the BEM is in general significant, BEM
may be more appropriate for linear analysis of solids and
for fluid mechanics problems.
18.7.4 Presentation of the Stress Result
After performing an analysis, the presentation of the stress
and deformation is very important. It should be based on
stresses acting at the middle of element thickness, excluding plate-bending stress, in the form of ISO-stress contours
in general. Numerical values should also be presented for
highly stressed areas or locations where openings are not
included in the model.
The following results should be presented for parts of
the vessel covered by the global model, such as, cargo hold
model and frame and girder models:
• deformed shape for each loading condition,
• In-plane maximum normal stresses (σx and σy) in the
global axis system, shear stresses (_) and equivalent von
Mises stress (σe) of the following elements:
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
bottom,
inner bottom,
deck,
side shell,
inner side including hopper tank top,
longitudinal and transverse bulkheads, and
longitudinal and transverse girders.
• Axial stress of free flanges,
• Deformations of supporting brackets for main frames
including longitudinals connected to these when applicable,
• Deformation of supports for longitudinals subject to
large relative deformation when applicable.
For parts of the vessel covered by the local model, the
following stresses are to be presented:
(b)
Figure 18.65 A Typical FEM/BEM Model for Analysis of the
Pressure Vessel (109). (a) Typical BEM model, and (b) Typical FEM model.
• Equivalent stress of plate/membrane elements,
• Axial stress of truss elements,
• Axial forces, bending moments and shear forces for beam
elements.
18.7.5 Relevant Structural Analysis Methods for
Specific Design Stages
Shipbuilding design offices face very challenging situations
(especially for passenger and other complex ships). The
products are one-of-a-kind or at least on short series and
the resulting ships are designed and built within two years
Author:
Please
advise
what
symbold
is
needed.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-67 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
for 20 to 30 years of operation. Another impact on design
activities that is also challenging is that the design overlaps
the production. To clarify the actual situation, a common
view of the design workflow for a commercial ship in the
shipyard is shown in Table 18.VII.
18.7.5.1 Basic design
The Basic Design is the design activities performed before
order. This phase does not overlap with the production but
is very short and will become the technical basis for the
contract. The shipyard must be sure that no technical problem will appear later on, to avoid extra costs not included
in the contract. The structural analysis carried out in this
phase must be as fast as possible because the allocated time
is short. The most time consuming task for analysis is the
data input. The more detailed are the data more accurate the
results. There are three kinds of early analysis:
1. First principles methods: Very simplified geometric representation of the structure. These methods are dedicated
to an assessment of the global behavior of the ship. They
mainly use empirical or semi-empirical formulas.
TABLE 18.VII Timing of a Design Project
Basic Design
Concept Design
Preliminary Design
Contract Design
1 or 2 days
About 1 week
Months
Receive Order
Production Design
Complete Functional Design
Production Design
1 or 2 months
6–10 months
TABLE 18.VIII Classification Society Tools Overview (110)
Classification Society
Product
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
ABS Safe Hull
Bureau Veritas (BV)
VeriSTAR
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
Electronic Rulebook &
Nauticus HULL
Germanisher Lloyd (GL)
GL-Rules & POSEIDON
Korean Register of shipping (KRS)
KR-RULES, KR-TRAS
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LR)
Rulefinder, ShipRight
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK)
PrimeShip BOSUN
18-67
2. Two-dimensional (or almost 2D) geometry-based methods: These methods are based on one or more 2D views
of the ship sections. The expected results may be:
• Verification of main section scantlings,
• Global strength assessment,
• Global vibration levels prediction,
• Ultimate strength determination, and
• Early assessment of fatigue
Two main approaches exist:
— The main section of the ship is modeled a 2D way
(including geometry and scantlings) then global, and
possibly local, loadings are applied (bending moments, pressures, etc.). All major Classification Societies provide today the designer with such tools
(Table 18.VIII).
— Various significant sections are described as beam
cross section properties (areas, inertias, etc.) and then
the ship is represented by a beam with variable properties on which global loading is applied.
3. Simple three-dimensional models: These models are useful when a more detailed response is needed. The idea
is to include main surfaces and actual scantlings (or from
the main section when not available) in a 3D model that
can be achieved in one or two weeks. This approach is
mainly dedicated to novel ship designs for which the
feedback is rather small.
18.7.5.2 Production design
The most popular method for structural analysis at the production design stage remains the Finite Elements Analysis
(FEA). This method is commonly used by Shipyards, Classification Societies, Research Institutes and Universities. It is
very versatile and may be applied to various types of analysis:
• global and local strength,
• global and local vibration analysis (natural frequencies
with or without external water, forced response to the
propeller excitation, etc.),
• ultimate strength, and
• detailed stress for local fatigue assessment,
• fatigue life cycle assessment,
• analysis of various non-linearities (material, geometry,
contact, etc.), and
• collision and grounding studies.
The two main approaches for solving the physical problem are:
1. implicit method is used to solve large problems (both linear and non linear) with a matrix-based method. This is
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-68 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-68
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
the favored method for solving global and local linear
strength and vibration problems. But it can also be applied to non linear calculations when the time step remains rather large (about 1/10 to 1 second), and
2. explicit method is mainly used for fast dynamics (as collision and grounding or explosion) where time step is
quite smaller. This method allows using different formulations for structural elements (Lagrangian) and fluid
elements (Eulerian).
One interesting result from research that is being introduced today is the reliability approach (see Chapter 19).
This approach introduces uncertainties within the model
(non planar plates, residual stresses from welding, discrepancies in the thickness…) to provide the designer with
a level of reliability for a given result instead of a deterministic value.
For FEA models, the modeling time is usually assumed
to be 70% of the overall calculation time and results exploitation 30%. The computation itself is regarded as negligible (excepted for explicit analysis). So the main efforts
today are focused on reducing the modeling time.
18.7.6 Optimization
Optimization is a field in which much research has been carried out over a long time. It is included today in many software tools and many designers are using it. The aim of
optimization is to give the designers the opportunity to
change design variables (such as thickness, number and
cross section of stiffeners, shape or topology) to design a
better structure for a given objective (lower weight or cost).
Optimization can be performed both at basic and production design stages:
• Basic Design: Even with simplified models, the designer
can optimize the scantlings. It can be used for instance
to find out the minimal scantlings for a novel ship for
which the yard have a lack of feedback,
• Production Design: Optimization can be used for three
main purposes:
— Scantlings optimization, which gives the user the
minimum scantlings for a given structure. The number of longitudinals and the frame spacing for a given
cargo hold/tank can also be optimized (105).
— Shape optimization (111), which uses a given topology and scantlings to provide the user the minimum,
required area of material (reducing holes in a plate
for instance), and to improve the hull shape considering the fluid-structure interaction.
— Topology optimization (112) which uses a given
scantlings and allows the user to find out where to
put material. An academic example of topology optimization is given on Figure 18.66.
Weight is the most usual objective function for structure
optimization. Minimizing weight is of particular importance in deadweight carriers, in ships required to have a
limited draft, and in fast fine lined ships, for example, passenger vessels. However, it is well know that the lowest
weight solution is not usually the lowest acquisition cost.
Today, cost is becoming the usual objective function for optimization (124).
For the other ship types it is still desirable to minimize
steel weight to reduce material cost but only when this can
be done without increasing labor costs to an extent that exceeds the saving in material costs. On the other hand, a reduction in structural labor cost achieved by simplifying
construction methods may still be worthwhile even if this
is obtained at the expense of increasing the steel weight.
Rigo (105) presents extensive review of ship structure
optimization focusing on scantling optimization. Vanderplaats (113), and Sen and Yang (114) are standard reference
books about optimization techniques. Catley et al (115),
Hughes (3) and Chapter 11 of this book also contain valuable information on structure optimization.
18.7.6.1 Scantling optimization procedure
A standard optimization problem is defined as follows:
• Xi (i = 1, N), the N design variables,
• F(Xi), the objective function to minimize,
• Cj(Xi) ≤ CMj (j = 1, M), the M structural and geometrical constraints,
• Xi min ≤ Xi ≤ Xi max upper and lower bounds of the Xi design variables: technological bounds (also called side
constraints).
Figure 18.66 Topology Optimization
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-69 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
Constraints are linear or nonlinear functions, either explicit or implicit of the design variables (XI). These constraints are analytical translations of the limitations that the
user wants to impose on the design variables themselves or
to parameters like displacement, stress, ultimate strength,
etc. Note that these parameters must be functions of the design variables.
So it is possible to distinguish:
Technological constraints (or side constraints) that provide
the upper and lower bounds of the design variables. For example:
Xi min = 4mm ≤ Xi ≤ Xi max = 40 mm,
with:
Xi min = a thickness limit dues to corrosion,
Xi max = a technological limit of manufacturing or assembly.
Geometrical constraints that impose relationships between
design variables in order to guarantee a functional, feasible, reliable structure. They are generally based on good
practice rules to avoid local strength failures (web or flange
buckling, stiffener tripping, etc.), or to guarantee welding
quality and easy access to the welds. For instance, welding
a plate of 30 mm thick with one that is 5 mm thick is not
recommended. Hence, the constraints can be 0.5 ≤ X2 / X1
≤ 2 with X1, the web thickness of a stiffener and X2, the
flange thickness.
Structural constraints represent limit states in order to avoid
yielding, buckling, cracks, etc. and to limit deflection, stress,
etc. These constraints are based on solid-mechanics phenomena and modeled with rational equations. Rational equations mean a coherent and homogeneous group of analysis
methods based on physics, solid mechanics, strength and
stability treatises, etc. and that differ from empirical and
parametric formulations. Such standard rational structural
constraints can limit:
• the deflection level (absolute or relative) in a point of the
structure,
• the stress level in an element: σx , σy, and σc = σvon Mises,
• the safety level related to buckling, ultimate resistance,
tripping, etc. For example: σ /σult ≤ 0.5.
For each constraint, or solid-mechanics phenomenon,
the selected behavior model is especially important since
this model fixes the quality of the constraint modeling. These
behavior models can be so complex that it is no longer possible to explicitly express the relation between the parameters being studied (stress, displacement, etc.) and the design
variables (XI). This happens when one uses mathematical
models (FEM, ISUM, BEM, etc.). In this case, one gener-
18-69
ally uses a numeric procedure that consists of replacing the
implicit function by an explicit approximated function adjusted in the vicinity of the initial values of the design variables (for instance using the first or second order Taylor
series expansions). This way, the optimization process becomes an iterative analysis based on a succession of local
approximations of the behavior models.
At least one constraint should be defined for each failure mode and limit state considered in the Subsection 18.6.1.
When going from the local to the general (Figure 18.38),
there are three types of constraints: 1) constraints on stiffened panels and its components, 2) constraints on transverse frames and transversal stiffening, and 3) constraints
on the global structure.
Constraints on stiffened panels (Figure 18.22): Panels
are limited by their lateral edges (junctions with other panels, AA’ and BB’) either by transverse bulkheads or transverse frames. These panels are orthotropic plates and shells
supported on their four sides, laterally loaded (bending) and
submitted, at their extremities, to in-plane loads (compression/tensile and shearing).
Global buckling of panels (including the local transverse
frames) must also be considered. Panel supports, in particular those corresponding to the reinforced frames, are assumed infinitely rigid. This means that they can distort
themselves significantly only after the stiffened panel collapse.
Constraints on the transverse frames (Figure 18.23): The
frames take the lateral loads (pressure, dead weight, etc.)
and are therefore submitted to combined loads (large bending and compression). The rigidity of these frames must be
assured in order to respect the hypotheses on panel boundary conditions (undeformable supports).
Constraints on the global structure (box girder/hull
girder) (Figure 18.46): The ultimate strength of the global
structure or a section (block) located between two rigid
frames (or bulkheads) must be considered as well as the
elastic bending moment of the hull girder (against yielding).
18.8
DESIGN CRITERIA
In ship design, the structural analysis phase is concerned
with the prediction of the magnitude of the stresses and deflections that are developed in the structural members as a
result of the action of the sea and other external and internal causes. Many of the failure mechanisms, particularly
those that determine the ultimate strength and collapse of
the structure, involve non-linear material and structural behavior that are beyond the range of applicability of the linear structural analysis procedures in Section 18.4, which are
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-70 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-70
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
commonly used in design practice. Most of the available
methods of non-linear structural analysis are briefly introduced in Sections 18.6 and 18.7. Sometimes, these methods are limited in their applicability to a narrow class of
problems.
One of the difficulties facing the structural designer is that
linear analysis tools must often be used in predicting the behavior of a structure in which the ultimate capability is governed by non-linear phenomena. This is one of the important
sources of uncertainty related to strength assessment.
After performing an analysis, the adequacy or inadequacy of the member and/or the entire ship structure must
then be judged through comparison with some kind of criterion of performance (Design Criteria). The conventional
criteria that are commonly used today in ship structural design are usually stated in terms of acceptable levels of stress
in comparison to the yield or ultimate strength of the material, or as acceptable stress levels compared to the critical buckling strength and ultimate strength of the structural
member. Such criteria are, therefore, intended specifically
for the prevention of yielding (hull girder, frames, longitudinals, etc), plate and stiffened plate buckling, plate and
stiffened plate ultimate strength, ultimate strength of hull
girder, fatigue, collision, grounding, vibration and many
other failure modes specific to particular vessel types. Information related to the design criteria is given in Section
18.6 for each specific failure mode (see also Beghin et al
(116)).
18.8.1 Structural Reliability as a Design Basis
Three categories of design methodology are basically available. They are usually classified as:
1. deterministic method,
2. semiprobabilistic method, and
3. full probabilistic method.
The deterministic method uses a global safety factor. It
assumes that loads and strength are fully determined. This
means that no aspect of randomness is considered. Everything is assumed to be deterministic. The global safety factor is compared to the ratio between the actual strength and
the required strength.
The full probabilistic method is an ideal approach assuming that all the randomness can be exactly considered
within a global probabilistic approach. All the actual development in structural reliability and reliability analysis show
the huge effort actually done to reach that aims. Chapter 19
presents in detail the reliability concept with examples of the
reliability-based strength analysis of plates, stiffened panels, hull girder and fatigue. See also Mansour et al (42).
The semiprobabilistic method corresponds to the current practice used by codes and the major classifications societies. Load, strength, dimensions are random parameters
but their distribution is basically not known. To overcome
this, partial safety factor are used. Each safety factor corresponds to a load type, failure mode, etc. This is an intermediate step between the deterministic and the full
probabilistic methods.
18.9
DESIGN PROCEDURE
It does not seem possible to unify all of the design procedures (117-122). They differ from country to country, from
shipyard to shipyard and differ between naval ships, commercial ships and advanced high-speed catamaran passenger vessels. So, as an example of one feasible methodology,
the design procedure for commercial vessel such as tanker,
container, and VLCC is selected. It corresponds to the actual current shipyard procedure.
This structural design procedure can be defined as follows:
• receive general arrangement from the basic design group,
• define structural arrangement based on the general
arrangement,
• determine initial scantling of structural members within
design criteria (rule-based).,
• check longitudinal and transverse strength,
• change the structural arrangement or scantling, and
• transfer the structural arrangement and scantling to the
production design group.
The structural design can also be classified according to
available design tool:
• use data of existing ship or past experience—expert system, (1st level)
• use of a structural analysis software like FEM (2nd level)
• use optimization software (3rd level)
The adequacy of the relevant analysis method to use for
a specific design stage is discussed in Subsection 18.7.5.
Here the discussion concerns the procedure from a design
point of view and not from the analysis point of view.
18.9.1 Initial Scantling
At the basic design stage, principal dimensions, hull form,
double bottom height, location of longitudinal bulkheads and
transverse bulkheads, maximum still-water bending moment, etc. have already been determined to meet the owner’s
requirements such as deadweight and ship’s speed. Such a
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-71 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
parametric design procedure presented in Chapter 11 is relevant for this stage.
For the structural design stage, the structural arrangement
is carried out to define the material property, plate breadth,
stiffener spacing, stiffener type, slot type, shape of openings, and frame spacing. The initial scantling of longitudinal members such as plate thickness and section area of
stiffener can be determined by applying the classification
rules which give minimum required value to meet the bending, shear and buckling strength. As there are usually no suitable rules for the transverse members, the initial scantling
of transverse members such as height and thickness of web,
breadth and thickness of flange are determined by reference
to similar ships or using empirical shipyard database.
18.9.2 Strength Assessment
The purpose of the strength assessment is to validate the initial design, that is, to evaluate quantitatively the strength capability of the initial design. This problem was extensively
presented in previous Sections 18.4, 18.5 and 18.6.
In general, the longitudinal members are subjected to
several kinds of stresses in the sea-going condition: primary, secondary and tertiary stresses (Subsection 18.4.1).
As all these stresses act simultaneously, the superposition
of these stresses should not exceed the allowable equivalent stress given by the classification rules (equations 45
and 46).
There are two kinds of strength to design the longitudinal members. One is the local strength to avoid collapse,
and the other is the longitudinal strength to consider the
collapse of the ships’ hull girder. The local strength is automatically satisfied if the design is based on the classification rules. The hull girder longitudinal strength can be
assessed with the hull section modulus (SM) at bottom and
deck where the extreme stresses are taken place (equation
29). The hull section modulus is calculated easily by using
available software.
If the hull section modulus at bottom or deck part is bigger than the required value, this design can be considered
as finished but this design might be too expensive. If the
section modulus at the deck or at the bottom is less than the
required value, the designer should change the initial scantlings.
If the calculated hull section modulus at deck part is less
than required, he can increase, step by step, the deck scantling (for example, 0.5 mm for the plate thickness) until the
requirement is satisfied.
The designer also has to modify the scantling (usually
plate thickness) of transverse members, for which the stress
exceeds the allowable value. The designer estimates the in-
18-71
creased thickness according to the difference between the
actual stress and allowable stress. If the difference is small,
it is not necessary to perform a new strength assessment
and the design may be completed with only small changes.
If the difference is large, the design should be drastically
changed and it will be necessary to analyze the structure
again (see previous step in this Subsection).
Then, the designer has to check the transverse strength
by comparing the actual stresses in the transverse frames
with the allowable stresses given by the classification rules.
The actual stresses such as equivalent stress and shear stress
can be obtained using commercial FEA packages. If the
stress in some of elements exceeds the allowable stress, the
designer should increase the initial scantling. These changes
are performed at the third step Structural Design using the
results of the Strength Assessment and by comparison with
the design criteria.
18.9.3 Structural Design
If all of local scantlings are determined by the rule minimum values, and if the longitudinal strength satisfies the rule
strength requirement, the design is completed. But, even if
this design is strong enough, it might be too heavy and/or
too expensive and it should be refined. In practice, refining
an already feasible design is a difficult task and requires experience. The designer can change the structural arrangement, especially the dimensions such as frame spacing, and
material properties to better fit with the longitudinal strength
requirements. This work has to be done in agreement with
the basic design team.
Instead of the trial and error procedure discussed above,
an automatic optimization technique can be used to obtain
the minimum weight and/or cost for the longitudinal and
transverse structural member. The object function(s) can be
structural weight and/or fabrication cost, using either a single object function approach or a multiple objective function method. The design variables can be longitudinal and
transverse spacing, deck/bottom scantlings for the longitudinal and transverse members (web height and thickness,
flange width and thickness). The constraints and limitations
of the optimization process can be the range of each design
variable as well as the required hull section modulus and
minimum deck/bottom scantlings for the longitudinal members, and allowable bending and shear stresses for the transverse members (see Optimization in Subsection 18.7.6).
18.9.4 A Generic Design Framework
By comparison with the previous standard procedure, Figure 18.67 shows a new generic and advanced design method-
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-72 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-72
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
ology where the performance of the system, the manufacturing process of the system and the associated life cycle
costs are considered in an integrated fashion (120). Designing ship structures systems involves achieving simultaneous, though sometimes competing, objectives. The
structure must perform its function while conforming to
structural, economic and production constraints. The present design framework consists of establishing the structural
system and composite subsystems, which optimally satisfy
the topology, shape, loading and performance constraints
while simultaneously considering the manufacturing or fabrication processes in a cost effective manner.
The framework is used within a computerized virtual
environment in which CAD product models, physics-based
models, production process models and cost models are
used simultaneously by a designer or design team. The performance of the product or process is in general judged by
some time independent parameter, which is referred to as
a response metric (R). Specifications for the system must
be established in terms of these Response Metrics. The formulation of the design problem is thus the same whether
the product or process systems (or both) are considered.
The general framework consists of a system definition
module, a simulation module and a design module.
Operational Requirements
ParametersZ
System Definition
Model Parameters Y
Environmental Model Product Model Process Model
Parameters U
ParametersV
ParametersW
Simulation Based Design Translator
Simulation Parameters T
Design Variables X
Simulations
Simulation Response S(T ,X ,time)
Design Criteria
Constraints G(T,X,Y,Z)
Response Metrics R [S(T ,X )]
Objective Function F(R,T,X,Y,Z)
Yes
No
Is Design Space
Feasible?
Optimization
Steepest Descent
Convex Linearization
Design Assessment
Min (F) ?
R<G ?
No
Conditions Satisfied ?
Yes
Yes
Redesign?
No
Stop
Figure 18.67 A Generic Design Framework (120)
The system definition module [Y(U,V,W)] is used to
build an environmental model [U], a product model [V] and
a process model [W]. The system definition module receives
operational requirements [Z] such as owner’s requirements.
These operational parameters are presumed fixed throughout the design.
They of course can eventually be changed if no acceptable design is established, but presumably any design would
have operational parameters, which would not be sacrificed.
The environmental model [U] includes the still water and
wave loading conditions and the product model [V] contains the production information, for example. The process
model [W] is built to consider or define the fabrication sequence. A translator (simulation based design translator)
assigns some [Y] model parameters to the simulation parameters [T] and design variables [X].
These parameters are selected based on the available
simulation tools [S] that require specific data ([T],[X] and
time).
The simulation module [S(T, X, time)] is used to produce simulation responses such as Response Metrics [R[S(T,
X)]]. The time is needed to consider the dynamic effects and
actual dynamic load conditions [U].
The optimum design module includes the Design Criteria, the Design Assessment and the Optimization components. The design criteria module provides constraints [G(T,
X, Y, Z)] and objective functions [F(R, T, X, Y, Z)]. These
are used to assess the design through the Design Assessment component of the module (for example R≤G). The
constraints are obtained by considering not only the simulation parameters [T] and the design variables [X] but also
the operational requirements [Z] and the system definition
parameter [Y]. Also, the objective function [F] is calculated
using the response metrics [R], the operational requirements
[Z], the system definition parameter [Y] as well as the design variables [X] and simulation parameters [T].
Based on the results of the Design Assessment (Min(F)
and R≤G) several strategies for the design procedure (iterations) can be followed:
• if the object function does not reach its minimum value
or the response metrics do not satisfy the constraints, an
optimization algorithm (steepest descent, dual approach
and convex linearization, evolutionary strategies, etc.) is
adopted to find a new set of design variables. Standard
algorithms are presented in (113,114,123):
— if the optimizer fails to find an improved solution (unfeasible design space), it is required to change the
simulation parameter values [T] and/or design variables selection [X] or even to modify the Model Parameters [Y].
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-73 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
— otherwise, the design space is feasible, and a change
of design variable values [X] is performed based on
the optimizer solution (in other words a new iteration).
• if the object function reaches its minimum value and the
response metrics satisfy the constraints, two alternatives
are examined:
— change the operational requirements parameters [Z],
repeat the previous procedure and to compare with
other alternative designs, or
— end the design procedure.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
18.10
REFERENCES
1. Taggart R., Ship Design and Construction, SNAME, New
York, 1980
2. Lewis, E. V., Principles of Naval Architecture (2nd revision),
vol.1, SNAME, 1988
3. Hughes O. F., Ship Structural Design: A Rationally -Based,
Computer-Aided Optimization Approach, SNAME, New Jersey, 1988
4. DnV 99–0394, Calculation Procedures for Direct Global
Structural Analysis, Det Norske Veritas, Technical Report,
1999
5. Arai H., “Evolution of Classification Rules for Ships,” In Recent Advances in Marine Structures, ISSC’2000 Pre-Congress Symposium, Society of Naval Architects of Japan,
Tokyo: 8.1–8.22, 2000
6. IACS Unified Requirement S7 “Minimum Longitudinal
Strength Standards,” 1989
7. IACS Unified Requirement S11 “Longitudinal Strength Standard,” 1993
8. ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, 2000
9. BV Rules for Steel Ships, 2001
10. RINA Rules, 2001
11. DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, 2001
12. NKK Rules and Guidance for the Survey and Construction
of Steel Ships, 2001
13. Salvensen, N., Tuck, E. O. & Faltinsen, O., “Ship Motions
and Sea Loads”, Transactions SNAME, 78: 250–287, 1970
14. Ochi, M.K., “Applied Probability & Stochastic Processes,”
John Wiley & Sons, 1990
15. GWS, “Global Wave Statistics” British Maritime Technology Ltd. Feltham, 1986
16. Guedes Soares, C., et al. “Loads (Report of ISSC Committee I.2),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan & Berge (Eds.),
Pergamon, Norway, 1, 1997
17. Guedes Soares, C., et al. “Loads (Report of ISSC Committee I.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.),
Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000 ”
18. Chung, T. Y., et al. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
18-73
Committee II.2),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan & Berge
(Eds.), Pergamon, Norway, 1, 1997
Temarel, P., et al. “Dynamic Response (Report of ISSC Committee II.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi
(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000
“Vibration Control in Ships,” A/S. VERITEC Høvik, Norway, 1985
Kaminski, M.L., et al. “Ultimate Strength (Report of ISSC
Committee III.1),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo &
Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000
Pedersen, P. T., “Ship Grounding and Hull Girder Strength”
Marine Structures, 7, 1994
Beck R. F. and Reed A. M., “Modern Seakeeping Computations for Ships” Proc. 23rd Symposium Naval Hydrodynamics Val de Reuil, France, 2000
Jensen, J. J. et al., “Extreme Hull Girder Loading,” Report
of Special Task Committee VI.1 Proc. 14th International Ship
and Offshore Structures Congress, Ohtsubo and Sumi (Editors), 2: 261–320, 2000
Rawson, K. J., Tupper E. C., Basic Ship Theory (Fourth edition), 1 & 2, Longman Scientic & Technical, Essex, UK,
1994
Schade, H. A., “The Effective Breath of Stiffened Plating
Under Bending Loads,” Transactions SNAME, 61, 1951
Evans, H. J., Ship Structural Design Concepts—Second Cycle,
Cornell Maritime Press, First Edition, Maryland, 1983
Heggelund, S. E., Moan, T. and Omar, S., “Global Structural
Analysis of Large Catamarans,” Proceedings Fifth Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST’99, SNAME, Seattle: 757–771, 1999
Rigo, P., “Stiffened Sheathings of Orthotropic Cylindrical
Shells,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118 (4):
926–943, 1992
Rigo, P. and Fleury, C., “Scantling Optimization Based on
Convex Linearizations and a Dual Approach,” Marine Structures, Elsevier Science Ltd., 14 (6): 631–649, 2001
Mansour, A. E., “Gross Panel Strength under Combined Loading,” Ship Structure Committee, SSC-270, NTIS, Washington DC, 1977
Hughes, O., Nikolaidis, E., Ayyub, B., White, G. and Hess,
P., “Uncertainty in Strength Models for Marine Structures,”
Ship Structure Committee (375), NTIS, Washington DC,
1994
Paik, J. K., Thayamballi, A. and Kim, B., “Advanced Ultimate Strength Formulations for Ship Plating under Combined Biaxial Compression/Tension, Edge Shear and Lateral
Pressure Loads,” Marine Technology, 38, (1): 9–25, 2001
Faulkner, D., “A Review of Effective Plating for use in the
Analysis of Stiffened Plating in Bending and Compression,”
Journal of Ship Research, 18 (1): 1–17, 1975
Faulkner, D., Adamchak, J., Snyder, G. and Vetter, M., “Synthesis of Welded Grillages to withstand Compression and
Normal Loads,” Computers & Structures, Vol.3, 1973,
pp.221–246.
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-74 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-74
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
36. Bleich, F. Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGrawHill, 1952
37. ECCS-56, Buckling of Steel Shells, 4th edition, ECCS—Technical Working Group 8.4 Stability of Shells, (60), European
Convention for Constructional Steel Work, Brussels, 1988
38. Paik J.K., Thayamballi A.K., Ultimate Limit State Design of
Steel Plated Structures, John Wiley & Sons, London, 2002.
39. Kaminski et al., “Ultimate Strength, Report of Technical
Committee III.1,” Proceedings of the 14th Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Vol.1, Elsevier: 253–321, 2001
40. Dowling et al “Design of Flat Stiffened Plating: Phase 1 Report”, CESLIC Report SP9, Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, London, 1991
41. Mansour, A. E. and Thayamballi A., “Ultimate Strength of a
Ship’s Hull Girder in Plastic and Buckling Modes,” Ship
Structure Committee (299) NTIS, Washington DC, 1980
42. Mansour, A. E., Lin M., Hovem, L. and Thayamballi, A.,
“Probability-Based Ship Design—Phase 1: A Demonstration,” SSC (368), NTIS, Washington DC, 1993
43. Chen, Q., Zimmerman, T., DeGeer, D. and Kennedy, B.,
“Strength and Stability Testing of Stiffened Plate Components,” Ship Structure Committee (399), NTIS, Washington
DC, 1997
44. Paik, J. K. and Kim, D. H., “A Benchmark Study of the Ultimate Compressive Strength Formulation for Stiffened Panels,” Journal Research Institute of Industrial Technology, 53,
Pusan National University: 373–405, 1997
45. Rigo, P., Moan, T., Frieze P. and Chryssanthopoulos, M.,
“Benchmarking of Ultimate Strength Predictions for Longitudinally Stiffened Panels,” PRADS’95, 2: 869–882, Seoul,
Korea, 1995,
46. ECCS-60, Recommendations for the Design of Longitudinally Stiffened Webs and of Stiffened Compression Flanges,
1st edition, ECCS—Technical Working Group 8.3—Structural Stability, (60), European Convention for Constructional
Steel Work, Brussels, 1990
47. Mansour, A. E., Lin,Y. H. and Paik, J. K., “Ultimate Strength
of Ships under Combined Vertical and Horizontal Moments,”
PRADS’95, 2: 844–851, Seoul, Korea, 1995
48. Smith, C. S., “Elastic Analysis of Stiffened Plating under
Lateral Loading,” Transactions RINA, 108, (2): 113–131,
1966
49. Paik, J. K. and Thayamballi, A., “An Empirical Formulation
for Predicting the Ultimate Compressive Strength of Stiffened Panels,” Proceedings of ISOPE’97 Conference, IV:
328–338, 1997
50. Yao, T. et al., “Ultimate Hull Girder Strength (Committee
VI.2),” Proc. of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi (Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 2: 321–391, 2000
51. Yao, T., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Ship Hull Girder;
Historical Review and State of Art,” International Journal
Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE) 9 (1): 1–9, 1999
52. Chen, Y. K., Kutt, L. M., Piaszczyk, C. M. and Bieniek, M.
P., “Ultimate Strength of Ship Structures,” Transactions
SNAME 91: 149–168, 1983
53. Yao, T., Sumi, Y., Takemoto, H., Kumano, A., Sueoka, H.
and Ohtsubo, H., “Analysis of the Accident of the MV
NAKHODKA, Part 2: Estimation of Structural Strength,”
Journal of Marine Science and Technology (JMST), 3 (4):
181–183, 1998
54. Smith, C. S., “Influence of Local Compressive Failure on Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Ship’s Hull, PRADS 77,
Tokyo, Japan: 73–79, 1977
55. Rigo, P., Catalin, T. and Yao, T., “Sensitivity Analysis on Ultimate Hull Bending Moment,” In Proceeding of
PRADS’2001, Shanghai, China, 2001
56. Adamchack, J. C., “Approximate Method for Estimating the
Collapse of a Ship’s Hull in Preliminary Design,” Proc. Ship
Structure Symposium’84, SNAME: 37–61, 1984
57. Beghin, D., et al., “Design Principles and Criteria (Report of
ISSC Committee IV.1),” Proceedings of 13th ISSC, Moan and
Berge (Eds.), Pergamon Press—Elsevier Science, 1: 351–406,
1997
58. Dow, R. S., Hugill, R. C., Clarke, J. D. and Smith, C. S.,
“Evaluation of Ultimate Ship Hull Strength,” Proceedings of
Symposium on Extreme Loads Response, Arlington: 33–148,
1991
59. Gordo, J. M., Guedes Soares, C., “Approximate Methods to
Evaluate the Hull Girder Collapse Strength,” Marine Structures 9 (3–4): 449–470, 1996
60. Gordo, J. M. and Guedes Soares, C., “Interaction Equation
for the Collapse of Tankers and Containerships under Combined Vertical and Horizontal Bending Moments,” Journal
of Ship Research 41 (3): 230–240, 1997
61. Yao, T. and Nikolov, P. I., ‘Progressive Collapse Analysis of
a Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending,” Journal of Society Naval Architects of Japan, 170: 449–461, 1991
62. Yao, T., Nikolov, P. I., “Progressive Collapse Analysis of a
Ship’s Hull under Longitudinal Bending (2nd Report),” Journal of Society Naval Architects of Japan, 172: 437–446, 1992
63. Rutherford, S. E., Caldwell, J. B., “Ultimate Longitudinal
Strength of Ships: A Case Study,” SNAME Transactions, 98:
441–471, 1990
64. Caldwell, J. B., “Ultimate Longitudinal Strength,” Transactions RINA 107: 411–430, 1965
65. Paik, J. K. and Mansour, A. E., “A Simple Formulation for
Predicting the Ultimate Strength of Ships,” Journal Marine
Science and Technology, 1: 52–62, 1995
66. Viner, A. C., “Development of Ship Strength Formulation,”
Proceedings of International. Conference on Advances in
Marine Structures, ARE, Dunfermline, UK: 152–173, 1986
67. Frieze, P. et al, “Applied Design, Report of ISSC Committee V.1,” 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 2, 1991
68. Sumi, Y. et al, “Calculation Procedures. In Quasi-static Response (Report of ISSC Committee II.1),” Proceedings of
13th ISSC, Moan and Berge (eds), Pergamon Press—Elsevier Science, 1: 128–138, 1997
69. Hu, Y., Zhang A. and Sun J., “Analysis on the Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Bulk Carrier by Using a Simplified
Method,” Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14: 311–330, 2001
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-75 4/28/03 1:31 PM
Chapter 18: Analysis and Design of Ship Structure
70. Paik, J. K., Thayamballi A. K. and Jung S. C. “Ultimate
Strength of Ship Hulls under Combined Vertical Bending,
Horizontal Bending and Shearing Forces,” SNAME Transactions 104: 31–59, 1996
71. IACS “Longitudinal Strength Standard. Requirements Concerning Strength of Ships, IACS (International Association
of Classification Societies),” IUR S11 Longitudinal Strength
Standard, S11.1-S11.12, 1993
72. Nitta, A., Arai, H. and Magaino, A., “Basis of IACS Unified
Longitudinal Strength Standard,” Marine Structures, 5: 1–21,
1992
73. Almar-Naess A. Fatigue-Handbook—Offshore Structures,
Tapir Publication, Trondheim, 1985
74. Fricke, W. et al., “Fatigue and Fracture (Report of ISSC Committee III.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi
(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1: 323–392, 2000
75. Maddox S. J., Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures, Abington Publishing, Second Edition, UK, 1994
76. Niemi, E., Stress Determination for Fatigue Analysis of
Welded Components, Abington Publishing, UK, 1995
77. NRC-National Research Council, “Prevention of Fractures
in Ship Structures, Committee on Marine Structures,” Marine Board, Washington DC, US, 1997
78. Petershagen, H., Fricke, W. and Paetzold, H., Fatigue Strength
of Ship Structures, GL-Technology—Part I: Basic Principles,
Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Hamburg, 1/97, 1997
79. Byers, W.G., Marley, M., Mohammadi, J., Nielsen, R. and
Sarkani, S., “Fatigue Reliability Reassessment Procedures:
State-of- The-Art Paper,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 123 (3): 227–285, 1997
80. Madsen, H. O., Krenk, S. and Lind, N.C., Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986
81. Harris, D.O., Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics, Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Handbook, Sundarajan, ed., Chapman and Hall, New York, N.Y., 1995
82. Miner, M. A., “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,” Trans.
ASME, 67, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 12: 154–164, 1945
83. Wirsching, P.H., Chen, Y. N., “Considerations of Probability Based Fatigue Design Criteria for Marine Structures,”
Marine Structures, 1: 23–45, 1988
84. Brown, A., Tikka, K., Daidola, J., Lutzen, M. and Choe, I.,
“Structural Design and Response in Collision and Grounding,” Proceedings of the 2000 SNAME Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, October, 2000
85. Amdahl, J. and Kavlie, D., “Design of Tankers for Grounding and Collision,” Proceedings of the Int. Conference on
Technologies for Marine Environment Preservation
(MARIENV’95), 1, Tokyo, Japan: 167–174, 1995
86. Ohtsubo, H. et al., “Structural Design Against Collision and
Grounding,” Report of Technical Committee V.4, Proc. of
the 13th Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 2, Pergamon: 83–116, 1997
87. Wang, G., Spencer, J. and Chen, Y., “Assessment of a Ship’s
Performance in Accidents,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
18-75
(ICCGS’2001), Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, 2001
Todd, F. H., Ship Hull Vibration, Arnold Ltd, London, 1961
Lewis F. M., “The Inertia of Water Surrounding a Vibrating
Ship,” SNAME Transactions, 37, 1929
Volcy, G., Baudin, M, Bereau, M. and Besnier, F., “Hydroelasticity and Vibration of Internal Steelwork of Tanks,”
SNAME Transactions, 1980
Morel, P., Beghin, D. and Baudin, M., “Assessment of the
Vibratory Behavior of Ships,” RINA Conference on Noise
and Vibration, London, UK, 1995
Spittaël, L., Zalar, M., Laspalles, P.and Brosset, L., “Membrane LNG FPSO & FSRU—Methodology for Sloshing
Phenomenon,” Proceedings of Gastech’2000, Houston, 2000
Fabro, R., “Ship Noise and Vibration Comfort Class: International Rules and Shipbuilding Practice,” Proceedings of
NAV2000, Venice, Italy, 2000
Blevins, R. D., Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode
Shape, Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, US, 1984
Lund. J. W., “Rotor-Bearing Dynamics Design Technology,” Part III: Design Handbook for fluid film bearings.,
Mech. Tech. Inc., Technical Report AFAPL-TR-65–45, 1965
Greene E., Design Guide for Marine Applications of Composites, Ship Structure Committee, SSC-403, NTIS, Washington DC, USA, 1997
Beier, K. P., “Web-Based Virtual Reality in Design and Manufacturing applications,” COMPIT 2000, 1st Int. Euro Conference on Computer Applications and Information
Technology in the Maritime Industry, Potsdam, Germany:
45–55, 2000
Jensen, J. J. et al, “Performance of Composite Structures,”
in Report of Technical Committee III.1, Proc. of the 13th
Int. Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 1, Pergamon:
256–263, 1997
Ross, J. M., “CAD/CAM/CIM: Using Today’s High-Tech
Tools for State-of-the-Art,” International Conference on
Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS), Society
of Naval Architects of Japan, Yokohama, Japan, 1997
Zenkert, D., The Handbook of Sandwich Construction., Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd., London, UK,
1997
Kitamura, O., Kawamoto, Y., Kaneko, E., “A Study of the
Improved Tanker Structure Against Collision and Grounding Damage,” Proceedings of PRADS’98, Elsevier, The
Hague, NL, 1: 173–179, 1998
Bishop, R. E., Price N. G., “Some Comments on presentday ship dynamics,” Philosophical Transactions Royal Society, London, A 334: 187–187, 1991
Porcari, et al., “Quasi-static Response (Report of ISSC Committee II.1),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi
(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, 1, 2000
Basu, R., Kirkhope, K. and Srinivasan, J., “Guidelines for
Evaluation of Finite Elements and Results,” Ship Structure
Committee (387), NTIS, Washington DC, 1996
Rigo, P., “A Module-Oriented Tool for Optimum Design of
MASTER SET
SDC 18.qxd Page 18-76 4/28/03 1:31 PM
18-76
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
Ship Design & Construction, Volume 1
Stiffened Structures,” Marine Structures, Elsevier, 14 (6):
611–629, 2001
Ueda,Y., Rashed, S., “The Idealized Structural Unit Method
and its Application to Deep Girder Structures,” Computers
& Structures, 18 (2): 277–293,1984
Paik, J. K. and Hughes, O. F., “Ship Structures,” Chapter 8
in the textbook Computational Analysis of Complex Structures, Edited by R.E. Melchers, The American Society of
Civil Engineers, 2002
Fujikubo, M. and Kaeding, P., ISUM rectangular plate element with new lateral shape function (2nd Report) – Stiffened plates under bi-axial thrust—Journal of Society Naval
Architects of Japan: 479–487, 2000
Brebbia, C. and Dominguez, J., Boundary Elements: An Introductory Course, Computational Mechanics Publications,
Boston, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989
Pradillon, J. Y. et al., “Design Method (Report of ISSC Committee IV.2),” Proceedings of 14th ISSC, Ohtsubo & Sumi
(Eds.), Elsevier, Japan, vol.1, 2000
Beckers, P., “Recent Developments in Shape Sensitivity
Analysis: the Physical Approach,” Engineering Optimization, 18: 67–78, 1991
Bendsoe, M. P. and Kikuchi, N., “Generating Optimal
Topologies in Structural Design using a Homogenization
Method,” Comp. Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, (71): 187–224, 1988
Vanderplaats, G. N., Numerical Optimization Techniques
for Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984
Sen, P. and Yang, J. B., Multiple Criteria Decision Support
in Engineering, Springer-Verslag London Ltd, UK, 1998
Catley, D. et al., “Design Optimization: A State-of-the-Art
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
Review,” Marine Structures, Elsevier Science Publications,
5: 343–390, 1990
Beghin, D., Jastrzebski, T. and Taczala, M., “Result—A
Computer Code for Evaluation of the Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Hull Girder,” Proceedings of PRADS-95,
Eds. Kim & Lee, Society of Naval Architects of Korea, 2:
832–843, 1995
Birmingham, R., Cleland, G., Driver, R. and Maffin, D. Understanding Engineering Design, Prentice and Hall, London, 1997
Chalmers, D. W. Design of Ships’ Structures, Ministry of
Defense, HMSO Eds., London, 1993
Moan T. et al., “Report of ISSC Committee IV.1- Design
Philosophy,” 11th ISSC Conference, Wuxi, China, 1991
Karr, D., Beier, K. P., Na, S. S. and Rigo, P., “A Framework
for Simulation Based Design of Ship Structures,” Proceedings of the 2001 Ship Production Symposium, SNAME,Ypsilanti, Michigan, 2001
Parsons, G., Singer, D. and Sauter, J., “A Hybrid Agent Approach for Set-Based Conceptual Ship Design,” Proceedings
10th ICCAS Conference, Cambridge MA, 2: 207–221, 1999
Watson D. G. M. Practical Ship Design, Elsevier Ltd, Oxford, 1, 1998
Fleury C., “Mathematical Programming Methods for Constrained Optimization: Dual Methods, (Chap7)” and “Recent Developments in Structural Optimization Methods
(Chap9)” in Structural Optimization: Status and Promise,
(M.P. Kamat ed.), series: Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, 150: 123–150 and 183–208, 1993
Rigo, P., “Least-Cost Structural Optimisation Oriented Preliminary Design,” Journal of Ship Production, 17 (4):
202–215, 2001