Advertisement

Tool for Predicting the Ultimate Bending Moment of Ship and Ship-Shaped Hull Girders

  • Van Tuyen Vu
  • Ping Yang (杨平)
Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

The present paper presents a historical review associated with the research works on hull girder strength of ship and ship-shaped structures. Then, a new program is developed to determine the ultimate vertical bending moment of hull girder by applying direct method, stress distribution method, and progressive collapse analysis method. Six ships and ship-shaped structures used in the benchmark study of International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress (ISSC) in 2012 are adopted as examples. The calculation results by applying the developed program are analyzed and compared with the existing results. Finally, the roles of the developed program and its further development are discussed.

Key words

ship structure hull girder ultimate bending moment (UBM) ultimate strength 

Nomenclature

AD, AB, AB

Total sectional areas of deck, outer bottom, and inner bottom, respectively, m2

Ai

Total cross-sectional area of the ith element, m2

AS

Half-sectional area of all sides (including longitudinal bulkheads and inner sides), m2

D

Hull depth, m

DB

Height of double bottom, m

g

Neutral axis position from the base line in the sagging condition or from the deck in the hogging condition, m

H

Depth of hull section in linear elastic state, m

Mp

Fully plastic bending moment of hull section, MN·m

Mu

Ultimate bending moment (UBM) of hull section, MN·m

Muh,Mus

UBMs in hogging and sagging conditions, respectively, MN·m

zi

Vertical distance from base line to horizontal neutral axis of the ith element

zNA_cur

Vertical distance from base line to horizontal neutral axis of cross-section

Z

Elastic section modulus at the compression flange, m3

ZD, ZB

Elastic section moduli at deck and bottom, respectively, m3

σu

Ultimate buckling strength of the compression flange, MPa

σuD, σuS, σuB, σuB

Ultimate buckling strength of deck, side, outer bottom, and inner bottom, respectively, MPa

σu,i

Ultimate stress of the ith element

σy

Yield strength of the material, MPa

σyD, σyS, σyB, σyB

Yield strength of deck, side, outer bottom, and inner bottom, respectively, MPa

CLC number

U 661 

Document code

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    BUCKLEY W H. Hull girder structural design: The case for new loading conditions for extreme waves [J]. Naval Engineers Journal, 1978, 90(1): 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    PAIK J K, KIM S K, LEE S K. Probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model for longitudinal strength members of bulk carriers [J]. Ocean Engineering, 1998, 25(10): 837–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    YAMAMOTO N. Updating of probabilistic corrosion model based on Bayesian procedure [C]//Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Newfoundland, Canada: ASME, 2015: 1–7.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    IACS. Common structural rules for bulk carriers and oil tankers [R]. London, UK: IACS, 2017.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    QI E, CUI W. Analytical method for ultimate strength calculations of intact and damaged ship hulls [J]. Ships and Offshore Structures, 2006, 1(2): 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    VASTA J. Lessons learned from full-scale structural tests [J]. Transaction of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1958, 66: 165–243.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    MANSOUR A E, FAULKNER D. On applying the statistical approach to extreme sea loads and ship hull girder [J]. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 1973, 115: 277–313.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    FAULKNER D, SADDEN S. Toward a unified approach to ship structural safety [J]. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 1979, 121: 1–28.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    VINER A C. Development of ship strength formulations [C]//Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Marine Structures. New York, USA: Elsevier Science Ltd., 1986: 152–173.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    FRIEZE P A, LIN Y T. Ship longitudinal strength modelling for reliability analysis [C]//Proceedings of the Marine Structural Inspection, Maintenance, and Monitoring Symposium. Virginia, USA: SNAME, 1991: III C.1-20.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    VALSGAARD S, STEEN E. Ultimate hull girder strength margins in present class requirements [C]//Proceedings of the Marine Structural Inspection, Maintenance, and Monitoring Symposium. Virginia, USA: SNAME, 1991: III B.1-19.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    CALDWELL J B. Ultimate longitudinal strength [J]. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 1965, 107: 411–430.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    PAIK J K, MANSOUR A E. A simple formulation for predicting the ultimate strength of ships [J]. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 1995, 1(1): 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    PAIK J K, KIM D K, PARK D H, et al. Modified Paik-Mansour formula for ultimate strength calculations of ship hulls [J]. Ships and Offshore Structures, 2013, 8(3/4): 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    SMITH C. Influence of local compressive failure on ultimate longitudinal strength of a ship’s hull [C]//Proceedings of the PRADS, International Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding. Tokyo, Japan: The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 1977: 73–79.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    PAIK J K, SEO J K, KIM D M. Idealized structural unit method and its application to progressive hull girder collapse analysis of ships [J]. Ships and Offshore Structures, 2006, 1(3): 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    GAO B G, DENG Y C, YANG S Q. A method based on non-linear FEM for ultimate limit state assessment of ship hull girders [C]//International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering. Chengdu, China: IEEE, 2013: 524–528.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    HANSEN A M. Strength of mid-ship sections [J]. Marine Structures, 1996, 9(3): 471–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    AKHRAS G, GIBSON S, YANG S, et al. Ultimate strength of a box girder simulating the hull of a ship [J]. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1998, 25(5): 829–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    PAIK J K, HUGHES O F, MANSOUR A E. Advanced closed-form ultimate strength formulation for ships [J]. Journal of Ship Research, 2001, 45(2): 111–132.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    SUN H H, BAI Y. Ultimate strength and reliability assessment for the ship hull girders used in ISSC-2000 benchmark study [C]//Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures. Shanghai, China: Elsevier Science Ltd., 2001: 1005–1012.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    RIGO P, TODERAN C, YAO T. Sensitivity analysis on ultimate hull bending moment [C]//Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures. Shanghai, China: Elsevier Science Ltd., 2001: 987–995.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    YAO T. Hull girder strength [J]. Marine Structures, 2003, 16(1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    YAO T. Ultimate longitudinal strength of ship hull girder: Historical review and state of the art [J]. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 1999, 9(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    QI E R, CUI W C, WAN Z Q. Comparative study of ultimate hull girder strength of large double hull tankers [J]. Marine Structures, 2005, 18(3): 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    OZGUC O, DAS P K, BARLTROP N. A proposed method to evaluate hull girder ultimate strength [J]. Ships and Offshore Structures, 2006, 1(4): 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    PAIK J K, KIM B J, SEO J K. Methods for ultimate limit state assessment of ships and ship-shaped offshore structures: Part III hull girders [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2008, 35(2): 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    YONEYA T, KOBAYASHI H, RAHIM M A, et al. Total analysis system for ship structural strength [C]//Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures. Shanghai, China: Elsevier Science Ltd., 2001: 971–977.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    TAYYAR G T, NAM J M, CHOUNG J M. Prediction of hull girder moment-carrying capacity using kinematic displacement theory [J]. Marine Structures, 2014, 39: 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    NAM J M, CHOUNG J M, PARK S Y, et al. Assessment of residual ultimate strength of VLCC according to damage extents and average compressive strength of stiffened panel [C]//Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. California, USA: ASME, 2014: 1–8.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    HUGHES O F, PAIK J K. Ship structural analysis and design [M]. New Jersey, USA: SNAME, 2010.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    ISSC. ISSC committee III.1: Ultimate strength [C]//Proceedings of the 18th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. Rostock, Germany: ISSC, 2012: 1–107.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shanghai Jiaotong University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of TransportationWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of High Performance Ship Technology, Ministry of EducationWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina
  3. 3.Faculty of ShipbuildingVietnam Maritime UniversityHai PhongVietnam

Personalised recommendations