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

net/publication/266531705

Structural modifications for the longitudinal strength of lengthened ships

Article · July 2003

CITATIONS READS

0 2,258

2 authors, including:

Heba el-kilani
Port Said University
21 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Heba el-kilani on 01 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structural modifications for the longitudinal
strength of lengthened ships

H. S. El-Kilani and R. Ramadan

Naval Architecture and Marine Eng. Dept., Suez Canal University, Port Said, Egypt

One of the known types of ship conversion is the lengthening of an existing vessel. This
may be done in a simple way by inserting a new block amidships. This paper deals with
some strength requirements that are to be considered before making the final decision of
lengthening. The first step is the estimation of the change in the longitudinal strength
requirements; this is related to the form of the ship. The increase in these requirements
determines the necessary modifications in the structural design amidships. In order to
minimize panels’ replacement in the original hull, and if the side and bottom panels are
of adequate strength, the additional longitudinal sectional area would be better confined
to the main deck. A hull section index defining the characteristics of the longitudinal
material amidships is introduced to relate the added deck area to the required section
modulus. It is found that for ships with small hull section index, this addition is relatively
large, giving rise to some building complexities. This addition may be realized by panel
replacement or by using doubler plates. In the former case, the use of high tensile steel
may have good advantages.
&' .                      ! "  "  # $
() *+ , *- . / 0    # ) 1 2 3 1 1 , * + 4   5 )  '  67-
 9 +8# 59 5 )   67- * 0   . 8 ( 7-      5 )  *
.)1  )  0 3 '  :  .*      0 . ,( * 2$ *     
,    " ;7 8=  .*)3/  ) : / 9  5) 1   ) ;7 ) *+ < 
   0  *   ) +8# >+3 ? @8A B  7- 2 .   )   ! 
*  )  0  @(3 8A  7-    1 C" = ' .C         < )  ) 
" @   : / (        0 67- . 9 +8# 59  =   @1  0      
. 01 2  " 0 : / *   *1 ,)3 #   . /   . . : " 2

Keywords: Conversion, Ship lengthening, Longitudinal strength requirements, Structural

modifications

1. Introduction and then fitted using flotation and mechanical

methods.
Increases in capacity for passengers or
cargo may be achieved by lengthening the
ship (jumboisation) or occasionally by
widening, by heightening between-deck
space, by adding accommodation blocks or
by re-arranging existing layout. Most
jumboisations involve adding a length of
parallel middle body by splitting the ship in
two in dry dock as seen in fig. 1. By inserting
a new 44m-long section into the 220m-long
Costa Classica cruise ship, berth capacity
increased to 1,020 cabins compared to 654
[1]. The new section can be prefabricated in
advance of the actual lengthening operation
Fig. 1. Inserting a new section.

Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42 (2003), No. 4, 389-396 389

© Faculty of Engineering Alexandria University, Egypt.
 H.S. El- Kilani, R. Ramadan / Lengthened ships

Lengthening demands particular skills quirements of the conversion are developed and
and facilities and tends to be a specialization then considered in the decision making.
of a limited number of shipyards. It has been
reported that the time taken for lengthening 2. Change in longitudinal strength
ranged from less than a month up to four requirements
months. There have been 28 cases of ships
being lengthened for the period 1994-1996 Any modification in the ship principal
[2]. Lengthening work has concentrated dimensions will affect the longitudinal strength
upon ferries, cruise ships and general cargo requirements as given by the Rules. These
ships (often in preparation for another role), requirements involve mainly the minimum
chemical tankers and offshore vessels. The modulus of section amidships. A standard given
possibility of lengthening is sometimes taken by the International Association of Classifica-
into account when a given existing ship has tion Societies (IACS) [6] is:
a practically high investment value. This
calls for consideration of the ship’s strength Wmin = cL2 B ( CB + 0.7 )k (cm3) , (1)
and the ease with which an additional
midbody section may be inserted together
where:
with the link-up of onboard services to the
new section.
A conversion based on changing any of c = c n for new ships,
the principal dimensions may require some
structural modifications for the satisfaction c = c s for ships in service = 0.9 cn
of the longitudinal strength standards. Due
to the increased beam in a described 3 /2
 300 − L 
conversion [3], the allowable bending c n = 10.75 −   ,
moment increased proportionately, and a  100 
doubler plate had to be fitted to the upper
hull girder; to keep the spar deck clear, the k = 1.0 for ordinary hull structural steel, and
doubler plates were fitted on the sheerstrake
for higher tensile steels,
port and starboard.
Even the change in service may affect the k = 0.78 for σy = 315 MPa, and
global longitudinal strength characteristics
as reported about the conversion of a k = 0.72 for σy = 355 MPa.
containership to a sealift Ro/Ro, Lo/Lo ship
[4]. In this case the converted ship featured Another evaluation of the required section
long superstructures forward and aft of the modulus is given based on the estimation of the
existing house so that their efficiency had to maximum total bending moment. The greater
be taken into account for the purpose of value is that to be taken into account. For
assessing longitudinal strength. An interest- purpose of comparison of the required modulus
ing case, which changed significantly the before and after lengthening, eq. (1) will be used
longitudinal strength characteristics of the here.
vessel due to the conversion of the opera- If the length is to be increased, the resulting
tional requirements, was the conversion of block coefficient and hence the new longitudinal
some passenger ships into Troop Ships strength requirements cannot be exactly
during Falklands Campaign in 1982 [4]. The evaluated unless the steps shown in fig. 2 are
weight distribution of the converted vessels carried out.
with the added flight decks, was certainly a However, the change in Wmin may be
highlighted feature of the project. predicted for the preliminary design stage of the
This paper aims to contribute to the conversion as follows:
basic design process for a proposed length-
ening. During this stage, specifications that dWmin ∂W min ∂W min dC B
= + ⋅ .
address the technical and performance re- dL ∂L ∂C B dL

390 Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, July 2003

 H.S. El- Kilani, R. Ramadan / Lengthened ships

50
Section Length dCb/dL=0.005
45 dCb/dL=0.004
40 dCb/dL=0.003

δ Wmin /W min%
35 dCb/dL=0.002
30 dCb/dL=0.001
25 dCb/dL=0
Section Lines dCb/dL=-0.001
weight & 20
& Hydrostatics 15
capacity 10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
New draft δL/L%
and CB
Fig. 3. Increase in section modulus (case study).
Fig. 2. First design steps of the conversion.
such cases, the lengthening process would
For the interval from Lo to Ln, therefore ask for extensive changes in the
strength requirements. Fortunately, lengthening
Ln ∂W Ln ∂W is particularly popular with volume critical
min min dC B
δW min = ∫ ⋅ dL + ∫ ⋅ ⋅ dL . ships, such as passenger/vehicle ferries and
Lo ∂L Lo ∂C B dL container ships; these are ships showing small
(2) dCB/dL and hence inquiring small change in
longitudinal strength standard according to eq.
The value of dCB/dL is a function of the (3).
vessel type as well as its form factors; the The actual section modulus Wo is usually
designer may estimate it roughly upon greater than Wmin. The designer may then have
knowledge of the vessel under consideration. the possibility to lengthen the ship keeping the
Assuming that it is constant for the same structural design of the midship section.
considered interval, eq. (1) will give: This would obviously reduce, or even cancel the
appropriate safety margin incorporated in the
 dC B design represented by,
δW min = W min + B
× × ( 322.5 L3
 dL 100 Wmargin = Wo –Wmin.
L
9 7 5  n
+ 0.02 λ 2 − 15.42 λ 2 + 3240 λ 2 )  , (3) If the same safety margin is to be kept for
 L the lengthened ship, then:
o
δW δW min
where, λ = 300-L, and CB used for all the = ,
terms is the original block coefficient. The Wo Wmin
representation of eq. (3) for the forthcoming
case study is shown in fig. 3.  δW 
For all ships the trend and the significant W n = W o 1 +  .
 (4)
 Wo 
effect of dCB/dL is expected to be the same;
the greater is the block coefficient gradient,
the greater will be the change in the required This is the first standard to start within the
section modulus. The value of dCB/dL is structural design of the converted ship. The
larger for ships showing considerable new built block may easily fill the increased
increase in displacement for the required requirements without greatly affecting the
increase in length, i.e. for ships carrying structural continuity of the hull. But if the
heavy cargo and/or cargo with a high block length is less than 0.4Ln (as mostly
stowage factor (weight critical design) [7]. In expected), some parts of the old hull would

Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, July 2003 391

 H.S. El- Kilani, R. Ramadan / Lengthened ships

require a modification in their sectional char-

acteristics in order to attain the increased
section modulus Wn. The area of the longi-
tudinal material is then to be carefully
increased.

3. Additional longitudinal material

It is certainly desirable to satisfy the new

requirements with the minimum amount of
steel replacement within the original hull. Fig. 4. Idealization of the midship section.
Fortunately, many structural members may
remain satisfactory after lengthening. Never- Then,
theless, the designer should then admit a
reduction in the incorporated factors of ( ay o ) 2
safety. If the side and bottom panels are still I n = I o + ay o2 − ,
( Ao + a )
acceptable, the required sectional area would
be better added to the parts of the section
which are the most remote of the neutral I  a
Wn = n = Wo1+  + a yo ,
axis, which is mostly the main deck. This yn  Ao 
may be a frequent case since for volume
critical ships, lengthening would result in a
Wn − W o a  A y 
small increase in draft and hence a small = 1 + o o . (5)
Wo Ao  Wo 
increase in the design loads involved in the  
transverse and local strength of the side and
bottom panels. Other design parameters Since,
such as the frame spacing and the unsup-
ported span of the various structural 2
components will remain unchanged. The Ao y o A y2  y 
= o o =  o  ,

thickness of side shell would be carefully Wo Io  ro 
checked for the shearing strength of the
lengthened ship and, for the bottom and
then, denoting the ratio yo/ro by αo:
deck panels (other than the main deck) to be
kept, the buckling strength is to be reas-
sessed. a δW
= . (6)
Having decided to limit the structural Ao W o ( 1 + α o2 )
modifications required within 0.4 Ln to the
main deck panel, the relation between the
The value of αo gives an indication about the
required added area and section modulus
hull sectional properties and the distribution of
may be derived as follows.
the longitudinal material. It may be called “the
For the idealized section given in fig. 4,
hull section index”. It depends on the midship
a ∗ yo
the shift in neutral axis = , section configuration, the ship dimensions and
Ao + a framing system. It is mostly affected by the
 a  presence of extensive longitudinal material in
y n = y o  1 − , the bottom. It has been evaluated for a number
 Ao + a 
of ships and is found to have a value in the
range 0.8~1.8 for different types of seagoing
 Ao  vessels. The examination of the hull sectional
y n = y o  .
 properties of 10 typical merchant ships [8] with
 Ao + a  longitudinally stiffened double bottom (double-
hull tankers, new bulk carriers and container
ships) shows that this index is around 1.4

392 Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, July 2003

 H.S. El- Kilani, R. Ramadan / Lengthened ships

[Appendix 1]. Expression (6) is used to the main decks, but also in the sheer strakes
estimate the area to be added to the main and deck girders. The designer may gain benefit
deck panel within 0.4Ln, and is illustrated in of any effective superstructure deck to attain
fig. 5. A small index will mean a greater the required section modulus with minimal
additional area and therefore much struc- added sectional area.
tural work. The steel weight distribution used to
This area may be provided by one of the perform the exact longitudinal strength calcula-
following options: tion should be carefully regarded. For instance,
- Replacing the actual panel. The added area if the method of producing a “coffin” diagram [6]
may be shared between all longitudinal is adopted, the resulting curve is not expected
components of the panel, i.e., plating, girders to be a smooth curve as usual. It would result
and deck longitudinals (if any). The struc- from the superposition of the steel weight
tural continuity of this new deck panel distribution of the old parts and the added
together with the new section from one side material, with another diagram corresponding
and the old parts from the other side should to the inserted section of heavier construction.
be respected. The introduction of high tensile steel in the new
In this case the designer has the built block and in the new deck panels within
opportunity to use high tensile steel for the 0.4Ln (in case of panel replacement) may give a
deck plating in this portion of the old hull. conventional steel weight distribution. In
This will reduce the required added area by general, complexity is confronted during all the
an amount, design processes for the proposed conversion,
demanding creative and innovative solutions.
An  σ 
a rh = 1 − m  . (7) 4. Case study
 σ h 
1 + α n2 
To illustrate the present study, an existing
The designer would then check that the vessel is selected and a conversion is assumed
deck is of adequate strength against to be carried out. The vessel under conside-
buckling. ration is a refrigerated cargo vessel (built in
- The replacement of some portions of the 1968) having the following characteristics [9]:
old deck panel amidships may be difficult or LBP = 173.74 m
impractical due to the existing arrangement Bmld = 24.69 m
or outfitting. In this case the use of doubler Dmld = 14.78m
plates will be the simplest option. These may Tdesign = 10.82m
be arranged, wherever possible, not only in ∆ = 29 890 tons
DWT = 19 732 tons
20 The age of the vessel is not an important
18 α=0.8 parameter in this hypothetical application,
16
α=1.0 since the global feasibility of the conversion is
α=1.2 not discussed here. The availability of the
14 α=1.4
12 α=1.6
complete data of this vessel was behind this
a/Ao%

10 α=1.8 selection in order to study other aspects of the

8
conversion process [10]. Lengthening of this old
6
vessel is not unrealistic since the market has
4
experienced recently the conversion of vessels of
2
the same age [5,11]. On the other hand, the
evolution of this ship type was less significant
0
over the last decades than the evolution of other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
types, e.g. tankers. This vessel has been
δWmin/δ
δWmin % designed specially for the carriage of unitized
and palletized cargo, which with her special
Fig. 5. Addition in deck sectional area.

Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, July 2003 393

 H.S. El- Kilani, R. Ramadan / Lengthened ships

Table 1
New & old ships’ particulars

Item Old New

Length (m) 173.7 191.1
Breadth (m) 24.69 24.69
Draft (m) 10.89 11.3
Vol. of Displacement (m3) 29161 34014
Block Coefficient 0.628 0.64
L/∇1/3 5.644 5.879
L/B 7.036 7.705
L/T 16.05 6.858
Wmin (m3) 8.45 10.42
Actual W (m3) 10.2 12.64
Imin (m4) 44.05 59.56
Actual I (m4) 81.6 90.14
Hull Section Index K 1.435 1.663
Sectional Area A (m2) 2.63 2.83
y (from deck) (m) 8. 7.418
Thick. of bottom plating [ABS] 15.5 16.7
Actual thick. of bottom plating 16 16
Thick. of side plating [ABS] 14.70 15
Actual side plating thickness 16 16
Fig. 6. Midship section of the refrigerated cargo vessel Min. thick. of plating[ABS] 13.56 13.86
(case study). (Note: thickness is in “mm”)

cargo-handling equipment will aid rapid summarizes most of the particulars involved in
loading and unloading. Uniform deck heights this study.
throughout the holds and flush decks The new section of length 17.3m may easily
without sheer or camber permit rapid satisfy the required Wn, as well as the Rules
movement of pallets on forklift trucks operat- requirements for all its structural components.
ing in the holds. The midship section The old part remaining within 0.4Ln
configuration of the vessel is shown in fig. 6. amidships, is a hull portion of length; 0.4Ln-
The assumed conversion would trans- 17.3 = 59 m
form this vessel into a dry cargo ship and At this stage, it is then necessary to check
increase the length of the parallel middle the strength of the existing bottom and side
body, in order to gain an extra compartment panels within this 59m part. The first look at
of 17.37m length. The assumed lengthening the thickness values given in table 1, makes the
percentage is then 10%. designer optimistic. Only the Rules bottom
Following the steps given in fig. 2, it is plating thickness exceeds slightly the actual
found that, value. However, this is not a sufficient sign to
reject the existing bottom panel; the decision is
dC B left to a detailed bottom strength assessment.
= 0.000715 . Assuming that the new reduced safety factors of
dL
side and bottom are acceptable, the structural
This small value is quite encouraging as modifications may be limited to the main deck,
mentioned before. From the calculation of as proposed here. The value of the hull section
Wmin for the original and new length, or index (1.435) is promising; it is not very small,
simply by using fig. 3, it is found that: so that the added area will not be very large.
Using fig. 4, or eq. (6):
δW min a
= 24% . = 7.8% ,
W min Ao

The original margin in section modulus is i.e.

kept unchanged so that this percentage is
used to find Wn as given in table 1, which a = 0.2063 m2.

394 Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, July 2003

 H.S. El- Kilani, R. Ramadan / Lengthened ships

This area may be provided in the form of • The use of high tensile steel in the new
an extra deck plating thickness of 12.66 mm section and/or new built panels may contribute
(in the presence of hatch openings). Extend- to the avoidance of some building
ing the area ready for doubling to sheer complications; a compromise should then be
strakes and hatch girders will certainly made since it may also introduce some
reduce this thickness. This addition consists problems.
of 92 tonnes of steel resulting in an increase
of 1.5t/m in the weight per meter of the old Nomenclature
hull portion amidships.
In case of deck panel replacement in this A required addition in deck area,
part, the use of high tensile steel of grade arh reduction in the area of the high
AH32 instead of the ordinary mild steel will tensile steel deck ,
reduce the deck area by a value of 0.2877 m2 r radius of gyration of the sectional
(arh), resulting in a thickness similar to the area,
old mild steel panel. y distance of the neutral axis from the
deck,
5. Conclusions A area of the longitudinal material
amidships,
• Starting from the increased longitudinal I moment of inertia of the longitudinal
strength requirements, a relation is derived material,
to help in defining the conversion strategy in MT maximum total hull-girder bending
the preliminary stage. moment,
• The change in the block coefficient due to W hull-girder section modulus,
lengthening is the first sign revealing the Wmin rules minimum hull girder section
increase in the longitudinal strength Modulus,
requirements. ; hull section index,
• The extent and simplicity of the structural δL length of the inserted section,
arrangements required are important factors σh yield stress of the high tensile steel,
to be taken into account in the economical and
evaluation and the production flow of the σm yield stress of the mild steel.
conversion. Some structural parts, namely
side and bottom panels, may fortunately Subscripts
show adequate strength for the lengthened
ship, and the required structural “o” denotes the section particular of the
modifications may then be limited to the original ship, and ,
main deck panel. “n” denotes the corresponding particular for
• A hull section index has been introduced the new design (after lengthening).
to define the characteristics of the
longitudinal material amidships. It has been Appendix 1
evaluated for a number of selected vessels to
find its range, and it is used to determine The introduced index ; is given by,
the amount of area that would be added to
the main deck in order to attain satisfactory y A
longitudinal strength. α = o = yo .
ro I
• The structural modifications imposed by
the increased longitudinal strength
standards due to lengthening, will therefore
be minimal for smaller block coefficient The hull sectional properties required to
gradient and higher hull section index. calculate K for 10 typical large merchant ships
Volume critical ships with longitudinally are given in [8]. To evaluate this index for
stiffened double bottom are then the best smaller ships (moderate size), a schematic con-
from this point of view. figuration (fig. 7) is assumed to represent the

Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, July 2003 395

 H.S. El- Kilani, R. Ramadan / Lengthened ships

longitudinal material in the section of table 2, together with a sample of the former
general cargo ships. exact calculation of K for vessels with vailable
In this idealization, the absence of hatch data (denoted with *).
openings compensates the area of the deck
girders. The double bottom height is as-
sumed to be 1.5m, and the tween deck
height is one third of the depth. For a pure
transverse system of framing a constant
thickness is assumed throughout the sec-
tion. For a combined system of framing, a
thickness “t” is attributed to the sides and
girders, whilst a thickness of “1.2t” is given
to all horizontal panels, i.e. decks, inner and
outer bottom plating. Fig. 7. Midship configuration.
This approximate evaluation of the
sectional properties is applied to a number of
cargo vessels [12]. The results are given in

Table 2
Typical values of hull section index

Item SHT * DHT * Bulk * Cont * Liner 1 Liner 2 Break B. Tanker*

LBP(m) 313 233 273 305 171.5 159.1 145.5 306.1
Breadth(m) 48.2 42 44.5 45.3 24.23 21.34 22 48.7
Depth (m) 25.2 21.3 23 27 13.97 13.72 12.4 24.5
A (m2) 7.858 5.318 5.786 6.19 2.379 1.759 1.888 5.059
I (m4) 863.69 359.48 508.31 682.75 70.449 48.87 43.57 770.421
yo (m) 13.02 12.11 12.94 15.38 6.179 6.066 5.502 12.29
; 1.242 1.473 1.38 1.662 1.431 1.452 1.435 0.996
Notes: SHT = single hull tanker[7], DHT = double hull tanker with one center-longitudinal bulkhead[7], Bulk =
double sided bulk carrier[7], Cont = 9000 TEU container vessel[7], Liner 1 = Strat Hardle (combined sys.)[11],
Liner 2 = Delta Argentina (transverse sys.) [11], Break B. = break bulk Golden Chalice (combined sys.)[11], Tanker
= single hull tanker [11]

References [7] David Watson, in: Practical Ship Design,

Elsevier Ocean Engineering Book Series
[1] Marinetalk, issue October (2002). (1998).
[2] Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd., [8] J. Paik et al., “Ultimate Limit State
Shiprepair and Conversion: The Global Design of Ship Hulls”, SNAME Annual
Outlook Report (1998). Meeting (2001).
[3] D. J.Munro, “Widening of the Great [9] Shipping World and Shipbuilder, “Port
Lakes Bulk Carrier MV Algoville”, Marine Chalmers: World’s Largest refrigerated
Technology, Vol. 37, pp. 23-29 (2000). Cargo Vessel”, Vol. 161 (1968).
[4] Don Walter, “Conversion of Maersk [10] R. Ramadan, Hydrodynamic and
Lines L Class Containership to Strategic Structural Aspects in Ship Conversion,
Sealift Ro/Ro, Lo/Lo Ships”, Marine Ph.D. Thesis, Suez Canal University
Technology, Vol. 33, pp. 14-19 (1996). (2002).
[5] J.L. Hannah, “Merchant Vessel [11] Marcon International Inc., News &
Conversions: The Falklands Campaign”, Articles (2002).
The Naval Architect, RINA, pp. 29-47 [12] Ship Design and Construction, ed. R.
(1986). Taggart, SNAME, p. 54 (1980).
[6] IACS, Requirements concerning
Received March 28, 2002
Strength of Ships (2002). Accepted March 31, 2003

396 Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, July 2003

 Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 42 (2003), No. 4, 389-396 397
© Faculty of Engineering Alexandria University, Egypt.

View publication stats