POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH 3(91) 2016 Vol. 23; pp.

28-38
10.1515/pomr-2016-0029

MAXIMUM LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY ESTIMATION OF THE

SHIP AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES BY PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
APPROACH
Hasan Ölmeza
Ertekin Bayraktarkatalb
a) Karadeniz Technical University, 61530, Trabzon, TURKEY
b) İstanbul Technical University, 34469, İstanbul, TURKEY

ABSTRACT

The aim of the paper is to represent step by step progressive collapse analysis for maximum load carrying capacity
estimation of a hull girder by using variant of Smith Method, named HULT by authors, with different element separation
including single plates, stiffeners, hard corners and stiffened panels.
The structural elements that form the ships and offshore structures are exposed to large vertical bending moments
and especially compression or tension forces in the longitudinal axis in case of hogging and sagging under bad sea
conditions. In recent years, it becomes very important and valuable to practically, fast and nearly correct estimation of
the maximum vertical bending moment just before breaks in two (collapse) under the worst conditions. The optimum
(accuracy, time, practicality) estimation of these values depend on how accurate the stress-strain relation of the
structural elements are established. In this first part of study, the ultimate strength behaviour of the stiffened panels in
decks, bottoms and sides is estimated by developed semi-analytical method with updated orthotropic panel calculation
approach under uniaxial (only longitudinal axis) compression loads. The second part of calculation is focused on the
progressive collapse analysis of hull girders under longitudinal uniaxial compression with Smith Method but with
different element discretization in contrast to the conventional beam-column elements. Also some benchmark studies
of such methods on ultimate limit state assessment of stiffened panels and nine benchmark hull girders of ships are
conducted, using some candidate methods such as IACS Common Structural Rules (CSR), FEA with Ansys v13 and
HULT prepared by authors. The results from the tests, FEM analysis and different computational approaches are
compared to determine performance of the method.

Keywords: Ship and offshore structure, stiffened panel, orthotropic panel, ultimate strength, progressive collapse analysis, Smith method.

INTRODUCTION

The ship and offshore structures’ hulls consist of stiffened load) applied to the structure [1]. Limit state design methods
panels such as bottom construction, side shell construction, can be applied to a hull structure by applying longitudinal
upper deck construction, watertight bulkheads. Unlike most bending to the hull girder. Loads produce a distribution of
land based structures, ships and offshore structures operate in longitudinal bending moments and compression/tension
a dynamic and unstable sea environment. The large number of loads. If the bending moment value exceeds the ultimate
loads caused by sea conditions and own cargos are much less strength value of the hull girder, the ship can fail due to
than the structural capacity of the ship’s hull girder. However, buckling and progressive collapse of the compressed part
these structures must not only be designed according to be [2]. At this point, the ultimate strength subject matter that
capable of withstanding normal loads, but also with extreme shows us maximum load carrying capacity of hull girder
sea condition scenarios. under bending moment has been considered very important
Two types of structural design methods are relevant for ship in the academic area and classification societies. Since the
and offshore structures, namely “Allowable Stress Design” and loads due to rough sea conditions, unusual loading and
“Limit State Design”. Methodology used in this paper focused unloading of cargoes during operations acting on the ship
on Ultimate Limit State Design. This design is a philosophy hull are uncertain, the hull girder may collapse like breaking
in which the “capacity” (ultimate strength) of a structure is in two or something more catastrophic losses under these
evaluated directly and compared to the “demand” (extreme uncertain loads.

28 POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016

 extensive contribution to the ultimate strength evaluations
for stiffened panels by developing practical methods and
empirical formulas. Benson et al. [8] investigated aluminium
stiffened panels behaviours under uniaxial compressive loads
and developed a semi-analytical method by using FEA and
orthotropic plate theory. For more realistic analysis and
Fig. 1. MOL Comfort - 313 m length container ship broke in two in June 2013 results, all failure modes have to be considered [1]. In this
[3] study, according to our solution methodology all five modes are
considered separately and collapse of stiffened panels occurs at
Published researches about progressive collapse analysis the lowest value among the various ultimate loads. The semi-
of hull girder can be classified three categories such as: (1) analytical method described in this paper combines established
derivation of theoretical methods to estimate progressive empirical formulas of IACS-CSR [22] and large deflection
collapse or ultimate strength [2,4-12]; (2) results from orthotropic panel approach [20-21], for estimating the failure
theoretical modelling of sections using FEM approaches [13,14]; (buckling) modes of local single plate and stiffener elements,
(3) reporting of physical experiments on box girders or ship respectively with extended large deflection orthotropic method
structures [15]. for estimating the global failure mode of stiffened panel [8].
One of the important methods to estimate the ultimate hull
girder strength is idealized structural unit method (ISUM) METHODOLOGY
developed by Ueda and Rashed [4]. For an ISUM type analysis
the hull girder is usually divided into several different types of In this study, the steps presented below are followed
structural members such as support members (single stiffeners), respectively to obtain, firstly, the load-end shortening curve
beam-columns, rectangular plates and stiffened panels. of discretized hull section elements and then the maximum
Another successful progressive collapse method is Smith load carrying capacity of hull girders.
Method [2]. This method is one of the simplified and most well At the beginning, the stiffener strength is evaluated using
recognized methods in the marine field to predict the global stress-strain curves derived from FEM analysis and IACS-
strength of a hull girder. In this paper, Smith Method principles CSR equations describing the load-end shortening curve
are used for progressive collapse calculations of benchmark ship flexural–torsional (tripping) buckling and web local buckling
hull sections. This most useful hull girder ultimate strength of stiffeners (Step 1). Besides, the unstiffened plate strength is
evaluation method utilizes load-end shortening (stress-strain) evaluated using standard stress-strain curves derived by using
curves describing the strength behaviour of structural elements Marguerre [17] governing large deflection nonlinear equations
including plates, stiffeners, stiffened plates and stiffened panels. of initially deflected single plate theory are extended from
For a progressive collapse type analysis the hull girder is usually von Karman’s [16] original equilibrium and compatibility
discretized into plate-stiffener combination beam-column equations (Step 2). Then, the plate-stiffener combination
elements; each element comprises a single longitudinal stiffener beam-column elements’ strength is evaluated combining the
with attached plating located between adjacent transverse plate and stiffener strength obtained from Step 1 and Step 2,
frames. Failure of the hull girder in overall bending occurs respectively and a comparison is conducted with plate-stiffener
by inter-frame failure of these elements. combination buckling strength evaluation using standard
According to the limit states based approach, the buckling stress-strain curves derived from IACS-CSR equations (Step 3).
collapse failure modes of a stiffened panel under compressive Then, the overall panel strength between two adjacent frames
loads are: overall collapse after overall buckling of the plating is evaluated by large deflection orthotropic panel approach but
and stiffeners as a unit, plate-induced failure by yielding at the using renewed instantaneous longitudinal geometric properties
corners of plating between stiffeners, plate-induced failure like E x, Dx and etc. determined by instantaneous tangent
by yielding of stiffeners with attached plating at mid-span, modulus ET,p and Et,s from the plate components’ and stiffener
stiffener induced failure by local buckling of stiffener web components’ load shortening curves, respectively (Step 4).
and stiffener-induced failure by lateral-torsional buckling or Peak load values obtained from load-end shortening curves of
tripping of stiffeners [1]. It is known that the behaviour and each step mentioned above are compared to determine the lesser
collapse strength of stiffened panels under compressive loads one and the collapse strength of the stiffened panel (Step 5).
depend on several factors as geometric and material properties, Finally, progressive collapse calculations have been carried
loading characteristics, boundary conditions and welding- out for estimation of hull girder ultimate strength using load-
induced initial imperfections (initial distortions in the plate end shortening curves obtained from previous steps (Step 6).
and residual stresses). For local elements, earlier works by many
researchers have studied about tripping of stiffeners, stiffeners DETERMINATION OF SINGLE STIFFENER
local buckling and ultimate strength of stiffened plates/panels COMPONENTS’ STRESS-STRAIN RELATION BEHIND
under in-plane and lateral loads theoretically, experimentally AND BEYOND THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH (STEP 1)
and numerically [16-20]. Smith [19] presents a series of tests
and FEM analysis on full scale welded steel grillages subjected Stiffeners’ failure strength values can be determined by
to a combination of axial compression and lateral pressure. empirical formulas. In this paper, three different stress-strain
Paik et al. [20] extended the early works and provide an curves such as single stiffener web buckling, single stiffener

POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016 29

lateral torsional buckling and plate-stiffener combination The membrane stresses, than, can be calculated by equations
beam-column buckling type failure behaviours are obtained (3) and (4) obtained using the Airy stress function, load
by using IACS-CSR (2012), Appendix-A, Chapter 2.3. The functions and determined deflection value (w 0) with assuming
results have been validated by non-linear FEM analysis with the unloaded edges kept straight.
Ansys v13.
The peak load value of each curve is assumed as the ultimate
strength for single stiffener. The curve that gives the minimum
ultimate strength among three curves is used in extended (3)
orthotropic panel calculation process for Step 3 and Step 5
as Pstf.
(4)
DETERMINATION OF SINGLE PLATE ELEMENT’S
STRESS-STRAIN RELATION BEHIND AND BEYOND THE Here;
ULTIMATE STRENGTH (STEP 2) σ xav: Averaged applied stress β: π/b b: Plate width
σr: Residual stress λ: π/L L: Plate length
Large deflection plate theory used in this study allows m: Number of half-sine wave at buckling mode shape
examining the behaviour of initially def lected single
rectangular plates under in-plane loads and lateral pressure. According to the membrane stress distribution towards both
Foundations of the theory have been taken by von Karman to the length and width of a single plate, there are three possible
examine the behaviour of the initially flat plates. Marguerre, regions for beginning of plastic yielding: midpoint of unloaded
based on this equation, consider the plate with z = z (x,y) form edges, midpoint of loaded edges and each of four corner points
initial out of plane deflection. Summation of the out of plane [21]. In this approach, the three possible plasticities (σ(vm-1 ),σ(vm-2),
deflection in mid-plate under loads (w) and the initial out of σ(vm-3)) is checked by von-Mises equivalent yield criterion
plane deflection (z) make the total plate out of plane deflection of plate material. The load is increased step by step and it is
(w+z) at failure. assumed that the plate will collapse if the von-Mises equivalent
The governing nonlinear equations of large deflection plate yield criterion values reach the material yielding stress. The
theory extended by Marguerre from von Karman’s original ultimate load caused this yielding stress is assumed as the
equilibrium and compatibility equations, respectively, obtained ultimate collapse strength of plate.
after algebraic manipulations for initially deflected single plates
are as follows: (5)
The details of the calculations including the maximum
and minimum membrane stress equations with considering
(1) welding residual stresses and initial deflections can be seen
in references [10, 20, 21].

(2) DETERMINATION OF INTER-FRAME LOCAL PANEL

Here, STRENGTH (STEP 3)
F: Airy stress function t: Plate thickness
D: Plate flexural rigidity Plate and stiffener elements’ resistances are estimated using
E: Young’s modulus Z: Lateral load the properties of the individual load shortening curves defined
in the previous two steps. Two separate calculations are used
Since the page restrictions, the details of the calculations to determine inter-frame local panel resistance at a given end
can be seen in references [10, 18, 21]. shortening.
1. The resistance of the plate and stiffener as defined by
the individual load shortening curves are merged to determine
MEMBRANE STRESS APPROACH (PLATE EDGE a combination resistance, Pp-s.
ORIENTED PLASTIC HINGE APPROACH) 2. The combination resistance is then compared to the
plate-stiffener combination buckling strength, Pb-c obtained
After buckling, the stresses move towards to plate edges due using standard stress-strain curves derived from IACS-CSR
to membrane effects and can still resist against increasing loads equations.
until ultimate load carrying capacity. By considering initial The instantaneous beam-column element resistance (load
distortions, the maximum membrane stress can occur either value), Pc is the lesser of these two calculated values. These steps
at the plate edges or at the tension region breadth. Minimum are repeated in an incremental analysis to produce a complete
membrane stresses occur in the middle of the plate. When the plate-stiffener load shortening curve. Beam-column collapse
membrane stresses of plate edges reach element material yield is indicated if Pc becomes less than Pplt or Pstf. If Pc remains
stress, no longer the in-plane displacements can be suppressed greater than Pplt or Pstf, failure is assumed to be by stiffener
and plate collapse after large deflection due to increased large tripping or local plate failure depending on which component
yielding region. load shortening curve peaks first.

30 POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016

 COMBINATION STRENGTH OF CORRESPONDING The results of four steps mentioned above are used for
LOCAL PLATE AND STIFFENER ELEMENTS STRENGTH calculations in this step. Description of the procedure to easy
understanding is presented below and calculation flowchart
Paik and Thayamballi (2003) gives a simple equation is given in Fig. 2.
to estimate peak strength of a combined element (P p-s) 1 - The single stiffener strength (Pstf ) and single plate
by combining the plate and stiffener strength using the strength (Pplt) are evaluated from curve obtained in Step 1
proportional area of each component: and Step 2, respectively.
2 - The corresponding local combined plate-stiffener
element strength, Pp-s, is calculated by combining Pstf and Pplt.
3 - The plate-stiffener combination beam-column element
(6) strength, Pb-c, is evaluated from stress-strain curves derived
from IACS-CSR equations.
The combination strength includes plate buckling, stiffener 4 - The inter-frame local panel strength, Pc is the minimum
web buckling and stiffener lateral torsional buckling, which are of Pp-s and Pb-c.
essentially local individual failures, but does not include beam 5 - The instantaneous overall orthotropic panel strength,
column buckling where the plate and stiffener fail as one unit. Po-p, is obtained using updated orthotropic panel calculations
Besides, this one unit buckling, Pb-c is evaluated by standard for stiffened panels.
stress-strain curves derived from IACS-CSR equations [22]. 6 - The instantaneous panel strength value, Ppnl, is chosen
to be the minimum of Pc and Po-p. At each axial displacement
CALCULATION OF STIFFENED PANEL’S increment, Ppnl provides an additional point for the panel load-
INSTANTANEOUS ULTIMATE STRENGTH WITH end shortening curve.
UPDATED LARGE DEFLECTION ORTHOTROPIC 7 - Similar calculations 1 to 6 is repeated until ultimate
PANEL APPROACH BY USING STRESS-STRAIN CURVES strength is reached, then a simpler post collapse curve can be
OBTAINED IN STEP 1 AND STEP 2 (STEP 4). postulated by taking the initial gradient from the post collapse
point and assuming a linear post collapse curve [8].
As mentioned and emphasized earlier, the main resistant
parts of ship and offshore structure hull girders are stiffened PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE CALCULATIONS OF HULL
panels. The elastic overall panel buckling value can be GIRDER ULTIMATE STRENGTH (STEP 6)
determined using one formulae in classical orthotropic panel
theory. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate post-buckling The main considered methodology employed in this part
and collapse behaviour. In this paper, more realistic stress- is the Smith method [4]. This method is the best established,
strain relation of stiffened panel behind and beyond the simplified and the most appropriate method for progressive
buckling is obtained using renewed large deflection orthotropic collapse analysis. The moment-curvature relationship is
panel theory. This approach depends on element discretization calculated by forcing an incremental curvature around the
such as single stiffeners and single plates. To derive the actual neutral axis of the hull section. Details of method can
stiffened panel load-end shortening curve, solution process be seen in published papers and books [1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 21]. The
is conducted by using these components’ stress-strain curves considered method presented in this study is composed from
with iterative semi-analytical approach. In this method, the ISUM based element discretization and Smith based iterative
axial load is applied and controlled by increasing the axial end- collapse analysis including orthotropic panel calculations for
shortening iteratively. In each iterative step, all single element stiffened panels updated in every load step. Within the method,
stresses are compared with overall panel stress derived by stiffened panel elements’ load-end shortening (stress-strain)
renewed orthotropic calculation. The minimum stress among relations behind and beyond the ultimate strength are obtained
them determines the stress-strain relation for that step. The by updated orthotropic panel calculation procedure but using
important point here is, the instantaneous tangent modulus stress-strain curves of several type single stiffeners and single
(ETp,i, ETs,i), updated at each step, of each single elements’ stress- plates. The sample of calculation table and calculation flowchart
strain curves are used to re-calculate the elastic constants Ex can be seen in Table 1 and Figure 3, respectively. Details of
and Ey at that step for conducting orthotropic panel solution [8]. this procedure and obtaining the load-end shortening curves
In post-collapse region, the stress-strain relation is evaluated of other single elements can be find in studies of Benson [8]
similar to the single plates but using overall elastic buckling and Olmez [10].
(σ(xE,O)) of stiffened panel instead of elastic buckling of single
plate.
Table 1. Progressive collapse analysis calculation table
APPLICATION OF INCREMENTAL ITERATIVE
APPROACH TO THE STIFFENED PANEL FOR
DETERMINATION OF THE STIFFENED PANEL’S STRESS-
STRAIN RELATION BEHIND AND BEYOND THE
ULTIMATE STRENGTH (STEP 5)

POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016 31

 Fig. 2. Stiffened panel load-end shortening curve derivation flow chart

Fig. 3. Progressive collapse calculation flowchart used in presented study

32 POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016

 3. CONSIDERED SHIPS OF VALIDATION CROSS SECTIONS AND STRUCTURAL
BENCHMARK STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

The accuracy of strength predictions of ship hull girders In this part, the characteristics of progressive collapse
is now examined in order to validating HULT’s ultimate behaviour of merchant ships under vertical sagging or hogging
strength procedures for ship and offshore structures. This are investigated using the HULT code. The ten typical ship
is accomplished through evaluations of nine benchmark type designs represented with cross sections and main hull
case studies for which detailed structural information and section properties have been studied. The cross sections of
associated numerical or measured results have been reported ten ships and main hull section properties are shown in Fig.4
in references [11, 23, 24]. and Table 2, respectively.

1/3 scale frigate model - FRG Single Hull VLCC Oil Tanker -SHOT 3.500 TEU Container - CNT35

Double Hull Oil Tanker - DHOT1 Double Hull Oil Tanker - DHOT2 9.000 TEU Container - CNT90

Single Sided Bulk Carrier - SSBC Double Sided Bulk Carrier - DSBC 113.000 DWT FPSO - FPSO
Fig. 4. Mid-ship cross sections of nine benchmark case ships

Table 2. Principal dimensions of the nine typical ship hull sections.

Neutral Axis: Ship hull cross section neutral axis identifies a plane along which there is neither tension nor compression.
I (vertical): Moment of inertia of cross-sectional area about neutral axis.
z: Ship hull girder section modulus.

POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016 33

 PROGRESSIVE HULL COLLAPSE ANALYSIS AND CALCULATED RESULTS

The ultimate vertical bending moment of the ten hull structures are studied using HULT and IACS-CSR (KTU) [10, 22], then
the results are compared with published results [5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 24]. It is noted that the hull structural dimensions applied
for the all analysis were defined by including 50% corrosion margin (0.5 × tcorr) values of individual structural components as
specified by IACS-2006a causes obtained results as incomparable with all other results. Fig. 5 shows IACS-CSR and HULT
models employed for the progressive hull collapse analysis under vertical bending. Hull cross-section model between two
adjacent transverse frames at mid-ship is adopted as the extent of the analysis. For HULT code modelling, structural elements
between support members are idealized such as single stiffeners, single plates, single stiffeners with attached plating, hard
corners and identically stiffened panels.

Fig. 5. Element discretization of CNT35 and SHOT with HULT and IACS-CSR

The main assumptions used for ten hull girder progressive collapse calculations are:
1 - Analysis are carried out between two transverse frames.
2 - Plane sections remain plane after bending (Euler-Bernoulli Bending Theory).
3 - The neutral axis of the hull cross section changed as the collapse of individual structural components progressively
occurs. Decrease or increase of the neutral axis position according to hogging or sagging is taken into account as the vertical
bending moment is increasingly applied.
4 - Average level welding residual stresses (0.15 × σ0) is considered [21].

34 POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016

 5 - Buckling mode average level initial deflection (0.1 × β2 × t) is considered [21].The result comparison of hogging and sagging
condition ultimate strength calculations with HULT, IACS-CSR and published other results obtained by different authors using
various methods are comparatively represented in Table 3 and Fig. 6, respectively.

Table 3. Summary of benchmark ship’s ultimate bending moments for all methods

Table 3 Cont. Summary of benchmark ship’s ultimate bending moments for all methods

POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016 35

 Results obtained by methods 1 to 6, 10, 14, 15 and 18 to 22 were considered for calculation of Mean, St. Dv. and COV values
of Smith Based (different formulations for obtaining the load-end shortening curves) calculations. Coefficient of variation
(COV) calculated for all methods and Smith based methods are given in Table 3. COV for all methods varies from 0,013 to
0,107 and COV for Smith based methods varies from 0,013 to 0,115. Average COV calculated for considered groups are 0,053
and 0,049, respectively. This decreasing on average COV shows that similarity of methods increases as expected. It can also be
noted that closed results are obtained by various Smith based methods (1 to 6, 10, 14, 15, 20 and 22) and the IACS-CSR method
implementations use same formulations for load-end shortening curves (18, 19, 21 and 22). Although standard formulations
for standard element idealizations are used, there are small differences among CSR results due to researcher factors (code
algorithm, structural discretization, assumptions, etc.).

Fig. 6. Moment-curvature curves of benchmark models

36 POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016

 If we zoom in one another moment-curvature curve of benchmark case ships, for example DHOT3 given in Table 2, we
can clearly see and discuss which element(s) in which part of the hull section will collapse when. This is the main advantage of
progressive collapse calculation approach. After progressive collapse analysis of DHOT3, it can be seen also in Fig. 7, the main
deck longitudinals and the center line bulkhead upper longitudinals are collapsed firstly. After these elements, inner bulkhead
upper longitudinals and side upper longitudinals are collapse. Finally, the side longitudinal elements around half the height of
cross section are collapsed. Collapsed structural elements on the moment-curvature curve are presented in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Collapse sequence on moment-curvature curves of DHOT3 obtained by HULT

CONCLUSION
In this paper, first part (element stress-strain curve obtaining buckle and do not collapse firstly in sagging case under axial
module) and second part (hull progressive collapse calculations) compressive loads.
of the systematic calculation for hull girder ultimate strength Similarly, because the deck panels of DSBC are typically
analysis developed by authors, namely HULT is represented. much sturdier than bottom panels, in contrast to the tanker
The main target of the present study has been to bring out hulls, the bottom plates of the DSBC hull yields prior to
the reliability and applicability of stress-strain relations of buckling collapse of the deck plates under sagging condition.
stiffened panel elements to the hull girder collapse analysis and Under hogging condition, however, buckling collapse of the
also bring out the reliability and applicability of progressive bottom plates takes place prior to yielding of the deck plates
hull girder collapse calculations by HULT. Its reliability and due to same reason. This result is contrary to what is normally
applicability is tested by benchmark analysis for ten ships. expected ultimate strength characteristics of usual ship hull
According to the results of verification case studies, as a girders since the ultimate sagging moment of DSBC is higher
main consequence, developed calculation flow including stress- than the ultimate hogging moment. For all that, because
strain curves for single plate, stiffener and stiffened panel can bulk carriers have large deck openings, the section modulus
be reliably merged to progressive hull girder collapse analysis at bottom is much larger than that at deck.
in terms of the resulting approximation. One of the other Last of all, according to the results of verification case
consequences should be highlighted is determination of the studies, it can be observed that calculations with HULT and
active role of orthogonal components’ sizing and material implementation of IACS-CSR method used by authors are
stress-strain relation on the global failure of a stiffened panel. closely compatible with overall mean values for all benchmark
Considering these active effects, taking into consideration all ship hull girder models. Also, developed calculation flow
possible types of failure provide a more realistic and more including stress-strain curves for single plate, stiffener and
understandable calculation of stiffened panel ultimate strength. stiffened panel can be reliably merged to progressive hull girder
For all benchmark ships detailed analysis of collapse collapse analysis in terms of the resulting approximation. It
sequence for both hogging and sagging conditions are should be also underlined that there will be less elements in
performed. As expected, obtained ultimate strength (maximum the calculation table due to the selected structural element
load carrying capacity) values are higher for hogging than idealization and discretization. In this way, fewer load-axial
sagging for all benchmark ships except DSBC and CNT90 end shortening curves will be needed and this will decrease the
models. The collapse of the compression flange of the tanker computation time. Hereby, HULT has adequate reliability to
hulls takes place prior to the yielding of the tension flange estimate hull girder ultimate bending moment and determining
as expected from usual ship hull girders. Thus, the ultimate the collapse sequence of structural elements.
hogging moment of the tanker hull is higher than the ultimate
sagging moment as usual. It should also be emphasized for all
models that decks which collapse first even for hogging case BIBLIOGRAPHY
are the most critical and determinant portion of the hull girder
transverse section. In contrast to the usual behaviour of ship 1. [1] Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. : Ultimate limit state
hull girders, it is observed for CNT90 that because the deck design of steel-plated structures. Chichester, UK: John
panels are very squat with large plate thickness, they do not Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2003.

POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016 37

2. Smith, C.S. :. Influence of local compressive failure on 16. von Karman, T., Sechler, E.E. ve Donnell, L.H. : Strength
ultimate longitudinal strength of a ship’s hull. PRADS- of thin plates in compression. ASME Trans, Vol. 54 (1932),
International Symposium on Practical Design in Ship pp. 553-557.
Building, Tokyo-Japan, (1977), pp. 73-79.
17. Marguerre, K.. : Zur theorie der gekrümmmter platte
3. URL-1:http://www.vesselfinder.com/news/1223- grosser formanderung Proc. 5th Int. Congress Appl.
UPDATE-MOL-Comfort-Sank, 2013. Mech., Vol. 93 (1938).

4. Ueda, Y., Rashed, S.M.H. : ISUM (Idealized Structural 18. Murray, N.W., Introduction to the theory of thin-walled
Unit Method) Applied to Marine Structures. Transactions structures. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984.
of JWRI, Vol. 20 (1991), No.1, pp.123-136.
19. Smith, C. S. : Compressive strength of welded steel ship
5. Dow, R.S., 1991. Testing and Analysis of a 1/3 Scale grillages. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval
Welded Steel Frigate Model, Proc. Int. Conf. on Advances Architects, Vol. 118 (1976), pp. 325–359.
in Marine Structures, ARE, 749-773.
20. Paik J.K., Thayamballi A.K., Kim B.J.: Large deflection
6. Paik, J.K., Mansour, A. A. : Simple formulation for orthotropic plate approach to develop ultimate strength
predicting the ultimate strength of ships. Journal of equations for stiffened panels under combined biaxial
Marine Science Technology, Vol. 1 (1995), pp. 52–62. compression/tension and lateral pressure. Thin-Wall
Structures, Vol. 39 (2001), No.3, pp. 215–246.
7. Özgüç, Ö. : Hull girder ultimate strength and fracture
toughness of damaged marine structures. PhD Thesis, 21. Hughes, O. and Paik, J. K. : Ship structural analysis and
Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, Glasgow, 2006. design. SNAME, New Jersey, 2010.

8. Benson S. : Progressive collapse assessment of lightweight 22. IACS, Common structural rules for double hull oil tankers.
ship structures. PhD Thesis, Newcastle University, International Association of Classification Societies, 2012.
Newcastle, 2011.
23. Technical Committee VI.2 : Ultimate Hull Girder Strength.
9. Tayyar, G.T. : Determination of ultimate strength of the Proceedings of the 14th International Ship and Offshore
ship girder. PhD Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, Structures Congress, Vol.2 (2000), Nagasaki.
İstanbul, 2011.
24. Technical Committee III.1. Ultimate strength, Proceedings
10. Olmez, H. : Ultimate strength estimation of ship hull of the 18th International Ship and Offshore Structures
girders by progressive collapse analysis approach. PhD Congress, Vol.1 (2012), Rostock.
Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, 2014.

11. Paik, J.K., Wang, G., Kim, B.J., Thayamballi, A.K. : Ultimate CONTACT WITH AUTHOR
limit state design of ship hulls. SNAME Transactions, Vol.
110 (2002), pp. 85-114. Department of Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering
12. Andric, J., Kitarovic, S., Bicak, M. : IACS incremental- Karadeniz Technical University
iterative method in progressive collapse analysis of various 61530 Camburnu/Trabzon
hull girder structures. Brodogradnja/Shıpbuıldıng, Vol. 65 Turkey
(2014), No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Phone: +90 462 752 2805-8058
13. Kim, D.K., Park, D.H., Kim, H.B., Kim, B.J., Seo, J.K., Fax: +90 462 752 2158
Paik, J.K. : Lateral pressure effects on the progressive e-mail: [email protected]
hull collapse behaviour of a Suezmax-class tanker under
vertical bending moments. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 63
(2013), pp. 112–121.

14. Benson, S., Downes, J., Dow, R.S. : Compartment level

progressive collapse analysis of lightweight ship structures.
Marine Structures, Vol.31 (2013), pp.44–62.

15. Rutherford, S.E., Caldwell, J.B. : Ultimate strength of

ships: a case study. Trans Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar Eng., Vol.
98 (1990), pp. 441–471.

38 POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, No 3/2016