Marine Technology, Vol. 41, No. 3, July 2004, pp.

122–139

A Guide for the Ultimate Longitudinal Strength Assessment

of Ships
Jeom Kee Paik1

The aim of the present paper is to establish a practical guide for the ultimate longitudinal strength assess-
ment of ships. The ultimate hull girder strength of a ship hull can be calculated using either the progressive
collapse analysis method or closed-form design formulas. In the present paper, both the progressive
collapse analysis method and the design formulas are presented. A comparison between the progressive
collapse analysis results and the design formula solutions for merchant cargo ship hulls is undertaken. The
total design (extreme) bending moment of a ship hull is estimated as the sum of the still-water and
wave-induced bending moment components as usual. The safety measure of a ship hull is then defined as
a ratio of the ultimate longitudinal strength to the total design bending moment. The developed guidelines
are applied to safety measure calculations of merchant ship hulls with respect to hull girder collapse. It is
concluded that the guidance and insights developed from the present study will be very useful for the
ultimate limit state design of newly built ships as well as the safety measure calculations of existing ship
hulls. The essence of the proposed guide shall form ISO code 18072-2: Ships and Marine Technology—
Ship Structures—Part 2: Requirements of Their Ultimate Limit State Assessment.

1. Introduction comparison of its ultimate strength with the extreme applied

loads, as depicted in Fig. 1. To obtain a safe and economic
DURING THE LAST FEW DECADES, the emphasis in structural structure, the ultimate load-carrying capacity as well as the
design has been moving from the allowable (working) stress design load must be assessed accurately. The structural de-
design to the limit state design, because the latter approach signer can perform a structural safety assessment in the pre-
has many more advantages. A limit state is formally defined liminary design stage if there are simple expressions avail-
as a condition for which a particular structural member or an able for accurately predicting the design loads, load
entire structure fails to perform the function that it has been combinations, and the ultimate strength. A designer may
designed for. From the special viewpoint of a structural de- even desire to do this not only for the intact structure, but
signer, four types of limit states are considered, namely ser- also for structures with premised damage, in order to assess
viceability limit state (SLS), ultimate limit state (ULS), fa- and categorize their damage tolerance and survivability.
tigue limit state (FLS), and accidental limit state (ALS) (Paik In the present paper, a guide for the ultimate longitudinal
& Thayamballi 2003). strength assessment of ships is developed and is applied to
The structural design criteria against the ULS are based
on plastic collapse or ultimate strength. The design of many
types of structures including merchant ship structures has in
the past tended to rely on estimates of the buckling strength
of components, usually from their elastic buckling strength
adjusted by a simple plasticity correction. This is represented
by point A in Fig. 1. In such a design scheme, the structural
designer does not use detailed information on the postbuck-
ling behavior of component members and their interactions.
The true ultimate strength represented by point B in Fig. 1 is
typically higher, although one can never be sure of this.
In design, when the load level 2 shown in Fig. 1 is applied,
the structure will be safe, but if the load level 1 is applied, the
structure will possibly collapse. Arguably the ultimate
strength is a better basis for design, but as long as the
strength level associated with point B remains unknown (as
it is with traditional allowable stress design or linear elastic
design methods), it is difficult to determine the real safety
margin. Hence, more recently, the design of such structures
as those of navy ships as well as offshore platforms and land-
based structures (e.g., steel bridges) has tended to be based
on the ultimate strength.
The safety margin of a structure can be evaluated by a

1
Professor of Ship Structural Mechanics, Department of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University,
Busan, Korea Fig. 1 Structural design considerations based on the ultimate limit state (Paik &
Manuscript received at SNAME headquarters January 2004. Thayamballi 2003)

122 JULY 2004 0025-3316/04/4103-0122$00.00/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

safety measure assessment of existing merchant ship hulls
against hull girder collapse as illustrative examples. Because
the essence of the proposed guide shall form ISO code 18072-
2: Ships and Marine Technology—Ship Structures–Part 2:
Requirements of Their Ultimate Limit State Assessment, the
guide is written in a format similar to usual codes or regu-
lations.
2. Ultimate longitudinal strength criteria
of ships
2.1 Safety measure calculation
The ultimate longitudinal strength–based safety measure
of a ship can be calculated as follows:
Mu
␩=
Mt
where ␩ ⳱ ultimate longitudinal strength–based safety mea-
sure, Mt ⳱ characteristic value of total extreme bending mo-
ment, Mu ⳱ characteristic value of ultimate longitudinal
strength.
2.2 Strength criterion
lapse analysis. Alternatively, a simpler model between the
two adjacent transverse frames may also be adopted as long
as the transverse frames are strong enough so that they
would not fail before the longitudinal members. In the sim-
pler model, it is to be noted that transverse frame spacing of
bulk carriers may be different at deck, side, and bottom,
whereas that of most merchant vessels is identical.
3.2.3 When ISUM is employed, ship structure is to be ide-
alized as an assembly of plate-stiffener separation elements,
as shown in Fig. 2. Sample models for typical merchant ves-
sel hulls between transverse frames are shown in Fig. 3.
3.2.4 One basic assumption of this simplified method for a
hull module between the two adjacent transverse frames is
that the hull cross section remains plane up to the ultimate
limit state under bending moments. To handle the condition
that the hull cross section remains plane, a displacement
control is usually applied so that any structural member is
subjected to longitudinal axial displacement that is propor-
tional to the associated member length or transverse frame
spacing as well as bending curvature. As a result, the distri-
bution of longitudinal strains over the hull cross section is
linear for both identical and different transverse frame spac-
ing as those as long as the length of all structural members is
identical (Fig. 4).

The safety measure, ␩, defined in Section 2.1, should not be 3.3 Simplified design formula
less than a target value involving the uncertainties associ-
3.3.1 The simpler model, that is, a hull module between the
ated with the calculation models for Mt and Mu, which must
two adjacent transverse frames, is taken as the extent of the
be greater than 1.0. Although the target safety measure can
be different depending on the types of ships, it is often taken
as 1.15 for newly built ships (e.g., NTS 1998) or 1.04 for aged
ships based on past experience, the latter being equivalent to
90% of newly built ships.

3. Methods for calculating the ultimate

bending moments
3.1 General
3.1.1 The ultimate bending moments of a ship in hogging
and sagging are to be calculated by the progressive collapse
analysis, as will be described in Section 3.2. Alternatively,
the ultimate strength calculations using the simplified de-
sign formula defined in Section 3.3 may be accepted.
3.1.2 In calculating ultimate bending moments of a ship
hull, all possible failure modes of structural components,
such as buckling of plating between stiffeners, flexural-
torsional buckling (tripping) of stiffeners, and buckling of
stiffener web, should be accounted for.
3.1.3 It is to be considered that individual structural ele-
ments making up the ship hull have an average level of ini-
tial imperfections in the form of initial deflection and weld-
ing-induced residual stresses.
3.1.4 For damaged ship hulls, the effects of structural dam-
ages need to be taken into account in the strength calcula-
tions.

3.2 Progressive collapse analysis

3.2.1 The aim of the progressive collapse analysis is to
analyze the detailed nonlinear response of ship structures
until and after the ultimate limit state is reached, which
involves both geometric and material nonlinearities. The
analysis can be performed by either the conventional nonlin-
ear finite element method or the idealized structural unit
method (ISUM), the latter being with the analysis of large
plated structures.
3.2.2 It is recommended to take the hull module between
transverse bulkheads as the extent of the progressive col- Fig. 2 Structural idealization as an assembly of plate-stiffener separation units

JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 123

 Fig. 4 (Top) Distributions of longitudinal strains and stresses for a ship hull with
the same transverse frame spacing at deck, side, and bottom (hogging). (Bottom)
Distributions of longitudinal strains and stresses for a ship hull (e.g., bulk carrier
hull) with different transverse frame spacing at deck, side, and bottom (hogging).
ULS = ultimate limit state

Fig. 5 (Top) A typical stiffened plate structure. (Middle) Plate-stiffener combina-

tion units. (Bottom) Plate-stiffener separation units

simplified design formula analysis. The ship hull is modeled

as an assembly of plate-stiffener combination units or plate-
stiffener separation units, as shown in Fig. 5. Sample models
for a double-skin tanker hull or a bulk carrier hull as an
assembly of plate-stiffener combination units are shown in
Fig. 6, and those for a double-skin tanker hull or a bulk
carrier hull as an assembly of plate-stiffener separation units
are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 (Top two panels) A sample model of a double-hull tanker hull between 3.3.2 Calculations using the plate-stiffener combina-
transverse frames as an assembly of the plate-stiffener separation units. (Bottom tion models. In this case, the ship hull is modeled as an
two panels) A sample model of a bulk carrier hull between transverse frames as an assembly of plate-stiffener combination units.
assembly of the plate-stiffener separation units 3.3.2(a) The longitudinal bending stresses of individual

124 JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 where ␴i ⳱ longitudinal bending stress of the ith element
(see Fig. 7), zi ⳱ coordinate of the ith element measured from
the base line to the deck with zi ⳱ 0 at the base line, g ⳱
neutral axis, which is given as

g=
兺A z ,i i

兺A i

where Ai ⳱ cross-sectional area of the ith element calculated

considering the effective width of attached plating, as will be
defined in Section 3.3.2(b), ␴Yeqd, ␴Yeqb ⳱ average equivalent
yield stresses at upper deck or outer bottom panels, D ⳱
depth of the ship.
3.3.2(b) The cross-sectional area of the units is to be calcu-
lated considering the effective width of attached plating as
follows (for symbols used below, see Fig. 8):
A = bet + hwtw + bf tf
where be ⳱ effective width of attached plating, which is
given by

be = 再冉b

b
1.8 0.9
␤
− 2
␤
冊
for ␤ ⱕ 1

for ␤ ⬎ 1 for compressed units

be = b for tensioned units

with b ⳱ full width of attached plating,

␤=
b
t
冑 ␴Y
E
,

␴Y ⳱ yield stress of attached plating, E ⳱ Young’s modulus.

3.3.2(c) Following the concept of Fig. 7, the longitudinal
bending stress value of plate-stiffener combination units de-
fined in Section 3.3.2(a) should satisfy the following criteria,
namely
␴ ⱕ ␴Yeq for tensioned units
ⱍ␴ⱍⱕⱍ␴uⱍ for compressed units
where ␴Yeq ⳱ equivalent yield stress, which is given by
␴Ybt + ␴Ys共hwtw + bf tf兲
␴Yeq = ,
bt + hwtw + bf tf
␴Y, ␴Ys ⳱ yield stresses of attached plating or stiffener, ␴u ⳱
ultimate compressive stress of the unit, as will be defined in
Section 3.3.2(d).
3.3.2(d) The ultimate compressive stress of a plate-
stiffener combination unit is to be calculated using the so-

Fig. 6 (Top two panels) A sample model for a double-skin tanker hull as an
assembly of plate-stiffener combination units. (Bottom two panels) A sample
model for a bulk carrier hull as an assembly of plate-stiffener combination units

plate-stiffener combination units are to be calculated with

negative sign in compression and positive sign in tension
until the tensioned flange of the hull (i.e., deck in hog, bottom
in sag) yields, as follows:

zi − g
␴i = ␴ for hogging
D − g Yeqd
Fig. 7 Longitudinal stress distribution in a hull section at the ultimate limit state,
g − zi
␴i = ␴Yeqb for sagging as suggested by Paik and Mansour (1995). (Left) Sagging. (Right) Hogging (Paik
g & Thayamballi 2003)

JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 125

 Fig. 8 Typical types (flat bar, angle bar, and tee bar) of plate-beam combination units with the
attached effective plating

called Paik-Thayamballi formula (Paik & Thayamballi 2003), where ␴Y, ␴Ys ⳱ yield stresses of plating or stiffener, ␴up, ␴us
as follows: ⳱ ultimate compressive stresses of the plating or stiffener of
the unit, as will be defined in Sections 3.3.3(e) and 3.3.3(f).
␴Yeq 3.3.3(e) The ultimate compressive stress of the plating in
␴u = −
公0.995 + 0.936␭ 2
+ 0.170␤2 + 0.188␭2␤2 − 0.067␭4 an individual plate-stiffener separation unit is to be calcu-
lated as follows:
␴Yeq
and ⱍ␴uⱍ ⱕ
␭2 ␴up = ␴再
␴upl
upw
for a Ⲑ b ⱖ 1
for a Ⲑ b ⬍ 1
where ␴Yeq ⳱ as defined in Section 3.3.2(c), ␤ ⳱ as defined in
Section 3.3.2(b), where a ⳱ length of the unit, ␴upl, ␴upw ⳱ ultimate compres-

冑
sive stresses of plating for a/b ⱖ 1 and a/b < 1, respectively,
a ␴Yeq which is given by
␭= ,

再
␲r E
0.032␤4 − 0.002␤2 − 1.0 for ␤ ⱕ 1.5
a ⳱ length of the unit, E ⳱ Young’s modulus, ␴upl
= −1.274 Ⲑ ␤ for 1.5 ⬍ ␤ ⱕ 3.0

冑
␴Y
I −1.248 Ⲑ ␤2 − 0.283 for ␤ ⬎ 3.0
r= ,

冉 冊
A
␴upw a ␴upl
* 0.475 a
A = bt + hwtw + bf tf, = − 1−
␴Y b ␴Y ␤*2 b
bt3
冉 冊 冉 冊
3
t 2 twhw t hw 2
I= + bt zp − + + hwtw zp − − where ␤ ⳱ as defined in Section 3.3.2(b),
12 2 12 2 2

+
bf t3f
12 冉 t
+ bf tf zp − − hw −
2
tf 2
2
, 冊 ␤* =
a
t
冑 ␴Y
E
,
0.5bt2 + hwtw共t + 0.5hw兲 + bf tf 共t + hw + 0.5tf兲
zp = with
A

3.3.3 Calculations using the plate-stiffener separation

models. In this case, the ship hull is modeled as an assem-
bly of plate-stiffener separation units.
3.3.3(a) The longitudinal bending stresses of individual
␴upl
*
␴Y
= 再 0.032␤*4 − 0.002␤*2 − 1.0
−1.274 Ⲑ ␤*
−1.248 Ⲑ ␤*2 − 0.283
for ␤* ⱕ 1.5
for 1.5 ⬍ ␤* ⱕ 3.0
for ␤* ⬎ 3.0

plate-stiffener separation units are again to be calculated as
described in Section 3.3.2(a). Cross-sectional area of each
unit will in this case be defined in Sections 3.3.3(b) and
3.3.3(c).
3.3.3(b) The cross-sectional area of the plating of individual
plate-stiffener separation units denoted by Ap is to be calcu-
lated considering the effective width of plating as follows:
Ap = bet
where be ⳱ as defined in Section 3.3.2(b).
3.3.3(c) The cross-sectional area of the stiffener of indi-
3.3.3(f) The ultimate compressive stress of the stiffener with-
out attached plating in an individual plate-stiffener separa-
tion unit is to be calculated as follows:
␴us = 共−1兲min.关␴uW,␴uT兴
where ␴uW ⳱ critical buckling stress of stiffener web as de-
fined in Section 3.3.3(g), ␴uT⳱ critical flexural-torsional
buckling (tripping) stress as defined in Section 3.3.3(h).
3.3.3(g) ␴uW is to be calculated as follows:

冦 冉
␴EW for ␴EW ⱕ 0.5␴Ys

冊
vidual plate-stiffener separation units denoted by As is to be
calculated as follows: ␴u =
W ␴Ys
␴Ys 1 − for ␴EW ⬎ 0.5␴Ys
As = hwtw + bf tf 4␴EW

3.3.3(d) The longitudinal bending stress value of the plate- where ␴EW is the elastic buckling stress of stiffener web
stiffener separation units defined in Section 3.3.3(a) should which is given by
satisfy the following criteria, namely,
␴ ⱕ ␴Y or ␴Ys for tensioned units
ⱍ␴ⱍ ⱕ ⱍ␴upⱍ or ⱍ␴usⱍ for compressed units
␴EW = kw
␲2E tw
12共1 − v 兲 hw2 冉 冊 2

126 JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

and kw is the elastic buckling stress coefficient of stiffener
web, which is given by Paik and Thayamballi (2003): C3 = 冋 冉 冊
EIc 冉 冊册冋 m␲ 2
qa2 S1
−
3
1− 2 2 G共Jw + Jf兲

再
a 12 Ie m ␲

kw =
C1␨p + C2
C3 − 1 Ⲑ 共C4␨p + C5兲
C3 − 1 Ⲑ 共60C4 + C5兲
for 0 ⱕ ␨p ⱕ ␩w
for ␩w ⬍ ␨p ⱕ 60
for 60 ⬍ ␨p
冉 冊 冉 冊册
+ EIzehw2
m␲ 2 qa2 S2
a
−
12 Ie
3
1− 2 2
m ␲

for angle or T-stiffeners

−冋 冉 冊 冉 冊册 m␲ 2
−
qa2 S3 3
1− 2 2
2

再
EIzyehw ,
0.303␨p + 0.427 for 0 ⱕ ␨p ⱕ 1
a 12 Ie m ␲
kw = 1.277 − 1 Ⲑ 共1.40␨p + 0.428兲 for 1 ⬍ ␨p ⱕ 60 tf bf2
1.2652 for 60 ⬍ ␨p Sf = − ,
2

冉 冊
for flat-bar stiffeners
with hw
S1 = −共zp − hw兲tf bf − 0.1hwtwzp − hwtw zp − ,
2
␩w = −0.444␨f2 + 3.333␨f + 1.0,
C1 = −0.001␨f + 0.303, S2 = −共zp − hw兲tf hw2bf + 冉 bf3
3
冊 − hw3tw 冉 1
z −
3 p 4
hw
, 冊
C2 = 0.308␨f + 0.427,
bf2tf
S3 = 共zp − hw兲

冦
−4.350␨f2 + 3.965␨f + 1.277 for 0 ⱕ ␨f ⱕ 0.2 2
,
−0.427␨f2 + 2.267␨f + 1.460 for 0.2 ⬍ ␨f ⱕ 1.5

冉 冊
C3 = 0.1hwtw3 twhw3 tw hw 2
−0.133␨f2 + 1.567␨f + 1.850 for 1.5 ⬍ ␨f ⱕ 3.0
Ie = + 0.1hwtwzp2 + + Aw zp − −
5.354 for 3.0 ⬍ ␨f 12 12 2 2
bf tf3 tw
冉 tf 2
冊
冦
−6.70␨f2 + 1.40 for 0 ⱕ ␨f ⱕ 0.1 + + Af zp − − hw − ,
1/共5.10␨f + 0.860兲 for 0.1 ⬍ ␨f ⱕ 1.0 12 2 2

冉 冊
C4 =
1 Ⲑ 共4.0␨f + 1.814兲 for 1.0 ⬍ ␨f ⱕ 3.0 bf2
0.0724 for 3.0 ⬍ ␨f Ize = 0.1hwtwyoe2 + Awyoe2 + Af yoe2 − bf yoe + ,
3

冉 冊 冉 冊
−1.135␨f + 0.428 for 0 ⱕ ␨f ⱕ 0.2

冦
tw hw tw tf
−0.299␨f3 + 0.803␨f2 − 0.783␨f + 0.328 for 0.2 ⬍ ␨f ⱕ 1.0 Izye = 0.1hwtwzpyoe + Aw zp − − y + Af zp − − hw −
C5 = 2 2 oe 2 2
−0.016␨f3 + 0.117␨f2 − 0.285␨f + 0.235
0.001
for 1.0 ⬍ ␨f ⱕ 3.0
for 3.0 ⬍ ␨f 冉 yoe −
bf
2
,冊
GJp GJf
␨p = ,␨ = , G = E Ⲑ 关2共1 + v兲兴, v = Poisson’s ratio, twhw3 tw3hw bf3tf bf tf3
hwDw f hwDw Ip = + + + + Af hw2,
3 3 3 3
0.1hwtw3 bf tf3
Dw = Etw3 Ⲑ 关12共1 − v2兲兴, Jp = , Jf = . Aw = hwtw, Af = bf tf,
3 3
0.5Aw共tw + hw兲 + Af共0.5tw + hw + 0.5tf兲
3.3.3(h) ␴uT is to be calculated as follows zp = ,
0.1hwtw + hwtw + bf tf

冦 冉
␴ET for ␴ET ⱕ 0.5␴Ys
␴u =T
␴Ys 1 −
␴Ys
4␴ET
冊 for ␴ET ⬎ 0.5␴Ys yoe =
bf2tf
2共0.1hwtw + hwtw + bf tf
,

where ␴ET is the elastic tripping stress of stiffener, as defined

in Sections 3.3.3(i), 3.3.3(j), or 3.3.3(k).
3.3.3(i) For asymmetric angle stiffeners, ␴ET is to be calcu-
1 192 tw
Jw = tw3hw 1 − 5
3 冉 1
␲ hw n=1,3,5 n5
tanh
n␲hw
2tw
,
⬁

兺 冊
lated as follows (Paik & Thayamballi 2003):

冏 C2 + 公C22 − 4C1C3
冏
1
Jf = tf3bf 1 − 5
3 冉
192 tf 1
␲ bf n=1,3,5n5
tanh
n␲bf
2tf
. 兺
⬁

冊
␴ET = min.
m=1,2,3… 2C1 q ⳱ equivalent line pressure (⳱pbe, m ⳱ tripping half wave
where it is approximated as be ≈ 0.1hw and t ≈ tw. number of the stiffener, p ⳱ lateral pressure.
3.3.3(j) For symmetric tee-stiffeners, ␴ET is to be calculated
C1 = 共0.1hwtw + hwtw + bf tf兲Ip − Sf2, as follows (Paik & Thayamballi 2003):

C2 = −Ip EIe冋 冉 冊 m␲
a
2
−
qa2 S1
12 Ie 冉 1−
3
m␲
2 2 冊册 ␴ET = 共−1兲 min.
m=1,2,3… 冏 −
a2G共Jw + Jf兲 + EIfhw2m2␲2
Ipa2

冋
−共0.1hwtw + hwtw + bf tf兲 G共Jw + Jf兲 + EIzehw2 冉 冊
m␲
a
2

+
qa2 S4 3
冉
1− 2 2
m ␲ 冊冏
冉 冊册 冋 冉 冊
12 IeIp
qa2 S2 3 m␲ 2
− 1− 2 2 + 2Sf EIzyehw where a ⳱ length of the unit,
12 Ie m ␲ a

−
qa S3
12 Ie 冉 3
1− 2 2
m ␲
冊册 , S4 = −共zp− hw兲tf hw2bf + 冉 bf3
12
冊 − hw3tw 冉 1
z −
3 p 4
hw
, 冊
JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 127
 Fig. 10 Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 113,000 DWT floating
production, storage, and offloading unit (FPSO)

Fig. 11 Progressive collapse behavior of the floating production, storage, and

offloading unit (FPSO) hull under vertical moment varying the level of initial im-
perfections, as obtained by ALPS/HULL

twhw3 tw3hw bf tf3 bf3tf

Ip = + + + + Af hw2,
3 12 3 12

bf3tf
If = .
12

3.3.3(k) For flat-bar stiffeners, ␴ET is to be considered equal

to ␴EW, which is defined in Section 3.3.3(g).
3.4 Considering the concept of Fig. 7, the ultimate bending
moment of a ship hull with positive sign for hogging and
negative sign for sagging is to be calculated as follows (Paik
& Thayamballi 2003):

Mu = 兺␴ A 共z − g 兲
i i i u

where

Fig. 9 (Top) Mid-ship section of the Dow frigate test ship. (Middle) ALPS/HULL
gu =
兺␴ A z ,i i i
model for the Dow frigate test hull. (Bottom) Comparison of ALPS/HULL with the
Dow test results, varying the level of initial imperfections 兺␴ A i i

␴i ⳱ as defined in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 (with negative sign

in the compressed part and positive sign in the tensioned
part) considering hogging or sagging condition, zi, Ai ⳱ as
defined in Section 3.3.2.

128 JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

JULY 2004
Table 1 Hull sectional properties of the typical ships

Item SHT DHT#1 DHT#2 Bulk#1 Bulk#2 Cont#1 Cont#2 Cont#3 FPSO Shuttle

LBP (L) 313.0 m 233.0 m 315.0 m 282.0 m 273.0 m 230.0 m 258.0 m 305.0 m 230.6 m 254.0 m
Breadth (B) 48.2 m 42.0 m 58.0 m 50.0 m 44.5 m 32.2 m 40.0 m 45.3 m 41.8 m 46.0 m
Depth (D) 25.2 m 21.3 m 30.3 m 26.7 m 23.0 m 21.5 m 24.2 m 27.0 m 22.9 m 22.6 m
Draft (d) 19.0 m 12.2 m 22.0 m 19.3 m 15.0 m 12.5 m 12.7 m 13.5 m 14.15 m 15.0 m
Block coefficient (Cb) 0.833 0.833 0.823 0.826 0.8374 0.6839 0.6107 0.6503 0.8305 0.831
Design speed 15.0 knots 16.25 knots 15.5 knots 15.15 knots 15.9 knots 24.9 knots 26.3 knots 26.6 knots 15.4 knots 15.7 knots
DWT or TEU 254,000 DWT 105,000 DWT 313,000 DWT 170,000 DWT 169,000 DWT 3,500 TEU 5,500 TEU 9,000 TEU 113,000 DWT 165,000 DWT
Cross-sectional 7.858 m2 5.318 m2 9.637 m2 5.652 m2 5.786 m2 3.844 m2 4.933 m2 6.190 m2 4.884 m2 6.832 m2
area
Height to 12.173 m 9.188 m 12.972 m 11.188 m 10.057 m 8.724 m 9.270 m 11.614 m 10.219 m 10.568 m
neutral
axis from
baseline
I
Vertical 863.693 m4 359.480 m4 1,346.097 m4 694.307 m4 508.317 m4 237.539 m4 397.647 m4 682.756 m4 393.625 m4 519.674 m4
Horizontal 2,050.443 m4 1,152.515 m4 3,855.641 m4 1,787.590 m4 1,530.954 m4 648.522 m4 1,274.602 m4 2,120.311 m4 1,038.705 m4 1,651.479 m4
Z
Deck 66.301 m3 29.679 m3 77.236 m3 44.354 m3 39.274 m3 18.334 m3 26.635 m3 44.376 m3 31.040 m3 43.191 m3
Bottom 70.950 m3 39.126 m3 103.773 m3 62.058 m3 50.544 m3 27.228 m3 42.894 m3 58.785 m3 38.520 m3 49.175 m3
␴Y
Deck HT32 HT32 HT32 HT40 HT36 HT36 HT36 HT36 HT32 HT32
Bottom HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32
Mp
Vertical moment 22.615 GNm 11.930 GNm 32.481 GNm 20.650 GNm 15.857 GNm 8.881 GNm 12.179 GNm 18.976 GNm 12.451 GNm 15.669 GNm
Horizontal moment 31.202 GNm 19.138 GNm 54.465 GNm 31.867 GNm 26.714 GNm 14.967 GNm 21.763 GNm 33.229 GNm 19.030 GNm 25.105 GNm

I ⳱ moment of inertia; Z ⳱ section modulus; ␴Y ⳱ yield stress; Mp ⳱ fully plastic bending moment.

MARINE TECHNOLOGY
129
 Table 2 A comparison of the hull property calculations obtained by the ALPS/HULL and the closed-form design formula

SHT DHT#1 DHT#2

Item (a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a) (a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a) (a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a)
2
Cross-sectional area (m ) 7.858 7.907 100.6% 5.318 5.331 100.2% 9.637 9.696 100.6%
Height to neutral axis
from baseline (m) 12.173 12.169 100.0% 9.188 9.103 99.1% 12.972 12.909 99.5%
I (m4)
Vertical 863.693 870.490 100.8% 359.480 360.160 100.2% 1,346.097 1,354.800 100.6%
Z (m3)
Deck 66.301 66.803 100.8% 29.679 29.527 99.5% 77.236 77.457 100.3%
Bottom 70.950 71.531 100.8% 39.126 39.567 101.1% 103.773 104.950 101.1%
Mp (GNm)
Vertical moment 22.615 22.842 101.0% 11.930 11.942 100.1% 32.481 32.669 100.6%

Bulk#1 Bulk#2

(a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a) (a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a)

Cross-sectional area (m2) 5.652 5.671 100.3% 5.786 5.778 99.9%

Height to neutral axis
from baseline (m) 11.188 11.257 100.6% 10.057 10.093 100.4%
I (m4)
Vertical 694.307 715.210 103.0% 508.317 513.750 101.1%
Z (m3)
Deck 44.354 45.892 103.5% 39.274 39.805 101.4%
Bottom 62.058 63.533 102.4% 50.544 50.902 100.7%
Mp (GNm)
Vertical moment 20.650 21.280 103.1% 15.857 16.081 101.4%

Cont#1 Cont#2 Cont#3

(a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a) (a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a) (a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a)
2
Cross-sectional area (m ) 3.844 3.763 97.9% 4.933 4.950 100.3% 6.190 6.232 100.7%
Height to neutral axis
from baseline (m) 8.724 8.687 99.6% 9.270 9.460 102.0% 11.614 11.817 101.7%
I (m4)
Vertical 237.539 232.120 97.7% 397.647 402.440 101.2% 682.756 691.580 101.3%
Z (m3)
Deck 18.334 17.866 97.4% 26.635 27.303 102.5% 44.376 45.551 102.6%
Bottom 27.228 26.720 98.1% 42.894 42.540 99.2% 58.785 58.523 99.6%
Mp (GNm)
Vertical moment 8.881 8.641 97.3% 12.179 12.362 101.5% 18.976 19.463 102.6%

FPSO Shuttle Tanker

(a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a) (a) HULL (b) DF (b)/(a)

Cross-sectional area (m2) 4.884 4.884 100.0% 6.832 6.858 100.4%

Height to neutral axis
from baseline (m) 10.219 10.238 100.2% 10.568 10.550 99.8%
I (m4)
Vertical 393.625 395.080 100.4% 519.674 522.000 100.4%
Z (m3)
Deck 31.040 31.202 100.5% 43.191 43.321 100.3%
Bottom 38.520 38.590 100.2% 49.175 49.477 100.6%
Mp (GNm)
Vertical moment 12.451 12.448 100.0% 15.669 15.726 100.4%

DF ⳱ design formula ultimate hull girder strength obtained by the design formulas; FPSO ⳱ floating production, storage, and offloading
unit; HULL ⳱ ultimate hull girder strengths with average level of initial imperfections obtained by ALPS/HULL.

Methods for calculating the design ing still-water and wave-induced bending moment compo-
bending moments nents as follows:
Mt = Msw + Mw
Design bending moment calculations
where Mt ⳱ total bending moment, Msw, Mw ⳱ still-water
The design bending moments are to be estimated in both bending moment as defined in Section 4.2 and wave-induced
hogging and sagging conditions as the sum of the correspond- bending moment as defined in Section 4.3, respectively.

130 JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Table 3 A comparison of the ultimate hull girder strength calculations obtained by
the ALPS/HULL and the closed-form design formula

Mu (GNm) (a) HULLSlight (b) HULLAverage (c) DF (c)/(a) (c)/(b)

SHT
Sag −17.508 −16.767 −17.921 102.4% 106.9%
Hog 16.626 15.826 18.457 111.0% 116.6%
DHT#1
Sag −7.949 −6.899 −7.848 98.7% 113.8%
Hog 9.303 8.485 8.531 91.7% 100.5%
DHT#2
Sag −20.513 −19.136 −22.129 107.9% 115.6%
Hog 24.708 23.566 23.123 93.6% 98.1%
Bulk#1
Sag −15.293 −14.281 −14.205 92.9% 99.5%
Hog 16.601 14.434 15.534 93.6% 107.6%
Bulk#2
Sag −12.651 −12.165 −12.327 97.4% 101.3%
Hog 13.223 12.027 12.403 93.8% 103.1%
Cont#1
Sag −6.965 −6.800 −6.684 96.0% 98.3%
Hog 6.793 5.953 5.501 81.0% 92.4%
Cont#2
Sag −9.801 −9.571 −10.026 102.3% 104.8%
Hog 9.954 9.049 8.962 90.0% 99.0%
Cont#3
Sag −16.854 −16.599 −16.887 100.2% 101.7%
Hog 14.765 13.075 14.051 95.2% 107.5%
FPSO
Sag −8.500 −7.282 −8.274 97.3% 113.6%
Hog 9.654 8.760 8.566 88.7% 97.8%
Shuttle
Sag −11.760 −11.280 −11.638 99.0% 103.2%
Hog 12.431 11.404 11.477 92.3% 100.6%
Mean 96.3% 104.1%
COV 7.0% 6.4%

COV ⳱ coefficient of variation; DF ⳱ design formula ultimate hull girder

strength obtained by the design formulas; FPSO ⳱ floating production, stor-
age, and off- loading unit; HULLSlight, HULLAverage ⳱ ultimate hull girder
strengths with slight or average level of initial imperfections obtained by
ALPS/HULL.

4.2(a) Msw is taken as the maximum value of the still-water ship’s length can be calculated by a double integration of the
bending moment resulting from the worst load condition for difference between the weight force and the buoyancy force,
the ship, considering both hogging and sagging. The related using the simple beam theory.
detailed distribution of the still-water moment along the 4.2(b) For convenience, the mean value of Msw may be

Table 4 Hull sectional properties of the existing double-hull tankers

Item DHT#3 DHT#4 DHT#5 DHT#6 DHT#7 DHT#8 DHT#9 DHT#10 DHT#11
LBP (L: m) 320.00 314.00 315.00 260.00 238.00 234.00 233.00 170.00 152.00
Breadth (B: m) 58.00 58.00 57.20 46.00 45.00 42.00 42.00 30.00 26.80
Depth (D: m) 31.00 31.00 30.40 23.30 23.40 21.00 21.30 16.20 11.50
Draft (d: m) 22.00 22.20 20.45 15.60 17.40 14.30 14.70 10.20 7.00
Block coefficient (Cb) 0.8135 0.8258 0.8408 0.8163 0.8072 0.8130 0.8232 0.8088 0.7983
Design speed (knots) 15.60 15.00 15.10 15.00 14.00 14.40 17.00 14.50 13.60
DWT 300,000 300,000 278,000 135,000 125,000 100,000 105,000 357,000 175,000
Cross-sectional area (m2) 10.401 10.194 7.524 6.389 4.800 5.199 5.309 2.868 2.128
Height to neutral axis
from baseline (m) 13.419 13.438 14.103 10.252 10.405 9.173 9.284 7.210 5.433
I (m4)
Vertical 1,406.249 1,403.493 1,122.722 528.777 425.359 359.272 360.441 119.728 47.835
Horizontal 4,124.232 4,037.184 2,913.590 1,621.094 1,213.897 1,100.777 1,146.983 326.185 174.565
Z (m3)
Deck 79.986 79.916 68.892 40.525 32.732 30.378 29.997 13.319 7.885
Bottom 104.797 104.421 79.608 52.878 40.881 39.166 38.824 16.605 8.804
␴Y
Deck HT32 HT32 HT36 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 MILD HT32
Bottom HT32 HT32 HT36 HT32 HT32 MILD HT32 HT32 HT32
Mp (GNm)
Vertical moment 31.395 32.078 28.014 15.887 12.909 11.273 12.005 4.755 2.901

JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 131

 Table 5 The computed ultimate hull girder strengths of the existing 4.3(b) For damaged ships, a short-term analysis is to be
double-hull tankers undertaken considering specific sea states and operating con-
ditions (significant wave height, ship operating speed, and
Mu (GNm) (a) HULLAverage (b) DF (b)/(a) sea-state persistence time), which are involved in the ship to
DHT#3 be assessed (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). For this purpose, the
Sag −18.384 −19.852 108.0% USAS-L program, which can be downloaded from http://
Hog 22.299 20.915 93.8% ssml.naoe.pusan.ac.kr, can be used.
DHT#4
Sag −18.369 −19.589 106.6%
Hog 24.129 22.521 93.3% Application examples
DHT#5
Sag −17.104 −18.096 105.8% The application examples illustrating the advantages of
Hog 19.421 20.057 103.3% the guide developed in the present paper are now demon-
DHT#6 strated. USAS-L is used for calculating the still-water and
Sag −9.858 −10.439 105.9% wave-induced bending moment components and their sum as
Hog 12.069 11.453 94.9% the total bending moment, based on the IACS design formu-
DHT#7 lations. USAS-L also calculates the wave-induced bending
Sag −7.349 −7.708 104.9% moment components based on a short-term response analysis
Hog 8.758 8.251 94.2%
DHT#8
involving the specific operating conditions and sea states.
Sag −7.114 −6.585 92.6% The USAS-S program computes the ultimate hull girder
Hog 7.990 8.078 101.1% strengths of ships using the closed-form design formulas.
DHT#9 ALPS/HULL is a computer program for the progressive col-
Sag −6.928 −7.426 107.2% lapse analysis until and after a ship hull reaches the ultimate
Hog 8.402 7.692 91.5% strength.
DHT#10
Sag −2.747 −3.124 113.7% 5.1 Progressive collapse analyses using ALPS/HULL
Hog 3.332 2.892 86.8%
DHT#11 ALPS/HULL (Paik 2003) is a special purpose computer
Sag −1.793 −1.819 101.5% program for the progressive collapse analysis of ship hulls. It
Hog 1.937 1.832 94.6% is based on the idealized structural unit method (ISUM)
Mean 100.0% (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). ALPS stands for nonlinear
COV 7.4%
analysis of large plated structures. For the safety measure
COV ⳱ coefficient of variation; DF ⳱ ultimate hull girder strength
assessment, it is essential to calculate the ultimate hull
obtained by the design formula; HULLAverage ⳱ ultimate hull girder girder strength of a ship hull accurately.
strength with average level of initial imperfections obtained by Figure 9 shows a selected ALPS/HULL comparison result
ALPS/HULL. for test models, which pertain to the experiment of Dow
(1991), who tested the 1/3 scale frigate hull model in sagging.
The ALPS/HULL model extends between web frames. Al-
taken from an empirical formula that has been suggested for though it would be more relevant to take the hull module
a first-cut estimation of the maximum allowable still-water between transverse bulkheads as the extent of the analysis,
bending moment by some classification societies in the past. the present simpler model between web frames may also be
That approximate formula amidships is given by (with posi- appropriate as long as the transverse frames are strong
tive in hogging and negative in sagging) enough so that they would not fail before the longitudinal

再
members.
− 0.065CL2B共Cb + 0.7兲 共kNm) for sagging Figure 9 (bottom) shows the progressive collapse behavior
Msw = of the Dow test structure under sagging or hogging moment,
+0.015CL2B共8.167 − Cb兲 共kNm) for hogging
as obtained by ALPS/HULL. The Dow test result for sagging
where is also plotted. In the ALPS/HULL computations, the mag-
nitude of initial imperfections is varied. Figure 9 (bottom)

冦
0.0792L for L ⱕ 90 also plots the results of Yao et al (2000) as obtained using the

C=
10.75 −冉300 − L
100 冊 1.5
for 90 < L ⱕ 300
so-called Smith method, which models the structure as an
assembly of only the plate-stiffener combinations. It is seen
from Fig. 9 (bottom) that ALPS/HULL provides quite accu-
10.75 for 300 < L ⱕ 350 rate results when compared with the experiment. Of interest,
10.75 −冉L − 350
150 冊 1.5
for 350 < L ⱕ 500
the computing time used was 2 minutes for the ALPS/HULL
analysis using a Pentium III personal computer.
As another example, a 113,000 DWT floating production,
with L ⳱ship length (m), B ⳱ ship breadth (m), Cb ⳱block storage, and off-loading unit (FPSO) hull is now analyzed
coefficient at summer load waterline. using ALPS/HULL. Figure 10 shows a schematic of the mid-
4.3(a) For newly built ships, Mw may be taken as the mean ship of the vessel. In the ALPS/HULL calculations, it is con-
value of the extreme wave-induced bending moment, which sidered that individual structural units have fabrication-
the ship is likely to encounter during its lifetime, which is related initial imperfections (weld distortions and residual
given amidships for unrestricted worldwide service by the stresses). The longitudinal stiffeners have initial imperfec-
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), tions, which are considered to be wosx ⳱ 0.0015a and ␴rsx⳱0,
as follows (with positive in hogging and negative in sagging): where wosx ⳱ maximum initial deflection of longitudinal

再
stiffeners, a ⳱ length of the stiffener, ␴rsx ⳱ residual stress
+0.19CL2BCb (kNm) for hogging of the stiffener. For plating between longitudinal stiffeners,
Mw = the level of initial imperfections is varied at the two types
−0.11CL2B(Cb + 0.7) (kNm) for sagging
(“slight” and “average” levels), suggested by Smith et al
where C, L, B, Cb ⳱ as defined in Section 3.2. (1988) as follows:

132 JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

JULY 2004
Table 6 Hull sectional properties of the existing bulk carriers

Item Bulk#3 Bulk#4 Bulk#5 Bulk#6 Bulk#7 Bulk#8 Bulk#9 Bulk#10 Bulk#11 Bulk#12 Bulk#13 Bulk#14
LBP (L) 300.00 300.00 300.00 259.00 254.00 216.00 217.00 216.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 158.00
Breadth (B) 50.00 50.00 50.00 43.00 41.00 32.20 32.30 32.20 27.60 23.10 26.00 26.20
Depth (D) 25.70 25.70 25.70 23.80 22.90 19.10 19.00 19.10 17.00 14.50 13.60 13.80
Draft (d) 18.00 18.00 18.00 17.30 16.00 13.90 13.75 13.90 12.05 10.65 9.70 9.90
Block coefficient (Cb) 0.8514 0.8390 0.8408 0.8406 0.8432 0.8427 0.8492 0.8430 0.8160 0.8430 0.8030 0.7960
Design speed (knots) 13.50 13.50 13.60 14.43 13.00 14.60 14.30 16.40 14.90 15.40 15.00 12.80
DWT 207,000 207,000 207,000 135,000 126,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 39,700 29,500 28,400 27,000
Cross-sectional area (m2) 6.304 6.353 6.151 4.639 4.373 3.186 3.121 3.182 2.901 2.226 2.416 2.115
Height to neutral axis
from baseline (m) 11.882 11.859 12.021 10.284 9.923 7.798 7.756 7.899 6.955 6.221 5.372 5.407
I (m4)
Vertical 732.253 745.105 714.163 450.892 391.007 183.060 183.306 185.240 134.958 77.368 66.301 62.509
Horizontal 2,044.566 2,038.294 1,991.232 1,133.586 955.014 443.451 425.214 443.825 284.622 155.182 236.716 187.262
Z (m3)
Deck 52.994 53.831 52.209 33.359 30.130 16.197 16.302 16.537 13.436 9.345 8.058 7.448
Bottom 61.626 62.833 59.409 43.846 39.406 23.475 23.635 23.452 19.403 12.436 12.342 11.560
␴Y
Deck HT36 HT36 HT36 HT36 HT36 HT36 HT36 HT36 MILD MILD HT36 HT32
Bottom HT36 HT32 HT36 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 MILD MILD MILD HT32
Mp (GNm)
Vertical moment 22.835 22.009 21.686 14.255 14.255 7.103 7.328 7.176 4.350 2.899 3.550 3.344

MARINE TECHNOLOGY
133
 Table 7 The computed ultimate hull girder strengths of the existing • Slight level: wopl ⳱ 0.025␤2t, ␴rcx ⳱ −0.05␴Y
bulk carriers • Average level: wopl = 0.1␤2t, ␴rcx ⳱ −0.15␴Y
Mu (GNm) (a) HULLAverage (b) SM (b)/(a)
In the ALPS/HULL computations, deck or bottom stiffened
Bulk#3 panels as well as vertical members (i.e., side shells and lon-
Sag −16.338 −17.602 107.7% gitudinal bulkheads) are modeled by the plate-stiffener sepa-
Hog 16.599 15.243 91.8% ration models as assemblies of the ISUM rectangular plate
Bulk#4 units and the ISUM beam-column units, the latter being
Sag −16.667 −17.168 103.0%
Hog 16.400 15.337 93.5%
used without attached plating, as shown in Fig. 5 (bottom).
Bulk#5 This modeling method more accurately represents the verti-
Sag −16.140 −16.472 102.1% cal bending stress distribution at vertical members or hori-
Hog 15.176 13.596 89.6% zontal bending stress distribution at horizontal members
Bulk#6 (i.e., deck or bottom panels), whereas plating between longi-
Sag −9.782 −10.193 104.2% tudinal support members in typical merchant ship structures
Hog 10.645 10.183 95.7% may normally not fail before longitudinal support members.
Bulk#7 Figure 11 represents the progressive collapse behavior of
Sag −8.706 −8.917 102.4% the considered ship hull under vertical hogging or sagging
Hog 9.362 8.826 94.3%
Bulk#8
moment, varying the level of initial imperfections. Some se-
Sag −4.331 −4.267 98.5% lected typical failure events are represented in the figures.
Hog 5.451 4.949 90.8% Figure 11 shows that the collapse of the compression flange
Bulk#9 of the tanker hulls takes place before the yielding of the ten-
Sag −4.236 −4.141 97.8% sion flange, as in the design of usual ship structures. The
Hog 5.514 5.084 92.2% initial imperfections significantly affect the progressive col-
Bulk#10 lapse behavior of the ship hulls. Also, there is still some re-
Sag −4.659 −4.518 97.0% sidual strength even after buckling collapse of the compres-
Hog 5.493 5.008 91.2% sion flange. This is due to a shift of the neutral axis toward
Bulk#11
Sag −2.896 −3.124 107.9%
the tension flange, resulting from loss of effectiveness of the
Hog 3.448 3.184 92.3% collapsed compression flange.
Bulk#12
Sag −2.024 −2.179 107.6% 5.2 Ultimate hull girder strength calculations by the
Hog 2.303 2.111 91.7%
Bulk#13
design formulas using the plate-stiffener
Sag −2.361 −2.151 91.1% combination models
Hog 2.451 2.302 93.9%
Bulk#14
The accuracy of the ultimate hull girder strength design
Sag −1.836 −1.897 103.3% formulas when a ship hull is modeled as an assembly of the
Hog 2.517 2.229 88.6% plate-stiffener combination units is checked by comparing
Mean 97.0% with the results obtained by the progressive collapse analy-
COV 6.4% ses using ALPS/HULL. It is noted that the ship hull is mod-
eled as an assembly of the plate-stiffener separation models
COV ⳱ coefficient of variation; DF ⳱ ultimate hull girder strength for the ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses.
obtained by the design formula; HULLAverage ⳱ ultimate hull girder A total of the 10 typical merchant ships are considered as
strength with average level of initial imperfections obtained by indicated in Table 1. The vessels considered herein are hy-
ALPS/HULL. pothetical, although they have of course been designed fol-

Table 8 Hull sectional properties of the existing container vessels

Item Cont#4 Cont#5 Cont#6 Cont#7 Cont#8 Cont#9 Cont#10 Cont#11 Cont#12
LBP (L: M) 292.00 277.00 265.20 263.00 263.00 224.00 172.50 132.00 119.00
Breadth (B: m) 40.00 32.20 40.30 40.00 37.10 32.00 30.20 20.50 20.00
Depth (D: m) 24.20 21.50 24.10 24.20 21.70 19.00 16.40 10.50 10.70
Draft (d: m) 14.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 13.60 11.70 10.50 7.35 7.40
Block coefficient (Cb) 0.6410 0.6933 0.6108 0.6030 0.6096 0.6560 0.5999 0.6940 0.6957
Design speed (knots) 26.80 24.00 28.80 28.20 26.30 22.20 23.30 17.50 16.50
TEU 6,500 4,024 5,000 5,550 4,400 2,700 2,200 700 700
Cross-sectional 5.992 4.310 5.323 4.940 4.607 3.552 2.668 1.473 1.473
area (m2)
Height to neutral axis 12.327 10.331 10.534 10.887 9.970 8.248 6.184 4.252 4.252
from baseline (m)
I (m4)
Vertical 630.496 312.112 489.533 472.630 345.418 195.481 100.394 23.996 23.996
Horizontal 1,584.921 738.743 1,408.825 1,279.941 989.130 563.300 353.564 82.768 82.768
Z (m3)
Deck 47.050 24.888 31.779 32.239 26.739 16.194 8.721 3.133 3.050
Bottom 51.149 30.212 46.471 43.413 34.647 23.701 16.234 5.643 5.643
␴Y
Deck HT36 HT36 HT32 HT36 HT36 HT36 HT32 HT36 HT32
Bottom HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 HT32 MILD MILD MILD
Mp (GNm)
Vertical moment 18.974 10.881 15.039 14.806 12.274 7.242 4.104 1.557 1.437

134 JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Table 9 The computed ultimate hull girder strengths of the existing
container vessels

Mu (GNm) (a) HULLAverage (b) SM (b)/(a)

Cont#4
Sag −17.085 −15.786 92.4%
Hog 12.667 13.281 104.8%
Cont#5
Sag −9.277 −9.113 98.2%
Hog 7.185 6.989 97.3%
Cont#6
Sag −12.395 −12.985 104.8%
Hog 10.664 9.801 91.9%
Cont#7
Sag −12.667 −12.560 99.2%
Hog 10.040 9.802 97.6%
Cont#8
Sag −10.192 −9.957 97.7%
Hog 7.815 7.573 96.9%
Cont#9
Sag −5.704 −6.041 105.9%
Hog 5.009 4.662 93.1%
Cont#10
Sag −2.763 −2.692 97.4%
Hog 2.936 2.802 95.4%
Cont#11
Sag −1.070 −0.991 92.6%
Hog 1.052 1.056 100.4%
Cont#12
Sag −0.898 −0.834 92.9%
Hog 0.999 0.972 97.3%
Mean 97.5%
COV 4.4%

COV ⳱ coefficient of variation; DF ⳱ ultimate hull girder strength

obtained by the design formula; HULLAverage ⳱ ultimate hull girder
strength with average level of initial imperfections obtained by
ALPS/HULL.

lowing the rules of the classification societies. Section 5.3 will

deal with real existing vessels. Tables 2 and 3 represent the
computed ultimate hull girder strengths.
Figure 12 plots the correlation between ALPS/HULL re-
sults and the design formula predictions of the ultimate
bending moments for 10 typical commercial ships. The mean
and coefficient of variation of the present closed-form expres-
sion predictions against the ALPS/HULL progressive col-
lapse analyses for ship hulls considering both slight and av-
erage levels of initial imperfections are 1.002 and 0.077,
respectively.

5.3 Ultimate hull girder strength calculations by the

design formulas using the plate-stiffener
separation models
Some comparisons between the ALPS/HULL progressive
collapse analyses and the design formula solutions for a total
of the 30 vessels (9 double-hull tankers, 12 bulk carriers, and
9 container vessels) are now made, when the ship hulls are
modeled as assemblies of the plate-stiffener separation mod-
els for the use of both ALPS/HULL and design formulas. The
vessels considered herein are real existing ones.
Tables 4 to 9 represent the sectional properties and the Fig. 12 (Top) Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses
computed ultimate hull girder strengths for the double-hull and the closed-form design formula predictions for a slight level of initial imper-
tankers, bulk carriers, and container vessels considered fections. (Middle) Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses
herein. Figures 13 to 15 show correlation between ALPS/ and the closed-form design formula predictions for an average level of initial im-
HULL results and design formula solutions for the double- perfections. (Bottom) Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse
hull tankers, bulk carriers, and container vessels considered analyses and the closed-form design formula predictions varying the level of initial
herein. Figure 16 shows correlation between ALPS/HULL imperfections. FPSO = floating production, storage, and offloading unit
results and design formula solutions for all 30 ships. From
Figs. 12 to 16, it is surmised that the design formula solu-

JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 135

Fig. 13 Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the
design formula predictions for the existing double-hull tankers
Fig. 14 Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the
design formula predictions for the existing bulk carriers
tions obtained by the plate-stiffener separation models are
more accurate than those obtained by the plate-combination
models, that is, showing similar features in the ALPS/HULL
progressive collapse analyses.
5.4 Safety measure calculations for ship hulls
The safety measure calculations for ship hulls under ver-
tical bending moments are now undertaken following the
procedure described in Section 2.1. Both hypothetical and
existing vessels previously analyzed are considered. In this
assessment, is adopted the ALPS/HULL progressive col-
lapse analysis method to determine the ultimate hull girder
strengths.
136 JULY 2004
Fig. 15 Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the
closed-form design formula predictions for the existing container vessels
Fig. 16 Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the
closed-form design formula predictions for all 30 existing vessels considered
Tables 10 to 13 indicate the results of the safety measure
calculations of the ships. It is seen from Tables 10 to 13 that
all vessels considered satisfy the class rule requirements in
terms of longitudinal strength because the section modulus,
Z, is greater than the minimum required section modulus
Zmin in both sagging and hogging. However, it is considered
that the ultimate limit state (ULS)–based safety measure is
not enough for some vessels. For instance, the ULS-based
safety measure of a typical double-hull tanker (DHT1) is
1.106 in sagging, which is smaller than 1.15 as a required
safety measure for newly built ships previously defined in
Section 2.2. This happens in most existing double-hull tank-
ers and some existing bulk carriers in sagging.
Traditionally, the safety measure with respect to longitu-
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 the other cases, providing inconsistent level of safety. The
inconsistency of the safety measure calculations by the tra-
ditional approach is seen to be more serious for container
vessels and some very large bulk carriers.

Fig. 17 The section modulus–based safety measure versus the ultimate limit
state–based safety measure for the 10 hypothetical ships considered. FPSO =
floating production, storage, and offloading unit; ULS = ultimate limit state
dinal strength of ships has been based on the section modu-
lus. In this case, the safety measure may be defined as a ratio
of the section modulus to the minimum required section
modulus, namely, ␩ ⳱ Z/Zmin. Figures 17 and 18 compare the
ULS-based safety measure calculations, that is, ␩ ⳱ Mu/Mt,
with the section modulus–based safety measure calculations.
In this comparison, the ship’s longitudinal strength was con-
sidered only amidships.
It is evident from Figs. 17 and 18 that the section modulus–
based safety measure does not correlate well with the ULS-
based safety measure. It is not surprising that the section
modulus–based approach evaluates the ship’s longitudinal
strength optimistically in some cases but pessimistically in
Concluding remarks
In the present paper, a guide for the ultimate longitudinal
strength assessment of ships was established. The ultimate
hull girder strengths of ships can be calculated by either the
progressive collapse analysis or the closed-form design for-
mulations. An elaborate description for calculating both the
ultimate hull girder strengths and the total bending mo-
ments is made in the present study. A comparison of the
ultimate hull girder strengths obtained by the progressive
collapse analysis and the design formulas is made for the 40
existing ships.
From the present study, it is apparent that the safety mea-
sure calculations by the traditional method based on the sec-
tion modulus do not correlate well with those by the ULS-
based method. The former method optimistically evaluates
the ship’s longitudinal strength in some cases but pessimis-
tically in the other cases, providing an inconsistent level of
safety. This indicates the disadvantage of the traditional
structural design procedures for ships based on the allowable
stress and/or the sectional moduli. The ultimate limit state
design procedure can avoid such a problem because it can
easily determine the real safety margin of any economically
designed structure.
It is concluded that the guide and insights developed in the
present study will be very useful for the ultimate longitudi-
nal strength design of ship hulls and also for condition as-
sessment of existing ship hulls.
Acknowledgments
Part of the present study was undertaken with support
from the Korean Register of Shipping (KRS), the American

Table 10 Safety measure calculations for the 10 typical vessels

Item SHT DHT#1 DHT#2 Bulk#1 Bulk#2 Cont#1 Cont#2 Cont#3 FPSO Shuttle
3
Z (m )
Deck 66.301 29.679 77.236 44.354 39.274 18.334 26.635 44.376 31.040 43.191
Bottom 70.950 39.126 103.773 62.058 50.544 27.228 42.894 58.785 38.520 49.175
Zmin (m3)
Deck 60.699 27.814 73.494 44.040 38.950 17.252 26.327 44.042 26.991 36.992
Bottom 60.699 27.814 73.494 50.516 42.196 18.689 28.521 47.712 26.991 36.992
Z/Zmin
Deck 1.092 1.067 1.051 1.007 1.008 1.063 1.012 1.008 1.150 1.168
Bottom 1.169 1.407 1.412 1.228 1.198 1.457 1.504 1.232 1.427 1.329
Msw (GNm)
Sag −5.058 −2.318 −6.125 −4.210 −3.516 −1.557 −2.377 −3.976 −2.249 −3.083
Hog 5.584 2.559 6.185 4.673 3.868 1.943 3.162 5.107 2.488 3.409
Mw (GNm)
Sag −8.560 −3.923 −10.365 −7.124 −5.951 −2.636 −4.022 −6.729 −3.806 −5.217
Hog 8.034 3.682 9.674 6.661 5.599 2.250 3.237 5.597 3.568 4.891
Mt (GNm)
Sag −13.618 −6.240 −16.489 −11.334 −9.467 −4.193 −6.399 −10.705 −6.056 −8.300
Hog 13.618 6.240 16.489 11.334 9.467 4.193 6.399 10.705 6.056 8.300
Mu (GNm)
Sag −16.767 −6.899 −19.136 −14.281 −12.165 −6.800 −9.571 −16.599 −7.282 −11.280
Hog 15.826 8.485 23.566 14.434 12.027 5.953 9.049 13.075 8.760 11.404
Mu/Mt
Sag 1.231 1.106 1.161 1.260 1.285 1.622 1.496 1.551 1.202 1.359
Hog 1.162 1.360 1.429 1.274 1.270 1.420 1.414 1.221 1.446 1.374

Zmin ⳱ minimum required section modulus specified by IACS; Mt = Msw + Mw; Mu ⳱ ultimate vertical moment of ship hulls with average
level of initial imperfections, but without structural damage, as obtained by ALPS/HULL; FPSO ⳱ floating production, storage, and
offloading unit.

JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 137

 Table 11 Safety measure calculations for the 9 existing double-hull tankers

Item DHT#3 DHT#4 DHT#5 DHT#6 DHT#7 DHT#8 DHT#9 DHT#10 DHT#11
3
Z (m )
Deck 79.986 79.916 68.892 40.525 32.732 30.378 29.997 13.319 7.885
Bottom 104.797 104.421 79.608 52.878 40.881 39.166 38.824 16.605 8.804
Zmin (m3)
Deck 73.416 71.600 65.971 37.514 30.038 27.018 26.931 11.844 6.315
Bottom 73.416 71.600 65.971 37.514 30.038 34.638 26.931 9.238 6.315
Z/Zmin
Deck 1.089 1.116 1.044 1.080 1.090 1.124 1.114 1.125 1.249
Bottom 1.427 1.458 1.207 1.410 1.361 1.131 1.442 1.797 1.394
Mt (GNm)
Sag −17.946 −17.930 −16.745 −9.092 −7.344 −6.816 −6.730 −2.331 −1.769
Hog 17.946 17.930 16.745 9.092 7.344 6.816 6.730 2.331 1.769
Mu (GNm)
Sag −18.384 −18.369 −17.104 −9.858 −7.349 −7.114 −6.928 −2.747 −1.793
Hog 22.299 24.129 19.421 12.069 8.758 7.990 8.402 3.332 1.937
Mu/Mt
Sag 1.024 1.024 1.021 1.084 1.001 1.044 1.029 1.179 1.013
Hog 1.243 1.346 1.160 1.327 1.193 1.172 1.248 1.429 1.095

Zmin ⳱ minimum required section modulus specified by IACS; Mt ⳱ Msw + Mw; Mu ⳱ ultimate vertical moment of ship hulls with average
level of initial imperfections, but without structural damage, as obtained by ALPS/HULL.
Table 12 Safety measure calculations for the 12 existing bulk carriers

Item Bulk#3 Bulk#4 Bulk#5 Bulk#6 Bulk#7 Bulk#8 Bulk#9 Bulk#10 Bulk#11 Bulk#12 Bulk#13 Bulk#14
3
Z (m )
Deck 52.994 53.831 52.209 33.359 30.130 16.197 16.302 16.537 13.436 9.345 8.058 7.448
Bottom 61.626 62.833 59.409 43.846 39.406 23.475 23.635 23.452 19.403 12.436 12.342 11.560
Zmin (m3)
Deck 52.581 52.269 52.330 33.555 29.801 16.137 16.486 16.140 11.207 9.490 7.122 6.826
Bottom 52.581 56.625 52.330 36.352 32.285 17.482 17.860 17.486 11.207 9.490 9.892 6.826
Z/Zmin
Deck 1.008 1.030 0.998 0.994 1.011 1.004 0.989 1.025 1.199 0.985 1.131 1.091
Bottom 1.172 1.110 1.135 1.206 1.221 1.343 1.323 1.341 1.731 1.310 1.248 1.693
Mt (GNm)
Sag −12.880 −13.084 −12.690 −8.108 −7.323 −3.937 −3.962 −4.019 −2.351 −1.635 −1.958 −1.671
Hog 12.880 13.084 12.690 8.108 7.323 3.937 3.962 4.019 2.351 1.635 1.958 1.671
Mu (GNm)
Sag −16.338 −16.667 −16.140 −9.782 −8.706 −4.331 −4.236 −4.659 −2.896 −2.024 −2.361 −1.836
Hog 16.599 16.400 15.176 10.645 9.362 5.451 5.514 5.493 3.448 2.303 2.451 2.517
Mu/Mt
Sag 1.268 1.274 1.272 1.206 1.189 1.100 1.069 1.159 1.232 1.238 1.205 1.098
Hog 1.289 1.253 1.196 1.313 1.278 1.385 1.392 1.367 1.466 1.408 1.251 1.506

Zmin ⳱ minimum required section modulus specified by IACS; Mt = Msw + Mw; Mu ⳱ ultimate vertical moment of ship hulls with average
level of initial imperfections, but without structural damage, as obtained by ALPS/HULL.

Table 13 Safety measure calculations for the 9 existing container vessels

Item Con#4 Con#5 Con#6 Con#7 Con#8 Con#9 Con#10 Con#11 Con#12
3
Z (m )
Deck 47.050 24.888 31.779 32.239 26.739 16.194 8.721 3.133 3.050
Bottom 51.149 30.212 46.471 43.413 34.647 23.701 16.234 5.643 5.643
Zmin (m3)
Deck 34.532 25.654 30.557 26.652 24.781 15.813 8.013 3.041 2.529
Bottom 37.410 27.791 30.557 28.873 26.846 17.131 10.273 4.224 3.243
Z/Zmin
Deck 1.363 0.970 1.040 1.210 1.079 1.024 1.088 1.030 1.206
Bottom 1.367 1.087 1.521 1.504 1.291 1.384 1.580 1.336 1.740
Mt (GNm)
Sag −11.436 −6.049 −7.130 −7.836 −6.499 −3.936 −1.957 −0.762 −0.684
Hog 11.436 6.049 7.130 7.836 6.499 3.936 1.957 0.762 0.684
Mu (GNm)
Sag −17.085 −9.277 −12.395 −12.667 −10.192 −5.704 −2.763 −1.070 −0.898
Hog 12.667 7.185 10.664 10.040 7.815 5.009 2.936 1.052 0.999
Mu/Mt
Sag 1.494 1.534 1.738 1.617 1.568 1.449 1.412 1.405 1.313
Hog 1.108 1.188 1.496 1.281 1.202 1.273 1.500 1.381 1.460

Zmin ⳱ minimum required section modulus specified by IACS; Mt = Msw + Mw; Mu ⳱ ultimate vertical moment of ship hulls with average
level of initial imperfections, but without structural damage, as obtained by ALPS/HULL.

138 JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Fig. 18 The section modulus–based safety measure versus the ultimate limit state (ULS)–based safety measure for (top left) the 9 existing double-hull tankers
considered, (top right) the 12 existing bulk carriers considered, (bottom left) the 9 existing container vessels considered, and (bottom right) all 30 existing vessels
considered

Bureau of shipping, and the Korea Ministry of Commerce,
Industry, and Energy. The author is pleased to acknowledge
their support. Also, Dr. C. W. Kim and Mr. S. J. Hong of KRS
and Dr. B. J. Kim of Virginia Tech. are appreciated for their
efforts regarding ALPS/HULL and USAS calculations.
References
DOW, R. S. 1991 Testing and analysis of 1/3-scale welded steel frigate
model, Proceedings, International Conference on Advances in Marine
Structures, May 21–24, Dunfermline, Scotland, 749–773.
NTS 1998 Design of Steel Structures, N-004, Norwegian Technology
Standards Institution, Oslo.
PAIK, J. K. 2003. ALPS/HULL User’s Manual, A Computer Program for
the Progressive Collapse Analysis of Ship Hulls, Ship Structural Mechan-
ics Laboratory, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea.
PAIK, J. K., AND MANSOUR, A. E. 1995. A simple formulation for predict-
ing the ultimate strength of ships, Journal of Marine Science and Tech-
nology, 1, 1, 52–62.
PAIK, J. K., AND THAYAMBALLI, A. K. 2003 Ultimate limit state design of
steel-plated structures, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
SMITH, C. S., DAVIDSON, P. C., CHAPMAN, J. C., AND DOWLING, P. J. 1988
Strength and stiffness of ship’s plating under in-plane compression and
tension, RINA Transactions, 130, 277–296.
YAO, T., ASTRUP, O. C., CARIDIS, P., CHEN, Y. N., CHO, S. R., DOW, R. S.,
NIHO, O., AND RIGO, P. 2000 Ultimate Hull Girder Strength, Report of
Special Task Committee VI.2, International Ship and Offshore Struc-
tures Congress, Nagasaki, Japan, October, vol. 2, 321–391.

JULY 2004 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 139