Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Structures

Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Structures
2003
Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Structures

2003
2003 6
Owen F. Hughes
Acknowledgements
This dissertation is submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Pusan National University. My sincere
appreciation goes to my supervisor, Professor Jeom Kee Paik. His guidance, patience,
and encouragement were invaluable to the progress and completion of this study. This
study was supported by the American Bureau of Shipping, the Brain Korea 21 project
and Pusan National University who are thanked for their assistance.
I deeply thank the co-authors of several papers published in SNAME Transactions,
including Dr. Anil Kumar Thayamballi, Dr. Ge Wang, Dr. Yung Sup Shin and Dr.
Donald Liu, for their academical discussions and allowance to reprint them.
I am grateful to all my committee members, Professor Sung Won Kang
(Committee Chairman), Professor Owen F. Hughes, Professor Jae Yong Ko and
Professor Jae Myung Lee, for their helpful discussions and spent time on my behalf. I
also thank all fellow students in Ship Structural Mechanics Lab. for their help and the
great time we shared together.
Last but not least, I am indebted to my parents, my wife and her parents for love,
support and encouragement. I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Joo
Hyun Chun, and our expected child.
Contents
Nomenclature
iv
List of Tables
viii
List of Figures
1. Introduction
2. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Plating
2.1 Buckling / Ultimate Strength Design Procedure
13
14
15
2.2 Geometric and Material Properties

2.3 Load (Stress) Application
2.4 Modeling of Fabrication Related Imperfections
17
22
22
2.5 Buckling Based Capacity

2.5.1 Design Equations
2.5.2 Validity of the Johnson-Ostenfeld Equation
24
26
2.5.4 Effect of Residual Stresses
35
2.5.5 Effect of Lateral Pressure
39
2.5.7 Effect of In-plane Bending
42
44
2.6 Ultimate Strength Based Capacity
44
2.5.3 Effect of Rotational Restraints
2.5.8 Elastic Edge Shear Buckling
2.6.1 Ultimate Strength Equation for Combined Longitudinal Axial Load and
Lateral Pressure
45
2.6.2 Ultimate Strength Equation for Combined Transverse Axial Load and Lateral
Pressure
2.6.3 Ultimate Strength Equation for Edge Shear
52
54
2.6.4 Ultimate Strength Equation for Combined Biaxial Load, Edge Shear and
Lateral Pressure
-i-
54
2.7 Comparison between Buckling and Ultimate Strength Based Capacities
59
63
75
75
3. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Stiffened Panels and Grillages

3.1 Modeling of Ship Stiffened Plate Structure
3.1.1 Panel Geometry
3.1.2 Panel Material Properties
76
77
3.1.4 Load Effects
78
3.1.5 Fabrication Related Initial Imperfections
80
3.1.3 Panel Boundary Conditions
3.2 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode I
3.2.1 Combined Longitudinal Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure
83
85
86
3.2.2 Combined Transverse Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.2.3 Combined Edge Shear Stress and Lateral Pressure
3.2.4 Combined Biaxial Stresses, Edge Shear Stress and Lateral Pressure
3.3 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode II
88
89
89
90
90

3.3.4 Combined Biaxial Stress, Edge Shear Stress and Lateral Pressure
3.4 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode III
91
91
92
98
102

3.4.3Combined Edge Shear Stress and Lateral Pressure
3.5 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode IV
102
102
104
107
108

-ii-
82
108
3.6 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode V
108
109
115
116

116
117
117
3.7 Ultimate Strength Formulation for Collapse Mode VI

3.8 Verification Examples and Discussion
3.8.1 Ultimate Strength Characteristics of Longitudinally Stiffened Panels in Ships
118
3.8.2 Ultimate Strength Characteristics of Ship Grillages Comparisons with the

Smith Tests
4. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Hulls
131
137
4.1 Efficient and Accurate Methodology for the Progressive Collapse Analysis of
Ships
4.2 Progressive Collapse Characteristics of Typical Merchant Ships
147
153
165
4.2.1 Progressive collapse behavior under vertical moment

4.2.2 Effect of lateral pressure
137
4.2.3 Effect of horizontal moment
4.3 Closed-Form Ultimate Strength Formulation for Ship Hulls
169
172
188
192
199
References
202
Appendix
213
4.4 Ultimate Limit State Design Format

4.5 Assessment of Safety Measure
5. Concluding Remarks
Abstract (Korean)
Published Papers Related to This Study
-iii-
229
231
Nomenclature
Geometric Properties
a
= length of plating, spacing between two adjacent transverses (frames)
A x , A y = cross-sectional areas of a single x - or y -stiffener with attached effective
plating
ae
= effective length of the plating corresponding to length a
a eu
= a e at plate ultimate limit state
A sx , A sy = cross-sectional areas of a single x - or y -stiffener

b
= breadth of plating, spacing between two adjacent longitudinals
= breadth of the stiffened panel, spacing between two adjacent longitudinal
girders
be
= effective width of the plating corresponding to breadth b
b eu
= be at plate ultimate limit state
b fx , b fy
= breadths of x - or y -stiffener flange
h wx , h wy = heights of x - or
y -stiffener web
Ix , Iy
= moments of inertia of x - or y -stiffener with attached effective plating
J fx , J fy
= torsion constants of x - or y -stiffener flange
J wx , J wy = torsion constants of x - or y -stiffener web

k
= radius of gyration of longitudinals with attached effective plating
(= I x / A x )
L
= length of the stiffened panel, spacing between two adjacent transverse
frames (or bulkheads)

n sx , n sy = numbers of x - or y -stiffeners
t
= thickness of plating
t eq
= equivalent plate thickness
t fx , t fy
= thicknesses of x - or y -stiffener flange
-iv-
t wx , t wy = thicknesses of x - or y -stiffener web

Zx , Z y
= section moduli of x - or y -stiffener with attached effective plating
z ox , z oy = distances from the middle plane of the plating to the neutral axis of x - or
y -stiffener with attached full plating
z px , z py = distances from the middle plane of the plating to the neutral axis of x - or
y -stiffener with attached effective plating
z fx , z fy
= distances from the middle plane of the stiffener flange to the neutral axis of
x - or y -stiffener with attached effective plating
(= b / t
(= a / k
=
o / E
reduced
slenderness
ratio
of
the
plating
between
longitudinals
= slenderness ratio of longitudinals with attached effective plating

ox / E
= ox / E
Material Properties
D
= bending rigidity of isotropic plating (= Et 3 / 12(1 2 ) )
= Youngs modulus
= shear modulus (= E / 2(1 + ) )
= Poissons ratio
= yield stress for plating ( = op )
oeq
= equivalent yield stress for the entire stiffened panel
ox , oy
= equivalent yield stresses for the stiffened panel in the x or y direction
os
= yield stress of stiffeners
= shear yield stress of plating ( = o / 3 )
Initial Imperfections
A om
= initial deflection amplitude with respect to buckling half wave number m
in the x direction
-v-
A on
= initial deflection amplitude with respect to buckling half wave number n in
the y direction
at , bt
= breadths of tensile residual stress block for rty or rtx
w opl
= maximum initial deflection of plating between stiffeners
w osx , w osy = column type initial deflections of x - or y -stiffener

rcx , rcy = compressive residual stresses of plating between stiffeners in the x or
y direction
rsx , rsy = compressive residual stresses in the x - or y -stiffener web
rtx , rty = tensile residual stresses of plating between stiffeners in the x or y
direction
Applied Loads
p
= net lateral pressure on panel
= lateral line load on plate-stiffener combination
x1 , x 2 = minimum or maximum axial stresses in the x direction

xav , yav = average axial stresses in the x or y direction
xM , yM = axial stresses at the most highly stressed x - or y -stiffener
y1 , y 2 = minimum or maximum axial stresses in the y direction
av
= average edge shear stress
Buckling and Ultimate Strength

p uo
= ultimate strength under p alone
cr
= critical buckling stress
= elastic buckling stress
= ultimate stress
xu , yu = ultimate longitudinal or transverse axial strength components

E
= elastic shear buckling strength
-vi-
= ultimate shear strength
uo
= ultimate strength under av alone
Others
m ,n
= buckling half wave numbers in the x or y direction
-vii-
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Initial deflection amplitudes for various initial deflection shapes indicated in
Fig.2.7
Table 3.1 Mean values of geometric and material properties for the Tanaka & Endo test
structures
Table 3.2 Geometric characteristics of the Tanaka & Endo test structures
Table 3.3 Initial imperfections for plating and longitudinals in the Tanaka & Endo test
structures
Table 3.4 Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP with the Tanaka & Endo experiment and
FEA
Table 3.5 Mean values of geometric properties and material yield stresses for the Smith
test grillages
Table 3.6 Other Geometric characteristics of the Smith test grillages
Table 3.7 Initial imperfections of plating, longitudinals and transverses for the Smith
test grillages
Table 3.8(a) Comparison of the Smith FEA with the experiment for ultimate strength of
grillages
Table 3.8(b) Comparison of ALPS/ULSAP with the Smith experiments and FEA for
ultimate strength of grillages
Table 4.1 Hull sectional properties of the 10 typical merchant ships
Table 4.2 A comparison of the ultimate hull girder strength calculations obtained by the
ALPS/HULL and the closed-form design formula (DF) for 10 typical commercial
ships indicated in Fig.4.9
Table 4.3(a) Hull sectional properties of the existing double hull tankers
Table 4.3(b) The computed ultimate hull girder strength of the existing double hull
tankers
-viii-
Table 4.4(a) Hull sectional properties of the existing bulk carriers

Table 4.4(b) The computed ultimate hull girder strength of the existing bulk carriers
Table 4.5(a) Hull sectional properties of the existing container vessels
Table 4.5(b) The computed ultimate hull girder strength of the existing container
vessels
Table 4.6 Safety measure calculations for the 10 typical merchant ships
Table 4.7 Safety measure calculations for the 9 existing double hull tankers
Table 4.8 Safety measure calculations for the 12 existing bulk carrier
Table 4.9 Safety measure calculations for the 9 existing container vessels
-ix-
List of Figures
Fig.1.1. Structural design considerations based on the ultimate limit state
Fig.2.1. A schematic of the collapse behavior of steel plating under predominantly
compressive loads
Fig.2.2. A typical stiffened plate structure in a ship
Fig.2.3. Typical geometry for the longitudinals and transverses
Fig.2.4. The plating under a general pattern of combined external loads
Fig.2.5. Idealized load application for the plating under uniform biaxial, edge shear and
lateral pressure loads
Fig.2.6. Fabrication related initial deflections in steel stiffened panels
Fig.2.7. Some typical patterns of welding induced initial deflection in ship plating
Fig.2.8. Idealization of welding induced residual stress distribution inside plating in the
x and y directions
Fig.2.9. The ultimate capacity versus the elastic bifurcation buckling stress of plating
under longitudinal compression alone, a / b = 3.0
under transverse compression along, a / b = 3
under edge shear alone, a / b = 3
Fig.2.12. Buckling coefficient k x1 for a plate under longitudinal compression,
elastically restrained at the long edges and simply supported at the short edges as
obtained by directly solving the buckling characteristic equation and by the
proposed approximate equation
Fig.2.13. Buckling coefficient k x 2 for a plate under longitudinal compression,
elastically restrained at the short edges and simply supported at the long edges as
obtained by directly solving the buckling characteristic equation
-x-
Fig.2.14. Buckling coefficient k y1 for a plate under transverse compression, elastically

restrained at the long edges and simply supported at the short edges as obtained by
directly solving the buckling characteristic equation
Fig.2.15. Buckling coefficient k y 2
for a plate under transverse compression,
Fig.2.16. Accuracy of the design equation for the buckling coefficient k x 2
Fig.2.17. Accuracy of the design equation for the buckling coefficient k y1
Fig.2.18. Accuracy of the design equation for the buckling coefficient k y 2
Fig.2.19. Elastic buckling interaction relationships for plating under combined biaxial
compression
Fig.2.20. Elastic buckling interaction relationships of plating under combined axial
compression and edge shear
Fig.2.21(a). Variation of the elastic compressive buckling stress as a function of the
welding induced residual stress and the plate aspect ratio, rcy = 0 , b / t = 50 ,
= 2.07 , o = 352MPa , rtx = 0.8 o
Fig.2.21(b). Variation of the elastic compressive buckling stress as a function of the

= 4.14 , o = 352MPa , rtx = 0.8 o
Fig.2.21(c). Variation of the elastic compressive buckling stress as a function of the

welding induced residual stress and the plate aspect ratio, rcy = b / a rcx ,
b / t = 50 , = 2.07 , o = 352MPa , rtx = 0.8 o
Fig.2.21(d). Variation of the elastic compressive buckling stress as a function of the

welding induced residual stress and the plate aspect ratio, rcy = b / a rcx ,
b / t = 100 , = 4.14 , o = 352MPa rtx = 0.8 o
Fig.2.22. Effect of lateral pressure on the plate compressive buckling strength

Fig.2.23. Membrane stress distribution inside the plate element under longitudinal
-xi-
compressive loads
Fig.2.24. Possible locations for the initial plastic yield at the plate edges under
combined uniaxial load and pressure
Fig.2.25. Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP with mechanical test results and FEA for
long plating under uniaxial compression, reference numbers being extracted from
Ellinas et al.
Fig.2.26. Effect of initial deflection on the plate ultimate compressive strength
Fig.2.27(a). Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP method with the Yamamoto collapse test
results for plating under combined longitudinal axial compression and lateral
pressure loads, for = 3.508
Fig.2.27(b). Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP method with the Yamamoto collapse test
Fig.2.27(c). Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP method with the Yamamoto collapse test
Fig.2.28. Variation of the ultimate transverse compressive strength of a long plating
shown as a function of the reduced slenderness ratio, a / b = 3
Fig.2.29. The ultimate strength versus the elastic bifurcation buckling stress of plating
under edge shear
Fig.2.30(a). Plate ultimate strength interaction between biaxial compression, a / b = 3 ,
t = 13 mm , initial deflection shape #1
Fig.2.30(b). Plate ultimate strength interaction between biaxial compression, a / b = 3 ,

t = 21mm , initial deflection shape #1

-xii-
Fig.2.32(a). Plate ultimate strength interaction between axial compression and edge
shear, a / b = 1 and = 3 , w opl / t = 0.1 2
Fig.2.32(b). Plate ultimate strength interaction between axial compression and edge
Fig.2.33(a). Plate capacity interactions between biaxial compression as those obtained
by
FEA,
buckling
and
ultimate
strength
based
capacity
formulae,
a / b = 3, t = 13mm , initial deflection shape #1
Fig.2.33(b). Plate capacity interactions between biaxial compression as those obtained

by
FEA,
buckling
and
ultimate
strength
based
capacity
formulae,

by
FEA,
buckling
and
ultimate
strength
based
capacity
formulae,

by
FEA,
buckling
and
ultimate
strength
based
capacity
formulae,
Fig.3.1. A ship grillage with support members in both directions

Fig.3.2. A cross-stiffened panel under combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads
Fig.3.3(a). Mode I-1: Overall collapse of a uniaxially stiffened panel
Fig.3.3(b). Mode I-2: Overall collapse of a cross-stiffened panel
Fig.3.3(c). Mode II: Plate induced failure - yielding at the corners of plating between
stiffeners
Fig.3.3(d). Mode III: Plate induced failure - yielding of plate-stiffener combination at
mid-span
Fig.3.3(e). Mode IV: Stiffener induced failure - local buckling of the stiffener web
Fig.3.3(f). Mode V: Stiffener induced failure - lateral-torsional buckling of stiffener
-xiii-
Fig.3.4. A comparison of the ultimate strength formulations for plate-stiffener

combinations under axial compression
Fig.3.5. Typical cross-section types for longitudinals and transverses
Fig.3.6(a). An example pattern of post-weld initial deflections in steel stiffened panels
Fig.3.6(b). Idealization of the distribution of welding induced residual stresses in the
plating between stiffeners in the x and y directions
Fig.3.7. Plasticity at panel longitudinal mid-edges for a combined xav and p
Fig.3.8. Plasticity at panel transverse mid-edges for a combined yav and p
Fig.3.9. Ultimate strength interaction relationship for a simply supported (isotropic)
plate subjected to edge shear and lateral pressure
Fig.3.10. Variation of the effective width of a simply supported plate under uniaxial
compression
Fig.3.11. Variation of the ultimate compressive strength from the Perry-Robertson
formula versus the column slenderness ratio for plate-stiffener combinations,
under combined axial compression and lateral load
Fig.3.12. Example variation of elastic buckling coefficients for angle / T section
stiffener web with increase in aspect ratio and torsional rigidity of plating,
accounting for the influence of rotational restraints
Fig.3.13. General and assumed tripping deformations of a plate-stiffener combination
Fig.3.14. Effect of the h w / t w ratio on the tripping strength of a plate and flangedstiffener combination without considering the plate rotational restraints
Fig.3.15. The Tanaka & Endo test structure for longitudinally stiffened panels under
uniaxial compression, incorporating two dummy panels away from the transverse
frames
Fig.3.16. Correlation of ALPS/ULSAP predictions with experiments and FEA from
Tanaka & Endo
Fig.3.17. Extent taken for the ANSYS analysis with 1/2+1+1/2 bay model
-xiv-
Fig.3.18. Boundary conditions adopted for the ANSYS analysis

Fig.3.19. ANSYS FE meshes together with boundary conditions
Fig.3.20(a). Node location in 2-2 section as defined in Fig.3.18
Fig.3.20(b). Node location in 3-3 section as defined in Fig.3.18
Fig.3.21(a). Comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS, ABAQUS,
ALPS/ULSAP and PULS for the panel with PULS default settings of initial
deflections, i.e., w osx =a/1000 = w *osx , w opl =b/200 (t=21mm)
Fig.3.21(b). Comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS, ALPS/ULSAP
and PULS for the panel with PULS default settings of initial deflections, i.e.,
w osx =a/1000 = w *osx , w opl =b/200 (t=21mm)
Fig.3.21(c). Comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS, ALPS/ULSAP

Fig.3.21(d). Comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS, ALPS/ULSAP

Fig.3.22. Correlation of the ALPS/ULSAP method with the experimental data and FE
solutions for the Smith test grillages
Fig.4.1. Various types of idealizations for a steel plated structure
Fig.4.2(a). The ISUM beam-column unit with attached plating
Fig.4.2(b). The ISUM beam-column unit without attached plating
Fig.4.3. The ISUM rectangular plate unit
Fig.4.4. The ISUM stiffened panel unit
Fig.4.5. Idealized stress-strain behavior of the ISUM plate or stiffened panel unit for the
ultimate strength analysis
Fig.4.6(a). Mid-ship section of the Dow frigate test ship
Fig.4.6(b). ALPS/HULL model for the Dow frigate test hull
-xv-
Fig.4.6(c). Comparison of ALPS/HULL with the Dow test results, varying the level of
initial imperfections
Fig.4.7(a). ALPS/HULL model I
Fig.4.7(b). ALPS/HULL model II
Fig.4.7(c). ALPS/HULL model III
Fig.4.7(d). ALPS/HULL model IV
Fig.4.7(e). ALPS/HULL model V
Fig.4.7(f). ALPS/HULL model VI
Fig.4.8. Progressive collapse behavior of a 105,000 DWT double hull tanker hull with
one center-longitudinal bulkhead under vertical bending moment, as obtained by
the six types of modeling methods
Fig.4.9(a). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 254,000 DWT single hull
tanker
Fig.4.9(b). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 105,000 DWT double hull
tanker with one center-longitudinal bulkhead
Fig.4.9(c). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 313,000 DWT double hull
tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads
Fig.4.9(d). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 170,000 DWT single
sided bulk carrier
Fig.4.9(e). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 169,000 DWT double
sided bulk carrier
Fig.4.9(f). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 3,500 TEU container
vessel
Fig.4.9(g). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 5,500 TEU container
vessel
Fig.4.9(h). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 9,000 TEU container
vessel
-xvi-
Fig.4.9(i). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 113,000 DWT FPSO

(floating, production, storage and offloading unit)
Fig.4.9(j). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 165,000 DWT shuttle
tanker
Fig.4.10(a). Progressive collapse behavior of the 254,000 DWT single hull tanker under
vertical moment varying the level of initial imperfections, as obtained by
ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.10(b). Progressive collapse behavior of the 105,000 DWT double hull tanker with
one center-longitudinal bulkhead under vertical moment varying the level of initial
imperfections, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.10(c). Progressive collapse behavior of the 313,000 DWT double hull tanker with
two longitudinal bulkheads under vertical moment varying the level of initial
Fig.4.10(d). Progressive collapse behavior of the 170,000 DWT single sided bulk
carrier under vertical moment varying the level of initial imperfections, as
obtained by ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.10(e). Progressive collapse behavior of the 169,000 DWT double sided bulk
carrier under vertical moment varying the level of initial imperfections, as
Fig.4.10(f). Progressive collapse behavior of the 3,500 TEU container vessel under
ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.10(g). Progressive collapse behavior of the 5,500 TEU container vessel under
ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.10(h). Progressive collapse behavior of the 9,000 TEU container vessel under
-xvii-
ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.10(i). Progressive collapse behavior of the FPSO hull under vertical moment
varying the level of initial imperfections, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.10(j). Progressive collapse behavior of the shuttle tanker hull under vertical
moment varying the level of initial imperfections, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.11. Variation of the neutral axis due to structural failure for the single hull tanker,
as obtained by ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.12(a). Schematic of water pressure distribution for the 313,000 DWT double hull
tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads, being a sum of static and hydrodynamic
pressure for head sea state
Fig.4.12(b). Schematic of water pressure distribution for the 170,000 DWT single sided
bulk carrier, being a sum of static and hydrodynamic pressure for head sea state
Fig.4.12(c). Schematic of water pressure distribution for the 9,000 TEU container
vessel, being a sum of static and hydrodynamic pressure for head sea state
Fig.4.13(a). Progressive collapse behavior of the 313,000 DWT double hull tanker with
two longitudinal bulkheads under vertical moment varying the magnitude of water
pressure, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.13(b). Progressive collapse behavior of the 170,000 DWT single sided bulk
carrier under vertical moment varying the magnitude of water pressure, as
Fig.4.13(c). Progressive collapse behavior of the 9,000 TEU container vessel under
vertical moment varying the magnitude of water pressure, as obtained by
ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.13(d). Variation of the ultimate hull girder strengths as a function of the
magnitude of water pressure, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
two longitudinal bulkheads under combined vertical and horizontal moments, as
-xviii-
carrier under combined vertical and horizontal moments, as obtained by
ALPS/HULL
combined vertical and horizontal moments, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.14(d). Ultimate hull girder strength interaction relationships between vertical and
horizontal moments, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.15. Variation of the longitudinal stress distribution during the progressive collapse
under hogging moment, as obtained by ALPS/HULL (a) pre-ultimate limit regime
(b) ultimate limit state
Fig.4.16. Longitudinal stress distribution over a ships cross-section at the overall
collapse state as suggested by Paik & Mansour (1995)
Fig.4.17(a). Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the
closed-form design formula predictions for a slight level of initial imperfections
for 10 typical commercial ships indicated in Fig.4.9
Fig.4.17(b). Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the
closed-form design formula predictions for an average level of initial
imperfections for 10 typical commercial ships indicated in Fig.4.9
Fig.4.17(c). Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the
closed-form design formula predictions varying the level of initial imperfections
for 10 typical commercial ships indicated in Fig.4.9
Fig.4.18. Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the
closed-form design formula predictions for the existing double hull tankers
closed-form design formula predictions for the existing bulk carriers
-xix-
closed-form design formula predictions for the existing container vessels

closed-form design formula predictions for all (30) existing vessels considered
Fig.4.22 The section modulus based safety measure versus the ultimate strength based
safety measure for the 10 typical merchant ships
safety measure for all (30) existing vessels
Fig.A.1. A schematic of the total membrane stress distribution inside the plating in the
x direction
Fig.A.2 A schematic of the total membrane stress distribution inside the plating in the
y direction
Fig.A.3. Geometric properties of longitudinals or transverses with attached effective

plating
-xx-
1. Introduction
Ship structures while in service are likely subjected to various types of loads and
deformations that may be range from the routine to the extreme or accidental. The
structure is designed so that it should sustain such loads and deformations throughout
its lifetime.
Two types of structural design methods are relevant, namely allowable stress
design (ASD) and limit state design (LSD). In the former, the design is undertaken so
that the stresses resulting from the design loads should be kept under a certain working
stress level which is usually determined based upon past experience. In the latter, the
design is based on the limit state which represents a condition that the structure fails to
fulfill its intended function.
It is now well recognized that the LSD is a better basis for structural design
because it is much more effective to determine the real safety measures of any structure.
In this regard, the design of land-based structures and naval vessel structures has been
undertaken based on the LSD, while the structural design of merchant ships is still
being performed following the traditional ASD together with buckling strength check. It
is however clear that the basis of structural design is now moving from the ASD to the
LSD.
The LSD is normally categorized into the following four types, namely (Paik &
Thayamballi 2003)
Serviceability limit state design
Ultimate limit state design
Fatigue limit state design
Accidental limit state design
It is noted that these various types of LSD may need to be considered depending
-1-
upon the conditions or situations of loading or structure types, among others. Also, the
methodologies and the safety level of individual LSD are different as well. The present
dissertation is concerned with the ultimate limit state design of ship structures that
involves plastic collapse or ultimate strength.
Design load level 1
Force
Linear
elastic
response
Ultimate strength
B
A
Buckling strength
B*
Design load level 2
Proportional limit
Displacement
Fig.1.1. Structural design considerations based on the ultimate limit state (Paik &
Thayamballi 2003)
Figure 1.1 shows a schematic representation of a structure under predominantly

axial compressive loads. The current ship structural design method uses the elastic
buckling strength with a simple plasticity correction which is represented by the point A
in Fig.1.1. In this case, the structural designer does not have any information in the
post-buckling regime.
When the load level 2 is applied as indicated in Fig.1.1, the structure will be safe,
but if the load level 1 is applied the structure will possibly collapse. Even though the
ultimate strength represented by point B would be expected higher than the point A, it is
not possible to determine the real safety margin against the ultimate strength which is
-2-
represented by point B as long as point B remains unknown. The primary aim of the
present study is to develop the efficient and accurate methodologies of determining
point B, i.e., the ultimate strength of ship structures.
The dissertation is composed of 5 chapters. Following chapter 1 Introduction,
chapter 2 presents the ultimate strength design methodology of plates within stiffened
panels. The behavior of ship plating normally depends on a variety of influential factors,
namely geometric / material properties, loading characteristics, initial imperfections,
boundary condition. To achieve a more advanced buckling and ultimate strength design
of ship plating, this chapter focuses on the following three subjects which have been
studied theoretically, numerically and experimentally:
Modeling of post-weld initial imperfections (i.e., initial deflections and residual
stresses) and their effects,

Influence of rotational restraints and torsional rigidity of support members on the
plate buckling strength, and

Ultimate strength design equations under combined loads including biaxial
compression / tension, edge shear and lateral pressure loads.

Chapter 3 aims to deal with the advanced ultimate strength design of stiffened
panels and grillages that form parts of ship structures. In contrast, the chapter 2 dealt
with the ultimate strength design of plate elements within such stiffened panels. To
achieving a more advanced ultimate strength design of stiffened panels and grillages,
this chapter proposes a more advanced design oriented ultimate strength design
methodology for ship stiffened panels and grillages. Possible failure modes involved in
collapse of stiffened panels and grillages are six as categorized by Paik et al. (2001c)
and Paik & Thayamballi (2003). The ultimate strength of the stiffened panel under
combined loads is calculated taking into account all of the possible failure modes and
the interplay of various factors such as geometric and material properties, loading and
-3-
post-weld initial imperfections. As is usual, the collapse of stiffened panels is

considered to occur at the lowest value among the various ultimate loads calculated for
each of the collapse patterns. The design oriented strength formulations developed
accommodate all potential applied load components including biaxial compression /
tension, biaxial in-plane bending, edge shear and lateral pressure loads. The fabrication
related initial imperfections (initial deflections and residual stresses) are included in the
developed strength formulations as parameters of influence. The validity of the
proposed ultimate strength formulations is confirmed by a comparison with the
nonlinear finite element solutions and mechanical collapse test results. Important
insights developed from the present study are summarized. Predictions from the design
oriented procedures proposed in chapter 2 and 3 are automated using a computer
program called ALPS/ULSAP which stands for Analysis of Large Plated Structures /
ULtimate Strength Analysis of Panels, developed by Professor Paik (Paik &
Thayamballi 2003).
The subject of chapter 4 is to deal with the calculation of the ultimate hull girder
strength using the methodology for ultimate strength of ship structures developed in
chapter 2 and chapter 3. A special purpose program, ALPS/HULL, developed by
Professor Paik (Paik & Thayamballi 2003), for the automated calculation of the
progressive collapse analysis of ships hulls under extreme hull girder loads is used,
which can include any combination of vertical bending, horizontal bending, sectional
shear and torsion. The characteristics of progressive collapse behavior for a total of 10
typical merchant ships under vertical bending moment are investigated using the
developed ultimate strength design formulations. Effects of lateral pressure and
horizontal moment on the hull girder ultimate vertical moment are also studied.
Through the above insight closed-form ultimate strength formulations for the ultimate
strength of ships under vertical bending moment are developed. Ultimate strength of the
hull girders for a total of 40 merchant ships obtained by ALPS/HULL and the closed-
-4-
form design formula are compared to verify the applicability of closed-form design
formula. The ultimate limit state design format for ships is addressed. Finally, The
section modulus based safety measure and the ultimate strength based safety measure
for all (40) target vessels are compared. The developed closed-form design formula is
programmed into ALPS/USAS-S (Paik & Thayamballi 2003) to predict the ultimate
hull girder strength of ships under vertical bending moments effectively. For more
information about computer programs mentioned above see the reference or visit
http://ssml.naoe.pusan.ac.kr.
-5-
2. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Plating

Most of contents in this chapter are reprinted from the paper of SNAME
Transactions (Paik et al. 2000b), which dealt with the advanced buckling and ultimate
strength design of ship plates within stiffened panels, where the author was involved as
a coauthor of the paper. In this regard, the author is pleased to acknowledge that the rest
of the paper authors allowed him to reprint the results here.
The overall failure of a ship hull girder is normally governed by buckling and
plastic collapse of the deck, bottom or sometimes the side shell stiffened panels.
Therefore, the relatively accurate calculation of buckling and plastic collapse strength
of stiffened plating of the deck, bottom and side shells is a basic requirement for the
safety assessment of ship structures. In stiffened panels, local buckling and collapse of
plating between stiffeners is a primary failure mode, and thus it would also be important
to evaluate the buckling and collapse strength interactions of plating between stiffeners
under combined loading.
The behavior of ship plating normally depends on a variety of influential factors,
namely geometric/material properties, loading characteristics, initial imperfections (i.e.,
initial deflections and residual stresses), boundary conditions and existing local damage
related to corrosion, fatigue crack and denting.
The geometry of plating found in ship and offshore structures is normally
rectangular and the material used is usually mild or high tensile steel (Note that the use
of aluminum alloys is increasing in the design and fabrication of high speed vessel
structures). The boundary condition for the rectangular plate elements making up steel
plated structures is normally assumed to be simply supported or sometimes clamped for
practical purposes of analysis. In real ship plating, however, such ideal edge conditions
may never occur due to rotational restraint by support members along the plate edges.
The ship plating is generally subjected to combined in-plane and lateral pressure
-6-
loads. In-plane loads include biaxial compression / tension and edge shear, which are
mainly induced by overall hull girder bending and / or torsion of the vessel. Lateral
pressure loads are due to water pressure and / or cargo. The extreme of such load
components may not occur simultaneously, and more than one load component may
normally exist and interact. Hence, for more advanced design of ship structures, it is of
crucial importance to better understand the characteristics of the buckling and ultimate
strength for ship plating under combined loads.
Axial Compressive Stress
Elastic Bifurcation
Ultimate Strength
Perfect Thin Plate

Perfect Thick Plate
Imperfect Plate
Axial Compressive Strain
Fig.2.1. A schematic of the collapse behavior of steel plating under predominantly

compressive loads
Since the post-weld initial imperfections in the form of initial deflections and
residual stresses exist in ship steel plating and can affect significantly the strength, such
welding induced initial imperfections should be included in the strength calculations as
parameters of influence.
When a perfectly flat plate (i.e., without initial imperfections) is subjected to
predominantly compressive loads, buckling (bifurcation) can occur if the applied
-7-
compressive stress reaches a critical bifurcation stress, see Fig.2.1. However, the inplane stiffness of plating with initial imperfections decreases from the very beginning
as the compressive loads increase. In this more general case, it is not possible to define
a bifurcation point for buckling.
The phenomenon of buckling may be categorized by plasticity considerations into
three classes, namely elastic buckling, elastic-plastic buckling and plastic buckling, the
last two being called inelastic buckling (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). The first class (i.e.,
elastic buckling) typically indicates that buckling occurs solely in the elastic regime.
This class of buckling is often seen in very thin steel plates. The second (i.e., elasticplastic buckling) normally represents the case wherein buckling occurs after
plastification has occurred in a local region in the plate. The third (i.e., plastic buckling)
indicates that buckling occurs in the regime of gross yielding, i.e., after the plate has
yielded over large areas. Relatively thick plating may exhibit either elastic-plastic or
plastic buckling.
Unlike columns, plating can normally sustain additional applied loads even after
elastic buckling occurs since membrane tension develops along the plate edges resists
any abrupt increase in lateral deflection. A plate buckled in the elastic regime will
eventually collapse by a rapid decrease of in-plane stiffness (or an abrupt increase of
lateral deflection) as the yield zone inside the plate is expanded. On the other hand, if
buckling occurs in the elastic-plastic or plastic regime the plating normally immediately
reaches the ultimate limit state.
From the viewpoint of a structural designer, it can be said with reasonable
certainty that the buckling and ultimate strength problem for ship plating under a single
load application and common idealized edge conditions (e.g., simply supported along
four edges) has been almost completely solved. In the more general case, however, we
are still confronted with a number of problem areas that remain unsolved due to the
various influential factors previously mentioned.
-8-
In the following, a literature review
of selected studies related to the buckling and ultimate strength of plating is now made.
Depending on the rotational restraints and torsional rigidity of support members
along the plate edges, the common ideal edge conditions (i.e., the assumption that the
plate edges are simply supported or clamped) may or may not be appropriate to apply
(Bleich 1952, Timoshenko & Gere 1963). The plate element is normally subjected to
combined loads and the buckling mode depends on the interaction of these load
components. Therefore, the plate buckling strength should in principle be evaluated by
taking into account the effects of boundary condition and load component interactions
among other factors.
Williams (1976) investigated the buckling strength characteristics of plate
elements varying torsional rigidity of support members along their edges. Paik et al.
(1993) surveyed the bending and torsional rigidities of support members for plate
elements in merchant vessel structures. Based on the survey results, they concluded that
due to the rotational restraint by support members at plate edges the plate edge
condition would be in an intermediate situation, i.e., between a simply supported and a
clamped condition. Most recently, Paik & Thayamballi (2000) investigated the buckling
strength characteristics of steel plating elastically restrained at their edges and
developed simple design formulations for buckling strength as function of the torsional
rigidity of support members that provide the rotational restraints along either one set of
edges or all (four) edges.
Mansour (1976) developed charts for predicting the buckling and post-buckling
behavior of simply supported plates under combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads.
Steen & Valsgard (1984) developed a simplified buckling and ultimate strength
equation for plates under biaxial compression and lateral pressure loads. They define a
pseudo-buckling (non-bifurcation) strength for initially deflected plating. Ueda et al.
(1985) developed elastic buckling interaction equations for simply supported plates
subject to five load components, namely biaxial compression, biaxial in-plane bending
-9-
and edge shear. Paik et al. (1992a) developed the elastic buckling interaction equation
for simply supported plates under biaxial compression, edge shear and lateral pressure
loads. The post-weld residual stresses were also later incorporated in the plate buckling
design formula (Paik et al. 1992b). To appropriately include the effects of post-weld
initial imperfections in the strength calculations, an idealized model representing the
distribution of the post-weld initial imperfections is used. Mazzolani et al. (1998)
studied the effect of welding on the local buckling of aluminum thin plates. The
influence of welding induced initial deflection and residual stresses on the buckling and
ultimate strength of plating under uniaxial compression and lateral pressure was studied
by Yao et al. (1998).
Most design rules of classification societies approximately calculate the inelastic
buckling strength of plate elements by a correction for plasticity applied to the elastic
buckling strength, using the so-called Johnson-Ostenfeld formula. This approach
normally tends to underestimate the buckling strength for one single stress component
loading, but in some cases for combined loading it can overestimate the buckling
strength. Paik et al. (1992b) and Fujikubo et al. (1997) have derived newer empirical
formulations of the plasticity correction by curve fitting based on nonlinear finite
element solutions.
Following von Karman et al. (1932), the concept of effective width has been
recognized as an efficient device for characterizing the post-buckling strength behavior
of a plate in compression. For collapse strength prediction of steel plates, the effective
width concept has also been widely used (Faulkner 1975). For such use, the reduction
of in-plane stiffness of a buckled plate is evaluated by using the effective width concept,
and it is assumed that the plate reaches the ultimate limit state if the normal stress
components within the plate field satisfy certain predefined ultimate strength criteria.
An extensive review of a number of studies for the derivation of the effective
width formulae for plates, undertaken until the early 80s, has been made by Rhodes
-10-
(1984). Since then, Ueda et al. (1986a) derived the effective width formula for a plate
under combined biaxial compression and edge shear taking into account the effects of
initial deflections and welding induced residual stresses. Usami (1993) studied the
effective width of plates buckled in compression and in-plane bending.
While the concept of effective width is aimed at the evaluation of in-plane stiffness
of plate elements buckled in compression, Paik (1995) suggested a new concept of the
effective shear modulus to evaluate the effectiveness of plate elements buckled in edge
shear. The effective shear modulus concept is useful for computation of the postbuckling behavior of plate girders under predominant shear forces.
Regarding the ultimate strength interaction equations for plate elements under
combined loads, a number of studies have also been undertaken in the past, e.g., for
uniaxial compression and shear (Fujita et al. 1979), for in-plane compression and
tension (Smith et al. 1987), for uniaxial compression and lateral pressure (Aalami &
Chapman 1972, Aalami et al. 1972, Okada et al. 1979, Paik & Kim 1988), for biaxial
compression (Dier & Dowling 1983, Ohtsubo & Yoshida 1985), for biaxial
compression and lateral pressure (Dowling & Dier 1978, Soreide & Czujko 1983, Steen
& Valsgard 1984, Davidson et al. 1991, Soares & Gordo 1996, Wang & Moan 1997),
for biaxial compression and shear (Ueda et al. 1984, 1995, Davidson et al. 1989), for
biaxial compression, shear and lateral pressure (Ueda et al. 1986b), among others.
Some of the methods mentioned above approximately accommodate post-weld initial
imperfections, but others neglect them.
For safety assessment of aging ship structures, it is necessary to better understand
the influence of local damage related to corrosion, fatigue cracking and dents on the
strength. Smith & Dow (1981) review structural damage in a ships bottom or side shell
as may be caused by collisions, grounding, hydrodynamic impact or explosions, with
particular reference to the influence of such damage on hull girder bending strength.
Paik et al. (1998a) proposed a probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model of ship
-11-
plating. They also studied the ultimate strength reliability of ship structures related to
corrosion damage (Paik et al. 1998b, 1998c). Mateus & Witz (1997, 1998) studied the
buckling and post-buckling behavior of corroded steel plates using the nonlinear finite
element method.
Based on the literature surveys mentioned above, it is evident that some of the
issues that need to be studied further for facilitating more refined buckling and ultimate
strength of ship plating are as follows
Modeling of the fabrication related initial imperfections (i.e., initial deflections
and residual stresses) and their effect,

Effects of rotational restraints and torsional rigidity of support members,
Ultimate strength interaction characteristics under any combination of potential
load components, including biaxial compression / tension, edge shear and lateral
pressure loads,
Effects of structural deterioration such as due to opening, corrosion, fatigue
cracking and local dents.

The chapter focuses on the following three subjects which are studied theoretically,
numerically and experimentally:
Modeling of post-weld initial imperfections (i.e., initial deflections and residual
stresses) and their effects,

Influence of rotational restraints and torsional rigidity of support members on the
plate buckling strength,

Ultimate strength design equations under combined loads including biaxial
compression / tension, edge shear and lateral pressure loads, and

Deterioration of ultimate strength arising from opening, corrosion, fatigue
cracking and local dents.
-12-
Selected
useful
results
and
insight
developed
are
summarized,
and
recommendations are made with respect to related enhancements in the advanced ship
structural design and also needed future research.
2.1 Buckling / Ultimate Strength Design Procedure

Heavy longitudinals and transverses
Stiffened panel
Stiffeners
Plate field
Fig.2.2. A typical stiffened plate structure in a ship
Figure 2.2 shows a schematic of the typical steel plated structure. The response of
such a structure can be classified into three levels, namely the bare plate element level,
the stiffened panel level and the entire plated structure level. This chapter is concerned
with the design for the first level (i.e., the plating between longitudinals and
transverses). In such a case, the structure is to be designed so that the capacity
(resistance) with allowable usage factor should not be less than the corresponding
applied loads. To prevent the structure from failure (instability) under applied loading,
therefore, the following criterion is to be satisfied:
-13-
(2.1)
where = applied load (stress), c = structural capacity (stress), and =

allowable usage factor which is the inverse of the conventional factor of safety.
The applied load (stress) components are to be determined using any acceptable
method such as the finite element approach. The structural capacity is normally
determined based on either buckling or ultimate strength. This chapter focuses on the
advanced design equations for the capacity based on both buckling and ultimate
strength.
2.2 Geometric and Material Properties

bfx
bfy
z
tfy
tfx
N.
twx
hwx A.
N.
zox
twy
hwy A.
zoy
t
y
(a) x-stiffener
(b) y-stiffener
Fig.2.3. Typical geometry for the longitudinals and transverses
The length and breadth of plating are a and b , respectively. The long direction
is taken as the x axis and the short direction is taken as the y direction, that is,
a / b 1 . The thickness of plating is t . The Young modulus and Poisson ratio are E
and , respectively. The yield stress of material is o . The plating is supported by

longitudinals and transverses. Figure 2.3 shows a typical geometry of the supporting
members in the x and y directions. The rotational restraint parameters for the
-14-
boundary longitudinals and transverses are defined as follows
L =
where
GJ L
GJ
, S = S
bD
aD
L , S
respectively,
JS =
= rotational restraint parameters for the longitudinals and transverses,

with
h wy t 3wy + b fy t 3fy
6
(2.2)
G=
E
2(1 + )
JL =
h wx t 3wx + b fx t 3fx
6
D=
Et 3
12 1 2
For a simply supported condition, L and S are set to be zero, while their
values will become infinity for a clamped edge condition. For practical purposes, the
value of the rotational restraint parameter for clamped edges may be considered to be
20.
2.3 Load (Stress) Application

Figure 2.4 shows a general loading condition on the plating between longitudinals
and transverses. For the plate capacity calculations, the distribution of applied loads is
often idealized by their average values, similar to that shown in Fig.2.5. The
compressive stress is taken as negative and the tensile stress is taken as positive. The
average values of the applied stresses (loads) are defined as follows
xav =
+ y2
x1 + x 2
p +p
, yav = y1
, av = , p = 1 2
2
2
2
(2.3)
where xav = average axial stress in the x direction, yav = average axial stress in the
y direction, av = average edge shear stress, and p = average net lateral pressure.
-15-
The effect of in-plane bending stress in the x or y direction is included in the

buckling based capacity analysis. The in-plane bending stresses are defined as follows
(For the symbols, see Fig.2.4)
y
x1
x2
y1
y2
p1
p2
Fig.2.4. The plating under a general pattern of combined external loads

y
av
xav
av
x
yav
p
Fig.2.5. Idealized load application for the plating under uniform biaxial, edge shear and
lateral pressure loads
-16-
xb = x1 xav = x 2 xav
1 x
xav , x = x 2
if x1 0, x 1
x1
1 + x
= x1 = x 2 if x 2 = x1
xav = x 2 if x1 = 0
2
(2.4a)
yb = y1 yav = y 2 yav
1 y
y2
yav , y =
if y1 0, y 1
y1
1 + y
= y1 = y 2 if y 2 = y1
= y 2 if = 0
y1
yav
2
(2.4b)
where xb , yb = in-plane bending stress in the x or y direction, respectively.

For safety evaluation using Eq.2.1, the measure of the applied stresses can be
defined for combined loading, as follows
2
= 2xav + 2yav + av
(2.5)
2.4 Modeling of Fabrication Related Imperfections

To fabricate the ship stiffened plate structure, welding is normally used and thus
the post-weld initial imperfections (initial deflections and residual stresses) develop in
the structure. In advanced ship structural design, capacity calculations of ship plating
should accommodate post-weld initial imperfections as parameters of influence. The
characteristics of the post-weld initial imperfections are uncertain, and an idealized
model is used.
-17-
L
a
wosy
b
b
B
b
wopl
x
wosx
wopl
Fig.2.6. Fabrication related initial deflections in steel stiffened panels
Figure 2.6 shows a schematic of the post-weld initial deflections in ship stiffened
plate structure. The measurements of welding induced initial deflection for plating in
merchant ship structures reveal a complex multi-wave shape in the long direction and
one half wave is found in the short direction (Carlsen & Czujko 1978, Antoniou 1980,
Kmiecik et al. 1995). In this case, the plate initial deflection can approximately be
expressed by
M
wo
ix
y
sin
= Boi sin
w opl i=1
a
b
(2.6)
where w opl = relative maximum initial deflection of the plating between stiffeners, and
Boi = initial deflection amplitudes normalized by w opl .
Paik & Pedersen (1996) examined 33 sets of measurements and showed that
Eq.2.6 with M = 11 could reasonably model the measured initial deflections. For the
shapes of initial deflection in ship plating shown in Fig.2.7, for instance, the
-18-
coefficients Boi are given as those indicated in Table 2.1. Smith et al. (1987) suggest
the following maximum values of representative initial deflections for plating in
merchant vessel structures which may be used to approximate w opl in Eq.2.6:
w opl
wo / wopl
0.025 2 for slight level
= 0.1 2 for average level

0.3 2 for serious level
(2.7)
1
0
a/2
wo / wopl
(a) Initial deflection shape #1

1
0
a/2
wo / wopl
(b) Initial deflection shape #2

1
0
a/2
wo / wopl
(c) Initial deflection shape #3

1
0
a/2
(d) Initial deflection shape # 4

Fig.2.7. Some typical patterns of welding induced initial deflection in ship plating
-19-
y
a 2at
at
bt
at
Comp.
b2b t
rcy
rty
bt
Tens.
Tens.
x
rtx
rcx
Fig.2.8. Idealization of welding induced residual stress distribution inside plating in the
x and y directions
Table 2.1 Initial deflection amplitudes for various initial deflection shapes indicated in
Fig.2.7
Initial
Deflection
Shape No.
#1
#2
#3
#4
B o1
Bo2
Bo3
Bo4
Bo5
Bo6
Bo7
B o8
B o9
B o10
Bo11
1.0
0.8807
0.5500
0.0
-0.0235
0.0643
-0.4966
-0.4966
0.3837
0.0344
0.0021
0.0021
-0.0259
-0.1056
0.0213
0.0213
0.2127
0.0183
-0.0600
-0.0600
-0.0371
0.0480
-0.0403
-0.0403
0.0478
0.0150
0.0228
0.0228
-0.0201
-0.0101
-0.0089
-0.0089
0.0010
0.0082
-0.0010
-0.0010
-0.0090
0.0001
-0.0057
-0.0057
0.0005
-0.0103
-0.0007
-0.0007
The welding induced residual stress distributions can be idealized to be composed

of tensile and compressive stress blocks, as shown in Fig.2.8. Along the welding line,
tensile (positive) residual stresses are usually developed with magnitude rtx in the x
direction and rty in the y direction since welding is normally performed in both x
and y directions. In order to obtain equilibrium, corresponding compressive
(negative) residual stresses with magnitude rcx in the x direction and rcy in the
y direction are developed in the middle part of plating. The breadths of the related
tensile residual stress blocks in the x and y directions can be shown to be as

follows:
-20-
rcy
2b t
rcx
2a t
=
,
=
b
rcx rtx
a
rcy rty
(2.8)
where the tensile residual stress normally reaches the yield stress of material for mild
steel plating (e.g., rtx = rty o ), while it is usually somewhat less (approximately
80% of the material yield stress) for high tensile steel plating (e.g., rtx = rty 0.8 o ).
Once the magnitudes of the compressive and tensile residual stresses are known,
breadths of the tensile residual stress blocks can be determined from Eq.2.8. The
residual stress distributions in the x and y directions may be approximated by
rtx
rx = rcx
rtx
for 0 y < b t
for b t y < b b t
for b b t y b
(2.9a)
rty
ry = rcy
rty
for 0 x < a t
for a t x < a a t
for a a t x a
(2.9b)
Smith et al. (1987) also suggest the following representative values of welding
induced compressive residual stress in the longitudinal ( x ) direction:
0.05
rcx
= 0.15
o
0.3
for slight level

for average level
for serious level
(2.10)
The magnitude of welding induced residual stresses in the longer direction will
normally be larger because the weld length is longer. Therefore, the transverse (plate
breadth direction) residual stresses may be approximated as follows:
-21-
rcy =
b
rcx
a
(2.11)
By substituting Eq.2.7 with Table 2.1 into Eq.2.6 or Eq.2.8, 2.10 and 2.11 into
Eq.2.9, the post-weld initial deflection and residual stress distribution can reasonably be
defined for practical design purposes.
2.5 Buckling Based Capacity

2.5.1 Design Equations
The basis of the plate capacity nominally adopted by most classification societies
is buckling. For one single stress component loading, the buckling based capacity B
(i.e., xB for xav , yB for yav and B for av ) is defined using the so-called
Johnson-Ostenfeld equation (or sometimes called Bleich-Ostenfeld equation) to account
for the effect of plasticity, as follows
E
0.5
E if
k
B =
( 1) 1 k if E > 0.5
k
k
4 E
(2.12)
where E = elastic buckling stress for one single stress component, (i.e., xE = as
defined in Eq.2.26 for compressive xav , yE = as defined in Eq.2.27 for compressive
yav and E = as defined in Eq.2.28 for av ), k = o for either xav or yav , and
k = o = o / 3 for av . It is taken as xB = o for tensile xav and yB = o for
-22-
tensile yav .
The elastic buckling stress equations suggested in our study accommodate the inplane bending, lateral pressure, residual stress, and rotational restraints as necessary, but
the effect of initial deflection is not included since clear bifurcation buckling is not
defined for the initially deflected plating.
For combined stress component loading, the buckling based capacity component
*B is obtained as a solution of the following equations (comp.:-, tens.:+)
(a) When both xav and yav are compressive:

xav
xB
yav

yB
av
=1
(2.13a)
(b) When either xav , yav or both are tensile:

xav
xB
xav
xB
yav

yB
yav
+

yB
+ av
B
=1
(2.13b)
By taking xav as the reference (non-zero) stress component, for instance, the
solution of Eq.2.13 with regard to xav is given by
When both xav and yav are compressive:
*xB = ( 1)
xB yB B
2yB 2B + C12 2xB 2B + C 22 2xB 2yB
(2.14a)

*xB = (s )
xB yB B
C1 xB yB 2B + C12 2xB 2B + C 22 2xB 2yB
2
2
yB B
-23-
(2.14b)
where s = 1 if xav is compressive and s = 1 if xav is tensile. C1 =

C2 =
yav
xav
av
.
xav
For safety evaluation using Eq.2.1, the buckling based capacity measure cB of
the plating under combined loading are therefore given by holding the loading ratio
constant, as follows
cB = *xB 1 + C12 + C 22
(2.15)
A similar method can be applied to calculate the buckling based capacity measures
for the cases in which either yav or av is taken as the reference stress.
2.5.2 Validity of the Johnson-Ostenfeld Equation

To account for the influence of plasticity on the buckling based capacity equation,
the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula is used, as defined in Eq.2.12. Figures 2.9 to 2.11 show
the validity of the Johnson-Ostenfeld equation by comparing with the nonlinear finite
element inelastic buckling (ultimate strength) solutions for the plating under one single
stress component, varying the edge condition and the aspect ratio. In FEA, the
maximum initial deflaction of plating is w opl = 0.05t and no welding residual stresses
are considered. It is seen that the Johnson-Ostenfeld equation generally has the
tendency to underestimate the inelastic buckling strength of the nearlly perfect plate
(Paik 1999).
-24-
1.2
1.1
a/b = 3.0
All edges remain straight (SE)
1.0
0.9
xu/o
0.8
Johnson - Ostenfeld equation
0.7
0.6
0.5
: All edges simply supported (SS)

: Simply supported alone longitudinal edges
& clamped alone transverse edges (SC)
: Clamped along longitudinal edges & simply
supported along transverse edges (CS)
: All edges clamped (CC)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
xE/o
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
under longitudinal compression alone, a / b = 3.0 (symbol: FEA)
1.2
1.1
a/b = 3.0
1.0
0.9
yu/o
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
yE/o
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
under transverse compression along, a / b = 3 (symbol: FEA)
-25-
1.2
1.1
a/b = 3.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
u/o
0.7
0.6
0.5

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
E/o
under edge shear alone, a / b = 3 (symbol: FEA)
2.5.3 Effect of Rotational Restraints

The rotational restraints of the support members are included in the elastic
buckling equations for both xav and yav as parameters of influence. Ship plating is
supported by various types of members along the edges, which have a finite value of
the torsional rigidity. This is in contrast to the idealized simply supported boundary
conditions often assumed for design purposes. Depending on the torsional rigidity of
support members, the rotation along the plate edges will to some extent be restrained.
When the rotational restraints are zero, the edge condition corresponds to a simply
supported case, while the edge condition becomes clamped when the rotational
restraints are infinite.
Most current practical design guidelines from classification societies for the
buckling and ultimate strength of ship plating are based on boundary conditions in
which all (four) edges are simply supported. In real ship plating, idealized edge
conditions such as simply supported or clamped however may never occur because of
finite rotational restraints.
-26-
According to the study of Paik et al. (1993) who investigated the bending and
torsional rigidities of support members for deck, side and bottom plating in merchant
ships, the magnitude of the rotational restraint parameter L at long edges (ships
longitudinal direction) is normally in the range of 0.05 to 3.0 (and usually not
exceeding 5.0) while the amount S at the short edges (normal to the ship longitudinal
direction) is normally in the range of 0.1 to 8.0 (and usually not exceeding 13.0). Thus,
there is of course no case with zero or infinite rotational restraints in practice as long as
support members exist at their edges, and the amount of the rotational restraints at one
set of long or short edges is normally different from each other as well. It was also
found from the same investigation that the bending rigidities of support members are
usually sufficient enough so that the relative lateral deflection of typical members
providing the support to plating at edges can be taken to be small.
For advanced design of ship plating against buckling, it is hence important to
better understand the buckling strength characteristics of plating as a function of the
rotational restraints of support members along the edges. This problem has of course
been studied before, by a number of investigators. Lundquist & Stowell (1942) studied
the effect of the edge condition on the buckling strength of rectangular plates subject to
uniaxial compressive loads where the support along the unloaded edges was
intermediate between simply supported and clamped. Bleich (1952) and Timoshenko &
Gere (1963) discussed the buckling strength of plates with various boundary conditions
that one set of edges is elastically restrained while the other set of edges is either simply
supported or clamped. Gerard & Becker (1954) surveyed literature for the buckling of
rectangular plates under various combinations of two or three types of loading under a
number of edge conditions. Evans (1960) carried out an extensive experimental study
on the buckling strength of wide plates with the loaded (long) edges elastically
restrained while the unloaded (short) edges are simply supported. Based on the
experimental results, he derived a closed-form expression of the compressive strength
-27-
of wide plates taking into account the effect of rotational restraints along the loaded
edges. McKenzie (1963) studied the buckling strength of plating under biaxial
compression, bending and edge shear that is simply supported along short edges (at
which bending is applied) and elastically restrained along long edges.
These various previous studies are quite useful for the buckling strength design of
plating considering the rotational restraint effect along the edges. To the authors
knowledge, however, systematic investigations on the buckling strength of plating
which is elastically restrained along both long and short edges appear to be difficult to
come by and were thus needed. The aims of our study related to this issue (Paik &
Thayamballi 2000) were to
investigate the buckling strength characteristics of plating with the boundary
conditions which are elastically restrained along the edges, and to

develop simple buckling design formulations of plating taking into account the
rotational restraints of support members along either one set of edges or all (four) edges.
The simplified formulations referred to are based on more exact solutions as
obtained by directly solving the buckling characteristic equations for a variety of the
torsional rigidities of support members and the plate aspect ratio. The characteristic
equation for the buckling of plating with elastic restraints along either long or short
edges while the other edges are simply supported is derived analytically. By solving the
characteristic equation, the buckling strength characteristics of plating are investigated
varying the plate aspect ratio and the torsional rigidity of support members. Based on
the computed results, closed-form expressions of the plate buckling strength are
obtained empirically by curve fitting. Simplified buckling design formulations for
plating with all edges elastically restrained are also derived.
Figures 2.12 to 2.15 show some selected sets of the buckling coefficients as
obtained by directly solving the theoretical characteristic buckling equation plotted
-28-
against the plate aspect ratio and the torsional rigidity of support members along the
plate edges (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). The accuracy of the proposed simplified
equations obtained by curve fitting the more exact results may be verified by
comparison with the exact theoretical solutions, see Figs. 2.12 and 2.16 to 2.18. The
curve-fit design equations k x1 , k x 2 , k y1 and k y 2 are given in Appendix 1.
One of the useful insights developed herein is that the buckling coefficient for the
plating elastically restrained at both long and short edges can be expressed by a relevant
combination of the following three edge conditions, namely (a) elastically restrained at
long edges and simply supported at short edges, (b) simply supported at long edges and
elastically restrained at short edges, and (c) simply supported at all edges. Specifically it
was noted that the following held approximately:
k x = k x1 + k x 2 k xo , k y = k y1 + k y 2 k yo
(2.16)
where k x = buckling coefficient of plating elastically restrained at both long and short
edges for longitudinal compression, k y = buckling coefficient of plating elastically
restrained at both long and short edges for transverse compression, k xo = buckling
coefficient of plating simply supported at all edges for longitudinal compression which
may be taken as k xo 4.0 , and k yo = buckling coefficient of plating simply supported
at all edges which may be taken as k yo = {1 + (b / a ) 2 } . k xo , k x1 , k x 2 , k yo , k y1 , k y 2
2
= as defined in Appendix 1.
-29-
10
8
kx1
GJL/bD = 20.0
GJL/bD = 2.0
GJL/bD = 0.3
GJL/bD = 0.0
Exact
Approximate
0
0
10
11
a/b
Fig.2.12. Buckling coefficient k x1 for a plate under longitudinal compression,

elastically restrained at the long edges and simply supported at the short edges as
obtained by directly solving the buckling characteristic equation and by the proposed
approximate equation
kx2
GJS/aD = 20.0
GJS/aD = 0.4
GJS/aD = 0.2 GJS/aD = 0.1 GJS/aD = 0.0

3
0
a/b
Fig.2.13. Buckling coefficient k x 2 for a plate under longitudinal compression,
-30-
= 10.0
GJL/bD = oo
ky1
= 4.0
= 500.0
3
= 2.0
= 20.0
= 1.0
= 0.0
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
b/a
Fig.2.14. Buckling coefficient k y1 for a plate under transverse compression, elastically

restrained at the long edges and simply supported at the short edges as obtained by
directly solving the buckling characteristic equation
GJS/aD=oo
= 10.0
6
= 2.0
ky2
= 1.0
= 0.5
= 0.2
4
3
2
= 0.0
1
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
b/a
Fig.2.15. Buckling coefficient k y 2
for a plate under transverse compression,
-31-
8
7
a/b = 1.0
a/b = 1.5
a/b = 2.0
a/b = 3.0
a/b = 5.0
k x2
5
4
3
2
Exact
Approximate
1
0
0
15
10
20
25
GJS/aD
Fig.2.16. Accuracy of the design equation for the buckling coefficient k x 2
Exact
Approximate
a/b = 1.0
a/b = 0.8
ky1
6
5
a/b = 0.5
a/b = 0.2
3
2
a/b = 0.0
1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
GJL/bD
Fig.2.17. Accuracy of the design equation for the buckling coefficient k y1
-32-
10
Exact
Approximate
9
8
b/a = 1.0
= 0.9
ky2
= 0.8
5
4
3
= 0.5
= 0.0
1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
GJS/aD
Fig.2.18. Accuracy of the design equation for the buckling coefficient k y 2
It was also found that the buckling interaction equation of the plating elastically
restrained along all edges and under combined loading can approximately take the same
relationship as that with simply supported conditions at all edges, but by replacing the
buckling stress components of the plating simply supported at all edges with the
corresponding ones for the elastically restrained plating. As two specific cases of
plating under combined biaxial compression or combined axial compression and edge
shear, where the plate edges are all clamped, i.e., with infinite rotational restraints,
Figures 2.19 and 2.20 show the elastic buckling interaction relations varying the plate
aspect ratio where the theoretical predictions were obtained by the formulae for simply
supported plates as given in Appendices 2 and 3 while FE solutions were calculated for
clamped plates.
-33-
yav
yE
1.0
0.8
a/b=3
a/b=1
0.6
a/b=2
0.4
0.2
: a/b=1
: a/b=2
: a/b=3
FEM (ANSYS)
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
xav
xE
Fig.2.19. Elastic buckling interaction relationships for plating under combined biaxial
compression (symbol: eigen value finite element solutions for plating clamped at all
edges, line: design equation for plating simply supported at all edges)
av
E
1.2
1.0
0.8
a/b=3
a/b=1
a/b=2
0.6
0.4
0.2
FEM (ANSYS)
: a/b=1
: a/b=2
: a/b=3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xav
xE
Fig.2.20. Elastic buckling interaction relationships of plating under combined axial

compression and edge shear (symbol: eigen value finite element solutions for plating
clamped at all edges, line: design equation for plating simply supported at all edges)
-34-
2.5.4 Effect of Residual Stresses

The welding induced residual stress (compression: -, tension: +) is included in the
elastic buckling equations for both xav and yav as a parameter of influence. The
elastic buckling stress of simply supported plating under uniform axial compression
(i.e., without in-plane bending) is given by (Paik et al. 2000a, Paik & Thayamballi
2003) (For the symbols unless specified below, refer to the section on 2.4 modeling of
fabrication related imperfections)
xE =
a
a2
2 D mb
+
rex 2 2 rey
2
b t a
mb
m b
(2.17)
2
( rtx rcx ) b t b sin 2b t ,
b
2
b
2ma t
2
a
+ rty rcy a t
sin
.
a
2m
a
where rex = rcx +

rey = rcy
The second and third terms of the right hand side of Eq.2.17 reflect the effect of
welding induced residual stresses on the plate compressive buckling stress. m is the
buckling half wave number which is determined as a minimum integer satisfying the
following equation
2 D (m + 1)b
a
a2
a
a2
2 D mb
+
+
+
+
rey
a
(m + 1)b
b2 t
b2t a
mb
m 2b 2
(m + 1)2 b 2 rey
(2.18)
Without the post-weld residual stresses, i.e., rex = rey = 0 , Eq.2.18 simplifies to
the well-known condition
-35-
a
m* m* + 1
b
(2.19)
where m* is the buckling half wave number when the residual stresses do not exist.
In the similar way, the elastic buckling stress yE of the simply supported plating
subject to axial compression in the y direction can be given by
yE =
2 D b 2
b2
1 +

rex rey
b 2 t a 2
a2
(2.20)
where rex and rey are defined as those in Eq.2.17 but replacing by m = 1 . The
second and third terms of the right hand side of Eq.2.20 reflect the effect of welding
induced residual stresses.
Figure 2.21 shows the influence of welding induced residual stress on the
compressive buckling stress for the high tensile steel plating with the yield stress of
o = 352 MPa . In the calculations indicated in Fig.2.21, the level of residual stresses
and the plate slenderness ratio (i.e., b / t ratio) are varied. Two types of welding
induced residual stresses in the y direction are presumed, namely one with zero
residual stresses and the other with rcy = b / a rcx . It is in the analysis assumed that
the magnitude of the tensile residual stresses is 80% of the yield stress, that is,
rtx = rty = 0.8 o . It is evident from Fig.2.21 that the welding residual stresses can
significantly reduce the compressive buckling stress of the plating. The reduction
tendency of the buckling stress for thin plating is faster than that for thick plating, as
expected. It is also noted from Figs.2.21(c) and 2.21(d) that the residual stresses in the
y direction may change the longitudinal buckling half wave number of the plating.
-36-
m/m* =2/2
1.00
m/m* =4/4
rcx / o = 0.05
0.95
0.90
rcx / o = 0.15
xE / *xE
0.85
0.80
0.75
rcx / o = 0.30
0.70
0.65
m/m* =5/5
m/m* =3/3
m/m* =1/1
0.60
b / t = 50
0.55
rcy / o = 0.0
0.50
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
a/b
Fig.2.21(a). Variation of the elastic compressive buckling stress (normalized by the
elastic buckling compressive stress without residual stresses) as a function of the

welding induced residual stress and the plate aspect ratio, rcy = 0 , b / t = 50 , = 2.07 ,
o = 352MPa , rtx = 0.8 o ( *xE = buckling stress without residual stress)
0.85
rcx / o = 0.05
0.80
0.75
0.70
m/m* =2/2
xE / *xE
0.65
m/m* =4/4
rcx / o = 0.10
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
m/m* =5/5
m/m* =3/3
m/m* =1/1
0.40
rcx / o = 0.15
0.35
0.30
b / t = 100
rcy / o = 0.0
0.25
0.20
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
a/b
Fig.2.21(b). Variation of the elastic compressive buckling stress (normalized by the

elastic compressive buckling stress without residual stresses) as a function of the
= 4.14 , o = 352MPa , rtx = 0.8 o ( *xE = buckling stress without residual stress)
-37-
m/m*=1/1 m/m* =2/2 m/m*=3/3 m/m*=4/4 m/m* =5/5

1.0
rcx / o = 0.05
0.9
rcx / o = 0.15
xE / *xE
0.8
0.7
rcx / o = 0.30
0.6
b / t = 50
b
rcx
a
0.5
rcy =
0.4
0.3
m/m*=1/2
m/m* =2/3 m/m* =3/4 m/m* =4/5
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
a/b
Fig.2.21(c). Variation of the elastic compressive buckling stress (normalized by the

welding induced residual stress and the plate aspect ratio, rcy = b / a rcx , b / t = 50 ,
= 2.07 , o = 352MPa , rtx = 0.8 o ( *xE = buckling stress without residual stress)
m/m*=1/1 m/m* =2/2 m/m*=3/3 m/m*=4/4 m/m* =5/5

0.80
rcx / o = 0.04
0.75
rcx / o = 0.05
0.70
rcx / o = 0.06
*
xE / xE
0.65
0.60
0.55
b / t = 100
b
rcy = rcx
a
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
m/m*=1/2
m/m* =2/3 m/m* =3/4 m/m* =4/5
0.30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
a/b
Fig.2.21(d). Variation of the elastic compressive buckling stress (normalized by the

welding induced residual stress and the plate aspect ratio, rcy = b / a rcx , b / t = 100 ,
= 4.14 , o = 352MPa rtx = 0.8 o ( *xE = buckling stress without residual stress)
-38-
2.5.5 Effect of Lateral Pressure

When a plate in a continuous stiffened panel is subjected to lateral pressure, the
plate edges approach the condition being clamped depending on the thickness of the
plate and the pressures involved. Also, lateral pressure loading may beneficially disturb
occurrence of the inherent plate buckling pattern. As a result, the buckling strength of
long plate elements making up a continuous stiffened panel under lateral pressure is
normally greater than that without lateral pressure loading.
For practical design purposes, a correction factor may often be employed to take
into account the effect of lateral pressure on the plate buckling strength, the factor being
applied by multiplication to the buckling strength calculated for the plate without lateral
pressure loads.
In this regard, Fujikubo et al (1998) propose the plate compressive buckling
strength correction factors to account for the effect of lateral pressure, by curve fitting
based on the finite element solutions for long plate elements in a continuous stiffened
panel as follows
1.6
C px = 1 +
C py
1 pb 4
576 Et 4
1 b
= 1+

160 a
0.95
for
pb 4
Et 4
a
2
b
1.75
for
(2.21a)
a
2
b
(2.21b)
where Cpx and C py are correction factors of the elastic compressive buckling strength
in the x and y direction, respectively, to account for the effect of lateral pressure. p
is the magnitude of net lateral pressure loads.
For nearly square plates, i.e., with a / b 1 , under combined axial compression
and lateral pressure, one half wave deflection occurs from the beginning and thus the
bifurcation buckling phenomenon may not appear as axial compressive loads increase.
-39-
In this case, it is beneficial to define an equivalent buckling strength for practical design
purpose. It is considered that the increase of buckling strength due to the rotational
restraints and the decrease of buckling strength due to one half wave deflection caused
by lateral pressure may be offset. For square plates, therefore, C px = C py = 1.0 may
approximately be adopted (Paik & Thayamballi 2003).
The elastic compressive buckling stress of a plate taking into account the effects of
lateral pressure and welding induced residual stresses can then be calculated from
Eq.2.17 and Eq.2.20, but using the multiplicative correction factors of Eq.2.21 as
follows
2 D mb
2
b t a
xE = C px
yE =
2D
C py 2 1 +
b t
a
a2
+ rex + 2 2 rey
mb
m b
(2.22a)
b2
b2
+
rex + rey
2
2
a
a
(2.22b)
Figure 2.22 plots Eq.2.21 for a specific steel plate with a b = 2400 800 mm and
E = 2.1 105 MPa as a function of the plate thickness and water head when no welding
residual stresses exist. It is seen from Fig.2.22 that the increasing tendency of buckling
strength due to lateral pressure for thin plates is larger than that for thick plates.
It may be noted that lateral pressure may not affect the buckling strength of
perforated plates. This is because the perforated plate may not be subjected to lateral
pressure.
-40-
1.7
k*x , k*x* = Buckling coefficients

with all edges simply
supported or clamped
1.6
a b = 2,400 800 mm
Cpx
1.5
Water head
1.4
20 m
1.3
15 m
1.2
k*x*
10 m
1.1
k*x
= 1.823
5m
1.0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Plate thickness t (mm)
(a) Cpx versus plate thickness

2.4
k*y , k*y* = Buckling coefficients

with all edges simply
supported or clamped
2.2
a b = 2,400 800 mm
Cpy
2.0
1.8
Water head
20 m
1.6
15 m
k*y*
1.4
10 m
1.2
k*y
= 4.888
5m
1.0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Plate thickness t (mm)
(b) C py versus plate thickness

Fig.2.22. Effect of lateral pressure on the plate compressive buckling strength (Paik &
Thayamballi 2003)
-41-
2.5.7 Effect of In-plane Bending

As shown in Fig.2.4, ship plating is often subjected to in-plane bending which
affects the buckling capacity. The in-plane bending stresses are included in the elastic
compressive buckling equations as parameters of influence. In general, the in-plane
bending stresses can be given in terms of average axial stresses, as defined in Eq.2.4.
The elastic buckling interaction equations between xav and xb or between yav
and yb may be approximated by
xav xb
+
*xE xbE
= 1,
yav
*yE
yb
ybE
=1
(2.23)
where xbE , ybE = as defined in Appendix 4

In the above equation, *xE is the elastic buckling stress under uniform
longitudinal axial compression (i.e., without in-plane bending) which is considering the
effects of rotational restraints, residual stress and lateral pressure, defined as follows
*xE = C px k x
2 E t
a
+ rex +
rey
2
12 1 b
mb
(2.24)
where k x = as defined in Appendix 1, rex , rey , m = as defined in Eq.2.17, C px =

as defined in Eq.2.21.
*yE in Eq.2.23 is the elastic buckling stress under uniform transverse axial
compression (i.e., without in-plane bending) which is considering the effects of

rotational restraints, residual stress and lateral pressure, defined as follows
*yE = C py k y
2E
12 1 2
t

b
rex + rey
-42-
(2.25)
where k y = as defined in Appendix 1, rex , rey = as defined in Eq.2.20, C py = as

defined in Eq.2.21.
Considering the relationship between xav and xb as defined in Eq.2.23, the
axial compressive buckling stress xE taking into account the effect of in-plane
bending stresses are given, as follows
(a) When x1 = x 2 :
xE = *xE
(2.26a)
(b) When x1 x 2 :
xE =
F2 F22 + 4F1
(2.26b)
2F1
(c) When x1 = x 2 :
xE = ( 1) xbE
where F1 =
(2.26c)
1 x
, x = x 2 if x1 0, x1 x 2
1
C2
F
=
,
,
C
=
1
+
x1
2
x
2xbE
*xE
1
.
0
if
=
0
, x1 x 2
x1
In the similar way, the axial compressive buckling stress yE taking into account
the influence of in-plane bending is calculated from considering the relation between
yav and yb defined in Eq.2.23, as follows
(a) When y1 = y 2 :
yE = *yE
(2.27a)
-43-
(b) When y1 y 2 :
yE =
G 2 G 22 + 4G1
(2.27b)
2G1
(c) When y1 = y 2 :
yE = ( 1) ybE
where G1 =
(2.27c)
y2
1 y
, y =
if y1 0, y1 y 2
1
C2
=
,
,
G
C
=
1
+
y1
2
y
2ybE
*yE
1.0 if = 0,
y1
y1
y2
2.5.8 Elastic Edge Shear Buckling

The elastic shear buckling stress is defined as follows
E = k s
2E
12 1 2
t

b
(2.28)
where k s = as defined in Appendix 5.
2.6 Ultimate Strength Based Capacity

Most classification society criteria and procedures for ship structural design are
based on the first yield of hull structures together with buckling checks for structural
components. While service proven, the traditional design criteria and associated linear
elastic stress calculations do not necessarily define the true ultimate limit state which is
the limiting condition beyond which a ship hull will fail to perform its function. Neither
-44-
do such procedures help understand the likely sequence of local failure prior to reaching
the ultimate limit state. It is of course important to determine the true ultimate strength
if one is to obtain consistent measures of safety which can form a fairer basis for
comparisons of vessels of different sizes and types. An ability to better assess the true
margin of safety should also inevitably lead to improvements in related regulations and
design requirements.
In the case of plate elements which constitute a significant portion of the hull and
thus affect its weight and other design characteristics, it is now known that a single set
of ultimate strength interaction equations will not successfully represent the ultimate
limit state of ship plating under combined loads since collapse patterns significantly
depend on the types and relative magnitudes of primary load component involved. The
strength interaction relationship would thus be different depending on which load
component is predominant. In this regard, the present authors have developed three sets
of such equations considering each primary load component, namely longitudinal axial
load, transverse axial load and edge shear, while lateral pressure is regarded as
secondary. The ultimate strength interaction equation under all of the load components
is derived by a relevant combination of the individual strength formulae (Paik et al.
2001). In the following, the plate ultimate strength equations for plating under
combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads are presented.
2.6.1 Ultimate Strength Equation for Combined Longitudinal Axial Load

and Lateral Pressure
Figure 2.23 shows a typical example of the axial membrane stress distribution
inside a plate element under predominantly longitudinal compressive loading, before
and after buckling occurs. It is noted that the membrane stress distribution in the
loading ( x ) direction can become non-uniform as the plate element deflects (or
buckles). The membrane stress distribution in the y direction also becomes non-
-45-
uniform if the unloaded plate edges remain straight, while no membrane stresses will
develop in the y direction if the unloaded plate edges move freely in plane. The
maximum compressive membrane stresses are developed around the plate edges that
remain straight, while the minimum (tensile) membrane stresses occur in the middle of
the plate element where a membrane tension field is formed by the plate deflection
since the plate edges remain straight.
With increase in the plate deflection, the upper and / or lower fibers in the midregion of the plate element will initially yield by the action of bending. However, as
long as it is possible to redistribute the applied loads to the straight plate boundaries by
the membrane action, the plate element will not collapse. Collapse will then occur when
the most stressed boundary locations yield, since the plating can not keep the
boundaries straight any further, resulting in a rapid increase of lateral plate deflection
(Paik & Pedersen 1995).
Hence the ultimate strength formulation for ship plating subject to uniaxial
compression / tension and lateral pressure loads is in the present study derived under
the somewhat pessimistic assumption that the plating collapses when initial plastic yield
at the plate edges occurs.
The occurrence of yielding can be assessed by using the von Mises yield criterion.
For longitudinal axial load and lateral pressure, the most probable yield locations will
be found at longitudinal mid-edges where the maximum compressive stress in the x
direction and the minimum tensile stress in the y direction develop, as shown in
Fig.2.24(a). The resulting yield criterion is in this case expressed by (For the stress
related symbols, see Fig.2.23(c))
x max
u =
x max y min
o o
y min
+

o

-46-
1 = 0
(2.29)
xav
b
1 b
xav = x dy
b 0
x
(a) Before buckling
xmin
b
xav =
1 b
x dy
b 0
xav
xmax
(b) After buckling, unloaded edges move freely in plane
xmax
xmin
b
xav =
xav
1
x dy
b 0
b
ymin
ymax
(c) After buckling, unloaded edges keep straight

Fig.2.23. Membrane stress distribution inside the plate element under longitudinal
compressive loads
-47-
C
C
xav , p
(a) Plasticity at plate longitudinal mid-edges
y
C
yav , p
(b) Plasticity at plate transverse mid-edges

: Expected Yielding Locations, T: Tension, C: Compression
Fig.2.24. Possible locations for the initial plastic yield at the plate edges under
combined uniaxial load and pressure
where x max and y min are given in terms of xav , p and post-weld initial
imperfections (initial deflection and residual stresses), as defined in Appendix 6.
The ultimate strength based capacity xu for longitudinal axial load is obtained
as the solution of Eq.2.29 with regard to xav . As an approximation, xu is taken as
the initial (minimum) value at u 0 by increasing xav with the increment of 1%
yield stress, i.e., xav = 0.01 o for compressive xav and xav = 0.01 o for tensile
xav .
For uniaxial compressive loading, Fig.2.25 compares the present method, as

obtained from Eq.2.29 with the mechanical collapse tests and the nonlinear FEA for
-48-
long plates with different plate aspect ratios and under longitudinal axial compressive
loads. While Eq.2.29 deals with initial imperfections as direct parameters of influence,
the mechanical collapse tests involve various levels of both initial deflections and
residual stresses. For more details of the test data, Ellinas et al (1984) may be referred
to. In the FEA, two types of the unloaded plate edge condition are applied; (a) the
unloaded plate edges move freely in plane, and (b) they are kept straight. For the FE
analyses, an average level of initial deflections is considered, while the welding
residual stresses are not included. The FE solutions with the edge condition (a) are
smaller than those with the edge condition (b), as would be expected.
Figure 2.26 shows the variation of the ultimate axial compressive stress plotted
against the initial deflection with the shape #1 in Fig.2.7.
Figure 2.27 compares the results of present method against corresponding
mechanical collapse test results from Yamamoto et al. (1970) for long plating of
a / b = 3 under combined longitudinal axial compression and lateral pressure loads. Test
data such as these, which specifically include lateral pressure loads, are difficult to
come by. Also, note the likely effect of yield strength on plate ultimate strength in this
data, see Figs.2.27(b) and (c). Again, the performance of the proposed method is seen to
be good. The model uncertainties for the present method on the basis of the Yamamoto
testing are mean = 0.967 and COV = 0.064.
-49-
1.2
: ALPS/ULSAP
: FEM 1)*
: FEM 1)**
: FEM 2)**
1.0
xu / o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
wopl = rcx = 0.0

wopl = 0.12t , rcx = -0.15o
: Ref. IV 21
: Ref. IV 22
: Ref. IV 23
: Ref. IV 24
: Ref. IV 62
: Ref. IV 67
: Ref. IV 68
: Ref. IV 69
: Ref. IV 85
Note :
wopl = 0.32t , rcx = -0.3o
1) a/b=3 , 2) a/b=6
* Unloaded edges are kept straight
** Unloaded edges move freely in plane
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
= b/t o / E
Fig.2.25. Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP with mechanical test results and FEA for
long plating under uniaxial compression, reference numbers being extracted from
Ellinas et al.(1984) (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
1.0
xu / o
0.8
0.6
0.4
FEM (ANSYS)
: Ultimate strength (a/b=1)
ALPS/ULSAP
bt = 1,00015 mm
o = 235.2 MPa, E = 205.8 GPa
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
wopl (2t)
Fig.2.26. Effect of initial deflection on the plate ultimate compressive strength
-50-
0.5
: Experiment (Yamamoto et al. 1970)

: SPINE (with residual stress)
: ALPS/ULSAP (rcx /o = 0.0) 1)
0.4
xu / o
a b t = 1200 400 4.76 mm

E = 213.64 GPa 2), o = 372.4 MPa 2)
wopl = 0.12t 1) , = b/t o /E = 3.508
0.3
Note:
1) Assumed value,
2)
Mean value
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
p ( N/mm2 )
Fig.2.27(a). Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP method with the Yamamoto collapse test
results for plating under combined longitudinal axial compression and lateral pressure
loads, for = 3.508
0.6
0.5

a b t = 1200 400 6.0 mm
E = 213.64 GPa 2), o = 313.6 MPa 2)
xu / o
0.4
wopl = 0.12t 1), = b/t o /E = 2.554

Note:
1) Assumed value,
0.3
2)
Mean value
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
p ( N/mm2 )
Fig.2.27(b). Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP method with the Yamamoto collapse test
loads, for = 2.554
-51-
0.6

0.5

a b t = 1200 400 6.0 mm
E = 208.087 GPa 2), o = 445.4 MPa 2)
xu / o
0.4
wopl = 0.12t 1), = b/t o /E = 3.084

Note:
1) Assumed value
2) Mean value
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
p ( N/mm2 )
Fig.2.27(c). Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP method with the Yamamoto collapse test
loads, for = 3.084
2.6.2 Ultimate Strength Equation for Combined Transverse Axial Load

and Lateral Pressure
In this case, the most probable yield location is found at the transverse mid-edges
where the maximum compressive stress in the y direction and the minimum tensile
stress in the x direction develop, as shown in Fig.2.24(b). The resulting yield criterion
is then given by (For the stress related symbols, see Fig.2.23(c))
u =
x min
x min
o
y max
y max
+

o

1 = 0
(2.30)
where x min and y max are obtained in terms of yav , p and post-weld initial
imperfections (initial deflection and residual stresses), as defined in Appendix 7.
The ultimate strength based capacity yu for transverse axial load is obtained as
the solution of Eq.2.30 with regard to yav . As an approximation, yu is taken as the
-52-
initial (minimum) value at u 0 by increasing yav with the increment of

yav = 0.01 o for compressive yav and yav = 0.01 o for tensile yav . Figure
2.28 shows the variation of the ultimate transverse compressive stress plotted against
the plate slenderness ratio, as obtained from Eq.2.30 and from nonlinear FEA. Equation
2.30 shows mean bias = 0.997 and COV = 0.078 against FEA.
1.2
: Elastic buckling strength
: Elastic buckling strength
with plasticity correction
FEM (Fujikubo et al. 1997)
: Ultimate strength (yu /o)
: Initial yielding (y /o)
1.0
Present
design formula
ALPS/ULSAP
: Ultimate strength (yu /o)
yu / o
0.8
0.6
0.4
t=15mm
t=25mm
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
= b/t o/E
,
Fig.2.28. Variation of the ultimate transverse compressive strength of a long plating

shown as a function of the reduced slenderness ratio, a / b = 3
1.2
u /o = 0.956 .... if E /o > 2.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
u /o = 0.039(E /o)3-0.274(E /o)2+0.676(E /o)+0.388

...... if 0.5 < E /o 2.0
0.8
u /o
0.7
0.6
u /o = 1.324(E /o) ...... if 0 < E /o
0.5
0.5
0.4
Elastic buckling strength

with plasticity correction
0.3
0.2
0.1
FEM (wopl = 0.12t)

: a/b = 1
: a/b = 3
: a/b = 5
FEM (wopl = 0.05t)
: a/b = 1
: a/b = 2
: a/b = 3
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
E /o
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Fig.2.29. The ultimate strength versus the elastic bifurcation buckling stress of plating
under edge shear
-53-
2.6.3 Ultimate Strength Equation for Edge Shear

Based on a series of the nonlinear finite element calculations for simply supported
plating varying the plate geometry and the aspect ratio, Paik (1999) derived the
following empirical formula for the ultimate edge shear strength of plating, namely
(Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
E
E
0.5
1.324 for 0 <
o
o
3
2
u
= 0.039 E 0.274 E + 0.676 E
o
o
o
o
for E > 2.0

0.956
o
+ 0.388 for 0.5 < E 2.0

o
(2.31)
where E is the elastic shear buckling stress of the plating, as defined in Eq.2.28.
Figure 2.29 shows the variation of the ultimate shear strength of ship plating
against the elastic shear buckling stress. The nonlinear finite element solutions varying
the magnitude of post-weld initial deflections are compared. The dotted line represents
the elastic shear buckling strengths with plasticity correction made by the JohnsonOstenfeld formula. It is noted that the influence of lateral pressure on the ultimate shear
strength is normally small, and Eq.2.31 can approximately be applied for the plating
under combined av and p as well. Equation 2.31 shows mean bias = 0.931 and
COV = 0.075 against FEA.
2.6.4 Ultimate Strength Equation for Combined Biaxial Load, Edge

Shear and Lateral Pressure
Based on the insights developed (Paik 1999), our studies suggest the following
ultimate strength equations of plating under combined biaxial load, edge shear and
lateral pressure (comp.:-, tens.:+)
-54-

xav

xu
yav

yu
av
=1
(2.32a)

xav

xu
xav
xu
yav

yu
yav
+

yu
+ av
u
=1
(2.32b)
where xu , yu = solution of Eq.2.29 and 2.30, respectively, and u = as defined in

Eq.2.31.
By taking xav as the reference (non-zero) stress component, for instance, the
solution of Eq.2.32 with regard to xav is given by

xu yu u
*xu = ( 1)
(2.33a)
+ C12 2xu 2u + C 22 2xu 2yu

2 2
yu u
*xu = (s )
where C1 =
xu yu u
C1 xu yu 2u + C12 2xu 2u + C 22 2xu 2yu
yav
xav
2 2
yu u
, C2 =
av
,
xav
(2.33b)
s = as defined in Eq.2.14b
For safety evaluation based on the ultimate strength using Eq.2.1, the plate
capacity measure cu is then given by holding the loading ratio constant, as follows
-55-
cu = *xu 1 + C12 + C 22
(2.34)
Figures 2.30 and 2.31 show the validity of Eq.2.32 for the plating under combined
biaxial compression by a comparison with the conventional nonlinear finite element
solutions, varying the aspect ratio, the plate thickness and the level of the post-weld
initial imperfections. For both FEA and design formula predictions, the shape #1 of
initial deflection as indicated in Fig.2.7 is presumed. All edges are simply supported
and kept straight. Figure 2.32 shows the plate ultimate strength interaction between
axial compression and edge shear, as those obtained by the present design formula and
the FEA.
yu / o
1.2
1.0
ab
= 255085013mm
a b tt=2,550
850 13mm
MPa
o o=352.8
= 352.8
MPa
205.8GPa
GPa
EE==205.8
0.8
== 2.707
==b/t
2.707
b/t o/E
o/E
2t = 9.526 mm
wwoplopl==0.1
0.1 2t=9.526mm
- 0.1o o
rcxrcx==-0.1
b/arcxrcx
rcyrcy==b/a
0.6
0.4
0.2
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu / o
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
von Mises' ellipse
-1.0
-1.2
FEM (ANSYS)
: With initial deflection
and without residual stress
Present
design formula
ALPS/ULSAP
: Without initial imperfections
: With both initial deflection
and residual stress

t = 13 mm , initial deflection shape #1
-56-
yu / o
1.2
1.0
0.8
ab
= 255085021mm
a b tt=2,550
850 21mm
o o=352.8
= 352.8MPa
MPa
205.8GPa
GPa
EE==205.8
0.6
==b/t
== 1.676
b/t o/E
1.676
o/E
0.4
2t = 5.899 mm
0.1 2t=5.899mm
wwoplopl==0.1
- 0.1o o
rcxrcx==-0.1
b/arcxrcx
rcyrcy==b/a
0.2
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu / o
-0.2
-0.4
FEM (ANSYS)
Present
design formula
ALPS/ULSAP
and residual stress
-0.6
-0.8
von Mises' ellipse
-1.0
-1.2

yu / o
1.2
1.0
0.8
ab
= 510085013mm
a b tt=5,100
850 13mm
= 352.8MPa
MPa
o o=352.8
205.8GPa
GPa
EE==205.8
0.6
b/t o/E
== 2.707
2.707
==b/t
o/E
0.4
2t = 9.526 mm
0.1 2t=9.526mm
wwoplopl==0.1
- 0.1o o
rcxrcx==-0.1
b/arcxrcx
rcyrcy==b/a
0.2
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu / o
-0.2
-0.4
FEM (ANSYS)
Present
design formula
ALPS/ULSAP
and residual stress
-0.6
-0.8
von Mises' ellipse
-1.0
-1.2

-57-
yu / o
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
ab
= 510085021mm
a b tt=5,100
850 21mm
o o=352.8
= 352.8MPa
MPa
205.8GPa
GPa
EE==205.8
==b/t
== 1.676
1.676
b/t o/E
o/E
2t = 5.899 mm
wwoplopl==0.1
0.1 2t=5.899mm
- 0.1o o
rcxrcx==-0.1
b/arcxrcx
rcyrcy==b/a
0.2
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu / o
-0.2
-0.4
FEM (ANSYS)
Present
design formula
ALPS/ULSAP
and residual stress
-0.6
-0.8
von Mises' ellipse
-1.0
-1.2

1.2
: FEM (ANSYS)
: ALPS/ULSAP
1.0
abt = 1000100018.26 mm
o = 274.4 MPa, E = 205.8 GPa
= b/t o/E = 2.0, wopl = 0.12t
,
u / o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu / o
0.8
1.0
1.2
Fig.2.32(a). Plate ultimate strength interaction between axial compression and edge
-58-
1.2
: FEM (ANSYS)
: ALPS/ULSAP
1.0
abt = 1000100012.17 mm
o = 274.4 MPa, E = 205.8 GPa
= b/t o/E = 3.0, wopl = 0.12t
u / o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
xu / o
0.8
1.0
1.2
Fig.2.32(b). Plate ultimate strength interaction between axial compression and edge
2.7 Comparison between Buckling and Ultimate Strength Based Capacities

Figures 2.33 and 34 compare the plate ultimate strength interactions between
biaxial compression or tension, as those obtained by the FEA, the buckling or ultimate
strength based capacity equations, varying the aspect ratio and the plate thickness. For
FEA, average level of initial deflection is considered with the shape #1 as indicated in
Fig.2.7, but no residual stresses are presumed. For the buckling formula predictions, no
initial deflection is considered while a slight level of residual stresses is assumed. For
the ultimate strength formula predictions, both initial deflection and residual stresses
are presumed.
-59-
yu / o , ycr / o
1.2
Buckling based capacity

without initial deflection
and with residual stress
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu / o , xcr / o
-0.2
-0.4
Ultimate strength based capacity
with both initial deflection
and residual stress
von Mises' ellipse
: FEM (ANSYS) with initial deflection

-0.6
abt = 2,55085013 mm
o = 352.8 MPa, E = 205.8 GPa
= b/t. o /E = 2.707, wopl = 0.12t
-0.8
-1.0
rcx = -0.05.o , rcy = b/a.rcx
-1.2

by FEA, buckling and ultimate strength based capacity formulae, a / b = 3, t = 13mm ,
initial deflection shape #1
yu / o , ycr / o
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu / o , xcr / o
-0.2
-0.4
and residual stress
von Mises' ellipse
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0

abt = 2,55085021 mm
o = 352.8 MPa, E = 205.8 GPa
= b/t. o / E = 1.676, wopl = 0.12t
-1.2

-60-
yu / o , ycr / o
1.2

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu / o , xcr / o
-0.2
-0.4
and residual stress
von Mises' ellipse

-0.6
-0.8
abt = 5,10085013 mm
o = 352.8 MPa, E = 205.8 GPa
= b/t o / E = 2.707, wopl = 0.12t
-1.0
-1.2

yu / o , ycr / o
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
xu / o , xcr / o
-0.2
-0.4
and residual stress
von Mises' ellipse

-0.6
-0.8
abt = 5,10085021 mm
o = 352.8 MPa, E = 205.8 GPa
-1.0
= b/t o / E = 1.676, wopl = 0.12t

-1.2

-61-
It is seen that for thin plating which buckles in the elastic regime the formula
prediction based on the buckling is too pessimistic when compared against the ultimate
limit state, while for relatively thick plating that buckles in the inelastic regime it
provides good measures for the structural capacity. The capacity formula based on the
ultimate strength gives excellent indications for both thin and thick plating.
-62-
3. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Stiffened Panels and

Grillages
Transactions (Paik et al. 2001c), which dealt with ultimate strength design for ship
stiffened panels and grillages, where the author was involved as a coauthor of the paper.
In this regard, the author is pleased to acknowledge that the rest of the paper authors
allowed him to reprint the results here.
Stiffened steel panels are the basic strength members in ship and offshore
structures. Due to their simplicity in fabrication and excellent strength to weight ratio,
stiffened steel panels are also widely used for construction of land based structures such
as box girder and plate girder bridges.
Transverse Frames
a
b
L
b
a
b
Longitudinals
a
b
Fig.3.1. A ship grillage with support members in both directions
The stiffened panel has a number of one-sided stiffeners in either one or both
orthogonal directions, the latter configuration being characteristic of a grillage, see
Fig.3.1. Since the overall failure of a ship hull is normally governed by buckling and
plastic collapse of the deck, bottom and sometimes the side shell stiffened panels, it is
-63-
of importance to accurately calculate the ultimate strength of stiffened panels in deck,

bottom and side shell in order to achieve a more advanced structural design of ships.
L
y2
xM
y1
x1
b
b
B
b
b
b
x2
yM
Fig.3.2. A cross-stiffened panel under combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads
A stiffened panel in ships is generally subjected to combined in-plane and lateral

pressure loads, as shown in Fig.3.2. Loads are mainly induced by overall hull girder
bending and/or torsion, ballast / sea water and cargo. Combined loads on a panel can be
biaxial compression / tension, biaxial in-plane bending, edge shear and lateral pressure.
These load components are not always applied simultaneously, but more than one
normally exist and interact. Therefore, the strength formulations need to account for
combined load effects.
A stiffened panel is an assembly of the plating and stiffeners (support members).
Even if the stiffened panel or its parts initially buckle in the elastic regime, the stiffened
panel may sustain further applied loads. Similarly, if plate elements constituting a
stiffened panel buckle prior to stiffener failure, there is again a residual strength
-64-
available to sustain the applied loads. The ultimate strength of the stiffened panel is
eventually reached by excessive plasticity and / or stiffener failure.
Paik & Thayamballi (2003) categorized the primary modes of overall failure for a
stiffened panel subject to predominantly compressive loads into the following six types,
namely
Mode I: Overall (grillage) buckling collapse, see Fig.3.3(a-b)
Mode II: Plate induced failure -yielding at the corners of plating between
stiffeners, see Fig.3.3(c)

Mode III: Plate induced failure -yielding of the plate-stiffener combination at
mid-span, see Fig.3.3(d)

Mode IV: Stiffener induced failure -local buckling of stiffener web, see
Fig.3.3(e)
Mode V: Stiffener induced failure -tripping of stiffener, see Fig.3.3(f), and
Mode VI: Gross yielding.
Mode I typically represents the collapse pattern when the stiffeners are relatively
weak. In this case, the stiffeners can buckle together with plating, the overall (grillage)
buckling behavior initially remaining elastic. The stiffened panel can normally sustain
further loading even after overall (grillage) buckling in the elastic regime occurs and the
ultimate strength is eventually reached by formation of a large yield region inside the
panel and/or along the panel edges. In Mode I, the stiffened panel may be considered to
behave as an orthotropic plate.
Mode II represents the collapse pattern wherein the panel collapses by yielding
along the plate-stiffener intersection at panel edges, with no stiffener failure. This type
of collapse can be important in some cases when the panel is predominantly subjected
to biaxial compressive loads. Mode III indicates a failure pattern in which the ultimate
strength is reached by plate induced failure of the plate-stiffener combination due to
-65-
yielding at mid-span.
Modes IV and V failures typically arise from stiffener induced failure when the
ratio of stiffener web height to stiffener web thickness is large and/or when the type of
the stiffener flange is inadequate to remain straight so that the stiffener web buckles or
twists sideways. Mode V can occur when the ultimate strength is reached subsequent to
lateral-torsional buckling (also called tripping) of stiffener, while Mode IV represents a
failure pattern in which the panel collapses by local compressive buckling of the
stiffener web.
Fig.3.3(a). Mode I-1: Overall collapse of a uniaxially stiffened panel (Paik &
Thayamballi 2003)
Fig.3.3(b). Mode I-2: Overall collapse of a cross-stiffened panel (Paik & Thayamballi
2003)
-66-
Fig.3.3(c). Mode II: Plate induced failure - yielding at the corners of plating between
stiffeners (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
Fig.3.3(d). Mode III: Plate induced failure - yielding of plate-stiffener combination at

mid-span (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
Fig.3.3(e). Mode IV: Stiffener induced failure - local buckling of the stiffener web
-67-
y
z
x
y
x
Fig.3.3(f). Mode V: Stiffener induced failure - lateral-torsional buckling of stiffener

Mode VI typically takes place when the panel slenderness is very small (i.e., the
panel is very stocky) and/or when the panel is predominantly subjected to the axial
tensile loading so that neither local nor overall (grillage) buckling occurs until the panel
cross-section yields entirely.
We should note here that (a) the division of behavior of a stiffened panel as
illustrated above is artificial, and (b) not necessarily completely descriptive of all
anticipated actual behavior, although based on experience such division is thought to be
adequate for design purposes in ship structures. Further, even accepting these
idealizations of behavior, the calculation of the ultimate strength of the stiffened panel
under combined loads is not straightforward, because of the interplay of the various
factors such as geometric and material properties, loading, post-weld initial
imperfections (i.e., initial deflection and welding induced residual stresses) and
boundary conditions. For the purposes of our study, it is considered herein that the
collapse of stiffened panels occurs at the lowest value among the various ultimate loads
-68-
calculated considering each of the above collapse patterns separately.

Many simplified design methods to estimate the ultimate strength of stiffened steel
panels have of course been previously developed, considering one or more of the failure
modes among those mentioned above. Some of those methods have been reviewed by
the ISSC technical committee III.1 on Ultimate Strength (ISSC 2000). Comparisons
among some of these methods have also been made by many researchers (e.g., Das &
Garside 1991, Hughes et al. 1994, Rigo et al. 1995, Paik & Kim 1997). While several
methods deal with a condition of combined loading with two or more load components,
most of them are limited to the application of a single load component such as uniaxial
compression. However, since the stiffened panels in marine structures are normally
subjected to combined loads including in-plane and lateral pressure loads, it is of
crucial importance to establish stiffened panel ultimate strength design formulations
taking into account combined loading effects. It is perhaps in this area that our study
has some major contributions when compared with other existing methods.
One major theoretical method used for predicting the ultimate strength of stiffened
panels is the so-called plate-stiffener combination approach (also called beam-column
approach), which will be used in this study as well. This approach uses a representative
plate-stiffener combination to represent the behavior of a stiffened panel since the
spacing of stiffeners is normally the same in each direction. Various column strength
formulations have been used as the basis of such approaches. Three common types are:
Johnson-Ostenfeld (or Bleich-Ostenfeld) formulation,
Perry-Robertson formulation, and
an empirical formulation obtained by curve fitting experimental or numerical
data.
A stocky panel that has a high value of computed elastic buckling strength will not
buckle in the elastic regime, but will actually reach the ultimate strength with a certain
-69-
degree of plasticity. In most design rules of classification societies, the JohnsonOstenfeld formulation is used to account for this behavior, which is given by
for E 0.5 F
cr E
F
=
for E > 0.5 F
F 1
E
4
(3.1a)
where cr = critical buckling strength, F = corresponding yield strength ( o for

axial stress and o for shear stress), and E = elastic buckling strength which can be
taken as E = F / 2 for a plate-stiffener combination pin-joined at both ends under
axial compression. In ship rules from different sources (e.g., ABS 2000), the above
equation may appear with somewhat different constants depending on the structural
proportional limit value assumed; the above form assumes a structural proportional
limit of 50% of the applicable yield value.
The Perry-Robertson formulation assumes that the stiffener with associated plating
will collapse as a beam-column when the maximum compressive stress in the extreme
fiber reaches the yield strength of the material. The two possible collapse modes for the
Perry-Robertson formulation are usually considered depending on the failure of the
most highly stressed fiber, i.e., plate induced failure, and stiffener induced failure.
The plate induced failure mode is related to yielding of the associated plating due to
compression. The stiffener induced failure mode may result from either yielding of the
extreme stiffener fiber (without rotation of stiffener) or tripping of stiffener (with
rotation of stiffener). For a pin-ended plate-stiffener combination under axial
compression in the x direction, the Perry-Robertson formula accounting for the effect
of initial deflection (without either local buckling or tripping of stiffener) may be given
with compression taken as positive, as follows (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
-70-
u
1 1+ 1 1+
1
= 1 + 2 1 + 2 2
ox 2
4

0.5
(3.1b)
where = w osx z c / k 2 = initial deflection related parameter, z c = distance from the

neutral axis to the extreme fiber, which may be taken as z c = z px + 0.5t for plate
induced failure or z c = z fx + 0.5t fx for stiffener induced failure (see Fig.A.3 of
Appendix 13)
In empirical approaches, the ultimate strength formulations are developed by curve
fitting based on mechanical collapse test results or numerical solutions. These types of
empirical formulae can often be cast as simple closed-form expressions, which have
certain advantages including getting quick first-cut estimates, while their use may be
restricted to a specified range of dimensions or be subject to other limitations.
While a vast number of empirical formulations (sometimes called column curves)
for ultimate strength of simple beams in steel framed structures have been developed
(e.g., CRC 1971, Chen & Atsuta 1976, among others), relevant empirical formulae for
plate-stiffener combination models are also available. As an example of the latter type,
Paik & Thayamballi (1997, 2003) developed an empirical formula for predicting the
ultimate strength of a plate-stiffener combination under axial compression in terms of
both column and plate slenderness ratios, based on existing mechanical collapse test
data for the ultimate strength of stiffened panels under axial compression and with
initial imperfections (initial deflections and residual stresses) at an average level.
Since the ultimate strength of columns must be less than the elastic column
buckling strength, the Paik-Thayamballi empirical formula for a plate-stiffener
combination in the x direction is given by (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
u
=
ox
1
0.995 + 0.936 + 0.170 + 0.188 0.067
2
2 2
-71-
1
2
(3.1c)
where of Eq.3.1c is determined for the plate-stiffener combination with full crosssection (i.e., without considering the effective width of attached plating). In contrast,
Eqs.3.1a or 3.1b refer to the effective cross-section.
Figure 3.4 compares the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula, the Perry-Robertson formula
and the Paik-Thayamballi empirical formula for the column ultimate strength for a
plate-stiffener combination varying the column slenderness ratios, with selected initial
eccentricity and plate slenderness ratios. In usage of the Perry-Roberson formula, the
lower strength as obtained from either plate induced failure or stiffener induced failure
was adopted. of Eq.3.1c was determined for the same plate-stiffener combination,
i.e., with effective cross-section, because of convenience in this comparison.
u
ox
1.0
Euler formula
Johnson-Ostenfeld formula
= 1.0
= 2.0
= 3.0
0.8
0.6
Paik-Thayamballi
empirical formula
= 0.2
= 0.4
= 0.6
0.4
Perry-Robertson
formula
0.2
0.0
0
ox
E
Fig.3.4. A comparison of the ultimate strength formulations for plate-stiffener

combinations under axial compression
While the empirical approach is not directly employed in this study, the first two
approaches are utilized for computation of the panel ultimate strength based on the
-72-
behavior of Modes III, IV or V.

Any method for the prediction of stiffened panel ultimate strength has its own
level of accuracy. Except for inherent variability in the structural properties and
phenomena involved, the following four aspects are the primary reasons for such
differences (e.g., Paik & Kim 1997, Paik & Thayamballi 2003):
Collapse modes that need to be considered, and their interactions,
Differences in treatment of effective width of plating,
Consideration of post-weld initial imperfections, and
Consideration of rotational restraints between plating and stiffeners and / or
between stiffener web and flange.

First, not all theoretically possible collapse modes are usually considered in the
development of any particular design oriented strength prediction method.
Second, it is important to accurately predict the effective width of plating in
calculating the effective cross-sectional area of a plate-stiffener combination. As the
compressive loads increase, the effective width of the buckled plating would vary
because it is a function of the applied compressive stresses. However, most simplified
methods assume that the effective width of plating does not depend on the applied
compressive loads, the ultimate effective width of plating being used instead as a
convenient constant.
Third, initial deflections and welding induced residual stresses are not always
treated as parameters of influence in the development of the method. Most methods
take into account the influence of initial imperfections for the plating between stiffeners,
but only some of them include the initial imperfection effects for the stiffener.
Finally, the stiffener has some rotational restraints at its line of attachment to the
plating and/or along the stiffener web-flange intersection. Such restraint affects the
failure of stiffener, but most methods neglect this effect.
-73-
This chapter develops a complete set of the ultimate strength formulations for ship
stiffened steel panels and grillages, which are designed to be more sophisticated than
previous theoretically based simplified procedures. The developed formulations
consider that the panel has a number of one-sided stiffeners in either one or both
orthogonal directions.
The formulations accommodate a combination of all potential load components in
ship grillages, namely longitudinal compression / tension, transverse compression /
tension, longitudinal in-plane bending, transverse in-plane bending, edge shear and
lateral pressure loads. Initial deformations and residual stresses in two orthogonal
directions are accounted for.
It is recognized in this chapter that a single set of simplified strength interaction
equations for a stiffened panel under combined loading can not successfully represent
the panel ultimate strength behavior. This is because the collapse pattern of the panel
under combined loads depends significantly on which load component is predominant,
Hence, in this work, as many sets of ultimate strength formulations and interaction
equations as necessary are developed regarding any given load component that is
considered the primary load, to account correctly for the other load components that are
considered to be the secondary loads.
The validity of the proposed ultimate strength formulations and interaction
equations is studied by a comparison with the nonlinear finite element solutions and the
mechanical collapse test results. Important insights developed and the related
conclusions are summarized.
-74-
3.1 Modeling of Ship Stiffened Plate Structure

3.1.1 Panel Geometry
b
t
N. h
wx
zox
A.
t
N. hwx
zox
A. N.
twx
tfx
twx
Flat bar
zox
A.
hwx
twx
tfx
bfx
bfx
Angle bar
Tee bar
(a) Types of longitudinals

a
t
N. h
wy
zoy
A.
twy
t
N. hwy
zoy
A. N.
twy
tfy
t zoy
bfy
Flat bar
A.
hwy
Angle bar
twy
tfy
bfy
Tee bar
(b) Types of transverses

Fig.3.5. Typical cross-section types for longitudinals and transverses
The length and breadth of the stiffened panel are denoted by L and B ,
respectively. The thickness of the plate is t . The x axis of the panel is always taken
in the direction parallel to the ship length, and the y axis is taken in the direction
normal to the x direction. Therefore, one does not always need to take the panel
length to be located along the long edges, thus simplifying calculations in a complex
case where some plates are wide, and others, long.
For generality, the strength formulations developed in this study consider that the
panel can have stiffeners in one or both directions. The numbers of x and
-75-
y stiffeners are n sx and n sy , respectively. The cross-sectional area of a single
stiffener in the
A sy = h wy t wy + b fy t fy
or
directions is denoted by
A sx = h wx t wx + b fx t fx
, respectively. The spacing of the stiffeners is a
and
between
y stiffeners, i.e., a = L /( n sy + 1) and b between x stiffeners, i.e., b = B /(n sx + 1) .
In calculations of the panel ultimate strength, the effective width b e and effective
length a e of plating between stiffeners will be used.
Stiffeners are attached to one side of the panel, i.e., on the positive side of the z
direction. The flange of angle or bulb type stiffeners is attached to one side of the
stiffener web and is asymmetric with regard to the center line of the stiffener web
parallel to the z axis, while a T-section stiffener flange is symmetric, as shown in
Fig.3.5. The geometric properties of stiffeners in any given orthogonal direction of the
panel are, however, considered to be the same.
3.1.2 Panel Material Properties

In stiffened panels of ship structures, the yield stress of the stiffeners is in some
cases different from that of the plate, e.g., using mild steel for the plate and higher
tensile steel for the stiffeners.
It is therefore necessary to take into account this effect in the ultimate strength
formulations. The material properties of all stiffeners in any one given direction, i.e., in
the x or y , are assumed to be the same. The yield stresses for the plate and the
stiffeners are denoted by op and os , respectively.
When the ultimate strength is reached primarily by excessive plasticity of the plate
after overall (grillage) buckling occurs, i.e., following Mode I, the panel may be
idealized as an orthotropic plate. In this case, it is proposed that an equivalent yield
stress oeq for the entire stiffened panel may approximately be defined as
-76-
ox
oeq = oy
+ /2
oy
ox
where ox =
for longitudinally stiffened panels

for transversely stiffened panels
for orthogonally stiffened panel
Bt op + n sx A sx os
Bt + n sx A sx
, oy =
(3.2)
Lt op + n sy A sy os
Lt + n sy A sy
However, when the panel reaches the ultimate strength subsequent to the more
localized failure of the plate or stiffeners, individual yield stresses are used for strength
calculation of each part as applicable.
3.1.3 Panel Boundary Conditions

The edges of the panel extent are usually supported by strong beam members (e.g.,
girders or frames). The bending rigidities of the boundary support members are
normally quite large compared to that of the panel itself. This implies that the normal
displacements of the support members in the direction of panel deflections are very
small even up to panel collapse. The rotational restraints along the panel edges depend
on the torsional rigidities of the support members, and these are neither zero nor infinite.
When predominantly in-plane compressive loads are applied on a continuous
plated structure supported by stiffer beam members, the buckling pattern of the panel is
expected to be unsymmetrical, i.e., one plate element will tend to buckle up and the
adjacent plate element will tend to deflect down. In this case, rotational restraints along
the panel edges can be considered to be small.
When the plated structure is subjected predominantly to laterally distributed loads,
however, the buckling pattern of the structure tends to be symmetrical, at least for large
enough pressures, i.e., each adjacent plate element may deflect in the direction of lateral
pressure loading. In this case, the edge rotational restraints can become large enough
that they corresponds to a clamped condition from the beginning of loading in some
cases. However, if plasticity occurs earlier along the edges where the large bending
-77-
moments are developed, the rotational restraints at the yielded edges will then be
lessened as the applied loads increase.
In a continuous plated structure, the edges of individual stiffened panels are
considered to remain almost straight due to the structural response being relative to the
adjacent panels even if the panel deflects. In this regard, an idealized condition, i.e., one
with zero rotational restraints along the panel edges, has been widely used for practical
purposes of analysis. In this study, it is also assumed that the panel edges are simply
supported, with zero deflection and zero rotational restraints along four edges, with all
edges kept straight. In most practical situations, this approximation will lead to
adequate results. In contrast, the influence of rotational restraints along the junctions of
plate-stiffener and/or stiffener web-flange may need to be accounted for in the
calculations of local buckling of either plating between stiffeners or stiffener web.
3.1.4 Load Effects

The load effects (e.g., stresses, deformations) can typically be calculated by
classical theory of structural mechanics or linear elastic finite element method. As
shown in Fig.3.2, the potential stress components acting on ship stiffened panels are as
follows
Longitudinal axial stress
Transverse axial stress
Edge shear
Longitudinal in-plane bending
Transverse in-plane bending
Lateral pressure load
where it is taken that compressive stresses are negative and tensile stresses are positive,
unless specified.
-78-
When the panel size is relatively small compared to the entire structure, the
influence of in-plane bending effects may be negligible. However, for a large stiffened
panel such as that in side shell of vessels, the effect of in-plane bending can not be
neglected in some cases because the panel may collapse by failure of stiffeners which
are loaded by large portion of axial compression due to in-plane bending moments. In
this chapter, the panel ultimate strength formulations for various collapse modes are
developed to facilitate considering all potential loads including in-plane bending
applied, with approximations made as necessary.
When the stiffeners are relatively small or the panel is subjected to large lateral
pressure so that they buckle together with plating, the stiffened panel typically behaves
as an orthotropic plate. In this case, the average values of the applied axial stresses are
used to approximate the influence of in-plane bending, namely
xav =
+ y2
x1 + x 2
, yav = y1
2
2
(3.3)
where x1 and x 2 are the longitudinal axial stresses at the lower and upper part,
respectively and y1 and y 2 are the transverse axial stresses at the left and right part,
respectively, see Fig.3.2.
The average axial stresses in any direction in which stiffeners are not present are
used for strength analysis. When the stiffeners are relatively stiff (the plating between
stiffeners buckles before the failure of the stiffeners), the ultimate strength is eventually
reached by failure at the most highly stressed stiffener fibers. In this case, the largest
values of the axial compressive or tensile stresses applied at the location of the
stiffeners are used for the failure analysis of the stiffeners.
The values of the highest applied stresses at the x - and y -stiffeners are denoted
by xM and yM , respectively, see Fig.3.2. In some collapse modes, the stiffened
-79-
panel may reach the ultimate strength if the most highly stressed stiffener with
associated effective plating, i.e., subjected to xM or yM , fails. In that sense, the
effect of in-plane bending is approximately accounted for.
In ship structures, lateral pressure loading is due to water pressure and/or cargo
weight. The magnitude of water pressure depends mainly on the vessel draft and the
loading condition, and the value of cargo pressure is determined by the amount and
density of cargo loaded. Both are affected by vessel motions and accelerations. This
study considers that averaged (uniform) net lateral pressure p is applied.
Similarly, in-plane loads are caused by the distributions of weight and buoyancy,
and augmented by waves during operation of the vessel at sea. In the usual case where
the other loads exist in addition to lateral pressure, the ultimate strength of the stiffened
panel is calculated considering that lateral loads are applied first and the other in-plane
load components are then added and increased until the ultimate strength is reached.
This manner of sequencing loads for purposes of the numerical calculations is also an
approximation.
3.1.5 Fabrication Related Initial Imperfections

The panel ultimate strength formulations developed in this study accommodate
welding induced initial imperfections as parameters of influence. Fig.3.6(a) shows a
schematic of the post-weld initial deflection for stiffened panels. Fig.3.6(b) represents
an idealized distribution of welding induced residual stresses in the plating between
stiffeners.
The characteristics of these initial imperfections for the plating between stiffeners
are idealized following Paik & Thayamballi (2003). For the stiffened panel with a
number of relatively small stiffeners that behaves as an orthotropic plate, an initial
deflection function similar to that of plating between stiffeners may conceivably be
used.
-80-
L
a
wosy
b
b
B
b
wopl
x
wosx
wopl
Fig.3.6(a). An example pattern of post-weld initial deflections in steel stiffened panels
at
a2at
at
bt
b2bt
Comp.
Tens.
rcy
rty
bt
Tens.
rtx rcx
Fig.3.6(b). Idealization of the distribution of welding induced residual stresses in the

plating between stiffeners in the x and y directions (Tens. = tension, Comp. =
compression)
The welding induced residual stresses can significantly affect the panel ultimate
strength in some cases. When the panel has a number of relatively small stiffeners (the
stiffeners buckle together with the plate), the effect of post-weld residual stresses may
be small, but unlikely to be the same as for the bare plate alone. When a relatively
-81-
slender stiffened panel is subjected to predominantly axial compressive loads, the

compressive residual stresses will work somewhat uniformly toward reducing the
strength but the tensile residual stresses will contribute resistance to the applied loads,
and vice versa for axial tensile loading. However, as the stiffeners become stiff (they
keep straight until plating between stiffeners buckles), the effect of post-weld residual
stresses can not be ignored.
In this regard, the post-weld residual stress is not incorporated in the ultimate
strength formulations of the panel following Mode I as an approximation. The strength
formulations for the rest of the collapse modes incorporate the welding induced residual
stress as an explicit parameter of influence.
In the ultimate strength calculations for a panel which collapses by failure of the
stiffeners, it is assumed that there may exist some welding compressive residual stresses
(denoted by rsx in the x -stiffener web or rsy in the y -stiffener web) which are
approximated to distribute uniformly over stiffener web height.
3.2 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode I

When the panel has a number of relatively small stiffeners (at least 3 or more in
each orthogonal direction, Mansour 1977), the stiffened panel can normally be replaced
by an orthotropic plate. In this case, the stiffener effects are smeared into the plate.
For the purposes of obtaining Mode I strength of a panel that may be reasonably
modeled as an orthotropic plate for buckling and ultimate strength estimation purposes,
only the following four load components, namely xav , yav , av and p are
considered (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). Also, the orthotropic plate is considered to have
welding induced initial deflections, but the influence of the residual stresses is ignored,
and must be otherwise adjusted, perhaps as a few percent reductions in the computed
-82-
strength (Paik & Thayamballi 2003).

The effect of in-plane bending moment on the ultimate strength of the orthotropic
plate is also neglected. This is usually not a serious limitation because some of the
panel may be subjected to axial tension while axial compression is applied in the other
part. The analyst has some flexibility in selecting the particular boundaries of a crossstiffened panel during strength assessment. We emphasize, however, that in-plane
bending is an important factor in the ultimate strength calculations for a panel that
collapses by failure of the stiffeners. It must be accounted for.
For the purposes of ultimate strength estimation, large deflection orthotropic plate
theory is used. The reliability of orthotropic plate solution depends significantly on
various elastic constants that are determined while a stiffened panel is replaced by an
equivalent orthotropic plate. A consistent systematic determination of the elastic
constants for the idealized orthotropic plate is needed, and related methods have been
proposed elsewhere (Paik et al. 2001b).

The ultimate longitudinal axial strength based on Mode I is denoted by Ixu . The
panel is considered to be predominantly subjected to xav with yav = av = 0 , while
p is regarded as the secondary load component. In the present approach, it is
considered that the orthotropic plate collapses if the plate edges yield. Yielding of the
plate edges is checked using the von Mises yield criterion which is a function of the
membrane stress components. The membrane stress components necessary for checking
yielding are obtained by solving the nonlinear governing differential equations of large
deflection orthotropic plate theory.
With increasing panel deflection, the upper and/or lower fibers in the mid-region
of the panel will initially yield by the action of bending. However, as long as it is
possible to redistribute the applied loads to the straight panel boundaries by the
-83-
membrane action, the panel will not collapse. Collapse will then occur when the most
stressed boundary locations yield, because the panel boundaries can no longer be kept
straight any further, resulting in a rapid increase of lateral deflection. Hence, to base the
ultimate strength formulation on initial plastic yield at the panel edges occurring is
somewhat pessimistic.
Further details are omitted here, but may be found in Paik & Thayamballi (2003)
or Paik et al. (2001b). For combined xav and p , the plating will collapse when the
longitudinal mid-edges yield as illustrated in Fig.3.7. The resulting ultimate strength
criterion is expressed by
x max

oeq
where x max
x max

oeq
y min

oeq
and y min
y min
+

oeq
=1
(3.4)
represent maximum longitudinal stress and minimum
transverse stress, respectively, see Fig.3.7, which are given in Appendix 8. The ultimate
longitudinal axial strength (denoted by Ixu ) can be obtained as the solution of Eq.3.4
with regard to xav , which is implicit within x max and y min as seen from Appendix
8.
y
C
L
T
C
C
Simply supported edges
xmax
xav , p
ymin x
Fig.3.7. Plasticity at panel longitudinal mid-edges for a combined xav and p

(C: compression, T: tension)
-84-

The ultimate transverse axial strength based on Mode I is now studied when the
panel is predominantly subjected to yav with xav = av = 0 , while p is regarded as
the secondary load component. A similar approach as for the longitudinal compression
and pressure case is again used. In this case, the location of the earliest yielding along
the plate edges is considered to be at the transverse mid-edges as that shown in Fig.3.8.
Thus the ultimate strength formulation for under combined yav and p following
Mode I can be given by (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
x min

oeq
where x min
x min

oeq
y max

oeq
and y max
y max
+

oeq
=1
(3.5)
represent minimum longitudinal stress and maximum
transverse stress, respectively (given in Appendix 9), see Fig.3.8. The ultimate
transverse axial strength (denoted by Iyu ) can be obtained as the solution of Eq.3.5
with regard to yav .
L
C
Simply supported edges
x
xmin
yav , p
ymax
Fig.3.8. Plasticity at panel transverse mid-edges for a combined yav and p

(C: compression, T: tension)
-85-

(a) Ultimate lateral pressure
The ultimate pressure load (denoted by p uo ) for the orthotropic plate under lateral
pressure alone is calculated as the smaller value of the two solutions obtained from
Eqs.3.4 or 3.5 above with regard to p assuming one half wave collapse pattern in both
directions, i.e., m = n = 1 since xav = yav = 0 . The failure criterion is still based on
yielding at the plate (panel) boundary mid-points, which automatically takes into
account the plate aspect ratio effects.
(b) Ultimate edge shear strength

Based on a series of nonlinear finite element calculations for simply supported
plating, varying the plate geometry and the aspect ratio, Paik et al. (2000b) derived the
following empirical formula for the ultimate strength of plating under edge shear alone.
This will be used in our study as a first approximation to the ultimate edge shear
strength prediction of ship stiffened panels (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). We then have:
E
E
0 .5
1.324 for 0 <
o
o
3
2
E
E
uo
= 0.039 0.274 + 0.676 E
o
o
o
o
E
for
> 2 .0
0.956
o
+ 0.388 for 0.5 < E 2.0

o
(3.6)
where E is the elastic shear buckling stress of the plating .

Of interest, Eq.3.6 has been subdivided into three equations which represent the
ultimate edge shear strength of thin plates, medium thickness plates and thick plates,
respectively. Eq.3.6 showed an overall modeling error characterized by bias = 0.931
and COV = 0.075 when compared against nonlinear finite element solutions for ship
-86-
plating obtained varying the plate aspect ratios and edge conditions. For practical
purposes, the influence of the aspect ratio on the plate ultimate shear strength may be
ignored, and that the ultimate shear strength of long (or wide) plates tends to be greater
than that of square plating (i.e., with a / b = 1 ).
In the treatment above, the ultimate strength of a stiffened panel in edge shear is
approximately taken as that of plating between stiffeners in edge shear and without
considering the plate aspect ratio effects. Any strength reserve due to tension field
action where a developing diagonal tension is anchored by the adjoining stiffening is
also not included. The approach is thus somewhat pessimistic. Also, implicit in the
approach is the (usually reasonable) assumption that the stiffeners of ship stiffened
panels are normally designed such that they will remain straight until the panel buckles
in edge shear. Corrections are necessary if such is not the case.
(c) Ultimate strength interaction equation

The interacting effect between edge shear stress and lateral pressure is now studied.
Fig.3.9 shows the ultimate strength interaction relationship for an isotropic (not
orthotropic) plate under combined edge shear and lateral pressure as obtained using a
semi-analytical method SPINE (Paik et al. 2001d, Paik & Thayamballi 2003). It is seen
from Fig.3.9 that the ultimate strength interaction between edge shear and lateral
pressure is significant and thus can not be ignored. From the limited results, it is also
observed that their interacting effect tends to become moderate with increase in the
plate aspect ratio. As a pessimistic measure, the plate ultimate strength interaction
equation between edge shear and lateral pressure may be derived by curve fitting based
on the interaction curve of square plates (i.e., with a / b = 1 ), as follows
uo
1.5
1.2
p
uo
=1
(3.7)
-87-
where uo = plate ultimate strength under edge shear alone, p uo = plate ultimate
strength under lateral pressure alone
In the present chapter, Eq.3.7 is adopted for the ultimate strength interaction
equation of the orthotropic plate under combined edge shear and lateral pressure loads,
but replacing uo and p uo by the corresponding orthotropic plate strength values.
Further study is necessary for a more elaborate description, and it is to be noted that our
approximations may provide some pessimistic evaluations of the panel ultimate
strength.
1.0
w=
0.8
p / puo
0.4
: Present design formula

SPINE
: a / b = 1.0
: a / b = 2.0
0.0
bt = 1,000 14.34 (mm)

o=264.6 MPa
puo = Plate ultimate strength
under lateral pressure alone
uo = Plate ultimate strength
under edge shear alone
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
/ uo
0.8
mn
sin
A
M
mx
nx
sin
a
b
m =1 n =1
omn
sin
mx
nx
sin
a
b
a / b = 1.0: M=N=3
Ao11=Ao33 = 0.12t
a / b = 2.0: M=5, N=3
Ao11= 0.12t
Ao31 = Ao51 =0.052t
= b / t o / E = 2.5
0.2
wo =
0.6
m =1 n =1
a/b
puo
uo
1.0
0.679
N/mm2
134.1
MPa
2.0
0.387
N/mm2
150.4
MPa
1.0
Fig.3.9. Ultimate strength interaction relationship for a simply supported (isotropic)

plate subjected to edge shear and lateral pressure
Based on the results of a previous numerical study (Paik 1999), it is proposed that
the following ultimate strength interaction equation be used for Mode I failure of a
stiffened panel under combined xav , yav , and p , using the Mode I ultimate
strength components obtained so far:
-88-
xav
I
xu
xav
I
xu
yav
I
yu
yav
+
I
yu

+ I
u
=1
(3.8)
where = 0 when both xav and yav are compressive (negative), while = 1
when either xav , yav or both are tensile (positive). Eq.3.8 is similar in form to the
von Mises yield function, and has been established on the basis of curve fits to the
nonlinear numerical FE solutions.
3.3 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode II

In Mode II, the stiffened panel is considered to collapse if the plate-stiffener
intersection yields at panel edges (i.e., corners of plating between stiffeners) of the most
highly stressed stiffener (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). It is in this case idealized that the
plating between stiffeners is subjected to the following four stress components, namely
xM , yM , av and p . Also, the post-weld initial imperfections in the form of initial
deflection and residual stress are included as parameters of influence. The membrane
stress distribution inside the plating under combined loads, obtained by solving the
governing nonlinear differential equations of large deflection isotropic plate theory,
provides the basic input necessary to check yielding.

The ultimate longitudinal axial strength based on Mode II is studied with the panel
subjected to combined xM and p when yM = = 0 . The applicable maximum and
minimum membrane stress components for plating between stiffeners can be calculated
by solving the governing nonlinear differential equations of large deflection isotropic
plate theory, and are given in Appendix 10. The stiffened panel is then considered to
-89-
collapse in Mode II if the plate corner yields. This results in the following condition:
x max

op
x max
op
y max

op
y max
+

op

=1
(3.9)
where x max and y max represent maximum longitudinal stress and maximum
transverse stress, respectively (given in Appendix 10). It is noted that Eq.3.9 is a
function of xM and p as well as the post-weld initial imperfections. The panel
ultimate longitudinal axial strength (denoted by IIxu ) based on Mode II is then obtained
by the solution of Eq.3.9 with regard to xM by substituting the maximum membrane
stress components of Appendix 10 into Eq.3.9. The approach used is quite similar to
that for Mode I, except for (a) inclusion of both post weld residual stresses and initial
deformations, and (b) yielding being considered to occur at the plate corners. Additional
details may be found in Paik et al. (2001a).

For combined yM and p , the panel ultimate transverse axial strength (denoted
by IIyu ) based on Mode II is obtained by the solution of Eq.3.9 with regard to yM , but
by substituting the maximum membrane stress components of Appendix 10 into Eq.3.9.
As before, these membrane stress components are derived by solving the governing
nonlinear large deflection equations of isotropic plate theory, see Paik et al. (2001a) for
more complete details.

When the stiffeners are relatively strong (the plating fails prior to the stiffeners),
the ultimate lateral pressure load p uo may in this case be calculated as the smaller
value of the two solutions obtained by Eqs.3.12a or 3.16a with regard to p assuming
-90-
one half wave collapse pattern in both directions (i.e., m = n = 1 ), when xM = yM = 0

and the longitudinal or transverse mid-edges yield. The upper limit of the ultimate
lateral pressure load is given as the ultimate lateral pressure load as previously obtained
for Mode I overall grillage collapse is typically relevant.
Eq.3.7 is again adopted for the ultimate strength interaction relationship between
edge shear and lateral pressure of the stiffened panel following Mode II, but using the
corresponding value of p uo based on Mode II behavior, while the ultimate edge shear
stress is again calculated from Eq.3.6.
3.3.4 Combined Biaxial Stress, Edge Shear Stress and Lateral Pressure
An expression similar to Eq.3.8 is used for the Mode II ultimate strength
interaction equation for a stiffened panel under combined xM , yM , and p , using
the Mode II ultimate strength components obtained so far. The applicable expression is
as follows:
xM
II
xu
xM
II
xu
yM
II
yu
yM
+
II
yu

+ II
u
=1
(3.11)
where = 0 when both xM and yM are compressive (negative), while = 1

when either xM , yM or both are tensile (positive).
3.4 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode III

The collapse Mode III has been widely studied because of its importance.
Numerous strength formulations for this mode of collapse exist in the literature and also
in engineering practice (see Chatterjee & Dowling (1975), Carlsen (1977, 1981), DNV
-91-
(1995), Fujikubo et al. (1999) and ABS (2000), among others). However, most of these
studies have been for a limited number of stress components, in some cases as few as
two. In contrast, our studies attempt to consider a complete set of stress components
relevant to ship design. Also, the dependence of plate effectiveness on loading (the socalled reduced effective width effect) is included.
As usual, the plate-stiffener combination approach is applied using the PerryRobertson formula. In this case, the ultimate strength is considered to be reached if the
extreme fibers of the cross-section (at mid-span in the simply supported case) yield, that
is, when the axial stress at the outmost section reaches the yield stress either on the
stiffener or the plate side, the former being called stiffener induced failure and the
latter being called plate induced failure.
It is considered that the most highly stressed stiffener in the x or y directions is
subjected to the following four stress components, namely xM , yM , av and p .
Normally, the effectiveness of plating between stiffeners progressively decreases until
the plating collapses. The effectiveness of the plating between stiffeners is evaluated by
taking into account the influence of the post-weld initial imperfections in the form of
initial deflection and residual stresses.

The Mode III panel ultimate longitudinal axial strength (denoted by III
xu ) is first
studied when the panel is subjected to combined xM and p , as a representative of the
plate-stiffener combination under axial stress xM plus lateral line load q = pb (i.e.,
multiplied by uniform lateral pressure p and the breadth b of plating between
longitudinal stiffeners).
(a) Effective width of plating between longitudinals

It is considered that the isotropic plating between stiffeners collapses locally when
-92-
the plate longitudinal mid-edges yield, as similar to that shown in Fig.3.7. The plate
ultimate strength condition is in this case given by (Paik et al. 2001a)
x max

op
where x max
x max

op
y min

op
and y min
y min
+

op

=1
(3.12a)
represent maximum longitudinal stress and minimum
transverse stress of plating between longitudinals, respectively, which are expressed in

terms of xM , p and initial imperfections as given in Appendix 10.
The ultimate longitudinal axial strength of the plating between stiffeners (denoted
by Lxu ) is in the illustrative examples of this chapter calculated by the solution of
Eq.3.12a with regard to xM , but more approximate approaches are typically used to
calculate Lxu . For instance, when it is assumed that the unloaded plate edges move
freely in plane, the plate ultimate strength condition of Eq.3.12a may simplify to the
following
x max = op
(3.12b)
because no membrane stresses may in this case develop in the y direction.

Alternatively, using the effective width approach, Lxu is simply given by
Lxu = op
b eu
b
(3.12c)
where b eu = plate effective width at the ultimate strength (refer to Eqs.3.13b or 3.13c)
The effective width of the plating between the most highly compressed x stiffeners can be calculated by taking into account the effects of the combined loads
-93-
involved as well as the post-weld initial imperfections. The plate effective width is
typically defined as the ratio of the average stress to the maximum stress, as follows
be
= xM 1.0
b x max
(3.13a)
where b e may also be possibly called the effective breadth if lateral pressure p
exists because the shear lag effect in that case also develops.
It is of interest to calculate the plate effective width at the ultimate limit state
denoted by b eu , which can be obtained from Eq.3.13a when xM = Lxu , namely
b eu
L
= u xu 1.0
b
x max
(3.13b)
where ux max = x max at xM = Lxu .

Eq.3.13b explicitly takes into account the influence of initial imperfections (initial
deflection and residual stress) and lateral pressure as parameters of influence. In
contrast, the more typical approach in this regard is exemplified by Faulkner (1975a)
who suggests an empirical effective width formula for simply supported steel plates
under longitudinal compression alone (i.e., without lateral pressure) at the ultimate limit
state, as follows
1.0 for 1
b eu
= 2 1
2 for > 1
b
(3.13c)
where Eq.3.13c implicitly involves the influence of initial imperfections at an average

level.
-94-
1.0
Faulkner formula with = 1.5
Aom / t = 0.025 2
0.8
Aom / t = 0.1 2
Aom / t = 0.3 2
0.6
be
b
: = 1.5
: = 3 .0
0.4
:Ultimate strength
a b = 3,000 1,000
rcx = rcy = 0.0
0.2
b o
, =
b2t
t E
o = 313.6 MPa
Faulkner formula at ultimate strength :
xE = 4
1
be 2
=
b 2
2D
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
xav / xE
2.5
(a) Effect of initial deflection, no welding induced residual stresses

1.0
Aom / t = 0.025 2
Aom / t = 0.1 2
0.8
Aom / t = 0.3 2
0.6
be
b
0.4
: = 1 .5
: = 3.0
:Ultimate strength
a b = 3,000 1,000
rcx / o = 0.1, rcy = 0.0
0.2
xE = 4
1
be 2
=
b 2
2D
b 2t
, =
b o
t E
o = 313.6 MPa
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
xav / xE
2.0
2.5
(b) Effect of initial deflection and welding induced residual stresses

1.0
Water head = 0 m
Water head = 20 m
Water head = 40 m
0.8
0.6
be
b
: = 1.5
0.4
: = 3.0
:Ultimate strength
Water head = 10 m
a b = 3,000 1,000
rcx / o = 0.1, rcy = 0.0
Water head = 20 m
0.2
2D
b o
xE = 4 2 , =
bt
t E
1
be 2
= 2
o = 313.6 MPa , Aom / t = 0.1 2
b
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
xav / xE
2.0
2.5
(c) Effect of lateral pressure

Fig.3.10. Variation of the effective width of a simply supported plate under uniaxial
compression
-95-
Figure 3.10 plots Eq.3.13a with increasing xM , varying plate slenderness ratio,
initial deflections, residual stresses and lateral pressure (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). The
Faulkner formula Eq.3.13c is also shown for a comparison. The plate ultimate strengths
as obtained by the solution of Eq.3.12a with regard to xM are also plotted.
The Faulkner formula Eq.3.13c corresponds well to the effective width for
relatively thick plates with average level of initial imperfections but for relatively thin
plates with average to severe level of initial imperfections. However, the plate
effective width varies with the different levels of initial imperfections as well as applied
loads, and Eqs.3.13a or 3.13b thus embody nature of the plate effective width better. It
is also evident from Fig.3.10(c) that the lateral pressure is a significant factor
influencing (reducing) the plate effective breadth as would be expected.
(b) Collapse strength of a plate-stiffener combination

When subjected to combined axial compression ( xM ) and lateral line load
( q = pb ), the ultimate strength of a plate-stiffener combination can be calculated using
the Perry-Robertson formula (Paik & Thayamballi 2003). While a more elaborate
description is found in Paik & Thayamballi (2003), a closed-form expression of the
ultimate strength for the plate-stiffener combination under combined
xM
(compression) and q accounting for the effect of initial deflection is derived (when
compression is taken as positive), as follows
III
1
1+
1
1+ 1
xu
= K r 1 + 2
1 +
ox
4
2

2
2
2
where =
(3.14)
A x zc
w q max + w osx
Ix
= initial deflection related parameter, =
M q max z c
=
ox I x
lateral load related parameter, M q max = maximum bending moment due to lateral load
alone (at mid-span) which may be taken as M q max = qa 2 / 8 , w q max = maximum
-96-
deflection due to lateral load alone (at mid-span) which may be taken as
w q max = 5qa 4 / (384EI x ) , w osx = column type initial deflection of x -stiffener as defined
in Fig.3.6(a), z c = z px + 0.5t for plate induced failure and z c = z fx + 0.5t fx for stiffener
induced failure (see Fig.A.3 of Appendix 13), K r = knock-down factor due to residual
stress
which
is
in
the
illustrative
examples
of
this
study
taken
as
K r = 1.03 0.08 rsx / ox 1.0 (Carlsen 1981) (For a more refined treatment of the
residual stress effect on beam-column strength, Trahair & Bradford (1988) may be
referred to).
It is important to realize that Eq.3.14 does not involve local buckling of stiffener
web or tripping of stiffener. Since compression is defined as negative, III
will
xu
eventually take a negative value for xM in compression. For xM in tension, the
panel ultimate strength will approximately equal the equivalent yield strength, i.e.,
III
xu = ox .
Figure 3.11 plots Eq.3.14 with regard to the column slenderness ratio of a platestiffener combination varying the magnitude of lateral loads and column type initial
deflections. The ultimate compressive strength of stocky plate-stiffener combinations is
significantly reduced as either the level of lateral loads or initial deflections increases.
In the course of the present study, it was realized that for panels with relatively
weak stiffeners the Perry-Robertson approach can predict an ultimate axial compressive
strength which is in some cases even less than that of the bare plate (i.e., panel without
stiffeners). In this regard, a lower limit of the panel ultimate strength following Mode
III, given by the bare plate ultimate strength as long as xM is compressive, is used:
GB
III
xu xu
(3.15)
where GB
is the ultimate strengths for the bare plate under xM plus p .
xu
-97-
u
ox
1.0
Euler Formula (==0)

0.8
= 0.2
= 0.4
= 0.6
0.6
= 0.0
= 0.2
= 0.4
= 0.6
0.4
= 0.4
0.2
0.0
0
ox
E
Fig.3.11. Variation of the ultimate compressive strength from the Perry-Robertson

formula versus the column slenderness ratio for plate-stiffener combinations, under
combined axial compression and lateral load

When the panel is subjected to combined yM and p , the Mode III panel
ultimate transverse axial strength (denoted by III
yu ) can be calculated in a manner
similar to that under combined xM and p as a representative of the plate-stiffener
combination under axial stress yM plus lateral line load q = pa (i.e., multiplied by
uniform lateral pressure p and the breadth a of plating between transverse
stiffeners). Relevant details follow
(a) Effective length of plating between transverses

The plating between stiffeners collapses locally if the plate transverse mid-edges
yield as similar to that shown in Fig.3.8. The plate ultimate strength condition is in this
case given by
-98-

x min

op
where x min
x min

op
y max

op
and y max
y max
+

op

=1
(3.16a)
represent longitudinal minimum stress and transverse
maximum stress, respectively which are expressed in terms of yM , p and initial

imperfections as given in Appendix 11.
While the ultimate strength (denoted by Lyu ) of plating between transverse
stiffeners under combined yM and p is in the illustrative examples of this chapter
obtained as the solution of Eq.3.16a with regard to yM , in typical practice more
approximate approaches are often used. For instance, when it is assumed that the
unloaded plate edges move freely in plane, the ultimate strength condition of Eq.3.16a
may simplify to (since no membrane stress may in this case develop in the x
direction)
y max = op
(3.16b)
Alternatively, using the effective width approach, Lyu may be simply given by
Lyu = op
a eu
a
(3.16c)
where a eu = plate effective length at the ultimate limit state (refer to Eqs.3.17b or
3.17c).
The effective length of the plating between the most highly compressed y stiffeners can again be evaluated, by taking into account the effects of combined loads
( yM plus p ) as well as the post-weld initial imperfections, as follows
-99-
yM
ae
=
1.0
a
y max
(3.17a)
where a e is the effective length of the plating between y -stiffeners.

It is again of interest to calculate the plate effective width at the ultimate limit state
denoted by a eu , which can be obtained from Eq.3.17a when yM = Lyu , as follows
Lyu
a eu
= u
1 .0
a
y max
(3.17b)
where uy max = y max at yM = Lyu .

While Eq.3.17b explicitly takes into account the influence of initial imperfections
(initial deflection and residual stress) and lateral pressure as parameters of influence,
the more typical approach is that exemplified by Faulkner et al. (1973) who suggest an
empirical effective length formula for simply supported steel plates under transverse
compression alone (i.e., without lateral pressure) at the ultimate limit state, as follows
a eu 0.9 b 1.9 0.9

1 2
= 2 +
a
a
(3.17c)
where Eq.3.17c implicitly involves the influence of initial imperfections at an average

level.
(b) Collapse strength of a plate-stiffener combination

Under combined axial stress yM plus lateral line load q = pa , the ultimate
strength of a plate-stiffener combination accounting for the influence of initial
deflection can be calculated using the Perry-Robertson approach. With the related
-100-
parameters including for the plate-stiffener combination in the y direction, we will

get a closed-form expression of III
yu (Hughes 1988, Paik & Thayamballi 2003) (when
compression is taken as positive), as follows
III
yu
oy
1
1+
1
1+ 1
= K r 1 + 2
1 +

2

4
2
2
where =
A yzc
Iy
(3.18)
(w
q max
+ w osy
= initial deflection related parameter, =
M q max z c
=
oy I y
lateral load related parameter, M q max = maximum bending moment due to lateral load
alone (at mid-span) which may be taken as M q max = qb 2 / 8 , w q max = maximum
deflection (amplitude) due to lateral load alone (at mid-span) which may be taken as
w q max = 5qb 4 / 384EI y , w osy = column type initial deflection of y -stiffener as defined
in Fig.3.6(a), z c = z py + 0.5t for plate induced failure and z c = z fy + 0.5t fy for stiffener
induced failure (see Fig.A.3 of Appendix 13), K r = knock-down factor due to residual
stress
which
is
in
the
illustrative
examples
of
this
chapter
taken
as
K r = 1.03 0.08 rsy / ox 1.0 (Carlsen 1981) (For a more refined treatment of the
residual stress effect on beam-column strength, Trahair & Bradford (1988) may be
referred to)
It is noted that Eq.3.18 does not involve local buckling of stiffener web or tripping
will eventually take a
of stiffener. Since compression is taken as negative, III
yu
negative value for yM in compression. On the other hand, for yM in tension, the
ultimate strength will approximately equal the equivalent yield strength, i.e., III
yxu = oy .
A lower limit of III
yu similar to Eq.3.15 is again used (as long as yM is compressive
stress), as follows
GB
III
yu yu
(3.19)
-101-
where GB
is the ultimate strengths for the bare plate under yM plus p .
yu
3.4.3Combined Edge Shear Stress and Lateral Pressure

In Mode III, the ultimate lateral load p uo and the ultimate shear strength uo are
defined as the same to those of Mode II. Also, the ultimate strength interaction relation
between av and p is given by Eq.3.7, but using the corresponding p uo and uo .
Thus III
is obtained as the solution of Eq.3.7 with regard to av , being taken as
u
II
III
u = u .
An expression similar to Eqs.3.8 or 3.11 is employed to describe the Mode III
ultimate strength interaction relationship for a stiffened panel under combined xM ,
yM , and p . Using the Mode III ultimate strength components obtained so far, the
applicable result is as follows:
xM
II
xu
xM
II
xu
yM
II
yu
yM
+
II
yu

+ II
u
=1
(3.20)

3.5 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode IV

The web or flange of a stiffener in a stiffened panel can locally buckle, a
possibility that must usually be considered for built-up sections. Such occurrence of
local buckling in the stiffener cross-section can sometimes be quite a sudden
-102-
phenomenon resulting in subsequent unloading of the stiffened panel, particularly with

use of flat bar stiffeners (Paik & Thayamballi 2003).
In this case, once such stiffener web buckling occurs, the buckled or collapsed
plating is left with essentially little stiffening and thus overall stiffened panel collapse
may follow immediately. In Mode IV, it is assumed that the panel reaches the ultimate
strength immediately after the local buckling of the stiffener web at its most highly
stressed location.
The local buckling of the stiffener web or flange, and the buckling / collapse of
plating between stiffeners normally interact, and can take place in any order, depending
on the dimensions of plating and stiffener. Clearly, buckling of the stiffener flange or
web prior to the inception of buckling in plating between stiffeners is normally an
undesirable failure mode which should be specifically avoided by design.
It is normally considered in design that the stiffener web or flange should not
buckle until the plating between stiffeners buckles or collapses. More exactly, the local
buckling strength of the stiffener web or flange depends on the torsional rigidities of the
adjacent members to which they are attached, among other factors.
One assumption that is implicit in our present description is that the stiffener
flange, where one is present, does not buckle prior to the buckling of the web. Flange
buckling is normally not a concern with rolled sections, but in built-up sections, it does
need to be considered and controlled. This is normally carried out in design by meeting
certain flange slenderness limits.
For generality, however, Mode IV considerations may be readily extended to cover
the flange buckling case, e.g., for a plate with three simply supported edges and one
free edge. Essentially the same mathematics apply with considerable simplifications,
and that we would in that case be considering flange strength, with the web providing
the support.
Hence, the Mode IV ultimate strength may be estimated from the local buckling
-103-
strength of the stiffener web taking into account the influence of rotational restraints
along the plate-stiffener and stiffener web-flange junctions. This is, however, likely to
be pessimistic, a better approximation being possibly to take the panel ultimate strength
as the average of the applicable plate and stiffener web ultimate strengths.
It is idealized that the most highly stressed stiffeners are subjected to combined
xM , yM , and p . The post-weld initial imperfections in the form of initial
deflection and residual stress in the plating around those stiffeners are considered as
parameters of influence.

The Mode IV panel ultimate longitudinal axial strength (denoted by IV
xu ) is first
studied when the panel is subjected to combined xM and p . The ultimate strength
and effective width of the most highly stressed plating between stiffeners in the x
direction, the stress being denoted by Lxu , can in this case be taken as the same values
calculated for combined xM and p following Mode III.
(a) Local buckling strength of longitudinal stiffener web

The local buckling strength of the stiffener web depends significantly on the
torsional rigidities along the plate-stiffener or stiffener web-stiffener flange intersection,
While a detailed description may be found in Paik et al. (1998e) or Paik &
Thayamballi (2003), the elastic buckling strength for the stiffener web considering
rotational restraints between plating and stiffeners and between stiffener web and flange
can be given by (since compression is taken as negative)
W
xE = k wx
2 E t wx
12(1 2 ) h wx
rsx
(3.21)
-104-
where W
xE is the elastic local buckling strength of x -stiffener web and k wx is the
elastic buckling coefficient of x -stiffener web. Expressions for these are given in
Appendix 12, established on the basis of curve fits to the more refined solutions of the
governing differential equation applicable to buckling, when the ultimate effective
width of attached plating is calculated from Eq.3.13b.
Figure 3.12 shows an example presentation of the variation of the elastic buckling
coefficient k wx for angle or T-section stiffener web as a function of three parameters,
namely the aspect ratio of the stiffener web, the torsional rigidity of the plating and the
torsional rigidity of the stiffener flange, where the subscript x representing the x stiffener web has been deleted for generality. Results here are shown in the practical
ranges of parameters applicable to ship stiffened panels.
It is seen that with increase in the torsional rigidities of the stiffener flange and / or
plating, the elastic buckling strength of the stiffener web can increase significantly. On
the other hand, the influence of the aspect ratio on the local buckling strength of the
stiffener web can be ignored for practical purposes.
The dotted lines in Fig.3.12 represent the approximate solutions for the buckling
coefficient, as given by the curve fit expressions of Appendix 12. The approximations
may be compared with the solid lines in the figures which represent the exact results
computed by directly solving the characteristic equation for buckling. It is evident that
the approximate closed form expressions used herein provide reasonably accurate
predictions for the buckling strength of the stiffener web.
A stocky stiffener web may buckle in the elastic-plastic regime. To account for the
effect of plasticity, the Johnson-Ostenfeld formula (Eq.3.1a) based on the yield stress of
the stiffener (i.e., os ) is used, and the collapse strength of x -stiffener web (denoted
by W
xu ), is thus obtained. In usage of Eq.3.1a, the stress sign needs to be converted to
positive for compression as well. When xM is tensile, W
xu = os is used. When x stiffeners do not exist, W
xu must be zero as well.
-105-
6.0
Angle/T-section stiffener
5.5
f =
5.0
GJ f
hw Dw
= 1.0
4.5
4.0
p = 200.0
3.5
kw
= 50.0
3.0
2.5
= 5.0
2.0
= 2.0
= 1.0
= 0.5
= 0.2
= 0.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Exact solution
Approximate formula
0.0
0
10
15
20
a / hw
25
30
35
Fig.3.12. Example variation of elastic buckling coefficients for angle / T section

stiffener web with increase in aspect ratio and torsional rigidity of plating, accounting
for the influence of rotational restraints (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
(b) Panel ultimate strength

The panel ultimate longitudinal axial strength on account of stiffener web buckling
at the most highly stressed x -stiffener, denoted by IV
xu , can then be obtained by the
weighted average of the following two cases, namely (a) ultimate strength of the plating
between stiffeners and (b) ultimate strength of the x -stiffener web.
This approximation can be expressed, as follows
IV
xu =
Lxu bt + W
xu A sx
bt + A sx
(3.22)
where Lxu = solution of Eq.3.12a with regard to xM .
-106-

The Mode IV panel ultimate transverse axial strength (denoted by IV
yu ) is now
considered when the panel is subjected to combined yM and p .
The treatment is in principle quite similar to that above, and so some of the
applicable discussion has been omitted below. In this case, the ultimate strength ( Lyu )
and effective length ( a e ) of the most highly stressed plating between stiffeners in the y
direction can again be taken as the same value calculated for Mode III as previously
described.
(a) Local buckling strength of transverse stiffener web

The elastic and elastic-plastic buckling strength of the y -stiffener web (denoted
by W
yu ) can also be obtained by a method similar to that used for the x -stiffener web.
When the y -stiffener web is subjected to axial tensile loads, it may be assumed that
W
yu equals the yield stress of the stiffener (i.e., os ).
Also, W
yu = 0 when there are
no stiffeners in the y direction.

The ultimate transverse axial strength of the entire panel in account of web
buckling of the most highly stressed y -stiffener (denoted by IV
yu ) is approximated by
the average of the applicable plate and stiffener strengths similarly to before
IV
yu =
Lyu at + W
yu A sy
(3.23)
at + A sy
where Lyu = solution of Eq.3.16a with regard to yM
-107-

The panel ultimate shear strength considering the lateral pressure load effects for
II
III
Mode IV is given by that for Modes II or III, taking IV
u = u = u .
An expression similar to Eqs.3.8 or 3.11 or 3.20 is employed for the Mode IV
ultimate strength interaction relationship for a stiffened panel subjected to combined
xM , yM , and p .
Using the Mode IV ultimate strength components obtained so far, the applicable
expression is as follows:
xM
IV
xu
xM yM
IV
IV
xu yu
yM
+
IV
yu
av
IV
=1
(3.24)

3.6 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode V

The lateral-torsional buckling (also called tripping) of stiffeners is a phenomenon
in which the failure of a stiffened panel occurs subsequent to the stiffener twisting
sideways about the edge of the stiffener web attached to the plating. When the torsional
rigidity of the stiffener is small or the stiffener flange is weak, this phenomenon is more
likely to take place.
Like the stiffener web buckling previously described, tripping can be a relatively
sudden phenomenon resulting in subsequent unloading of the stiffened panel. Once
-108-
tripping occurs, the buckled or collapsed plating is left with little stiffening and thus
overall collapse may follow. In Mode V, the stiffened panel is considered to collapse if
tripping occurs.
If the height of stiffener web increases in comparison to its thickness, the stiffener
web is likely to deform and local buckling can in some cases occur. This type of failure
is included in Mode IV. Hence, for purposes of Mode V, we consider a type of tripping
wherein the cross-section of the stiffener web does not deform locally, consistent with a
similar assumption used in ordinary beam-column theory.
It therefore also follows that the tripping strength of the flat bar type stiffener
equals the local buckling of the stiffener web, and such a case is to be treated as part of
Mode IV and not Mode V.
The ultimate strength of the stiffened panel is then approximated as a weighed
average of the ultimate strengths of the plating and the tripping strength of the stiffener.
The intention behind the averaging proposed is to avoid an overly pessimistic estimate
of the stiffened panel ultimate strength.
Similar to Mode IV, it is idealized that the most highly stressed stiffener being
considered is subjected to combined xM , yM , and p . The post-weld initial
imperfections in the form of initial deflection and residual stress in the plating are
included as parameters of influence. Since the details are similar to the discussion for
Mode IV given above, the treatment below is abbreviated.

The panel ultimate longitudinal axial strength based on Mode V is studied with the
panel is subjected to combined xM and p . The ultimate strength and effective width
of the most highly stressed plating between stiffeners in the x direction can in this
case be taken as the same values calculated for Mode III as previously described.
-109-
(a) Tripping strength of longitudinal stiffener

In a continuous steel stiffened panel, tripping may generally involve a coupling of
sideways and vertical deflection and rotation of the stiffener web together with local
buckling of the attached plating, as shown in Fig.3.13.
Unlike an ordinary beam-column in steel framed structures, the attached plating of
a plate-stiffener combination in steel plated structures is restricted from deflecting
sideways while the stiffener flange is relatively free to deflect sideways and vertically.
For asymmetric section profiles (e.g., angle section), vertical bending, sideways
bending and torsion are typically coupled, while for symmetric section profiles (e.g., tee
section), only sideways bending and torsion are normally coupled. This implies that the
overall flexural Euler buckling and lateral-torsional buckling can sometimes be closely
coupled for plate-stiffener combinations.
vT
B
vT
vT
w
0
(a)
w
y
(b)
(c)
Fig.3.13. General and assumed tripping deformations of a plate-stiffener combination
Many researchers have studied tripping of stiffeners theoretically, numerically and

experimentally. Earlier work that used classical theory of thin-walled bars has been
summarized and expanded by Bleich (1952).
During the 1970s and 1980s, further studies have been undertaken by Faulkner et
al. (1973), Smith (1976), Adamchak (1979) and Faulkner (1975b, 1987), amongst
others. Hughes (1988) has reviewed and summarized some of these studies. During the
-110-
1990s, in addition to the tripping problem under axial compression alone (Danielson et
al. 1990, Danielson 1995, Hu et al. 1997, Paik et al. 1998d), the effect of combined
axial compression and lateral loads has been studied by Ma (1994), Hughes & Ma
(1996a, 1996b) and Hu et al. (2000), among others.
While nonlinear finite element methods can accurately analyze the tripping
behavior in any specific case, it is not straightforward to derive theoretical solutions of
the tripping strength for a plate-stiffener combination considering the general section
deformations sketched in Fig.3.13(a).
For practical design purposes, however, it would be more desirable to use a closed
form expression of the tripping strength which is based on the corresponding analytical
solutions.
Related to this problem, different idealizations of the tripping deformations may be
made instead of considering the most general case of tripping deformations as shown in
Fig.3.13(a), all potentially taking into account the coupling effect between the flexural
column buckling and lateral-torsional buckling. Three possible idealizations are as
follows
Flexible web without plate rotational restraint, see Fig.3.13(b)
Rigid web with finite plate rotational restraint
Rigid web without plate rotational restraint, see Fig.3.13(c)
While the rotational restraints between the stiffener web and the attached plating
may generally play an important role in tripping behavior or local buckling of stiffener
web (the latter being previously discussed in Mode IV), rotational restraint effects from
the plating may be ignored if the plating between stiffeners buckles prior to tripping so
that the contribution of the attached plating to restrict the rotation of the stiffener web at
the plate-web junction is small and thus it may be considered that the stiffener and the
attached plating are pin-joined.
-111-
This assumption will arguably result in a lower bound solution of the tripping
strength since plate rotational restraints will always exist to some extent, while the
effect of buckled plating may approximately be incorporated using an effective plate
width in calculating the restraint properties for the plate-stiffener combination.
A solution using such an approach is said to be usually valid when the ratio of the
stiffener web height to the web thickness itself (i.e., h w / t w ) is smaller than 20 (Hughes
& Ma 1996a). By inclusion of the rotational restraint effect along the plate-stiffener
web junction, the elastic tripping strength will of course increase further (Hu et al.
2000).
To derive a closed form analytical solution of the tripping strength, the rigid web
case without the plate rotational restraints as shown in Fig.3.13(c) is adopted here. As
may be seen later in Fig.14, the results obtained using this idealization are roughly
comparable to those from more refined solution procedures.
The elastic tripping strength of angle or tee type stiffeners under combined axial
compression ( xM ) and uniform lateral pressure line load q = pb (i.e., multiplied by
uniform lateral pressure p and the breadth b of plating between longitudinal
stiffeners) in the x direction can be calculated by applying the principle of the
minimum potential energy.
On this basis we have (Hughes & Ma 1996a) (since compression is taken as
negative)
For asymmetric angle stiffeners,

TxE = (1) min
m =1, 2, 3
C 2 + C 22 4C1C 3
2C1
*rsx
-112-
(3.25a)
For symmetric T-stiffeners,

TxE = (1) min
m =1, 2, 3
a 2 G (J wx + J fx ) + EI fx h 2wx m 2 2 pbS4 x
+
C qx *rsx
I ex I px
I px a 2
(3.25b)
where related constants are given in Appendix 13. *rsx = strength reduction term due
to residual stress which is in illustrative examples of this chapter taken as
( )]
*rsx = rsx / 1 + 2 2 I x / b 3 t
(Danielson 1995). For flat bar stiffeners, the tripping strength
is assumed to be the same to local buckling strength of stiffener web determined for
Mode IV.
The effect of plasticity is then incorporated by using the Johnson-Ostenfeld
formula (Eq.3.1a), resulting in the inelastic tripping strength denoted by Txu . In usage
of Eq.3.1a, the stress sign needs to be converted to positive for compression as well.
When xM is tensile, Txu = os may be used. Also, Txu = 0 is used when the panel
does not have stiffeners in the x direction.
Figure 3.14 shows the effect of the h w / t w ratio on the tripping strength for a
plate-stiffener combination. The two types of idealizations, i.e., one for flexible web as
obtained by Hughes & Ma (1996a) and the other for rigid web as predicted by Eq.3.25,
both without the plate rotational restraints, are considered.
The more refined finite element eigen value solutions are also compared in the
figure. It is seen from Fig.3.14 that the effect of local web buckling on tripping strength
can be ignored when the h w / t w ratio is small, but the rigid web approximation
neglecting the effect of local web buckling results in overestimation of the elastic
tripping strength for a larger h w / t w ratio.
As evident from Fig.3.14, however, the inelastic tripping strength may not be
significantly affected by the local web buckling and hence Eq.3.25 should be useful for
practical purposes of stiffener tripping design as long as the tripping occurs in the
elastic-plastic regime. If not, it follows that the flexible web effects should be
-113-
considered for greater accuracy.
2.4
abt = 1,524203.27.9 (mm)
hw = 138.2 mm
bftf = 76.214.2 (mm)
E = 206.6 GPa, 352.8 MPa
2.2
ET / oeq , uT / oeq
2.0
1.8
Elastic tripping strength
1.6
1.4
: FEM
: Flexible web
: Rigid web
1.2
1.0
0.8
Elastic tripping strength with plasticity correction

0.6
Angle profile
0.4
10
20
hw / tw
30
40
(a)Angle section stiffener with attached effective plating

2.4
abt = 1,524203.27.9 (mm)
hw = 138.2 mm
bftf = 76.214.2 (mm)
E = 206.6 GPa, 352.8 MPa
: FEM
: Flexible web
: Rigid web
2.2
ET / oeq , uT / oeq
2.0
1.8
Elastic tripping strength
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Elastic tripping strength with plasticity correction
0.6
Tee profile
0.4
10
20
hw / tw
30
40
(b) Tee section stiffener with attached effective plating

Fig.3.14. Effect of the h w / t w ratio on the tripping strength of a plate and flangedstiffener combination without considering the plate rotational restraints (Paik &
Thayamballi 2003)
-114-

Applying an argument similar to that used for Mode IV, the ultimate longitudinal
axial strength of the stiffened panel subsequent to tripping (denoted by Vxu ) is
approximated by the weighted average of local collapse strength of plating and stiffener
tripping strength in the x direction, as follows:
Vxu =
Lxu bt + Txu A sx
bt + A sx
(3.26)
where Lxu = solution of Eq.3.12a with regard to xM

When the panel is subjected to combined yM and p , the panel ultimate
transverse axial strength based on Mode V can be obtained in a way similar to that
under xM and p .
In this case, the ultimate strength ( Lyu ) and effective length ( a e ) of the most
highly stressed plating between stiffeners in the y direction can be taken the same as
the value calculated for Mode III as previously described.
(a) Tripping strength of transverse stiffener

Using a method similar to that for the x stiffener, the tripping strength of the
y stiffener (denoted by Tyu ) can be calculated. When yM is tensile, Tyu = os is
used.
Also, Tyu = 0 is used when the panel does not have stiffeners in the y
direction.

The ultimate transverse axial strength of the panel on account of tripping (denoted
-115-
by Vyu ) is approximated by the weighted average of local collapse strength of plating

and stiffener tripping strength in the y direction, as follows
Vyu =
Lyu at + Tyu A sy
(3.27)
at + A sy
where Lyu = solution of Eq.3.16a with regard to yM

The panel ultimate shear strength considering the lateral pressure load effects for
IV
Mode V is given by that for Modes II or III or IV, taking Vu = IIu = III
u = u .
An expression similar to Eqs.3.8 or 3.11 or 3.20 or 3.24 is employed for the Mode
V ultimate strength interaction relationship for a stiffened panel under combined xM ,
yM , and p . Using the Mode V ultimate strength components obtained so far, the
applicable expression is as follows:
xM
V
xu
xM
V
xu
yM
V
yu
where = 0 when both
yM
+
V
yu
xM

+ V
u
=1
(3.28)
and yM are compressive (negative), while = 1 when
either xM , yM or both are tensile (positive).
-116-
3.7 Ultimate Strength Formulation for Collapse Mode VI

In Mode VI, the panel reaches the ultimate strength by gross yielding of the crosssection without either local or overall (grillage) buckling.
The applicable ultimate strength interaction relationship of a cross-stiffened panel
under combined loads is similar to the von Mises yield condition in form as those used
for the other collapse modes, but using the yield strength components instead of
buckling collapse strength components that were used in the other collapse modes. The
result is given by
xM
VI
xu
xM yM
VI
VI
xu yu
yM
+
VI
yu

=1
VI
(3.29)
VI
where VI
xu = ox (+ for xM in tension, - for xM in compression), yu = oy (+
for yM in tension, - for yM in compression) and VI

u = oeq / 3 . = 0 when both
xM and yM are compressive (negative), while = 1 when either xM , yM or
both are tensile (positive).
3.8 Verification Examples and Discussion

To illustrate and also test the validity of the panel ultimate strength formulations
developed, verification examples are now considered. In these examples, the strength
formulations are compared with either nonlinear numerical analyses, solutions from a
more refined semi-analytical method, or structural model test results.
The nonlinear FE solutions used for this purpose address the elastic-plastic large
deflection behavior of stiffened panels as an assembly of both plating and stiffeners
until the ultimate strength is reached. In the FE computations, a sufficiently fine mesh is
-117-
taken for stiffeners as well as plating so that the local buckling or tripping of stiffeners
is automatically considered similar to the structural model tests.
The semi-analytical method used for some of the more refined solutions is in the
text referred to as SPINE which stands for analysis of Stiffened Panels using
INcremental Energy method (Paik et al. 2001d, Paik & Thayamballi 2003). That
method also accounts for the elastic-plastic large deflection behavior of plates and
stiffened panels under combined biaxial compression / tension, biaxial in-plane bending,
edge shear and lateral pressure loads, but either stiffener web buckling or tripping is not
considered.
The FE calculations and model test data used are relevant to specific cases,
sometimes with one of the many applicable parameters systematically varied.
In particular, some of the behavior observed in the refined analyses or test data are
not necessarily indicative of the actual behavior in a structure that is designed to a
complete set of design guidelines, i.e., the analyses and data that we present are usually
for cases that have been selected to specifically validate certain aspects of the methods
developed.
We have documented at length the more important test data used in our
comparisons so that they may be of use to others, but in these cases the original sources
are definitive ones, and should be referred to as well.
3.8.1 Ultimate Strength Characteristics of Longitudinally Stiffened

Panels in Ships
The present method, ALPS/ULSAP (Paik & Thayamballi 2003), is now compared
against experimental and numerical results for the ultimate strength characteristics of
longitudinal stiffened panels, with flat-bar, angle or T-type stiffeners.
-118-
(a) The Tanaka & Endo mechanical collapse tests

Tanaka & Endo (1988) carried out a series of experimental and numerical FE
investigations related to the ultimate compressive strength of longitudinally stiffened
panels having three flat bar stiffeners, which were intended to fail by local web
buckling or tripping of longitudinal stiffeners. Fig.3.15 shows a typical test structure
from the Tanaka & Endo study. To account for the effect of adjacent panels on the
collapse behavior of the central panel, a three bay model with two adjacent (dummy)
stiffened panels on either side of the transverse support frames is employed. The plate
thickness of two adjacent plating and stiffener was 1.2~1.3 times that of the center plate
so that collapse of adjacent panels prior to the collapse of the center panel was
prevented. Tables 3.1 to 3.3 review the geometric / material properties and initial
imperfections for the Tanaka & Endo test structures.
Both ALPS/ULSAP calculations and the Tanaka & Endo FEA were carried out
only for the longitudinally stiffened panel at the center, with all edges presumed to be
simply supported and kept straight. Table 3.4 indicates the comparison results for the
present ultimate strength formulations with the experiments and nonlinear FE solutions
as applicable. Except in one case, the ALPS/ULSAP method predicts that all test
structures will fail by Mode IV or V (initiated by local buckling of plating between
stiffeners) which corresponds well to the intent of the experiments (Note that for flat bar
profiles the ultimate strength following Modes IV or V is considered to be identical).
Fig.3.16 shows the correlations between present method when compared to the
corresponding experimental results and FEA.
For Nos. D1 and D3, the specimens ultimate strengths are nominally greater than
the material yield stress from a coupon test. For No. D4, the panel ultimate strength as
obtained by the experiments is 99% of the yield stress. Aside from yield stress
variability, such observations may also be due to the strain-hardening effect. It is noted
that mean and COV of the Tanaka & Endo FEA against their experiments is 0.978 and
-119-
0.139, respectively. Also, the ALPS/ULSAP method correlated with mean = 0.955 and
COV = 0.114 against the experiments, and mean = 0.981 and COV = 0.062 against the
FEA.
m
Du
P
st
Te
e
an
my
~twx'
~t'
~twx
y
mm
Du
a
~t
~twx'
~t'
Longitudinals
t' = 1.2~1.3t
twx' = 1.2~1.3t
b
b
Transverse Frames
Fig.3.15. The Tanaka & Endo test structure for longitudinally stiffened panels under
uniaxial compression, incorporating two dummy panels away from the transverse
frames
1.1
1.0
( xu /oeq )ALPS / ULSAP
0.9
: with Experiment
(Mean: 0.955, COV=0.114)
: with FEA
(Mean: 0.981, COV=0.062)
D0A D0
D4
D4A
0.8
D1
D1
D4
D3
D2
0.7
D2
D4A
D11
0.6
D12
0.5
D10
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
( xu /oeq ) Experiment or FEA
Fig.3.16. Correlation of ALPS/ULSAP predictions with experiments and FEA from

Tanaka & Endo
-120-
Table 3.1 Mean values of geometric and material properties for the Tanaka & Endo test
structures
Structure
No.
D0
D0A
D1
D2
D3
D4
D4A
D10
D11
D12
a
(mm)
1,080
B
(mm)
1,440
1,440
1,200
1,560
1,440
1,440
1,440
1,200
1,200
1,440
t
(mm)
6.15
5.65
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.65
4.38
4.38
4.38
n sx
h wx
(mm)
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
103.5
118.5
118.5
65
90
65
t wx
(mm)
9.77
10.15
10.19
10.19
11.84
7.98
8.08
4.38
4.38
4.38
op
(MPa)
234.2
249.9
253.8
253.8
253.8
253.8
249.9
442.0
442.0
442.0
os
(MPa)
287.1
196.0
250.9
250.9
326.3
284.2
274.4
442.0
442.0
442.0
Notes: = 0.3 , E = 205.8 GPa
Table 3.2 Geometric characteristics of the Tanaka & Endo test structures
Structure
No.
D0
D0A
D1
D2
D3
D4
D4A
D10
D11
D12
b
t
58.54
63.72
50.42
65.55
60.50
60.50
63.72
68.49
68.49
82.19
1.97
2.22
1.77
2.30
2.12
2.12
2.22
3.17
3.17
3.81
a
k
33.0
32.2
31.3
33.0
33.8
31.4
31.0
69.7
46.1
74.3
-121-
0.39
0.32
0.35
0.37
0.43
0.37
0.36
1.03
0.68
1.10
A sx
bt
0.49
0.55
0.63
0.48
0.57
0.44
0.47
0.22
0.30
0.18
oeq
(MPa)
248.3
234.2
252.9
253.0
275.6
261.4
256.3
442.0
442.0
442.0
Table 3.3 Initial imperfections for plating and longitudinals in the Tanaka & Endo test
structures
w osy
rcy
rsy
A o3
w osx
rcx
rsx
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
0.101
20.58
0.250
0.143
25.97
0.288
18.62
0.312
23.03
0.119
34.00
0.379
0.515
37.24
0.503
24.99
0.523
37.73
Notes: A o 3 = buckling mode initial deflection for half-wave number m = 3 , and
Structure
No.
D0
D0A
D1
D2
D3
D4
D4A
D10
D11
D12
the items marked by hyphen were neither measured nor reported.
Table 3.4 Comparison of the ALPS/ULSAP with the Tanaka & Endo experiment and
FEA
Tanaka & Endo
Structure
No.
xu
oeq
Exp.
Mode
xu
oeq
FEA
( xu )FEM
( xu )Exp.
D0
0.931
IV/V
0.910
0.977
D0A
D1
D2
0.843
1.095
0.900
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
0.867
0.952
0.842
1.028
0.869
0.936
D3
1.032
IV/V
0.888
0.860
D4
D4A
D10
D11
D12
0.990
0.875
0.547
0.527
0.510
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
0.784
0.758
0.631
0.618
0.571
Mean
COV
0.792
0.866
1.154
1.173
1.120
0.978
0.139
ALPS/ULSAP
xu
oeq
ULSAP
0.884
(0.917)
0.841
0.955
0.800
0.811
(0.870)
0.834
0.839
0.587
0.592
0.540
Mean
COV
( xu )ULSAP ( xu )ULSAP
( xu )Exp. ( xu )FEA
0.950
(0.985)
0.998
0.872
0.889
0.786
(0.843)
0.842
0.959
1.073
1.123
1.059
0.955
0.114
0.971
(1.008)
0.970
1.003
0.950
0.913
(0.980)
1.064
1.107
0.930
0.958
0.946
0.981
0.062
Mode
II
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
II
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
Notes: Mode IV/V indicates local buckling of stiffener web or tripping of stiffener,
being identical because of flat bar profiles. The values of ( ) are given for comparisons
when the ALPS/ULSAP method predicted a collapse mode different from the
experiment.
-122-
(b) Effect of stiffener geometry

To investigate whether the present method correctly predicts the likely effect of
stiffener geometry on panel ultimate strength, nonlinear FE analyses using the computer
program ANSYS were carried out for longitudinally stiffened panels (with three T type
stiffeners) under longitudinal axial compression and combined longitudinal axial
compression and lateral pressure loads, varying the stiffener web height. The
ALPS/ULSAP and PULS predictions are then compared with nonlinear FE solutions.
PULS, Panel Ultimate Limit State, which is DNVs computerized new buckling code
for thin-walled stiffened plate structures (DnV 2003).
The dimensions and material properties of plating in the stiffened panels were
selected to be typical of the outer bottom (or inner) plating between bottom longitudinal
girders and transverse floors (frames) in capesize bulk carrier bottom structures, see
Fig.3.17. The geometric and material properties and initial imperfections are as follows:
Geometric properties:
a B t = 2640 3600 21 mm
b fx t fx = 100 15 mm
t wx = 12 mm
h wx : varied in the present study
Material properties:
op = yield stress of plate = 352.8 MPa
os =yield stress of stiffeners = 352.8MPa
E = Youngs modulus = 205.8GPa

= Poissons ratio = 0.3
Elastic-perfectly plastic material without strain-hardening effect
-123-
Initial deflections:
w opl = b / 200 =4.5mm, w osx = a / 1000 =2.64mm, w *osx = w osx
w *osx = maximum initial sideways deformation of longitudinal stiffeners
Welding residual stresses:

No residual stresses are considered.
Along the transverse frames as well as bottom longitudinal girders, simply
supported condition is assumed. Uniform axial compressive displacements are applied.
The multi-bay modeling technique is beneficial to automatically take into account the
longitudinal rotation effect of the longitudinal stiffeners at the transverse frames, since
one panel deflects down while the adjacent panels buckle up in the continuous plate
structure supported by heavy transverse frames. In contrast, the one bay model is a
simpler modeling but the rotation of the longitudinal stiffeners is restrained since the
stiffener cross-section remains upright at the transverse frames. If uniform axial
compressive loads instead of displacements are applied, it is difficult to consider the
rotation of the longitudinal stiffeners. Therefore the multi-bay modeling is of course
more refined and appropriate than one bay model in terms of the accuracy.
Figure 3.17 shows the 1/2+1+1/2 bay modeling range used in the FE computations.
Figure 3.18 shows the boundary conditions. A 0 on T[x,y,z] denote translation
constrains and on R[x,y,z] denote rotational constrains.
The long edges: Simply supported (T[,,0],R[,0,0]) and edge having equal ydisplacement.
The loads are applied as line pressure (same as concentrated nodal forces).
The short edges: Symmetric (R[,0,0]) and all the plate nodes and stiffener nodes
having equal x-displacement.
The transverse frame intersections: Plate nodes T[,,0], Stiffener web nodes T[,0,].
-124-
The node in center T[0,,] to prevent rigid body motion.

Figure 3.19 shows FE meshes generated using the rectangular 4-node shell
element. 2440 elements per each plate between longitudinals and transverse frames,
8160 elements per each web between transverse frames and 6160 elements per each
flange between transverse frames are generated.
Figure 3.20 shows the initial deflection pattern used in the FE computations.
Overall buckling mode shape and local buckling mode shape is superposed. The overall
buckling mode shape has a downward half wave deflection in full bay so that the
stiffener induced failure should occur. The amplitude of each one mentioned above.
Chen (2003) investigated ultimate strength of stiffened panels under longitudinal
compression using ABAQUS. He suggested a symmetric 1-1/2 bay model for the
inelastic analyses. He also calculated the target stiffened panels to compare and verify
FE result. And his supervisor, Professor Owen Hughes gave me comments and advice. I
really appreciate their efforts and passions.
Figures 3.21 shows the comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS,
ABAQUS, ALPS/ULSAP and PULS. Lateral pressure was applied in the z direction
so that the stiffener induced failure should occur. Figure 3.21(a) and (c) shows the
variation of the ultimate strength of target panel under longitudinal axial compression
and combined longitudinal axial compression and lateral pressure loads, as a function of
the ratio of stiffener web height to web thickness. It is evident from Fig.3.21(a) and (c)
that as the height of stiffener web increases, the panel ultimate strength increases. When
the stiffeners are relatively small, the stiffeners buckle together with the plating
showing Mode I failure. When the stiffeners become stiff, the plating between stiffeners
buckles while the stiffeners remain straight, and the ultimate strength is eventually
reached by the column type collapse involving Mode III. If the height of stiffener web
exceeds a critical value, however, the ultimate strength tends to flatten out. This is
-125-
because the stiffener web buckles locally or twists sideways when the height of stiffener
web is large. The Perry-Robertson formula predictions by the condition of stiffener
induced failure are too pessimistic When relative large lateral pressure loads are applied.
In this cases, The Perry-Robertson formula predictions by the condition of plate
induced failure are reasonable. This is because the existing relative large lateral
pressure loads lead the stiifened panel under combined longitudinal axial compression
and lateral pressure loads to plate induced failure. Figure 3.21(b) and (d) shows the
variation of the ultimate strength of target panel under combined longitudinal axial
compression and lateral pressure loads, as a function of the lateral pressure loads (Water
head). Form the Fig.3.21, the developed design methodology well match with FEA
results.
Transverse floors
Longitudinals
+1+ bayANSYS model
Fig.3.17. Extent taken for the ANSYS analysis with 1/2+1+1/2 bay model
-126-
+ 1 + bay model
3a
3
3b
3
1
y
2
x
Boundary conditions
The long edges: Simply supported (T[,,0],R[,0,0]) and edge having equal y-displacement
The loads are applied as line pressure (same as concentrated nodal forces)
The short edges: Symmetric (R[,0,0]) and all the plate nodes and stiffener nodes
having equal x-displacement
The trans. frame intersections: Plate nodes T[,,0], Stiffener web nodes T[,0,]
Location 1 : The node in center T[0,,] to prevent rigid body motion
Fig.3.18. Boundary conditions adopted for the ANSYS analysis
Y
Z
Fig.3.19. ANSYS FE meshes together with boundary conditions
-127-
2 - 2 Section
4x
w opl sin
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
x
w osx sin
-3
-4
-5
x
4x
w opl sin
B
B
w osx sin
-6
: node
-7
0
900
1800
2700
3600
y
Fig.3.20(a). Node location in 2-2 section as defined in Fig.3.18
3 - 3 Section at 3a
3
2
1
x
w osx cos
-1
-2
: node
-3
0
1320
3 - 3 Section at 3b
1803
2640
3960
5280
3x
1800 w ost cos
1802
1801
1800
1799
1798
: node
1797
0
1320
2640
3960
5280
Fig.3.20(b). Node location in 3-3 section as defined in Fig.3.18
-128-
6.25
11.25
(h / twx)PULS
16.25
21.25
26.25
31.25
36.25
1.0
Plate-induced failure
by the Perry-Robertson formula
Water head = 0 m
xu / eq
0.8
0.6
Water head = 20 m
: ALPS/ULSAP
: PULS (Ver.1.5-1)
: ANSYS with water head = 0m(1/2+1+1/2 bay)
: ABAQUS with water head = 0m (1+1/2 bay)
0.4
aBt = 2,6403,60021 mm
bfxtfx = 10015 mm, twx = 12 mm
h = hwx+tfx (in PULS)
nsx= 3, T type stiffener
wosx = 2.64 mm, wopl = 4.5 mm
op = os = 352.8 MPa
0.2
Stiffener-induced failure
by the Perry-Robertson formula
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
(hwx / twx)ULSAP
Fig.3.21(a). Comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS, ABAQUS,

ALPS/ULSAP and PULS for the panel with PULS default settings of initial deflections,
i.e., w osx =a/1000 = w *osx , w opl =b/200 (t=21mm)
1.0
: ALPS/ULSAP
: PULS (Ver.1.5-1)
hwx=252mm
0.8
xu / oeq
hwx=162mm
0.6
ANSYS
: hwx=102mm (h=117mm)
: hwx=162mm (h=177mm)
: hwx=252mm (h=267mm)
0.4
hwx=102mm
aBt = 2,6403,600 21 mm
bfx tfx = 10015 mm, twx = 12 mm
op = os = 352.8 MPa
0.2
0.0
0
10
Water head (m)
15
20
Fig.3.21(b). Comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS, ALPS/ULSAP

-129-
6.25
1.0
11.25
(h / twx)PULS
16.25
21.25
26.25
: ALPS/ULSAP
: PULS (Ver.1.5-1)
31.25
36.25
Water head = 0 m
xu / oeq
0.8
0.6
Water head = 20 m
0.4
aBt = 2,6403,60015 mm
bfxtfx = 10015 mm, twx = 12 mm
op = os = 352.8 MPa
0.2
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
(hwx / twx)ULSAP
Fig.3.21(c). Comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS, ALPS/ULSAP

1.0
: ALPS/ULSAP
: PULS (Ver.1.5-1)
xu / oeq
0.8
hwx=255mm
0.6
ANSYS
: hwx=105mm (h=120mm)
: hwx=165mm (h=180mm)
: hwx=255mm (h=270mm)
0.4
hwx=165mm
hwx=105mm
aBt = 2,6403,600 15 mm
bfx tfx = 10015 mm, twx = 12 mm
op = os = 352.8 MPa
0.2
0.0
0
10
Water head (m)
15
20
Fig.3.21(d). Comparisons of the ultimate strengths between ANSYS, ALPS/ULSAP

-130-
3.8.2 Ultimate Strength Characteristics of Ship Grillages Comparisons

with the Smith Tests
The performance of the ALPS/ULSAP method as applied to cross-stiffened panels
(grillages) is now studied using test data and related numerical results pertaining to an
extensive series of mechanical tests performed and reported by Smith (1976).
The test grillages were stiffened with flat-bar, angle or T-type stiffeners in both
longitudinal and transverse directions. Such cross-stiffened panels are particularly
relevant to the design of naval vessels, small crafts and the higher speed vessels.
In this section, we record the Smith test data for the sake of completeness. In some
cases what is given here regarding the Smith data are our interpretations of material
presented by Smith from more than one source. The interested reader is thus cautioned
to rely on Smiths original publications as the definitive ones.
(a) The Smith mechanical collapse testing

Smith (1976) carried out a series of collapse tests using a total of eleven full scale
welded steel grillages representing typical warship deck structures under axial
compression, or bottom structures under combined axial compression and lateral
pressure.
The test structures include four pairs of nominally identical grillages (Nos. 1a, 1b,
2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b) representing a ship bottom configuration, together with two
grillages (Nos.5, 7) representing frigate strength decks and one grillage (No.6)
corresponding a light superstructure deck. The typical grillage model that Smith tested
is as that previously shown in Fig.3.1.
Smith et al. (1992) later computed the ultimate strengths of the Smith test grillages
using nonlinear finite element method as well where they used the so-called two span
beam-column model as representative of the grillages.
The overall dimensions of each grillage were L = 6096 mm long by B = 3048 mm
-131-
wide, excluding the panel ends which are bolted to the test frames along the edges.
Except for Nos. 4a and 4b which have both large girders and small stiffeners in the
longitudinal direction, all test grillages have identical T-type longitudinal stiffeners and
identical T-type transverse frames.
Table 3.5 indicates the geometric properties of longitudinals and transverses and
the material yield stresses for the plating and stiffeners, where Nos. 4a and 4b are
represented by the longitudinally stiffened panel between two adjacent longitudinal
girders and two adjacent transverse frames. Table 3.6 presents the important ultimate
strength related geometric characteristics for each grillage.
The initial deflections of plating, longitudinals or transverses were measured in
these tests. There was reportedly a high degree of variability associated with the plate
initial deflection measurements, with the COVs of w opl and w osx in the range of
0.22~0.63 and 0.29~1.04, respectively.
Specifically, it is reportedly observed that plating and stiffener imperfections for
model No.3b were abnormally large, with an unfavourable relative stiffener distortion
as well. Also, No.6 representing a light superstructure deck had a serious level of
initial imperfections which would be untypical in a real structure.
The welding induced residual stresses of plating were also measured for selected
grillages. The corresponding COV of rcx was in the range of 0.12~0.52. The residual
stresses of longitudinals or transverses were neither measured nor reported.
Table 3.7 summarizes the initial imperfections of plating and stiffeners for each
grillage, on the basis of the measurements and insights provided in Smith (1976) and
Smith et al. (1992). Based on the measured initial deflection patterns of plating.
It is noted that in the FEA of Smith et al. (1992), two types of computations were
tried with different levels of initial deflections, namely FEA-1 with average initial
imperfections and FEA-2 with actual initial imperfections.
Table 3.8 compares the present design procedure predictions from ALPS/ULSAP
-132-
with the Smith mechanical test results. In the ALPS/ULSAP ultimate strength
calculations of individual test grillages with initial imperfections indicated in Table 3.7,
an entire grillage was considered, i.e., including transverse frames as well as
longitudinals, except for test Nos. 4a and 4b.
Figure 3.22 shows the correlation of the theoretical solutions and experimental
results. The collapse modes predicted by the ALPS/ULSAP and the experiments are
also indicated in Table 3.8. Collapse of most test models is predicted to involve the
lateral-torsional buckling of longitudinals (Mode V) as was observed in the experiments.
The ALPS/ULSAP predicts the panel collapse modes reasonably well. The
ALPS/ULSAP compares fairly well with the more refined data of the ultimate strengths
in most cases.
1.0
: With experiment
(Mean=0.866, COV=0.142)
: With FEA-1
(Mean=0.977, COV=0.092)
: With FEA-2
(Mean=0.982, COV=0.065)
0.9
( xu /oeq )ALPS / ULSAP
0.8
2a
4a
1a
0.7
0.6
3b
3a
1b
5
0.5
0.4
2b
4b
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
( xu /oeq )Experiment, FEA-1 or FEA-2
0.9
1.0
Fig.3.22. Correlation of the ALPS/ULSAP method with the experimental data and FE
solutions for the Smith test grillages
-133-
Table 3.5 Mean values of geometric properties and material yield stresses for the Smith
test grillages
Grillage
L
No.
(mm)
1a
6096
1b
6096
2a
6096
2b
6096
3a
6096
3b
6096
4a
1219.2
4b
1219.2
5
6096
6
6096
7
6096
(mm)
3048.0
3048.0
3048.0
3048.0
3048.0
3048.0
1016.0
1016.0
3048.0
3048.0
3048.0
(mm)
8.00
7.87
7.72
7.37
6.38
6.40
6.43
6.40
6.43
6.32
6.30
n sx
4
4
9
9
9
9
3
3
4
4
4
hwx
t wx
b fx
t fx
(mm)
153.67
152.40
115.57
114.30
77.72
77.22
76.71
76.96
116.08
76.20
115.06
(mm)
7.21
7.11
5.44
5.38
4.52
4.65
4.85
4.55
5.33
4.55
5.16
(mm)
78.99
76.20
45.97
44.70
25.91
27.94
27.69
26.16
46.23
27.43
45.21
(mm)
14.22
14.22
9.53
9.53
6.35
6.35
6.35
6.35
9.53
6.35
9.53
n sy
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
hwy
t wy
b fy
t fy
op
os
oeq
(mm)
257.56
254.00
204.98
203.71
156.21
153.92
154.18
114.55
153.92
(mm)
9.37
9.14
8.31
8.33
6.81
6.88
6.76
5.36
6.65
(mm)
125.48
127.00
102.62
102.62
78.99
79.25
77.22
46.23
78.74
(mm)
18.29
18.29
16.26
16.26
14.22
14.22
14.22
9.53
14.22
(MPa)
249.1
252.2
261.3
259.7
250.6
252.2
259.7
264.3
247.6
256.7
290.1
(MPa)
253.7
252.4
268.9
274.9
227.9
223.3
223.9
227.9
230.9
241.5
305.3
(MPa)
250.4
252.3
263.1
263.3
246.8
247.3
252.5
257.3
244.9
255.2
303.3
Notes: Grillage Nos. 4a and 4b represent longitudinally stiffened panels between

two adjacent longitudinal girders and two adjacent transverse frames, = 0.3 ,
E = 205.8 GPa
Table 3.6 Other Geometric characteristics of the Smith test grillages

Grillage
No.
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5
6
7
b
t
a
k
Asx
bt
76.2
77.4
39.5
41.4
47.8
47.6
39.5
39.7
94.9
96.4
96.8
2.67
2.72
1.42
1.48
1.68
1.68
1.41
1.43
3.31
3.42
3.65
21
21
36.5
36
66
66
50
50
42
68
42
0.24
0.23
0.42
0.42
0.70
0.70
0.54
0.53
0.45
0.75
0.52
0.42
0.43
0.40
0.42
0.24
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.24
0.12
0.24
-134-
Table 3.7 Initial imperfections of plating, longitudinals and transverses for the Smith
test grillages
Grillage
No.
wopl
wosx
a
wosy
wosx
rcx
op
rcx
rsx
os
rsy
rsx
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5
6
7
0.0060
0.0077
0.0044
0.0060
0.0093
0.0150
0.0081
0.0063
0.0100
0.0125
0.0094
0.0007
0.0011
0.0025
0.0010
0.0028
0.0019
0.0023
0.0008
0.0008
0.0020
0.0007
0.7
0.2
-0.8
0.5
0.5
-0.4
0.4
-
0.48
0.33
0.38
0.43
0.38
0.41
0.16
0.31
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
rcy
Notes: Source Smith (1976) and Table 3 of Smith et al. (1992)
Table 3.8(a) Comparison of the Smith FEA with the experiment for ultimate strength of
grillages
Grillage
No.
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5
6
7
(MPa)
0
0.103
(15 psi)
0.048
(7 psi)
0
0.021
(3 psi)
0
0
0.055
(8 psi)
0
0
0
xu
oeq
Exp.
xu
oeq
FEA1
xu
oeq
FEA 2
( xu )FEA1
( xu )Exp.
( xu )FEA2
( xu )Exp.
0.76
0.65
0.69
0.855
0.908
0.73
0.57
0.57
0.781
0.781
0.91
0.81
0.81
0.890
0.890
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.988
0.988
0.69
0.69
0.63
1.000
0.913
0.61
0.82
0.71
0.80
0.60
0.75
1.164
0.976
0.984
0.915
0.83
0.73
0.76
0.880
0.916
0.72
0.49
0.65
0.51
0.49
0.55
0.53
Mean
COV
0.708
0.754
0.900
0.152
0.764
0.815
0.887
0.087
Notes: FEA-1 = with average imperfections, FEA-2 = with actual imperfections
-135-
Table 3.8(b) Comparison of ALPS/ULSAP with the Smith experiments and FEA for
ultimate strength of grillages
p
Grillage
No.
(MPa)
1a
1b
0.103
2a
0.048
2b
3a
0.021
3b
4a
4b
5
6
7
0.055
0
0
0
xu
oeq
ULSAP
0.71
0.51
(0.58)
0.79
(0.89)
0.86
0.60
(0.68)
0.62
0.74
(0.80)
0.81
0.48
0.38
0.51
Mean
COV
( xu )ULSAP
( xu )Exp.
( xu )ULSAP
( xu )FEA1
( xu )ULSAP
( xu )FEA2
0.934
0.699
(0.795)
0.868
(0.978)
1.036
0.870
(0.986)
1.016
0.902
(0.976)
0.976
0.667
0.776
0.785
0.866
0.142
1.092
0.895
(1.018)
0.975
(1.099)
1.049
0.870
(0.986)
0.873
0.925
(1.000)
1.110
0.941
1.041
0.977
0.092
1.029
0.895
(1.018)
0.975
(1.099)
1.049
0.952
(1.079)
1.033
0.987
(1.067)
1.066
0.873
0.962
0.982
0.065
Collapse
Modes
Exp. ULSAP
V
IV
I
V
IV
I
III+V
V
III+V
V
III
III+V
V
III+V
V
III
III+V
V
III+V
V
III+V
V
I+V
V
III+V
V
Notes: I+V or III+V indicate that the grillage collapsed in Mode I or III together
with Mode V. The values of ( ) are given for comparisons when the ALPS/ULSAP
method predicted a collapse mode different from the experiment.
-136-
4. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Hulls

Transactions (Paik et al. 2002a), which dealt with ultimate strength design
methodologies for hull girders of merchant ships, where the author was involved as a
coauthor of the paper. In this regard, the author is pleased to acknowledge that the rest
of the paper authors allowed him to reprint the results here.
The progressive collapse characteristics of a total of 10 typical merchant ships
under vertical moment are investigated with ALPS/HULL (Paik & Thayamballi 2003).
Through the insight of the progressive collapse characteristics, closed-form ultimate
strength formulations for the ultimate strength of ships are presented. Finally, the
ultimate strength design format for ships is addressed.
To verify the closed-form ultimate strength formulations, ALPS/HULL progressive
collapse analyses and the design formula solutions for a total of 10 typical merchant
ships and the 30 real existing vessels (9 double hull tankers, 12 bulk carriers and 9
container vessels) under vertical moment are compared. The section modulus based
safety measure and the ultimate strength based safety measure for all (40) target vessels
are also compared (Paik et al. 2003).
4.1 Efficient and Accurate Methodology for the Progressive Collapse

Analysis of Ships
The approaches for the progressive collapse analysis of ships hull structures may
be classified into two groups, namely
Conventional nonlinear finite element method
Simplified (special purpose) nonlinear finite element method
The conventional nonlinear finite element method can of course be used to analyze
-137-
the detailed nonlinear response of ship structures which may involve both geometric
and material nonlinearities until and after the overall hull girder collapse is reached.
While the application of the conventional nonlinear finite element method to the
progressive collapse analysis of ships hulls is not impossible, it is usually impractical
because of the huge amount of computational cost involved, specifically when a series
of the analyses varying design variables are required.
An alternative to nonlinear finite element analyses is to reduce the number of
degrees of freedom. Modelling the object structure with very large sized structural units
is perhaps the best way to do that. Properly formulated structural units in such an
approach can then be used to efficiently model the actual nonlinear behaviour of large
structural units. Ueda & Rashed (1974, 1984), who suggested this idea, called it the
idealized structural unit method (ISUM) when they attempted to analyze the ultimate
strength of a ship transverse framed structure using the so-called deep girder unit.
Several different types of ISUM units such as the beam-column unit (also called platestiffener combination unit), the rectangular plate unit and the stiffened panel unit have
so far been developed.
In almost a parallel development to ISUM, Smith (1977) suggested a similar
approach to ISUM. In the Smith approach, a ships hull is modelled as an assembly of
only plate-stiffener combination units for each of which the load versus end
deformation characteristics need to be first obtained using nonlinear finite element
analyses. The Smith approach is also a type of the ISUM in this regard.
The idealized structural unit method (ISUM) has been recognized as an efficient
and accurate methodology for the progressive collapse analysis of steel plated structures
such as ships, offshore platforms and box-girder bridges (Paik & Thayamballi 2003).
Steel plated structures are typically composed of several different types of structural
members such as support members (or beam-columns), rectangular plates and stiffened
panels. In ISUM modeling, such members are regarded as the ISUM units, as shown in
-138-
Fig.4.1. It is important to realize that an identical structure may be modeled in

somewhat different ways by different analysts, but it is of course always the aim to
model so that the idealized structure behaves in (nearly) the same way as the actual
structure.
(a) A typical steel plated structure
(b) Structural idealization as an assembly

of plate-stiffener combination units
(c) Structural idealization as an assembly (d) Structural idealization as an assembly

of plate-stiffener separation units
of stiffened panels
Fig.4.1. Various types of idealizations for a steel plated structure
The ISUM beam-column unit has two nodal points, as shown in Fig.4.2, i.e., one at
the left end and the other at the right end. Each node is located where the beam is
connected to another member. The nonlinear behavior of the beam-column unit is
-139-
expressed by three translational degrees of freedom at each nodal point. A rectangular

(unstiffened) plate can be modeled as one rectangular plate unit as shown in Fig.4.3,
while a stiffened panel can be modeled as one stiffened panel unit, as shown in Fig.4.4.
The behavior of the rectangular plate or stiffened panel unit is formulated in terms of
three degrees of freedom at each of the corner nodal points. A larger supporting member
such as a deep girder, in which local web buckling can occur, may be modeled as an
assembly of the panel unit and the beam-column unit, where the web is modeled as one
plate (or panel) unit and the flange is modeled as one beam-column unit.
Depending
on the purpose of analysis, one may use different types of the ISUM units, i.e., with
different nonlinear behavior characteristics. For ultimate strength analysis, the ISUM
units will need to take into account buckling and yielding as shown in Fig.4.5.
z
L
bf
~f
hw
tw
u 2, Rx2
u1, Rx1
v 1, Ry1
w2, Rz2
v2, Ry2
w1, Rz1
Fig.4.2(a). The ISUM beam-column unit with attached plating ( : nodal points)
z
L
y
bf
~f
hw
u1, Rx1
tw
u 2, Rx2
x
v 1, Ry1
w2, Rz2
v2, Ry2
w1, Rz1
Fig.4.2(b). The ISUM beam-column unit without attached plating ( : nodal points)
-140-
y
w3, R z3
v2, R y2
v3, R y3
u2, R x2
u3, R x3
w2, Rz2
b
w4, R z4
~t
1
u1, R x1
4
u4, R x4
w1, Rz1
v4, R y4
v1, R y1
Fig.4.3. The ISUM rectangular plate unit ( : nodal points) (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
bfy
tfy
hwy
twy
y
w3, Rz3
v2, Ry2
v3, Ry3
u3, Rx3
u2, Rx2
w2, Rz2
twx
b
B
a
u1, Rx1
w1, Rz1
tfx
~t
4
u4, Rx4
v1, Ry1
bfx
w4, Rz4
hwx
v4, Ry4
Fig.4.4. The ISUM stiffened panel unit ( : nodal points) (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
-141-
Y = Yield strength
cr = Buckling strength
u = Ultimate strength
Tension
Compression
Imperfect
Perfect
cr
u
u
Y
Fig.4.5. Idealized stress-strain behavior of the ISUM plate or stiffened panel unit for the
ultimate strength analysis (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
For ultimate strength analysis of ship structures under extreme hull girder loads,
the structural model used can cover the extent of a cargo hold, or more approximately a
hull section between two adjacent transverse frames. Rectangular plate or stiffened
panel units are employed for the purpose of modeling side girders, transverse webs, and
inner / outer shell plating of the structure. The ISUM theory was automated within
ALPS/HULL program (Paik & Thayamballi 2003) which stands for nonlinear Analysis
of Large Plated Structures using the Idealized Structural Unit Method. The validity of
ALPS/HULL was checked by comparing the computed results with the experimental
results such as those obtained using large scale ship hull models.
Figure 4.6 shows a selected ALPS/HULL comparison result 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 in this case extends between web frames. While it
would be more relevant to take the hull module between transverse bulkheads as the
extent of the analysis, the present simpler model between web frames may also be
-142-
appropriate as long as the transverse frames are strong enough so that they would not
fail prior to the longitudinal members.
Figure 4.6(c) shows the progressive collapse behavior of the Dow test structure
under sagging or hogging moment, as obtained by ALPS/HULL. The Dow test result
for sagging is also plotted. In the ALPS/HULL computations, the magnitude of initial
imperfections is varied. Fig.4.6(c) also plots the results of Yao et al. (2000) as obtained
using the so-called Smith method which models the structure as an assembly of only the
plate-stiffener combinations. It is seen from Fig.4.6(c) that ALPS/HULL provides quite
accurate results when compared with the experiment. Of interest, the computing time
used was 2 minutes for the ALPS/HULL analysis using a Pentium III personal computer.
L = 18.0 m
B = 4.2 m
D = 2.8 m
Fig.4.6(a). Mid-ship section of the Dow frigate test ship
Fig.4.6(b). ALPS/HULL model for the Dow frigate test hull
-143-
15
: Experiment (Dow 1991)
: HULLST (Yao et al. 2000)
with initial imperfections
at an average level
Vertical moment (MNm)
10
3
2
5
4
0
5
-5
ALPS/ISUM:
-10
: w opl
: w opl
: w opl
: w opl
5 : w opl
6 : w opl
1
2
3
4
= 0.025 2 t , rcx / Y = 0.0

= 0.025 2 t , rcx / Y = 0.05 (Slight )
= 0.1 2 t, rcx / Y = 0.0
= 0.1 2 t, rcx / Y = 0.15 (Average)
= 0.3 2 t , rcx / Y = 0.0
= 0.3 2 t , rcx / Y = 0.3 (Severe)
-15
-4
-3
-2
-1
Curvature 10-7 (1/mm)
Fig.4.6(c). Comparison of ALPS/HULL with the Dow test results, varying the level of
initial imperfections
As another example, a 105,000 DWT double hull tanker hull with one centerlongitudinal bulkhead is now considered to see the influence of structural idealization
techniques on the progressive collapse behavior under vertical bending. Based on the
structural idealization techniques noted above, six types of ALPS/HULL modeling
methods are considered as shown in Fig.4.7. As the extent of the analysis, the first five
models (i.e., Models I to V) take a single hull segment between two adjacent transverse
frames or floors, while Model VI takes one cargo hold between two transverse
bulkheads. Mode I models the structure by only the plate-stiffener combination
elements (beam-column units). In Model II, the entire structure is idealized by the platestiffener separation elements. While deck and bottom stiffened panels in Models III and
IV are modeled by the stiffened panel units, Model III idealizes all vertical members
using the plate-stiffener separation elements, and Model IV models the centerlongitudinal bulkhead using the plate-stiffener separation elements. In Models V and VI,
all members are modeled by the stiffened panel units. It is supposed that individual
ALPS/HULL units have a slight level of initial imperfections in the form of initial
-144-
deflection and residual stresses; buckling mode initial deflection of plating = 5% of the
plate thickness, residual stress = 5% of the yield stress, column type initial deflection of
stiffeners (plate-stiffener combinations) = 0.15% of the member length.
Fig.4.7(a). ALPS/HULL model I
Fig.4.7(b). ALPS/HULL model II
Fig.4.7(c). ALPS/HULL model III
Fig.4.7(d). ALPS/HULL model IV
-145-
e
ers
sv
an
r
T
Fig.4.7(e). ALPS/HULL model V
Fig.4.7(f). ALPS/HULL model VI
10
4
1
Vertical moment103 (MNm)
s
ad
he
k
l
bu
Hog
0
Sag
1
-5
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
5
2 4
-10
-3
-2
-1
: Model I
: Model II
: Model III
: Model IV
: Model V
: Model VI
2
Curvature10-7 (1/mm)
Fig.4.8. Progressive collapse behavior of a 105,000 DWT double hull tanker hull with
one center-longitudinal bulkhead under vertical bending moment, as obtained by the six
types of modeling methods
Figure 4.8 compares the progressive collapse behavior of the ship hull under
vertical bending moment, as obtained by the six models. It is observed that the results
obtained from the various types of structural modeling considered are similar except
Model I in sagging. In this regard, the simpler model extending between two adjacent
-146-
transverse web frames may usually be appropriate for the progressive collapse analysis
of ships hulls. The ultimate strength results obtained by Model I in sagging tend to be
pessimistic compared with those of the other modeling methods. This may be due to the
fact that the plate-stiffener combination models are not very relevant to represent the
collapse behavior of deck panels in compression, while they may be appropriate to
heavier bottom structures. It is apparent that Model II more accurately represents the
vertical bending stress distribution at vertical members or horizontal bending stress
distribution at horizontal members (i.e., deck or bottom panels).
It should however be noted that the above statement may generally not be true for
transversely framed hulls, including transversely framed barges. Also, greater deviation
in the results shown may be possible if lateral pressure effects are considered. In such
cases, model VI between two transverse bulkheads may need to be adopted.
4.2 Progressive Collapse Characteristics of Typical Merchant Ships

In this section, the characteristics of progressive collapse behavior of merchant
ships under vertical sagging or hogging are investigated using the ISUM theory. A
number of typical ship type designs (10) with features judged to be typical of such
structures are studied, namely
- Single hull tanker
- Double hull tanker with one center-longitudinal bulkhead
- Double hull tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads
- Single sided bulk carrier
- Double sided bulk carrier
- 3,500 TEU container vessel
-147-

- FPSO
- Shuttle tanker
L = 313.0 m
B = 48.2 m
D = 25.2 m
F.S. = 5.1 m
Fig.4.9(a). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 254,000 DWT single hull

tanker
L = 233.0 m
B = 42.0 m
D = 21.3 m
F.S. = 4.12 m
Fig.4.9(b). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 105,000 DWT double hull

tanker with one center-longitudinal bulkhead
L = 315.0 m
B = 58.0 m
D = 30.3 m
F.S. = 5.12 m
Fig.4.9(c). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 313,000 DWT double hull

tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads
-148-
L = 282.0 m
B = 50.0 m
D = 26.7 m
F.S.
Deck = 5.22 m
Side shell = 0.87 m
Bottom = 2.16 m
Fig.4.9(d). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 170,000 DWT single

sided bulk carrier
L = 273.0 m
B = 44.5 m
D = 23.0 m
F.S.
Deck = 5.16 m
Side shell = 0.86 m
Bottom = 2.58 m
Fig.4.9(e). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 169,000 DWT double

sided bulk carrier
L = 230.0 m
B = 32.2 m
D = 21.5 m
F.S. = 3.27 m
Fig.4.9(f). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 3,500 TEU container

vessel
-149-
L = 258.0 m
B = 40.0 m
D = 24.2 m
F.S. = 3.62 m
Fig.4.9(g). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 5,500 TEU container

vessel
L = 305.0 m
B = 45.3 m
D = 27.0 m
F.S. = 3.27 m
Fig.4.9(h). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 9,000 TEU container

vessel
L = 230.6 m
B = 41.8 m
D = 22.9 m
F.S. = 3.5 m
Fig.4.9(i). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 113,000 DWT FPSO

(floating, production, storage and offloading unit)
-150-
L = 254.0 m
B = 46.0 m
D = 22.6 m
F.S. = 3.6 m
Fig.4.9(j). Schematic representation of mid-ship section of a 165,000 DWT shuttle

tanker
Table 4.1 indicates the principal dimensions of the ten ships. Fig.4.9 shows
schematic representations of the mid-ship sections of all ships considered. It is evident
that the ship structural characteristics vary significantly depending on the cargo types or
missions, among other factors.
In the ALPS/HULL calculations, some important influential parameters on the
ultimate strength of ships under vertical moment are varied, namely level of initial
imperfections, lateral pressure and horizontal moment. It is considered in the
calculations that individual structural units have fabrication related initial imperfections
(weld distortions and residual stresses). The longitudinal stiffeners have initial
imperfections which are considered to be w osx = 0.0015a and rsx = 0.0 , where w osx
= maximum initial deflection of longitudinal stiffeners, a = length of the stiffener,
rsx = residual stress of the stiffener. For plating between longitudinal stiffeners, the
level of initial imperfections is varied at the two types (slight and average levels),
suggested by Smith et al. (1988) as follows
Slight level: w opl = 0.025 2 t , rcx = 0.05 Y

Average level: w opl = 0.1 2 t , rcx = 0.15 Y
-151-
Table 4.1 Hull sectional properties of the 10 typical merchant ships

Item
LBP(L)
SHT
DHT#1
DHT#2
Bulk#1
Bulk#2
Cont#1
Cont#2
Cont#3
FPSO
Shuttle
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
Draft(d)
19.0 m
12.2 m
22.0 m
19.3 m
15.0 m
12.5 m
12.7 m
27.0 m
22.9 m
22.6 m
13.5 m
14.15 m
15.0 m
Block coeff.
( 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
254,000 105,000 313,000 170,000 169,000

DWT
DWT
DWT
DWT
DWT
3,500
TEU
5,500
TEU
9,000
TEU
Cross-sectional
7.858 m2 5.318 m2 9.637 m2 5.652 m2 5.786 m2
area
3.844
m2
Height to neutral
12.173
axis from base
m
line
8.724
m
DWT or TEU
11.188
m
10.057
m
9.270
m
11.614
m
10.219
m
10.568
m
863.693 359.480 1346.097 694.307 508.317 237.539 397.647 682.756 393.625 519.674
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
Horizontal
2050.443 1152.515 3855.641 1787.590 1530.954 648.522 1274.602 2120.311 1038.705 1651.479
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
m4
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
Deck
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT40
HT36
HT36
HT36
HT36
HT32
HT32
Mp
12.972
m
4.933 m2 6.190 m2 4.884 m2 6.832 m2
Vertical
I
9.188
m
113,000 165,000
DWT
DWT
Bottom
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
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
Notes: SHT = single hull tanker, DHT#1 = double hull tanker with one centerlongitudinal bulkhead, DHT#2 = double hull tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads,
Bulk#1 = single sided bulk carrier, Bulk#2 = double sided bulk carrier, Cont#1 = 3500
TEU container vessel, Cont#2 = 5500 TEU container vessel, Cont#3 = 9000 TEU
container vessel, FPSO = floating, production, storage and offloading system, Shuttle =
shuttle tanker, I = moment of inertia, Z = section modulus, Y = yield stress, M p =
fully plastic bending moment.
-152-
In the ALPS/HULL computations, deck or bottom stiffened panels as well as

vertical members (i.e., side shells and longitudinal bulkheads) are modeled by the platestiffener separation models as assemblies of the ALPS/HULL rectangular plate units
and the ALPS/ ISUM beam-column units, the latter being used without attached plating,
as shown in Fig.4.2(b). This modeling method more accurately represents the vertical
bending stress distribution at vertical members or horizontal bending stress distribution
at horizontal members (i.e., deck or bottom panels), while plating between longitudinal
support members in typical merchant ship structures may normally not fail prior to
longitudinal support members.
4.2.1 Progressive collapse behavior under vertical moment

Figure 4.10 represents the progressive collapse behavior of the considered ship
hulls under vertical hogging or sagging moment, varying the level of initial
imperfections. Some selected typical failure events are represented in the figures.
As shown in Figs.10(a), (b) and (c), the collapse of the compression flange of the
tanker hulls takes place prior to the yielding of the tension flange as in design of usual
ship structures. The initial imperfections significantly affect the progressive collapse
behavior of the ship hulls. Also, there is still some residual strength even after
buckling collapse of the compression flange. This is due to a shift of the neutral axis
towards the tension flange, resulting from loss of effectiveness of the collapsed
compression flange as shown in Fig.4.11. Of interest, as the bending moment increases,
the neutral axial position changes quickly and becomes stable, as shown in Fig.4.11.
This is because the neutral axis is calculated for partially effective hull cross-section
after the bending moment is applied, while it is estimated for fully effective crosssection before loading. This implies that the section moduli calculated for fully
effective hull cross-section may not always be a real indication of the ship hull sectional
load resistive properties. The ultimate hogging moment of the tanker hull is larger than
-153-
the ultimate sagging moment as usual.

In bulk carriers, the spacing of transverse frame (or floor) at the bottom part is
different from that at deck or at side shells. Figs.10(d) and (e) represent the progressive
collapse behavior of the bulk carrier hulls under vertical moments, varying the level of
initial imperfections. In contrast to the tanker hulls described above, the tension flange
(i.e., bottom plates) of the bulk carrier hull under sagging moment yields prior to
buckling collapse of the compression flange (i.e., deck plates). In hogging condition,
however, buckling collapse of the compression flange (i.e., bottom plates) takes place
prior to yielding of the tension flange (i.e., deck plates). This is because the deck panels
of bulk carrier structures are typically much sturdier than bottom panels. Regardless of
this, the section modulus at bottom is of course much larger than that at deck because
bulk carriers have large deck openings. It is however less consistent with the normally
expected ultimate strength characteristics of usual ship designs since the ultimate
hogging moment of bulk carriers is smaller than the ultimate sagging moment.
-154-
Vertical moment 103 (MNm)
20
10
-10
-20
For hogging:
1. Buckling collapse of lower longitudinal bulkhead
longl.*
2. Buckling collapse of lower side shell longl.*
3. Buckling collapse of bottom longl.
4. Buckling collapse of bottom girder longl.*
5. Buckling collapse of keel plates
6. Buckling collapse of center girder longl.*
7. Buckling collapse of lower side shell plate*,
bottom girder plates* & bottom girder longl.
8. Buckling collapse of bottom plates
9. Buckling collapse of lower longitudinal bulkhead
plates & bottom girder plates*
10. Ultimate limit state
Note: * denotes that the related failure event starts.
Mt=-13.618 103 MNm
-2
1918
Mt=13.618 103 MNm
1
2
3
2
1
Level of initial imperfections:
1 : Slight
2 : Average
For sagging:
11. Buckling collapse of upper longitudinal
bulkhead longl.*
12. Buckling collapse of upper side shell longl.*
13. Buckling collapse of deck girder longl.*
& center girder longl.*
14. Buckling collapse of deck girder longl.*
& center girder longl.
15. Buckling collapse of deck longl.*
16. Buckling collapse of deck longl.
17. Buckling collapse of center girder plates*,
deck plates*, yielding of bottom keel plates
& center girder longl.*
18. Buckling collapse of side shell plates*
15
16
17
-1
9 10
11
12
13
14
2
1
-3
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(a). Progressive collapse behavior of the 254,000 DWT single hull tanker under
vertical moment varying the level of initial imperfections, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
-155-
10
-5
For hogging:
1. Buckling collapse of outer bottom longl.*
& bilge keel
2. Buckling collapse of outer bottom longl.
& lower side longl.*
3. Buckling collapse of lower sloping longl.*
& inner bottom longl.
& lower side longl.
5. Buckling collapse of center girder longl.
& lower sloping longl.
6. Buckling collapse of bottom girder plates*
& outer bottom plates*
7. Buckling collapse of outer bottom plates
& yielding of deck longl.*
8. Buckling collapse of center girder plates*
& yielding of deck plates*
9. Buckling collapse of bottom girder plates
& yielding of deck longl.
10. Yielding of deck plates
11. Buckling collapse of center girder plates
& inner bottom plates ( Ultimate limit state)
7
5
4
-3
1
Mt=6.240 103 MNm

1 : Slight
2 : Average
For sagging:
12. Buckling collapse of side longl.
between deck and 2nd deck* & deck longl.*
14. Buckling collapse of side longl.
between deck and 2nd deck & deck plates*
15. Buckling collapse of side shell
between deck and 2nd deck* & deck plates
17. Buckling collapse of side shell
between deck and 2nd deck
14
15
-2
Mt=-6.240 103 MNm
-10
1
9 10 11
12
13
17 16
-1
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(b). Progressive collapse behavior of the 105,000 DWT double hull tanker with
one center-longitudinal bulkhead under vertical moment varying the level of initial
-156-
30
20
10
-10
For hogging:
& inner bottom longl.*
4. Buckling collapse of bottom girder longl.
& lower side shell longl.*
5. Buckling collapse of lower sloping tank longl.*
& lower longitudinal bulkhead longl.*
& yielding of deck longl.*
7. Buckling collapse of outer bottom plates*,
yielding of deck plates* & upper longitudinal
bulkhead plates*
& yielding of deck longl.
9. Buckling collapse of bottom girder plates,
yielding of deck plates & yielding of upper side
10. Buckling collapse of inner bottom plates*
( Ultimate limit state)
6
4
3
9 10
78
Mt=16.489 103 MNm
1
2
2
1
11

1 : Slight
2 : Average
For sagging:
11. Buckling collapse of upper inner side shell
longl.*
12. Buckling collapse of lower longitudinal
bulkhead longl.*
13. Buckling collapse of deck girder longl.
14. Buckling collapse of upper outer shell longl.
15. Buckling collapse of upper inner side shell longl.
& deck plates*
16. Buckling collapse of deck plates & longitudinal
bulkhead plates*
17. Buckling collapse of deck plates & upper
inner/outer shell plates* (Ultimate limit state)
12
13
14
2
1
15
17 16
-20
Mt=-16.489 103 MNm
-30
-3
-2
-1
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(c). Progressive collapse behavior of the 313,000 DWT double hull tanker with
two longitudinal bulkheads under vertical moment varying the level of initial
-157-
20
For hogging:
& center/side girder plates
& lower side shell longl.*
7. Buckling collapse of lower side shell plates*
9. Buckling collapse of inner bottom plates
& lower side shell long.
10. Yielding of deck plates * ( Ultimate limit state)
10
4
2
1
11
12
13
15 14
Mt=-11.334
-20
-3
-2
MNm
-1
For sagging:
11. Buckling collapse of upper sloping longl.*,
upper side longl.*
12. Buckling collapse of deck longl. *
14. Buckling collapse of upper side longl.,
deck plates*, upper sloping plates*
& yielding of bottom girder longl.*
15. Buckling collapse of deck plates
& upper side shell plates*
(Ultimate limit state)
103

1 : Slight
2 : Average
-10
67
5
Mt= 11.334 103 MNm

10
9
8
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(d). Progressive collapse behavior of the 170,000 DWT single sided bulk
carrier under vertical moment varying the level of initial imperfections, as obtained by
ALPS/HULL
-158-
20
For hogging:
1. Buckling collapse of bilge keel
2. Buckling collapse of inner bottom longl.*
4. Buckling collapse of center girder plate,
bottom girder plates* & outer bottom longl.*
7. Buckling collapse of outer bottom plates*,
inner bottom plates, bottom girder plates*
& outer bottom longl.
8. Buckling collapse of outer bottom plates,
lower sloping plates*
10
2
1
Mt=9.467 103 MNm
7
56
4
2

1 : Slight
2 : Average
For sagging:
10. Buckling collapse of upper side shell longl.*
11. Buckling collapse of upper sloping longl.*
12. Buckling collapse of upper sloping plates*
& deck longl.*
13. Buckling collapse of deck plates*, deck longl.
& Yielding of bottom girder longl.*
14. Buckling collapse of deck plates,
upper horizontal stringers
15. Buckling collapse of upper sloping longl.
10
11
12
151413
Mt=-9.467 103 MNm
-20
-2
-1
1
2
-10
-3
89
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(e). Progressive collapse behavior of the 169,000 DWT double sided bulk
carrier under vertical moment varying the level of initial imperfections, as obtained by
ALPS/HULL
-159-
10
For hogging:
Mt=4.193 103 MNm

& outer bottom longl.*
& center girder longl.
under 4th deck
6. Buckling collapse of inner bottom longl.
& center girder plates*
8. Buckling collapse of bottom girder longl.,
Inner/outer bottom plates & lower side shell plates*
9. Buckling collapse of center girder plates,
4th deck longl., bottom girder plates
& yielding of upper deck longl./plates
10. Yielding of upper side shell plates*
23
1
2

1 : Slight
2 : Average
For sagging:
11. Buckling collapse of upper deck plates
& inner/outer side shell plates*
12. Buckling collapse of upper deck longl.
13. Buckling collapse of 2nd deck longl.
& inner/outer side shell longl.*
14. Buckling collapse of inner/outer side shell plates
between upper deck and 2nd deck
-5
11
12
14 13
Mt=-4.193 103 MNm
-3
9 10
2
1
-10
8
6 7
-2
-1
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(f). Progressive collapse behavior of the 3,500 TEU container vessel under
-160-
15
10
-5
For hogging:
Mt=6.399 103 MNm
1. Buckling collapse of outer bottom longl.*

& bottom girder plates*
6. Buckling collapse of inner bottom longl.,
yielding of upper deck longl. & side shell
longl./plates between upper deck and 2nd deck
7. Buckling collapse of inner bottom longl.
& yielding of side shell longl.
10. Yielding of side shell plates
10
1
2

1 : Slight
2 : Average
For sagging:
11. Buckling collapse of side shell longl.
between upper deck and 2nd deck*
& side shell plates between upper deck and 2nd deck*
14. Buckling collapse of upper deck plates
between upper deck and second deck
17. Buckling collapse of side shell plates
11
12
13
17 16 15 14
-10
Mt=-6.399 103 MNm
-3
89
2
1
-15
67
5
-2
-1
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(g). Progressive collapse behavior of the 5,500 TEU container vessel under
-161-
20
10
-10
For hogging:
& yielding of side shell longl.
7. Yielding of upper deck longl.
8. Yielding of upper deck plates
Mt=10.705 103 MNm

6
3
Mt=-10.705 103 MNm
12

1 : Slight
2 : Average
For sagging:
9. Buckling collapse of side shell plates
between upper deck and 2nd deck*,
upper deck plates & yielding of bottom girder
plates*
13. Yielding of outer bottom longl.
& outer bottom plates (Ultimate limit state)
14. Yielding of side shell plates
between upper deck and second deck
9
10
11
-20
-3
-2
-1
1
2
2
1
13
14
7 8
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(h). Progressive collapse behavior of the 9,000 TEU container vessel under
-162-
10
For hogging:
1. Buckling collapse of outer bottom longl.,
bilge keel & center girder longl.*
3. Buckling collapse of inner bottom longl.,
lower side longl.* & bottom girder longl.*
6. Buckling collapse of center girder plates*
& yielding of deck plates*
8. Buckling collapse of inner bottom plates,
center girder plates & yielding of deck longl.
9. Yielding of deck plates
5
3
2
67
89
Mt=6.056 103 MNm

1 : Slight
2 : Average
For sagging:
-5
2
17 16 15
10. Buckling collapse of deck longl.*

& upper side longitudinal bulkhead*
12. Buckling collapse of upper side longl.*
13. Buckling collapse of upper side shell
bulkhead* & deck plates*
14. Buckling collapse of deck plates
& upper side shell*
15. Yielding of bottom girder longl.*
17. Yielding of bottom girder longl.
10
11
12
13
14
Mt=-6.056 103 MNm
-10
-3
-2
-1
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(i). Progressive collapse behavior of the FPSO hull under vertical moment
varying the level of initial imperfections, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
-163-
15
For hogging:
1. Buckling collapse of bilge keel & outer bottom
longl.
2. Buckling collapse of lower side longl.*
6. Buckling collapse of lower side longl.
7. Buckling collapse of outer bottom plates,
center girder plates* & bottom girder longl.
9. Yielding of deck longl.*
10. Yielding of deck plates*
10
9 10
78
4
3
Mt=8.300 103 MNm
1
2
2
1

1 : Slight
2 : Average
-5
2
1
-10
15 14
Mt=-8.300
-15
For sagging:
11
12
103
-3

12. Buckling collapse of side longl. between deck
and second deck*
13. Buckling collapse of deck plates* & side longl.
between deck and second deck
14. Buckling collapse of deck plates & yielding of
bottom girder longl.*
13
MNm
-2
-1
Curvature
10-7
(1/mm)
Fig.4.10(j). Progressive collapse behavior of the shuttle tanker hull under vertical
moment varying the level of initial imperfections, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
Height to neutral axis from base line (mm)
24000

1 : Slight
2 : Average
20000
2
1
16000
12
12000
4 5 6
11 12 13 14
78
10
15 16
17
18 19
8000
1
2
4000
0
0
Fig.4.11. Variation of the neutral axis due to structural failure for the single hull tanker,
as obtained by ALPS/HULL (For explanation of numerals, see Fig.4.10(a))
-164-
Figures 4.10(f), (g) and (h) represent the progressive collapse behavior of the
container vessel hulls under vertical moments, varying the level of initial imperfections.
In contrast to the usual behavior of tanker structures, it is observed that the deck panels
under axial compressive loads in sagging condition do not buckle and reach the ultimate
strength by gross yielding. This is because the deck panels are very stocky with large
plate thickness.
Figures 4.10(i) and (j) show the progressive collapse behavior of the FPSO and
shuttle tanker under vertical moment. It is seen that the progressive collapse
characteristics of these ships are very similar to the usual tanker hulls.
4.2.2 Effect of lateral pressure

The effect of lateral pressure on the ultimate hull girder strength is now
investigated for selected ship hulls under vertical moment. The ALPS/HULL models
previously used for progressive hull girder collapse analysis without lateral pressure are
employed. The external water pressure considered is calculated as a sum of static and
hydrodynamic pressure components for head sea in the heavy ballast condition (ABS
2000). The effects of water pressure inside the ballast tanks are not considered for
convenience of the structural modeling.
Figures 4.12(a) to (c) show hypothetical representations of the applied water
pressure distributions for head sea state in the heavy ballast condition of the 313,000
DWT double hull tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads, the 170,000 DWT single
sided bulk carrier and the 9,000 TEU container vessel, respectively.
-165-
W.L.
Fig.4.12(a). Schematic of water pressure distribution for the 313,000 DWT double hull
tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads, being a sum of static and hydrodynamic
pressure for head sea state
W.L.
Fig.4.12(b). Schematic of water pressure distribution for the 170,000 DWT single sided
bulk carrier, being a sum of static and hydrodynamic pressure for head sea state
W.L.
Fig.4.12(c). Schematic of water pressure distribution for the 9,000 TEU container
vessel, being a sum of static and hydrodynamic pressure for head sea state
-166-
In the present ALPS/HULL calculations, the initial imperfections for plating are
fixed at the average level, while those for stiffeners are the same as defined above. It is
assumed that the lateral pressure is applied to the individual structural members in the
same direction to the initial deflections.
Figures 4.13(a) to (c) show the progressive collapse behavior of the three ship
hulls under vertical moments. Fig.4.13(d) represents the variation of the ultimate hull
girder strengths as a function of the water pressure magnitude. The effectiveness of
plates under compression is normally further reduced by lateral pressure loading. In the
case of the hull girder, this is primarily due to the shear lag effect. When the amount of
lateral pressure is large, therefore, the ultimate strength of ships hulls can be possibly
smaller than that without lateral pressure. In calculating the ultimate capacity of ship
hulls, the lateral pressure related shear lag effect can approximately be taken into
account so that the ultimate stress or the effectiveness (i.e., effective width/breadth) of
individual structural members is predicted considering lateral pressure as another load
component.
30
Hogging
Without water pressure
20
With water pressure
10
-10
With water pressure
-20
Double hull tanker

with two longitudinal bulkheads
Sagging
-30
-3
-2
-1
two longitudinal bulkheads under vertical moment varying the magnitude of water
pressure, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
-167-
20
Single sided bulk carrier
Hogging
10
With water pressure
0
With water pressure
-10
Sagging
-20
-3
-2
-1
carrier under vertical moment varying the magnitude of water pressure, as obtained by
ALPS/HULL
20
9,000 TEU container
Hogging

10
With water pressure
With water pressure
-10
Sagging
-20
-3
-2
-1
vertical moment varying the magnitude of water pressure, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
-168-
1.1
1.0
Sagging
Hogging
0.9
Mu
Muo
0.8
Muo = Ultimate moment without lateral pressure
: Double hull tanker with

two side-longitudinal bulkheads
: Single sided bulk carrier
: 9,000 TEU container
0.7
0.6
0
50
100
Water pressure level (%)
Fig.4.13(d). Variation of the ultimate hull girder strengths as a function of the

magnitude of water pressure, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
The effect of lateral water pressure on the ultimate hull girder capacity under
hogging moment may not be neglected specifically for double hull tankers and bulk
carriers, while that under sagging moment may normally be small. This is because
seawater is applied mainly to ship bottom or lower side structures which are
compressed in hogging. For different loading conditions, the distributions of internal
pressure as well as external pressure may vary so that their effects on the progressive
collapse behavior of ship hulls are of course different. Again, it is noted that the effect
of water pressure on the ultimate hogging moments may be different for different ship
types.
4.2.3 Effect of horizontal moment

The effect of horizontal moment on the ultimate hull girder strength is now
investigated for selected ship hulls. The initial imperfections for plating are fixed at the
average level, while those for stiffeners are the same as defined above. The water
pressure is not applied. Figures 4.14(a) to (c) show the progressive collapse behavior of
-169-
the 313,000 DWT double hull tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads, the 170,000
DWT single sided bulk carrier and the 9,000 TEU container vessel, respectively.
Fig.4.14(d) represents the ultimate hull girder interaction relationship between vertical
and horizontal moments. It is evident that the effect of horizontal moment on the
ultimate hull girder strength is of significance. It is noted that the horizontal moment is
typically not the maximum when the vertical moment is the maximum and thus a
relevant consideration for load combination is necessary in performing a design check
using the results of Fig.4.14(d).
30
V, H = angles of cross sectional plane
Hogging
for vertical or horizontal moments

20
1
2
3
10
4
5
0
1
5
4
3
2
1
-10
2
3
-20
4
5
H
=0.8
V
H
=1.0
V
Double hull tanker

with two longitudinal bulkhead
Sagging
-30
-3
H
=0.0
V
H
=0.25
V
H
=0.5
V
-2
-1
two longitudinal bulkheads under combined vertical and horizontal moments, as
-170-
20
Hogging

1
2
3
10
2
1
-10
V
= 0.0
V
H
= 0.25
V
H
= 0.5
V
5
4
3
Sagging
H
= 0.8
V
H
= 1.0
V
Single sided bulk carrier
-20
-3
-2
-1
carrier under combined vertical and horizontal moments, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
20
Hogging

1
2
10
3
4
5
4
H
H
= 0.0 4
= 0.8
V
V
H
H
2
= 0.25 5
= 1.0
V
V
H
3
= 0.5
V
-10
2
1
Sagging
9,000 TEU container
-20
-3
-2
-1
combined vertical and horizontal moments, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
-171-
1.5
: Double hull tanker with

two longitudinal bulkheads
: 9,000 TEU container
1.0
MV / MVu
0.5
MV
M Vu
0.0
1.85
MH
=1
M Hu
-0.5
-1.0
Mean = 0.971
COV = 0.164
-1.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
MH / MHu
Fig.4.14(d). Ultimate hull girder strength interaction relationships between vertical and
horizontal moments, as obtained by ALPS/HULL
4.3 Closed-Form Ultimate Strength Formulation for Ship Hulls

Figure 4.15 shows examples of the variation of the hull girder longitudinal stress
distribution during the progressive collapse. It is generally observed that the ship
reaches its ultimate strength if both collapse of the flange and side shell in compression
and yielding of the other flange in tension occur. In this situation, the side shell in the
vicinity of the neutral axis can still remain in a linear elastic state. This is due to the fact
that with an increase in the bending moment the internal stress (strength) of the
collapsed parts is reduced even before reaching the ultimate hull strength, while the
yielded parts can not sustain further increase of applied loads and the stresses remain
unchanged. It should be noted that first yielding could in some cases occur after the
buckling of the compression flange, depending on specifics of the design.
-172-
(a)
(b)
Fig.4.15. Variation of the longitudinal stress distribution during the progressive collapse
under hogging moment (+: Tension, -: Compression), as obtained by ALPS/HULL (a)
pre-ultimate limit regime (b) ultimate limit state
+ Tens.
- Comp.
+
xE
xY
Ux
D-gus
xE
xE
D-guh
+ Tens.
- Comp.
gus
xE
guh
Ux
Yx
(a) Sagging
(b) Hogging
Fig.4.16. Longitudinal stress distribution over a ships cross-section at the overall

collapse state as suggested by Paik & Mansour (1995)
It has been recognized that although the overall collapse of a ships hull under
vertical bending moment is initiated and governed by collapse of the compression
-173-
flange, there is still some reserve strength beyond collapse of the compression flange.
This is because after buckling of the compression flange occurs the neutral axis of the
hull cross-section moves toward the tension flange and a further increase of the applied
bending moment is normally sustained until the tension flange yields. At later stages of
this process, side shell platings around the compression and the tension flanges will also
fail. Therefore, the pioneering suggestion of Caldwell (1965) for the longitudinal stress
distribution at the hull girder ultimate limit state typically overestimates the ultimate
bending capacity of a ship hull.
Paik & Mansour (1995) have made a more refined suggestion for the longitudinal
stress distribution over a ships cross-section at the state of overall collapse as that
shown in Fig.4.16. The longitudinal stress distribution shown in Fig.4.16 resembles that
of Fig.4.15. As may be seen from Figs.4.15 and 16, the compression flange has
collapsed and the tension flange has yielded at the moment the ultimate strength is
reached, but the side shell in the vicinity of the neutral axis is still intact (linear elastic).
The longitudinal axial strain, xi , of the i th longitudinal strength member in the
effective hull cross-section, which is assumed to remain plane, may be given by one of
the following two equations which are in fact identical, namely
xi =
B
z
1 i
E i g e
xi =
D
(z i g e )
E i (D g e )
(4.1a)
(4.1b)
where g e = neutral axis of the effective hull cross-section from the base line, B , D
= axial stresses at bottom or deck plating, E i , xi = Youngs modulus and axial strain
of the i th longitudinal strength member, D = ship depth, z i = coordinate in the ship
depth direction from the base line to the central axis of the i th member.
-174-
Once the axial strain is determined, the longitudinal axial stress, xi , of the i th
longitudinal strength member may be obtained as follows
xi = E i xi
for xi Y
(4.2)
It is assumed that overall collapse of a ships hull girder takes place when the axial
stress at the tension flange (i.e., either bottom plating in hogging or deck plating in
sagging) reaches the material yield stress, while the region in compression has
collapsed (or vice versa). The longitudinal stress distribution at the ultimate limit state
may be divided into four regions, namely (1) yielded region, (2) elastic tension region,
(3) elastic compression region, and (4) collapsed compression region, as that shown in
Fig.4.16.
In the sagging condition as shown in Fig.4.16(a), the neutral axis, g us , above the
base line at the ultimate limit state can be calculated as follows
g us
A z + A z +
=
A + A +
Y
1 xi
i i
Y
1 xi
E
xj
j j
E
xj
A
+ A
E
xk
A ek z k +
E
xk
A ek
U
4 xl el l
U
4 xl el
(4.3a)
where x is calculated from Eq.4.2 together with Eq.4.1a when B just reaches the
equivalent yield stress of bottom stiffened panels. The superscripts, Y , E and U ,
represent the yield stress, elastic stress and ultimate stress, respectively. The subscript,
e , indicates the effective section.
( ), ( ), ( )
2
or
()
4
are summations
for members in the regions 1, 2, 3 or 4, respectively.

The ultimate hull girder sagging moment, M us , can then be calculated, with the
sagging moment or the compressive stress is taken as negative while the hogging
moment or the tensile stress is taken as positive as follows (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
-175-
A (g z ) A (g z )
+ A (z g ) + A (z g )
M us =
Y
1 xi
E
xk
us
ek
us
E
xj
us
U
xl
el
(4.3b)
us
where g us = as defined in Eq.4.3a.

Similarly, in the hogging condition as shown in Fig.4.16(b), the neutral axis
position above the base line at the ultimate limit state can be calculated as follows
g uh =
A z + A z +
A + A +
U
1 xi
ei i
U
1 xi
ei
E
xj
ej j
E
xj
ej
Az
+ A
E
xk
Ak zk +
E
xk
Ak
Y
4 xl
Y
4 xl l
l l
(4.4a)
where x is calculated from Eq.4.2 together with Eq.1b when D just reaches the
equivalent yield stress of the deck stiffened panels.
The ultimate hull girder hogging moment, M uh , can then be calculated as follows
M uh = 1 Uxi A ei (g uh z i ) 2 Exj A ej g uh z j
+ 3 Exk A k (z k g uh ) + 4 Yxl A l (z l g uh )
(4.4b)
where g uh = as defined in Eq.4.4a.

In calculating Eqs.4.4 or 4.5, the longitudinal axis stress for individual structural
elements (i.e., either plating or stiffeners) must be taken as a value smaller than either
the ultimate stress or the material yield stress, the former being predicted using the
closed-form expressions in Chapter 2 and 3 for stiffeners (with or without attached
plating) or those for plating between stiffeners.
Figure 4.17 and Table 4.2 shows the correlation between ALPS/HULL results and
the closed-form design formula predictions of the ultimate bending moments for 10
typical commercial ships indicated in Fig.4.9. the ship hulls are modeled as assemblies
-176-
of the plate-stiffener separation units. The mean and COV of the present closed-form
design formula predictions against the ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses for
ship hulls with initial imperfections at an average level are 1.042 and 0.065,
respectively.
1.0
(Mu / Mp)Design formula
Slight level initial imperfections

Mean=0.963, COV=0.070
Note:
Hollow: Sagging
Solid : Hogging
0.5
: Single hull tanker

: Double hull tanker
with one center-longitudinal bulkhead
: Double sided bulk carrier
: 3,500 TEU container vessel
: FPSO
: Shuttle tanker
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
(Mu / Mp)ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.17(a). Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the

closed-form design formula predictions for a slight level of initial imperfections for 10
typical commercial ships indicated in Fig.4.9
-177-
1.0
(Mu / Mp)Design formula
Average level initial imperfections

Mean=1.042, COV=0.065
Note:
Hollow: Sagging
Solid : Hogging
0.5
: FPSO
: Shuttle tanker
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
(Mu / Mp)ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.17(b). Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the

closed-form design formula predictions for an average level of initial imperfections for
10 typical commercial ships indicated in Fig.4.9
1.0
: Slight
: Average
(Mu / Mp )Design formula
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Slight level: Mean=0.963, COV=0.070
Average level: Mean=1.042, COV=0.065
All data: Mean=1.003, COV=0.078
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(Mu / Mp )ALPS/HULL
Fig.4.17(c). Correlation between ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses and the

closed-form design formula predictions varying the level of initial imperfections for 10
typical commercial ships indicated in Fig.4.9
-178-
Table 4.2 A comparison of the ultimate hull girder strength calculations obtained by the
ALPS/HULL and the closed-form design formula (DF) for 10 typical commercial ships
indicated in Fig.4.9
M u (GNm)
SHT
DHT#1
DHT#2
Bulk#1
Bulk#2
Cont#1
Cont#2
Cont#3
FPSO
Shuttle
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
(a)HULLSlight
-17.508
16.626
-7.949
9.303
-20.513
24.708
-15.293
16.601
-12.651
13.223
-6.965
6.793
-9.801
9.954
-16.854
14.765
-8.500
9.654
-11.760
12.431
(b)HULLAverage
-16.767
15.826
-6.899
8.485
-19.136
23.566
-14.281
14.434
-12.165
12.027
-6.800
5.953
-9.571
9.049
-16.599
13.075
-7.282
8.760
-11.280
11.404
(c)DF
(c)/(a)
(c)/(b)
-17.953
18.457
-7.895
8.531
-22.217
23.123
-14.214
15.534
-12.331
12.403
-6.680
5.501
-10.038
8.962
-16.897
14.051
-8.305
8.566
-11.670
11.477
Mean
COV
102.5%
111.0%
99.3%
91.7%
108.3%
93.6%
92.9%
93.6%
97.5%
93.8%
95.9%
81.0%
102.4%
90.0%
100.3%
95.2%
97.7%
88.7%
99.2%
92.3%
96.3%
7.0%
107.1%
116.6%
114.4%
100.5%
116.1%
98.1%
99.5%
107.6%
101.4%
103.1%
98.2%
92.4%
104.9%
99.0%
101.8%
107.5%
114.0%
97.8%
103.5%
100.6%
104.2%
6.5%
Notes: HULLSlight = ultimate hull girder strength obtained by ALPS/HULL with

slight level of initial imperfections, HULLAverage = ultimate hull girder strength obtained
by ALPS/HULL with average level of initial imperfections, DF = ultimate hull girder
strength obtained by the closed-form design formula
A total of the 10 typical commercial ships in Fig.9 are not sure real existing ones.
However, There are 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). The vessels considered herein are real
existing ones of Korean Register of Shipping (KR).
Tables 4.3 to 4.5 represent the sectional properties and the computed ultimate hull
girder strengths for the double hull tankers, bulk carrier and container vessels
-179-
considered herein. It is noted that for both ALPS/HULL and design formula
calculations, the ship hulls were herein modeled as assemblies of the plate-stiffener
separation units. Figures 4.10 to 4.20 shows correlation between ALPS/HULL results
and design formula solutions for the KR-class double hull tankers, bulk carrier and
container vessels considered herein. Figure 4.21 shows correlation between
ALPS/HULL results and design formula solutions for the all (30) ships. From Figs. 4.17
to 4.21, the design formula solutions obtained by the plate-stiffener separation models
well correspond with the ALPS/HULL progressive collapse analyses.
Table 4.3(a) Hull sectional properties of the existing double hull tankers
Item
DHT#3
DHT#4
DHT#5
DHT#6
DHT#7
DHT#8
DHT#9
LBP(L: m)
320.00
314.00
315.00
260.00
238.00
234.00
233.00
DHT#10 DHT#11
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 coeff. ( C b )
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
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 base line
(m)
13.419
13.438
14.103
10.252
10.405
9.173
9.284
7.210
5.433
1406.249 1403.493 1122.722 528.777
425.359
359.272
360.441
119.728
47.835
Horizontal 4124.232 4037.184 2913.590 1621.094 1213.897 1100.777 1146.983 326.185
174.565
I (m4)
Z (m3)
Y
Mp
(GNm)
Vertical
35.7,000 17.5,000
Deck
79.986
79.916
68.892
40.525
32.732
30.378
29.997
13.319
Bottom
104.797
104.421
79.608
52.878
40.881
39.166
38.824
16.605
8.804
Deck
HT32
HT32
HT36
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
MILD
HT32
Bottom
HT32
HT32
HT36
HT32
HT32
MILD
HT32
HT32
HT32
Vertical
moment
31.395
32.078
28.014
15.887
12.909
11.273
12.005
4.755
2.901
-180-
7.885
Table 4.3(b) The computed ultimate hull girder strength of the existing double hull
tankers
Mu (GNm)
DHT#3
DHT#4
DHT#5
DHT#6
DHT#7
DHT#8
DHT#9
DHT#10
DHT#11
(a)HULLAverage
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
-18.384
22.299
-18.369
24.129
-17.104
19.421
-9.858
12.069
-7.349
8.758
-7.114
7.990
-6.928
8.402
-2.747
3.332
-1.793
1.937
(b)SM
(b)/(a)
-19.852
20.915
-19.589
22.521
-18.096
20.057
-10.439
11.453
-7.708
8.251
-6.585
8.078
-7.426
7.692
-3.124
2.892
-1.819
1.832
Mean
COV
108.0%
93.8%
106.6%
93.3%
105.8%
103.3%
105.9%
94.9%
104.9%
94.2%
92.6%
101.1%
107.2%
91.5%
113.7%
86.8%
101.5%
94.6%
100.0%
7.4%
Notes: HULLAverage = ultimate hull girder strength obtained by ALPS/HULL with

average level of initial imperfections, DF = ultimate hull girder strength obtained by the
closed-form design formula
-181-
Table 4.4(a) 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
0.8514
0.8390
0.8408
0.8406
0.8432
0.8427
0.8492
0.8430
0.8160
0.8430
0.8030
0.7960
13.50
13.50
13.60
14.43
13.00
14.60
14.30
16.40
14.90
15.40
15.00
12.80
207,000 207,000 207,000 135,000 126,000 73,000
73,000
73,000
39700
29500
28400
27000
Design speed (knots)

DWT
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

11.882
from base line (m)
11.859
12.021
10.284
9.923
7.798
7.756
7.899
6.955
6.221
5.372
5.407
732.253 745.105 714.163 450.892 391.007 183.060 183.306 185.240 134.958 77.368
66.301
62.509
I (m4)
Vertical
Horizontal 2044.566 2038.294 1991.232 1133.586 955.014 443.451 425.214 443.825 284.622 155.182 236.716 187.262
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
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
Z (m3)
-182-
Table 4.4(b) The computed ultimate hull girder strength of the existing bulk carriers
Mu (GNm)
Bulk#3
Bulk#4
Bulk#5
Bulk#6
Bulk#7
Bulk#8
Bulk#9
Bulk#10
Bulk#11
Bulk#12
Bulk#13
Bulk#14
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
(a)HULLAverage
(b)SM
(b)/(a)
-16.338
16.599
-16.667
16.400
-16.140
15.176
-9.782
10.645
-8.706
9.362
-4.331
5.451
-4.236
5.514
-4.659
5.493
-2.896
3.448
-2.024
2.303
-2.361
2.451
-1.836
2.517
-17.602
15.243
-17.168
15.337
-16.472
13.596
-10.193
10.183
-8.917
8.826
-4.267
4.949
-4.141
5.084
-4.518
5.008
-3.124
3.184
-2.179
2.111
-2.151
2.302
-1.897
2.229
Mean
COV
107.7%
91.8%
103.0%
93.5%
102.1%
89.6%
104.2%
95.7%
102.4%
94.3%
98.5%
90.8%
97.8%
92.2%
97.0%
91.2%
107.9%
92.3%
107.6%
91.7%
91.1%
93.9%
103.3%
88.6%
97.0%
6.4%

-183-
Table 4.5(a) Hull sectional properties of the existing container vessels

Item
Con#4
Con#5
Con#6
Con#7
Con#8
Con#9
Con#10
Con#11
Con#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
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
6500
4024
5000
5550
4400
2700
2200
700
700
Cross-sectional
Area (m2)
5.992
4.310
5.323
4.940
4.607
3.552
2.668
1.473
1.473
Height to neutral
axis from base line
(m)
12.327
10.331
10.534
10.887
9.970
8.248
6.184
4.252
4.252
630.496
312.112
489.533
472.630
345.418
195.481
100.394
23.996
23.996
1584.921 738.743 1408.825 1279.941 989.130
563.300
353.564
82.768
82.768
3.133
3.050
I (m4)
Vertical
Horizontal
Z (m3)
Y
Mp
(GNm
)
Deck
47.050
24.888
31.779
32.239
26.739
16.194
8.721
Bottom
51.149
30.212
46.471
43.413
34.647
23.701
16.234
5.643
5.643
Deck
HT36
HT36
HT32
HT36
HT36
HT36
HT32
HT36
HT32
Bottom
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
HT32
MILD
MILD
MILD
Vertical
moment
18.974
10.881
15.039
14.806
12.274
7.242
4.104
1.557
1.437
-184-
Table 4.5(b) The computed ultimate hull girder strength of the existing container
vessels
Mu (GNm)
Con#4
Con#5
Con#6
Con#7
Con#8
Con#9
Con#10
Con#11
Con#12
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
(a)HULLAverage
(b)SM
(b)/(a)
-17.085
12.667
-9.277
7.185
-12.395
10.664
-12.667
10.040
-10.192
7.815
-5.704
5.009
-2.763
2.936
-1.070
1.052
-0.898
0.999
-15.786
13.281
-9.113
6.989
-12.985
9.801
-12.560
9.802
-9.957
7.573
-6.041
4.662
-2.692
2.802
-0.991
1.056
-0.834
0.972
Mean
COV
92.4%
104.8%
98.2%
97.3%
104.8%
91.9%
99.2%
97.6%
97.7%
96.9%
105.9%
93.1%
97.4%
95.4%
92.6%
100.4%
92.9%
97.3%
97.5%
4.4%

-185-
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Note:
Hollow: Sagging
Solid : Hogging
Mean=1.000, COV=0.074
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(Mu / Mp )ALPS/HULL

closed-form design formula predictions for the existing double hull tankers
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Note:
Hollow: Sagging
Solid : Hogging
Mean=0.970, COV=0.064
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(Mu / Mp )ALPS/HULL

closed-form design formula predictions for the existing bulk carriers
-186-
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Note:
Hollow: Sagging
Solid : Hogging
Mean=0.975, COV=0.044
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(Mu / Mp )ALPS/HULL

closed-form design formula predictions for the existing container vessels
1.0
All data: Mean=0.981, COV=0.063
0.8
0.6
0.4
Note:
Hollow: Sagging
Solid : Hogging
0.2

: Container vessel
: Bulk carrier
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(Mu / Mp )ALPS/HULL

closed-form design formula predictions for all (30) existing vessels considered
-187-
4.4 Ultimate Limit State Design Format

Steel plated structures are likely to be subjected to various types of loads and
deformations, which may in some cases be extreme and accidental. The mission of a
structural designer is to design a particular structure that can withstand such loads and
deformations throughout its expected service life.
In design, the structure is required to have an adequate margin of safety because of
possible overloading or accidental loading above the service loads, which can arise
from changing the planned use, and because of uncertainties in evaluation and control
of loads or load effects (e.g., stress, deformation) and structural resistance (capacity) as
well as variations in building procedures. The partial safety factor concept based design
criterion of a structure under multiple types of loads is typically expressed as follows
D d < Cd
(4.5a)
where D d = o D ki (Fki , fi ) = design demand, C d =

i
Ck
= design capacity,
M
D ki ( Fki , fi ) = characteristic measure of demand for load type i , calculated from the
characteristic measures of loads, Fk , and weighed by the partial safety factor, f ,

taking account of the uncertainties related to loads, o = partial safety factor taking into
account the degree of seriousness of the particular limit state in regard to safety and
serviceability accounting of economical and social consequences as well as any special
circumstances (e.g., purpose of the ship, type of cargo, interaction of the limit state
considered with the others), C k = characteristic measure of capacity, M = m c =
capacity related safety factor, m = partial safety factor taking account of the
uncertainties due to material properties, c = partial safety factor taking account of the
-188-
uncertainties in the capacity of the structure, such as quality of the construction,

corrosion, method considered for determination of the capacity.
Eq.4.5a may be rewritten as follows
Cd
>1
Dd
(4.5b)
where = safety measure.

In Eqs.4.5, the demand is normally associated with load effects (e.g., stress,
deformation) or loss of kinetic energy, while the capacity means the load-carrying
capacity or the energy absorption capability. A nominal or characteristic measure of
demand or capacity approximately corresponds to a specified percentage of the area
below the probability curve of the random variables. The partial safety factors are
normally determined by the most probable design points divided by the nominal or
characteristic values of the random variables.
It is important to realize that the partial factors in Eqs.4.5 may depend on the
design situation and the types of the limit states. For useful guidelines in determining
the partial safety factors related to limit state design of steel structure, ISO 2394 (1998),
NTS (1998) and ENV 1993-1-1 of Eurocode 3 (1992) may be referred to.
To achieve the criterion of Eqs.4.5, two types of structural design philosophies
have been typically employed, namely (Paik & Thayamballi 2003)
Allowable stress design
Limit state design
In the allowable stress design, the focus is on keeping the stresses resulting from
the design loads under a certain working stress level that is usually based on successful
similar past experience.
While the working stress is obtained by a linear elastic
-189-
response analysis of the structure, the allowable stress is defined so as to satisfy the
structural safety requirement that the structure must not fail given normal levels of load,
strength and operational variability. Regulatory bodies or classification societies usually
specify the value of the allowable stress as some fraction of the
mechanical properties
of materials (e.g., uniaxial yield or ultimate tensile strength).

In contrast to the allowable stress design, the limit state design is based on the
conditions that the structure ceases to fulfill its intended function. For these conditions,
the applicable strength is estimated and used in design as a limit for such behavior. For
steel structures, the limit state criterion of a structure is typically written so that the
structural resistance (capacity) must be greater than the load effects (e.g., working
stresses) with relevant factors.
In limit state design, C k in Eqs.4.5 is defined by the level of loads which can be
sustained until the structure reaches the limit state, while D k is calculated by the linear
elastic response analysis similar to that of the allowable stress design method. The loadcarrying capacity of a structure is normally evaluated using simplified design
formulations or more refined computations such as nonlinear elastic-plastic large
deformation finite element analyses with appropriate modeling related to geometric /
material properties, initial imperfections, boundary condition, load application, finite
element mesh sizes, and so on. The structural capacity analysis will be undertaken
based on most unfavourable failure modes for the idealized structure.
It is necessary to ensure that the structure has an adequate degree of reliability
against the ultimate limit state. Two types of design formats are normally used, namely
(ISO 2394 1998)
Probabilistic design format
Partial factor format
The latter format is typically used for normal design purposes, while the former is
-190-
more relevant for specific design problems or for calibration of the partial safety factors.
For the ultimate limit state design of steel plated structures, the basic variables
which characterize load effects, material properties and geometric parameters should be
identified first. Methodologies or simplified models for computing the load effects and
the load-carrying capacities must be established. Once the two models, i.e., for
calculating both load effects and ultimate strength are obtained, the ultimate limit state
function, G , can be given from Eq.4.5a as a function of some basic variables, x1 , x 2 ,
x n , as follows
G (x1 , x 2 ,..., x n ) = 0
(4.6)
When G 0 , the structure is in the desired state. The models always have
uncertainties due to many reasons. A computation model is in fact a function of random
variables, namely
Ym = Y(x1 , x 2 ,..., x n )
where Ym =
(4.7)
value computed by the model, Y = function of the model, x i =
random variables.
As long as the random variables are uncertain, the model function is not exact so
that Ym may always have some errors. This is typically due to lack of knowledge or
simplification in developing the model. The exact solution, Yo , of the problem may be
expressed by
Yo = Y * (x1 , x 2 ,..., x n , 1 , 2 ,..., m )
(4.8)
where i = random variables related to the model uncertainties, Y* = exact function.
-191-
In Eq.4.8, the statistical properties of i may normally be determined from

experiments or observations. For the ultimate strength model, the mean of i is
determined as the average value which correctly predicts the test results.
4.5 Assessment of Safety Measure

For the ultimate limit state design of ship hulls, the characteristic measure of the
design capacity, C k , in Eqs.4.5 is the ultimate hull girder strength while D k is the
characteristic value of the total bending moment. To approximately take into account
the correlation between still water and wave-induced bending moments, the following
type of equation can be used for calculating the characteristic value of the total bending
moment, namely
Mt = kswMsw + kwMw
(4.9)
where k sw and k w are load combination factors for still water moment, M sw , and
wave-induced bending moment, M w , respectively. These account for the nonsimultaneous occurrence of extreme still water and wave-induced loads.
To consider dynamic load effects, the total bending moment may be
M t = k sw M sw + k w (M w + k d M d )
given by
(4.10)
where k d is the load combination factor related to the dynamic bending moment,
M d , arising from either slamming or whipping. M d is taken as the extreme dynamic
bending moment in the same wave condition (e.g., sea state) as the wave-induced
bending moment while the effect of ship hull flexibility may be accounted for in the
-192-
computation of M d . In very high sea states, M d is normally ignored because the

possibility of whipping is low. For considering the hull girder effects of slamming in
oceangoing merchant ships, it has been suggested that M d = 0.15M w may be used for
tankers in sagging, but M d = 0 in hogging (Mansour & Thayamballi 1994). While
external pressure loads imposed on the ships hull in seaways can be calculated in terms
of sea water heads, the internal pressure loads must be determined for each fully loaded
cargo hold and ballast tank, as caused by the dominating ship motions (pitch and roll)
and the resulting accelerations.
On the other hand, the traditional allowable stress design approach may take the
section modulus, Z ,
for Cd and the minimum required section modulus, Z min ,
(specified by IACS or classification societies) for D d . The ultimate hull girder strength,
M u , can be obtained by the progressive collapse analyses (using ALPS/HULL) or from
Eqs.4.3 or 4.4. It is important to note that aging ships may have suffered structural
damages due to corrosion, fatigue cracks or weld region fracture. For assessment of
safety measure of damaged ships, the effects of such structural damages should of
course be taken into account in predicting M u .
Table 4.6 indicates safety measure calculations for the 10 typical merchant ships
with average level of initial imperfections, but without structural damage, considered in
the present study. The total bending moment is calculated from Eq.(4.9) when
k sw = k w = 1.0 , while M sw and M w are determined from the IACS unified formula.
Z min is also computed from the IACS unified formula. M u is the ultimate vertical
moment of the ship with average level of initial imperfections as obtained by

ALPS/HULL. For safety measure calculations based on the ultimate strength,
o = M = 1.0 is adopted in this regard. When Eqs.4.3 or 4.4 are employed for ultimate
hull girder strength predictions, however, M = 1.15 is recommended to be used.

As evident from Fig.4.22 and Table 4.6, the safety measure based on section
modulus (allowable stress design approach) has greater margin at bottom than at deck
-193-
for all of the ships considered. In some ships such as bulk carriers and container ships,
however, the safety measure based on ultimate hull strength (ultimate limit state design
approach) has less margin in hogging than in sagging.
As previously discussed, this is because in bulk carriers or container ships the
ultimate hogging moment is not greater than the ultimate sagging moment even if the
section modulus at bottom is larger than that at deck. This is an unusual consequence of
structural failure event. In sagging, the tension flange (i.e., bottom panels) yields prior
to buckling collapse of the compression flange (i.e., deck panels). In hogging, however,
the compression flange (i.e., bottom panels) collapses much earlier than yielding of the
tension flange (i.e., deck panels).
This is in fact in contrast to the expectation of the ship structural designers who
would employ the traditional design methodology based on the allowable stress. As
long as the section modulus at bottom is greater than that at deck, they might have
presumed that the ultimate hull girder strength in hogging will be greater than that in
sagging. But this is not always true. When the ultimate hogging moment is marginal or
overlooked at the preliminary design stage, the bulk carrier is likely to collapse and sink
if a forward cargo hold is flooded so that the hogging moment is amplified.
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 since it can easily determine the real safety
margin of any economically designed structure.
Fig.4.23 and Table 4.7 to 4.9 show the safety measure calculation results based on
section modulus (allowable stress design approach) versus based on ultimate hull
strength (ultimate limit state design approach) for 30 existing ships.
-194-
ULS based safety measure (Mu/Mt)
2.0
1.5
Note:
Hollow: Sagging
Solid : Hogging
: FPSO
: Shuttle tanker
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Section modulus based safety measure (Z/Zmin)
safety measure for the 10 typical merchant ships
ULS based safety measure (Mu/Mt)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Note:
Hollow: Sagging
Solid : Hogging

: Container vessel
: Bulk carrier
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Section modulus based safety measure (Z/Zmin)
2.0
safety measure for all (30) existing vessels (Paik et al. 2003)
-195-
Table 4.6 Safety measure calculations for the 10 typical merchant ships
Item
Z
(m3)
SHT
DHT#1 DHT#2
Bulk#1
Bulk#2
Cont#1
Cont#2
Cont#3
FPSO
Shuttle
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
Z min
(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
Z min
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
M sw
Sag
-5.058
-2.318
-6.125
-4.210
-3.516
-1.557
-2.377
-3.976
-2.249
-3.083
(GNm)
Hog
5.584
2.559
6.815
4.673
3.868
1.943
3.162
5.107
2.488
3.409
Mw
Sag
-8.560
-3.923
-10.365
-7.124
-5.951
-2.636
-4.022
-6.729
-3.806
-5.217
(GNm)
Hog
8.034
3.682
9.674
6.661
5.599
2.250
3.237
5.597
3.568
4.891
-13.618
-6.240
-16.489 -11.334
-9.467
-4.193
-6.399
-10.705
-6.056
-8.300
9.467
Mt
Sag
(GNm)
Hog
13.618
6.240
16.489
4.193
6.399
10.705
6.056
8.300
Mu
Sag
-16.767
-6.899
-19.136 -14.281 -12.165
-6.800
-9.571
-16.599
-7.282
-11.280
(GNm)
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
11.334
Notes: Z min = minimum required section modulus specified by IACS, M t =

M sw + M w , M u = ultimate vertical moment of ship hulls with average level of initial
imperfections, but without structural damage, as obtained by ALPS/HULL.
-196-
Table 4.7 Safety measure calculations for the 9 existing double hull tankers (Paik et al. 2003)
Item
DHT#3
DHT#4
DHT#5
DHT#6
DHT#7
DHT#8
DHT#9
DHT#10 DHT#11
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
Z min
Deck
73.416
71.600
65.971
37.514
30.038
27.018
26.931
11.844
6.315
(m3)
Bottom
73.416
71.600
65.971
37.514
30.038
34.638
26.931
9.238
6.315
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
(m3)
Z
Z min
Mt
Sag
-17.946
-17.930
-16.745
-9.092
-7.344
-6.816
-6.730
-2.331
-1.769
(GNm)
Hog
17.946
17.930
16.745
9.092
7.344
6.816
6.730
2.331
1.769
Mu
Sag
-18.384
-18.369
-17.104
-9.858
-7.349
-7.114
-6.928
-2.747
-1.793
(GNm)
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

imperfections, but without structural damage, as obtained by ALPS/ISUM.

Table 4.8 Safety measure calculations for the 12 existing bulk carrier (Paik et al. 2003)
Item
Z
(m3)
Bulk#3 Bulk#4 Bulk#5 Bulk#6 Bulk#7 Bulk#8 Bulk#9 Bulk#10 Bulk#11 Bulk#12 Bulk#13 Bulk#14
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
Deck 52.994 53.831 52.209 33.359 30.130 16.197 16.302 16.537 13.436
11.560
Deck 52.581 52.269 52.330 33.555 29.801 16.137 16.486 16.140 11.207
Z min
(m3) Bottom 52.581 56.625 52.330 36.352 32.285 17.482 17.860 17.486 11.207
9.490
7.122
6.826
9.490
9.892
6.826
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
Sag -12.880 -13.084 -12.690 -8.108 -7.323 -3.937 -3.962 -4.019

Mt
(GNm) 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
2.351
1.635
1.958
1.671
Sag -16.338 -16.667 -16.140 -9.782 -8.706 -4.331 -4.236 -4.659

Mu
(GNm) Hog 16.599 16.400 15.176 10.645 9.362 5.451 5.514 5.493
-2.896
-2.024
-2.361
-1.836
3.448
2.303
2.451
2.517
Z
Z min
Mu
Mt
Deck
9.345
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

-197-
Table 4.9 Safety measure calculations for the 9 existing container vessels (Paik et al. 2003)
Item
Con#4
Con#5
Con#6
Con#7
Con#8
Con#9
Con#10
Con#11
Con#12
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
Z min
Deck
34.532
25.654
30.557
26.652
24.781
15.813
8.013
3.041
2.529
(m3)
Bottom
37.410
27.791
30.557
28.873
26.846
17.131
10.273
4.224
3.243
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
(m3)
Z
Z min
Mt
Sag
-11.436
-6.049
-7.130
-7.836
-6.499
-3.936
-1.957
-0.762
-0.684
(GNm)
Hog
11.436
6.049
7.130
7.836
6.499
3.936
1.957
0.762
0.684
Mu
Sag
-17.085
-9.277
-12.395
-12.667
-10.192
-5.704
-2.763
-1.070
-0.898
(GNm)
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

-198-
5. Concluding Remarks
The aim of this study has been to develop a more advanced, design oriented
ultimate strength design procedure for ship structures. The ultimate strength
characteristics of ship plating, stiffened panels and grillages are investigated and
advanced ultimate strength design procedure and methodology is developed considering
a variety of influential factors, namely geometric / material properties, loading
characteristics, initial imperfections, boundary conditions. And then developed design
procedure and methodology is applied to ship hulls.
Some collected results and conclusions developed in the present study are as
follows:
(1) During fabrication of ship structures, the initial imperfections (initial deflection
and residual stresses) inevitably develop and can significantly affect the structural
capacity. The characteristics of the fabrication related imperfections are uncertain, and
an idealized model was proposed in the present study.
(2) The buckling strength of plating can be affected significantly by the torsional
rigidity of support members as well as the plate dimensions. The proposed buckling
based capacity formula accommodates the torsional rigidity of support members as a
parameter of influence.
(3) Ship plating is generally subjected to combined in-plane and lateral pressure
loads and the plate capacity should be evaluated taking into account the effect of
combined loads. Two types of the capacity formulations, namely one based on the
buckling and the other based on the ultimate strength, were proposed by
accommodating the combined loads (i.e., biaxial compression / tension, edge shear and
lateral pressure) and fabrication related imperfections. For thin plating which buckles in
the elastic regime, the capacity formula based on the buckling is too pessimistic against
the ultimate limit state, while it provides a good measure of the structural capacity for
-199-
relatively thick plating which buckles in the inelastic regime. The capacity formula
based on the ultimate strength provides a good indication for both thin and thick plating
against collapse.
(4) To develop a more advanced, yet design oriented ultimate strength design
procedure for stiffened panels and grillages under combined in-plane and lateral
pressure loads, taking into account the influence of fabrication related initial
imperfections as well as all potential collapse modes for the stiffened panel structure
involved under the imposed loads. The validity of the ultimate strength formulations
developed in this study has to some extent been verified by a comparison with
nonlinear numerical solutions and structural model test results. It is concluded that the
ultimate strength formulations presented in this study may be quite useful for the
advanced structural design of FPSOs, naval vessels, passenger ships and certain types
of offshore platforms in addition to merchant ships. Ongoing work to eliminate the
remaining uncertainties continues, particularly with regard to lateral pressure effects.
(5) To investigate the characteristics of progressive collapse behavior of typical
merchant ship hulls under vertical sagging or hogging and also to develop the ultimate
limit state design format of ship hulls. The progressive collapse characteristics for 10
typical merchant ships including a single hull tanker, a double hull tanker with a
centerline longitudinal bulkhead, a double hull tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads,
a single sided bulk carrier, a double sided bulk carrier, a 3,500 TEU container vessel, a
5,500 TEU container vessel, a 9,000 TEU container vessel, a FPSO and a shuttle tanker
are studied applying the idealized structural unit method. Some important influential
parameters such as initial imperfections, lateral pressure and horizontal moment were
varied when looking at the ultimate hull girder strength characteristics under vertical
moments.
(6) Based on the insights developed in the present study, closed-form formulations
for the ultimate strength of ships under vertical moments are presented and validated by
-200-
a comparison with the ALPS/ISUM solutions for 40 merchant vessels. The uncertainties
of the developed closed-form expressions are quantified in the form of bias and COV.
(7) Finally, It is shown that the ULS approach is a better basis for design, because
it determines, in a more realistic way, the real safety margin of any economically
designed structure. Through the comparison the ultimate strength based safety measure
with the section modulus based (allowable stress based) safety measure for all (40)
target vessels.
Related to the ultimate strength design of ships structures, there are a few problem
areas which still remain to be resolved. On the other hand, the required tools and
technologies for ultimate strength assessment of ship structures on the basis of hull
girder ultimate strength have now developed to a reasonable degree. The development
of procedures and criteria for ultimate strength design of various types of ship structures
is one area of future challenge. As seen by the results of the present study, the outlook
in this regard appears to be quite promising.
-201-
REFERENCES
Aalami, B. and Chapman, J.C. (1972). Large deflection behavior of ship plate
panels under normal pressure and in-plane loading, Trans. RINA, 114, March.
Aalami, B., Moukhtarade, A. and Mahmudi-Saati, P. (1972). On the strength
design of ship plates subjected to in-plane and transverse loads, Trans. RINA, 114,
November.
ABS (2000). Rules for building and classing steel vessels, American Bureau of
Shipping, Houston.
Adamchak, J.C. (1979). Design equations for tripping of stiffeners under inplane
and lateral loads, DTNSRDC-79/064, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Washington, D.C.,
October.
Antoniou, A.C. (1980). On the maximum deflection of plating in newly built ships,
J. of Ship Research, 24(1): 31-39.
Bleich, F. (1952). Buckling strength of metal structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Caldwell, J.B. (1965). Ultimate longitudinal strength. RINA Transactions, The
Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London, 107: 411-430.
Carlsen, C.A. (1977). Simplified collapse analysis of stiffened plates, Norwegian
Maritime Research, (4): 20-36.
Carlsen, C.A. (1981). A parametric study of collapse of stiffened plates in
compression, The Structural Engineer, 58B(2): 33-40.
Carlsen, C.A. and Czujko, J. (1978). The specification of post-welding distortion
tolerance for stiffened plates in compression, The Structural Engineer, 56A(5); 133-141.
Chatterjee, S. and Dowling, P.J. (1975). Proposed design rules for longitudinal
stiffeners in compression flanges of box girders, Engineering Structure Laboratories,
Civil Engineering Department, Imperial Collage, CESLIC Report BG 40, London, May.
Chen, W.F. and Atsuta, T. (1976). Theory of beam-columns, Vol.1, In-plane
-202-
behavior and design, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Chen, Y. (2003). Ultimate strength analysis of stiffened panels using a beamcolumn method, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, January.
CRC (1971). Handbook of structural stability, Column Research Committee of
Japan, Corona Publishing Co., Tokyo.
Danielson, D.A. (1995). Analytical tripping loads for stiffened plates, International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 32(8/9): 1317-1328.
Danielson, D.A., Kihl, D.P. and Hodges, D.H. (1990). Tripping of thin-walled
plating stiffeners in axial compression, Thin-Walled Structures, 10(2): 121-142.
Das, P.K. and Garside, J.F. (1991). Structural redundancy for continuous and
discrete systems, Ship Structure Committee, SSC-354.
Davidson, P.C., Chapman, J.C., Smith, C.S. and Dowling, P.J. (1989). The design
of plate panels subjected to in-plane shear and biaxial compression, Trans. RINA, 132:
267-286.
Davidson, P.C., Chapman, J.C., Smith, C.S. and Dowling, P.J. (1991). The design
of plate panels subjected to biaxial compression and lateral pressure, Trans. RINA, 134:
149-160.
Dier, A.F. and Dowling, P.J. (1983). The strength of plates subjected to biaxial
forces, Proc. of Conference on Behavior of Thin-Walled Structures, University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, 329-353.
DNV (1995). Buckling strength analysis, Classification Notes No. 30.1, Det
Norske Veritas, Oslo, July.
DNV (2003). PULS 1.5 Users manual, Technical Report No. 2001-0420,
Revision No. 07, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Dow, R.S. (1991). Testing and analysis of 1/3-scale welded steel frigate model.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Marine Structures,
-203-
Dunfermline, Scotland, 749-773.

Dowling, P.J. and Dier, A.F. (1978). Strength of ships plating under combined
lateral loading and biaxial pressure, CESLIC Report SP6, Imperial College, London,
September.
Ellinas, C.P., Supple and Walker, A.C. (1984). Buckling of offshore structures, a
state-of-the-art review, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston.
ENV 1993-1-1 (1992). Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1.1 General
rules and rules for buildings. British Standards Institute, London.
Evans, J.H. (1960). Strength of wide plates under uniform edge compression,
Trans. SNAME, 68: 585-621.
Faulkner, D. (1975a). A review of effective plating for use in the analysis of
stiffened plating in bending and compression, J. of Ship Research, 19(1): 1-17.
Faulkner, D. (1975b). Compression strength of welded grillages, In: Evans, J.H.,
editor, Ship structural design concepts, Cornell Maritime Press, Centreville, Maryland.
Faulkner, D. (1987). Toward a better understanding of compression induced
tripping, In: Narayanan, R., editor, Steel structures, Elsevier Applied Science, London,
159-175.
Faulkner, D., Adamchak, J.C., Snyder, G.J. and Vetter, M.R. (1973). Synthesis of
welded grillages to withstand compression and normal loads, Computers & Structures,
3: 221-246.
Fujikubo, M., Yanagihara, D. and Yao, T. (1999). Estimation of ultimate strength
of continuous stiffened plates under thrust, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of
Japan, (185): 203-212 (in Japanese).
Fujikubo, M., Yao, T. and Varghese, B. (1997). Buckling and ultimate strength of
plates subjected to combined loads, Proc. of the 7th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Honolulu, IV: 380-387.
Fujikubo M, Yao T, Varghese B, Zha Y, Yamamura K (1998). Elastic local
-204-
buckling strength of stiffened plates considering plate / stiffener interaction and lateral
pressure. Proceedings of the International Offsshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Montreal, IV: 292-299.
Fujita, Y., Nomoto, T. and Niho, O. (1979). Ultimate strength of rectangular plates
subjected to combined loading (1st report) Square plates under compression and shear,
J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 145: 194-202 (in Japanese).
Gerard, G. and Becker, H. (1954). Handbook of structural stability, Part I. Buckling
of flat plates, NACA Technical Note, No.3781.
Hu, S.Z., Chen, Q., Pegg, N. and Zimmerman, T.J.E. (1997). Ultimate collapse
tests of stiffened plate ship structural units, Marine Structures, 10: 587-610.
Hu, Y., Chen, B. and Sun, J. (2000). Tripping of thin-walled stiffeners in the
axially compressed stiffened panel with lateral pressure, Thin-Walled Structures, 37(1):
1-26.
Hughes, O. (1988). Ship structural design, a rationally-based, computer-aided
optimization approach, SNAME, New Jersey.
Hughes, O.F. and Ma, M. (1996a) Elastic tripping analysis of asymmetrical
stiffeners, Computers & Structures, 60(3): 369-389.
Hughes, O.F. and Ma, M. (1996b). Inelastic analysis of panel collapse by stiffener
buckling, Computers & Structures, 61(1): 107-117.
Hughes, O.F., Nikolaidis, E., Ayyub, B., White, G. and Hess, P. (1994). Uncertainty
in strength models for marine structures, Ship Structure Committee, SSC-375.
ISO 2394 (1998). General principles on reliability for structures. Second Edition,
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISSC (2000). Ultimate strength, Proc. of the 14th International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress, Technical Committee III.1, Vol.1, Elsevier, London, 253-321.
Kmiecik, M., Jastrzebski, T. and Kuzniar, J. (1995). Statistics of ship plating
distortions, Marine Structures, 8: 119-132.
-205-
Lundquist, E. and Stowell, E.Z. (1942). Critical compressive stress for flat
rectangular plates Elastically restrained, NACA Technical Note, No.733.
Ma, M. (1994). Elastic and inelastic analysis of panel collapse by stiffener
buckling, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va., August.
Mansour, A.E. (1976). Charts for the buckling and post-buckling analyses of
stiffened plates under combined loading, Technical and Research Bulletin, No.2-22,
SNAME, July.
Mansour, A.E. (1977). Gross panel strength under combined loading, Ship
Structure Committee, SSC-270.
Mansour, A.E. and Thayamballi, A.K. (1994). Probability based ship design; loads
and load combination. Ship Structures Committee, Report SSC-373, US Coast Guard,
Washington DC.
Mateus, A.F. and Witz, J.A. (1997). Post-buckling of corroded steel plates: an
assessment of the design codes, Proc. of the 8th International Conference on the
Behavior of Offshore Structures (BOSS97), Elsevier Science, Delft, July.
Mateus, A.F. and Witz, J.A. (1998). On the post-buckling of corroded steel plates
used in marine structures, Trans. RINA, 140(c): 165-183.
Mazzolani, F.M., Landolfo, R. and De Matteis, G. (1998). Influence of welding on
the stability of aluminum thin plates, Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Elsevier
Science, 225-232.
McKenzie, K.I. (1963). The buckling of a rectangular plate under combined
biaxial compression, bending and shear, The Aeronautical Quarterly, August.
NTS (1998). Design of steel structures. N-004, Norwegian Technology Standards
Institution, Oslo.
Ohtsubo, H. and Yoshida, J. (1985). Ultimate strength of rectangular plates under
combination of loads (part 2) Interaction of compressive and shear stresses, J. of the
-206-
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 158: 368-375 (in Japanese).

Okada, H., Oshima, K. and Fukumoto, Y. (1979). Compressive strength of long
rectangular plates under hydrostatic pressure, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of
Japan, 146: 270-280 (in Japanese).
Paik, J.K. (1995). A new concept of the effective shear modulus for a plate buckled
in shear, J. of Ship Research, 39(1): 70-75.
Paik, J.K. (1999). Ultimate strength design equations of plates and stiffened panels
under combined loads, Final Report to the American Bureau of Shipping, New York,
Ship Structural Mechanics Lab., Pusan National University, Pusan, July.
Paik, J.K., Ham, J.H. and Kim, U.N. (1992a). A new plate buckling design formula,
J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 171: 559-566.
Paik, J.K., Ham, J.H. and Ko, J.H. (1992b). A new plate buckling design formula
(2nd report) On the plasticity correction, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan,
172: 417-425.
Paik, J.K., Kim, B.J., Kim, C.W. and Hong, S.J. (2003). A procedure for the
ultimate longitudinal strength assessment of ships, Submitted for publication in
International Journal of Maritime Engineering, RINA.
Paik, J.K. and Kim, C.Y. (1988). Simple formulae for buckling and ultimate
strength estimation of plates subjected to water pressure and uniaxial compression, J. of
the Society of Naval Architects of Korea, 25(4): 69-80 (in Korean).
Paik, J.K. and Kim, D.H. (1997). A benchmark study of the ultimate compressive
strength formulations for stiffened panels, J. of Research Institute of Industrial
Technology, Pusan National University, Pusan, 53: 373-405.
Paik, J.K., Kim, J.Y., Kim, W.S. and Lee, B.H. (1993). Development of an efficient
and accurate buckling design system for ship structures (II), Final Report to the
Hyundai Heavy Industries, Ulsan, by the Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering, Pusan National University, Pusan, August.
-207-
Paik, J.K., Kim, S.K. and Lee, S.K. (1998a). A probabilistic corrosion rate
estimation model for longitudinal strength members of bulk carriers, Ocean
Engineering, 25(10): 837-860.
Paik, J.K. and Mansour, A.E. (1995). A simple formulation for predicting the
ultimate strength of ships, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, The Society of
Naval Architects of Japan, 1(1): 52-62.
Paik, J.K. and Pedersen, P.T. (1995). Ultimate and crushing strength of plated
structures, J. of Ship Research, 39(3): 250-261.
Paik, J.K. and Pedersen, P.T. (1996). A simplified method for predicting the
ultimate compressive strength of ship panels, International Shipbuilding Progress,
43(434): 139-157.
Paik, J.K. and Thayamballi, A.K. (1997). An empirical formulation for predicting
the ultimate compressive strength of stiffened panels, Proc. of International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, Vol.IV, Honolulu, May, 328-338.
Paik, J.K. and Thayamballi, A.K. (2000). Buckling strength of steel plating with
elastically restrained edges, Thin-Walled Structures, 37(1): 27-55.
Paik, J.K. and Thayamballi, A.K. (2003). Ultimate limit state design of steel plated
structures, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U.K.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Kim, B.J. (2000a). Ultimate strength and
effective width equations for ship plating under combined axial load, edge shear and
lateral pressure, J. of Ship Research, 44(4): 247-258.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Kim, B.J. (2001a). Advanced ultimate strength
design equations for ship plating subject to combined biaxial compression / tension,
edge shear and lateral pressure loads, Marine Technology, 38(1): 9-25
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Kim, B.J. (2001b). Large deflection orthotropic
plate approach to develop ultimate strength formulations for stiffened panels under
combined biaxial compression / tension and lateral pressure, Thin-Walled Structures,
-208-
39(3): 215-246.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Kim, B.J., Wang, G., Shin, Y.S. and Liu, D. (2001c).
Ultimate limit state design of ship stiffened panels and grillages, Trans. SNAME, 109.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Kim, D.H. (1999). An analytical method for the
ultimate compressive strength and effective plating of stiffened panels, J. of
Constructional Steel Research, 49: 43-68.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Kim, S.K. and Yang, S.H. (1998b). Ultimate
strength reliability of corroded ship hulls, Trans. RINA, 140: 1-18.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Kim, S.K. and Yang, S.H. (1998c). Ship hull
ultimate strength reliability considering corrosion, J. of Ship Research, 42(2): 54-165.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Lee, S.K. and Kang, S.J. (2001d). A semi-analytical
method for the elastic-plastic large deflection analysis of welded steel or aluminum
plating under combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads, Thin-Walled Structures,
39(2): 125-152.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Lee, W.H. (1998d). A numerical investigation of
tripping, Marine Structures, 11(4-5): 159-183.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Park, Y.I. (1998e). Local buckling of stiffeners
in ship plating, J. of Ship Research, 42(1): 56-67.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Wang, G. and Kim, B.J. (2000b). On advanced
buckling and ultimate strength design of ship plating, Trans. SNAME, 108: 249-282.
Paik, J.K., Wang, G., Kim, B.J., Thayamballi, A.K. (2002). Ultimate limit state
design of ship hulls, Trans. SNAME, 110.
Rhodes, J. (1984). Effective widths in plate buckling, Chapter 4, Developments in
Thin-Walled Structures, Edited by J. Rhodes and A.C. Walker, Applied Science
Publishers, London, 119-158.
Rigo, P., Moan, T., Frieze, P.A. and Chryssanthopoulos, M. (1995). Benchmarking
of ultimate strength prediction for longitudinally stiffened panels, Proc. of the 6th
-209-
International Symposium on Practical Design of Ship and Mobile Units (PRADS95),

Seoul, 2: 869-882.
Smith, C.S. (1976). Compressive strength of welded steel ship grillages, Trans.
RINA, 118: 325-359.
Smith, C.S. (1977). Influence of local compressive failure on ultimate longitudinal
strength of ships hull. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Practical Design
in Shipbuilding, Tokyo, 73-79.
Smith, C.S., Anderson, N., Chapman, J.C., Davidson, P.C. and Dowling, P.J.
(1992). Strength of stiffened plating under combined compression and lateral pressure,
Trans. RINA, 134: 131-147.
Smith, C.S., Davidson, P.C., Chapman, J.C. and Dowling, P.J. (1988). Strength and
stiffness of ships plating under in-plane compression and tension. Trans. RINA, 130:
277-296.
Smith, C.S. and Dow, R.S. (1981). Residual strength of damaged steel ships and
offshore structures, J. of Constructional Steel Research, 1(4): 2-15.
Soares, C.G. and Gordo, J.M. (1996). Compressive strength of rectangular plates
under biaxial load and lateral pressure, Thin-Walled Structures, 24: 231-259.
Soreide, T.H. and Czujko, J. (1983). Load carrying capacities of plates under
combined lateral load and axial/biaxial compression, Proc. of the Second International
Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding (PRADS83), Tokyo and Seoul,
October.
Steen, E. and Valsgard, S. (1984). Simplified buckling strength criteria for plates
subjected to biaxial compression and lateral pressure, Proc. of the Ship Structure
Symposium, SNAME, Arlington, October, 257-272.
Tanaka, Y. and Endo, H. (1988). Ultimate strength of stiffened plates with their
stiffeners locally buckled in compression, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan,
164: 456-467 (in Japanese).
-210-
Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M. (1963). Theory of elastic stability, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., London.
Trahair, N.S. and Bradford, M.A. (1988). The behaviour and design of steel
structures, Chapman and Hall, London, 54-57.
Ueda, Y. and Rashed, S.M.H. (1974). An ultimate transverse strength analysis of
ship structure. Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Tokyo, 136: 309-324
(in Japanese).
Ueda, Y. and Rashed, S.M.H. (1984). The idealized structural unit method and its
application to deep girder structures. Computers & Structures, 18(2): 277-293.
Ueda, Y., Rashed, S.M.H. and Paik, J.K. (1984). Buckling and ultimate strength
interactions of plates and stiffened plates under combined loads In-plane biaxial and
shearing forces, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 156: 377-387 (in
Japanese).
Ueda, Y., Rashed, S.M.H. and Paik, J.K. (1985). New interaction equation for plate
buckling, Trans. JWRI, Vol.14, No.2, Welding Research Institute of Osaka University,
159-173.
Ueda, Y., Rashed, S.M.H. and Paik, J.K. (1986a). Effective width of rectangular
plates subjected to combined loads, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 159:
269-281 (in Japanese).
Ueda, Y., Rashed, S.M.H. and Paik, J.K. (1986b). Plate and stiffened plate units of
the idealized structural unit method (2nd report) Under in-plane and lateral loading
considering initial deflection and residual stress, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of
Japan, 160: 321-339 (in Japanese).
Ueda, Y., Rashed, S.M.H. and Paik, J.K. (1995). Buckling and ultimate strength
interaction in plates and stiffened panels under combined inplane biaxial and shearing
forces, Marine Structures, 8: 1-36.
Usami, T. (1993). Effective width of locally buckled plates in compression and
-211-
bending, J. of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(5):

von Karman, T., Sechler, E.E. and Donnell, L.H. (1932). Strength of thin plates in
compression, Trans. ASME, 54(5).
Wang, X. and Moan, T. (1997). Ultimate strength analysis of stiffened panels in
ships subjected to biaxial and lateral loading, Int. J. of Offshore and Polar Engineering,
7(1): 22-29.
Williams, D.G. (1976). The influence of the torsional rigidity of plate stiffeners on
plate effectiveness, International Shipbuilding Progress, 23(268): 355-360.
Yamamoto, Y, Matsubara, N. and Murakami, T. (1970). Buckling strength of
rectangular plates subjected to edge thrusts and lateral pressure (2nd report), J. of the
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 127: 171-179 (in Japanese).
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 Structures Congress, Nagasaki, Japan, October, 2: 321391.
Yao, T., Fujikubo, M., Yanagihara, D., Varghese, B. and Niho, O. (1998).
Influences of welding imperfections on buckling / ultimate strength of ship bottom
plating subjected to combined biaxial thrust and lateral pressure, Thin-Walled
Structures, Research and Development, 2nd International Conference on Thin-Walled
Structures, 425-432.
-212-
APPENDIX 1: Buckling Coefficients for Ship Plating with Elastically

Restrained Edge Conditions
mb
k x0 =
a
, k x1
mb
0.396 3L 1.974 2L + 3.565 L + k x 0 for 0 L < 2
0.881
= 6.951
for 2 L < 20
L 0 .4
7.025 for 20 L
k x 2 = d1 S4 + d 2 S3 + d 3 S2 + d 4 S + d 5
1.010(a / b) 4 + 12.827(a / b) 3 52.553(a / b) 2 + 67.072(a / b) 27.585 for 0 S < 0.4
0.047(a / b) 4 0.586(a / b) 3 + 2.576(a / b) 2 4.410(a / b) + 1.748 for 0.4 S < 0.8

d1 =
2
0.017(a / b) + 0.099(a / b) 0.150 for 0.8 S < 2
0.0 for 2 S
0.881(a / b) 4 10.851(a / b) 3 + 41.688(a / b) 2 43.150(a / b) + 14.615 for 0 S < 0.4
0.123(a / b) 4 + 1.549(a / b) 3 6.788(a / b) 2 + 11.299(a / b) 3.662 for 0.4 S < 0.8

d2 =
2
0.138(a / b) 0.793(a / b) + 1.171 for 0.8 S < 2
0.0 for 2 S
0.190(a / b) 4 + 2.093(a / b) 3 5.891(a / b) 2 2.096(a / b) + 1.792 for 0 S < 0.4
0.114(a / b) 4 1.412(a / b) 3 + 5.933(a / b) 2 8.638(a / b) + 0.224 for 0.4 S < 0.8

d3 =
2
0.457(a / b) + 2.571(a / b) 3.712 for 0.8 S < 2
0.0 for 2 S
0.004(a / b) 4 0.007(a / b) 3 0.243(a / b) 2 + 0.630(a / b) + 3.617 for 0 S < 0.4
0.021(a / b) 4 + 0.184(a / b) 3 0.126(a / b) 2 2.625(a / b) + 6.457 for 0.4 S < 0.8
d 4 = 0.822(a / b) 2 4.516(a / b) + 6.304 for 0.8 S < 2

0.106(a / b) + 0.176 for 2 S < 20
0.0 for 20
S
k x 0 for 0 S < 0.4

0.001(a / b) 4 + 0.033(a / b) 3 0.241(a / b) 2 + 0.684(a / b) + 3.539 for 0.4 < 0.8
S
d 5 = 0.148(a / b) 2 + 0.596(a / b) + 3.847 for 0.8 S < 2

1.822(a / b) + 7.850 for 2 S < 20
4
3
2
0.041(a / b) 0.602(a / b) + 3.303(a / b) 8.176(a / b) + 12.144 for 20 S

In calculating k x 2 , the following conditions must be satisfied in order for the
approximations to hold: If 4.0 < a / b 4.5 and S 0.2 then S = 0.2 , (2) If a / b > 4.5
and S 0.1 then S = 0.1 , (3) If a / b 2.2 and S 0.4 then S = 0.4 , (4) If a / b 1.5
-213-
and S 1.4 then S = 1.4 , (5) If 8 a / b 20 then S = 8 , and (6) If a / b 5 then

a / b = 50 .
k Tb 0 = 1.0 +
s2
, k y1 = e1 2L + e 2 L + e 3 , k y 2 = f1 S2 + f 2 S + f 3
l 2
1.322(b / a ) 4 1.919(b / a ) 3 + 0.021(b / a ) 2 + 0.032(b / a ) for 0 L < 2
e1 = 0.463(b / a ) 4 + 1.023(b / a ) 3 0.649(b / a ) 2 0.073(b / a ) for 2 L < 8

0.0 for 8 L
0.179(b / a ) 4 3.098(b / a ) 3 + 5.648(b / a ) 2 0.199(b / a ) for 0 L < 2
5.432(b / a ) 4 11.324(b / a ) 3 + 6.189(b / a ) 2 0.068(b / a ) for 2 L < 8

e2 =
4
3
2
1.047(b / a ) + 2.624(b / a ) 2.215(b / a ) + 0.646(b / a ) for 8 L < 20
0.0 for 20 L
0.994(b / a ) 4 + 0.011(b / a ) 3 + 1.991(b / a ) 2 + 0.003(b / a ) + 1.0 for 0 L < 2
3.131(b / a ) 4 + 4.753(b / a ) 3 + 3.587(b / a ) 2 0.433(b / a ) + 1.0 for 2 L < 8

e3 =
4
3
2
20.111(b / a ) 43.697(b / a ) + 30.941(b / a ) 1.836(b / a ) + 1.0 for 8 L < 20
4
3
2
0.751(b / a ) 0.047(b / a ) + 2.053(b / a ) 0.015(b / a ) + 4.0 for 20 L

0.543(b / a ) 4 1.297(b / a ) 3 + 0.192(b / a ) 2 0.016(b / a ) for 0 S < 2
f1 = 0.347(b / a ) 4 + 0.403(b / a ) 3 0.147(b / a ) 2 + 0.016(b / a ) for 2 S < 6

0.0 for 6 S
1.094(b / a ) 4 + 4.401(b / a ) 3 0.751(b / a ) 2 + 0.068(b / a ) for 0 S < 2
2.139(b / a ) 4 1.761(b / a ) 3 + 0.419(b / a ) 2 0.030(b / a ) for 2 S < 6

f2 =
4
3
2
0.199(b / a ) + 0.308(b / a ) 0.118(b / a ) + 0.013(b / a ) for 6 S < 20
0.0 for 20 S
0.994(b / a ) 4 + 0.011(b / a ) 3 + 1.991(b / a ) 2 + 0.003(b / a ) + 1.0 for 0 S < 2
2.031(b / a ) 4 + 5.765(b / a ) 3 + 0.870(b / a ) 2 + 0.102(b / a ) + 1.0 for 2 S < 6

f3 =
4
3
2
0.289(b / a ) + 7.507(b / a ) 1.029(b / a ) + 0.398(b / a ) + 1.0 for 6 S < 20
6.278(b / a ) 4 + 17.135(b / a ) 3 5.026(b / a ) 2 + 0.860(b / a ) + 1.0 for 20 S
L , S = rotational restraint parameters as defined in Eq.2.2, m = as defined in Eq.2.18
-214-
APPENDIX 2: Elastic Buckling Interaction Equation for Simply Supported

Plating between Biaxial Compression
xav
xE
yav
+
yE
= 1 where
1 = 2 = 1 for
1
2
a
2 ,
b
3
2
a
a
a
1 = 0.0293 0.3364 + 1.5854 1.0596
a
b
b
b
> 2
for
3
2
b
a
a
a
2 = 0.0049 0.1183 + 0.6153 + 0.8522

b
b
b
APPENDIX 3: Elastic Buckling Interaction Equation for Simply Supported

Plating between Axial Compression and Edge Shear
xav av
+
xE E
11
a
a
a
0.160 + 1.080 + 1.082 for 1 3.2
b
b
b
= 1 where 11 =
a
2.90
for > 3.2
APPENDIX 4: Elastic Buckling Stress for Simply Supported Plating under

In-Plane Bending
2
2E
12 1 2
where k yb
23.9 for 1 1.5
=
2
2
15.87 + 1.87 a + 8.60 b for a > 1.5
b
b
a
t

b
, ybE = k yb
2 E
12 1 2
xbE = 23.9
t

b
APPENDIX 5: Elastic Plate Shear Buckling Coefficients

b
(a) For all edges simply supported: k s = 4.0
+ 5.34
-215-
for a / b > 1.0
(b) For short edges simply supported and long edges clamped:
b
k s = 2.4
b
+ 9 .0
a
+ 1.08
for a / b > 1.0
(c) For short edges clamped and long edges simply supported:
2
b
b
b
if 0 < 0.4
2.25 + 1.95 + 5.35
a
a
a
ks =
3
2
22.92 b 33.0 b + 20.43 b + 2.13 if 0.4 < b 1.0

a
a
a
a
(d) For all edges clamped: k s = 5.4
b
+ 9.0
a
+ 0.6
for a / b > 1.0
APPENDIX 6: Maximum and Minimum Membrane Stresses in Ship

Plating under Combined Longitudinal Axial Load and Lateral Pressure
*x max
bt
rcx
: Residual stress distribution

: Membrane stress distribution
due to applied loads
accounting for the effect of
residual stress
: Total membrane stress
distribution
b 2bt
bt
x max
rtx
Fig.A.1. A schematic of the total membrane stress distribution inside the plating in the x
direction
The total membrane stress distribution inside the plate may be obtained as the sum of the applied
load induced stresses and the initial residual stresses, as that shown in Fig.A.1. The maximum
and minimum membrane stresses are taken, as follows
-216-
x max = *x max rcx , x min = *x min rcx , y max = *y max rcy , y min = *y min rcy
where
*x max = xav + rcx x
m 2 2 EA m (A m + 2A om )
2b t
cos
b
8a 2
*x min = xav + rcx + x
m 2 2 EA m (A m + 2A om )
8a 2
*y max = rcy x
2 EA m (A m + 2A om )
2ma t
cos
2
a
8b
*y min = rcy + x
2 EA m (A m + 2A om )
8b 2
A om = buckling mode initial deflection of plating under xav in the x direction

Y
C
Y 2 X3
A m = 2 + k1 + k 2 , k 1 = +
+
2
4
27
3C1
X=
1/ 3
, k2
1/ 3
Y
Y 2 X3
+
2
4
27
C 3 C 22
2C 32 C 2 C 3 C 4
+
,
2 , Y=
C1
C1 3C1
27C13
3C12
C1 =
3 2 EA om m 4 b a
2E m4 b a
, C2 =
+
+ 3
3
3
a3
16 a
16
b
b
C3 =
2
2
2
m4b
2 EA om
a m2b
+ 3 +
( xM + rex ) + a rey + D m mb + a
3
8
a
b
t ab a
mb
b
a
m2b
C 4 = A om
( xM + rex ) + a rey 164ab p
b
a
t
rex = rcx +
2
( rtx rcx ) b t b sin 2b t
b
2
b
rey = rcy +
2ma t
2
a
rty rcy a t
sin
a
2
m
a
m = buckling half wave number, which is determined as an integer satisfying the following
condition neglecting the effect of welding residual stresses:
-217-
a
m(m + 1)
b
a
1
1 for a square or long plate :
2
x =
b
a
0.2 2 + 2 for a wide plate : < 1
2
a
For a more elaborate description, the reader may be referred to Paik et al. (2001a) or Paik &
Thayamballi (2003).
APPENDIX 7: Maximum and Minimum Membrane Stresses in Ship

Plating under Combined Transverse Axial Load and Lateral Pressure
a 2a t
at
at
*y max
y max
rty
rcy
: Residual stress distribution

: Membrane stress distribution
due to applied loads accounting for
the effect of residual stress
: Total membrane stress
distribution
Fig.A.2 A schematic of the total membrane stress distribution inside the plating in the y
direction
and minimum membrane stresses are taken, as follows
x max = *x max rcx , x min = *x min rcx ,

y max = *y max rcy , y min = *y min rcy
where
-218-
*x max = rcx y
2 EA n (A n + 2A on )
2nb t
cos
2
b
8a
*x min = rcx + y
2 EA n (A n + 2A on )
8a 2
*y max = yav + rcy y
n 2 2 EA n (A n + 2A on )
2a t
cos
2
a
8b
*y min = yav + rcy + y
n 2 2 EA n (A n + 2A on )
8b 2
A on = buckling mode initial deflection of plating under yav in the y direction

Y
C
Y 2 X3
A n = 2 + k1 + k 2 , k 1 = +
+
2
4
27
3C1
X=
1/ 3
, k2
1/ 3
Y
Y 2 X3
+
2
4
27
C 3 C 22
2C 32 C 2 C 3 C 4
2 , Y=
+
,
C1 3C1
C1
27C13
3C12
C1 =
3 2 EA on b n 4 a
2E b n 4a
, C2 =
+
+ 3
a3
16 a 3 b 3
16
b
C3 =
2
b
2 EA on
2 D n 2 b na
n 4a b
n 2a
+ rex +
+
+
+
yav
ry
a3
8
b
t ab na b
b 3 a
b
16ab
n 2a
C 4 = A on rx +
yav + rey 4 p
b
a
t
rex = rcx +
2
( rtx rcx ) b t b sin 2nb t
b
2 n
b
rey = rcy +
2a t
2
a
sin
rty rcy a t
a
2
a
n = buckling half wave number, which is determined as an integer satisfying the following
condition neglecting the effect of welding residual stresses:
b
n (n + 1)
a
-219-
1 for a square or wide plate : 2
b
y =
a
a
0.2 2 + 2 for a long plate : > 2
b
b
Thayamballi (2003).
APPENDIX
Maximum and
Minimum
Membrane
Stresses
Orthotropic Plates under Axial Stress xav and Lateral Pressure p

x max = xav x
m 2 2 E x A m (A m + 2A om )
8L2
x min = xav + x
m 2 2 E x A m (A m + 2A om )
8L2
y max = x
y min = x
2 E y A m (A m + 2A om )
8B 2
2 E y A m (A m + 2A om )
8B 2
where E x = E1 +
G xy
ExEy
21+ xy
n sy A sy
n sx A sx
, E y = E1 +
Bt
Lt
) 2(1 +
E
xy
Dx =
2
Etz ox
EI *x
Et 3
+
+
b
12(1 2xy ) 1 2xy
Dy =
2
Etz oy
EI *y
Et 3
+
+
a
12(1 2xy ) 1 2xy
H=
1
t3
y D x + x D y + G xy
2
3
-220-
for
t h3
b t3
t
t
h
I = wx wx + t wx h wx wx + z ox + fx fx + b fx t fx fx + h wx + z ox
12
2
12
2
2
*
x
I *y =
z ox =
z oy =
t wy h 3wy
h wy
+ t wy h wy
12
b fy t 3fy
t fy
t
t
z oy +
+ b fy t fy
+ h wy + z oy
12
2
2
0.5h wx t wx (h wx + t ) + b fx t fx (0.5t fx + h wx + 0.5t )

bt + h wx t wx + b fx t fx
0.5h wy t wy h wy + t + b fy t fy 0.5t fy + h wy + 0.5t
at + h wy t wy + b fy t fy
xy = x y
x =
y =
=c
E
y
Ex
c
Ey
Ex
Ey
Ex
Et 3
12
+ Etz
2
ox
EI *y
EI * Et 3
2
+ x
Etz oy
a
b 12
EI *x E y
b E x
EI *y E y
a
E
x
0.5
E
y
Ex
Et 3
12
+ Etz
2
ox
EI *y
EI * Et 3
+ x
Etz 2oy
b 12
a
EI *x E y
b E x
EI *y E y
a
E
x
0. 5
c = correction factor to adjust the Poisson ratio effects consistent with the use of x = y =
for an isotropic plate, which may approximately be taken as c = / 0.86
x = y = if
E x I *x a
=
E y I*y b
A om = buckling mode initial deflection of the panel under xav as an orthotropic plate, in the
x direction
Y
C
A m = 2 + k1 + k 2 , k1 = +
2
3C1
1/ 3
Y 2 X3
+
4
27
-221-
, k2
1/ 3
Y
Y 2 X3
+
2
4
27
X=
C 3 C 22
2C 32 C 2 C 3 C 4
2 , Y=
+
C1 3C1
C1
27C13
3C12
C1 =
3 2 A om
L
L
2
m4B
m4B
Ex
+
=
+ E y 3
E
,
C
E
y
2
x
3
3
3
16
16
B
B
L
L
C3 =
2 A om
2
m4B
m2
m 4B
L m2B
L
Ex
+
Dx
2
H
E
+
+
+
+ D y 3
y
xav
3
3
3
t
8
LB
L
L
L
B
B
C 4 = A om
m2B
16LB
xav 4 p
L
t
m = integer satisfying the following condition:
L

B
Dx 2
2
m (m + 1)
Dy
4
*
Dy
L
x for a square or long panel :
4D x
B
x =
4
D
2* for a wide panel : L < y

x
4D x
B
1.0 for
< 1.3569
D
*x =
H
H
0.0894 1.3569 + 1.0 for
1.3569
It is noted that when xav is tensile, x = 1.0 is taken. For a more elaborate description, the
reader may be referred to Paik et al. (2001b) or Paik & Thayamballi (2003).
APPENDIX
Maximum and
Minimum
Membrane
Stresses
Orthotropic Plates under Axial Stress yav and Lateral Pressure p

x max = y
x min = y
2 E x A n (A n + 2A on )
8L2
2 E x A n (A n + 2A on )
8L2
-222-
for
y max = yav y
y min = yav + y
n 2 2 E y A n (A n + 2A on )
8B 2
n 2 2 E y A n (A n + 2A on )
8B 2
where E x , E y = as defined in Appendix 8

A on = buckling mode initial deflection of the panel under yav as orthotropic plate, in the y
direction
Y
C
A n = 2 + k1 + k 2 , k1 = +
2
3C1
X=
1/ 3
Y 2 X3
+
4
27
, k2
1/ 3
Y
Y 2 X3
+
2
4
27
C 3 C 22
2C 32 C 2 C 3 C 4
2 , Y=
+
C1
C1 3C1
27C13
3C12
C1 =
3 2 A on
2
n 4L
n 4L
B
B
Ex
+
,
=
+
E
E
C
E
y
2
x
y
16
16
B 3
B 3
L3
L3
C3 =
2 A 2on
n 4L n 2L
2
n 4L
B
B
n2
Ex
E
+
+
+
+
+
D
D
2
H
x
y
y
yav
LB
t
B
8
B 3
L3
B 3
L3
C 4 = A on
n2L
16LB
yav 4 p
B
t
n = integer satisfying the following condition:

B

L
Dy
Dx
n 2 (n + 1)
4
*
4D x
L
y for a square or wide panel :
Dy
B
y =
4
2* for a long panel : L > 4D x

y
Dy
B
1.0 for
< 1.3569
D
=
H
H
0.0894 1.3569 + 1.0 for
1.3569
D
D
*
y
-223-
It is noted that when yav is tensile, y = 1.0 is taken. For a more elaborate description, the
reader may be referred to Paik et al. (2001b) or Paik & Thayamballi (2003).
APPENDIX 10 Maximum and Minimum Membrane Stresses of Plating

under Axial Stress xM and Lateral Pressure p
and minimum membrane stresses are expressed in term of xM , p and initial imperfections as
given in Appendix 6. All xav in Appendix 6 has to replace into xM . For a more elaborate
description, the reader may be referred to Paik et al. (2001a) or Paik & Thayamballi (2003).
APPENDIX 11 Maximum and Minimum Membrane Stresses of Plating

under Axial Stress yM and Lateral Pressure p
and minimum membrane stresses are expressed in term of yM , p and initial imperfections as
given in Appendix 7. All yav in Appendix 7 has to replace into yM . For a more elaborate
description, the reader may be referred to Paik et al. (2001a) or Paik & Thayamballi (2003).
APPENDIX 12 Buckling Coefficient for the Local Buckling of x Stiffener

Web under Axial Compression xM
k wx
C1 px + C 2 for 0 px wx
1
= C 3
for wx < px 60
C
4 px + C 5
1
for 60 < px
C 3
60C 4 + C 5
-224-
where wx = 0.444 fx2 + 3.333 fx + 1.0 , C1 = 0.001 fx + 0.303 , C 2 = 0.308 fx + 0.427
4.350 fx2 + 3.965 fx + 1.277 for 0 fx 0.2
0.427 fx2 + 2.267 fx + 1.460 for 0.2 < fx 1.5

C3 =
2
0.133 fx + 1.567 fx + 1.850 for 1.5 < fx 3.0
5.354 for 3.0 < fx
6.70 fx2 + 1.40 for 0 fx 0.1
for 0.1 < fx 1.0

5.10 fx + 0.860
C4 =
1
for 1.0 < fx 3.0

4.0 fx + 1.814
0.0724 for3.0 <
fx
1.135 fx + 0.428 for 0 fx 0.2
0.299 3fx + 0.803 fx2 0.783 fx + 0.328 for 0.2 < fx 1.0
C5 =
3
2
0.016 fx + 0.117 fx 0.285 fx + 0.235 for 1.0 < fx 3.0
0.001 for 3.0 < fx

px =
GJ px
h wx D wx
, fx =
GJ fx
b t3
bt 3
, J fx = fx fx
, J px =
h wx D wx
3
3
For flat bar stiffeners, the expression of k wx becomes much simpler since fx = 0 , the
computed results being well approximated by
k wx
0.303 px + 0.427 for 0 px 1
= 1.277
for 1 < px 60
1
.
40
px + 0.428
1.2652 for 60 < px
Thayamballi (2003).
-225-
APPENDIX 13 Coefficients for the Tripping Strength of x Stiffener under

Axial Stress xM and Lateral Line Load pb
be
be
t
N.
zpx
A.
hwx
twx
tfx
t
N.
hwx
zfx
twx
tfx
bfx
zpx
A.
zfx
bfx
Angle section
Tee section
Fig.A.3. Geometric properties of longitudinals or transverses with attached effective plating
C1 = (b e t + h wx t wx + b fx t fx )I px S fx2
C 2 = I px EI x
pba 2 S1x
3
1 2 2
12 I x m
(b e t + h wx t wx + b fx t fx ) G (J wx + J fx ) + EI zx h 2wx
m
+ 2Sfx EI zyx h wx
C 3 = EI x
pba 2 S3 x
3
1 2 2
12 I x m
pba 2 S 2 x
3
1
12 I x m 2 2
3
pba 2 S 2 x
3
pba 2 S1x
2 m
1 2 2
1 2 2 G (J wx + J fx ) + EI zx h wx

12 I x m
12 I x m
a
3
pba 2 S3 x
1 2 2
12 I x m
t fx b 2fx
2
m
EI zyx h wx
S fx =
S1x = z px h wx t fx b fx z px b e t h wx t wx z px
h wx
2
-226-
S 3 x = z px h wx
) b 2t
S 2 x = z px h wx t fx h 2wx b fx +
z px
b 3fx
h
h 3wx t wx
wx
3
3
4
z px
b 3fx
h
h 3wx t wx
wx
12
4
3
2
fx fx
S 4 x = z px h wx t fx h 2wx b fx +
b t3
t h3
t
h
I x = e + b e tz 2px + wx wx + t wx h wx wx + z px
12
12
2
2
b fx t 3fx
t
t
+ b fx t fx fx + h wx + z px
12
2
2
2
2
I zx = b e ty 2ox + h wx t wx y ox
+ b fx t fx y ox
b fx y ox +
b fx2
3
for angle sec tion
I zyx
t + h wx
h wx t wx
z px y ox b e t + y ox z px
2
t + 2h wx + t fx
= + z px
y ox fx b fx t fx for angle sec tion
2
2
0 for T sec tion
I px
h 3wx t wx h wx t 3wx t fx b 3fx b fx t 3fx

+
+
+
+ h 2wx t fx b fx
3
3
3
3
for angle sec tion
= 3
3
3
3
h wx t wx + h wx t wx + t fx b fx + b fx t fx + h 2 t b
wx fx fx
3
12
12
3
for T sec tion
z px =
y ox
0.5h wx t wx (h wx + t ) + b fx t fx (0.5t fx + h wx + 0.5t )

b e t + h wx t wx + b fx t fx
b fx2 t fx
for angle sec tion
= 2(b e t + h wx t wx + b fx t fx )
0 for T sec tion
-227-
J wx =
h wx t 3wx
b3 t
b t3
, J fx = fx fx , I fx = fx fx
3
3
12
m = tripping half wave number of the stiffener
For a more elaborate description of tripping of stiffeners under combined axial compression and
lateral line loads, the reader may be referred to Hughes & Ma (1996a). It is noted that the
tripping strength for flat bar profile may be taken as being equal to the corresponding local web
buckling strength as previously given in Appendix 12.
-228-

.

.

.
,

, .
(ISO: International Organization for
Standardization) ISO 2394
,
(IACS : International Association of Classification Societies)
/
.
-229-
,
/ ,
/
, /
.
/
,
.
/ ,
. 40
/ .

/
.
-230-
List of Authors Articles Published or Submitted

during This Study
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Kim, B.J. (2000). Ultimate strength and effective width
equations for ship plating under combined axial load, edge shear and lateral pressure, J. of Ship
Research, 44(4): 247-258.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Wang, G. and Kim, B.J. (2000). On advanced buckling and
ultimate strength design of ship plating, Trans. SNAME, 108: 249-282.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Kim, B.J. (2001). Advanced ultimate strength design
equations for ship plating subject to combined biaxial compression / tension, edge shear and
lateral pressure loads, Marine Technology, 38(1): 9-25
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Kim, B.J. (2001). Large deflection orthotropic plate
approach to develop ultimate strength formulations for stiffened panels under combined biaxial
compression / tension and lateral pressure, Thin-Walled Structures, 39(3): 215-246.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Kim, B.J., Wang, G., Shin, Y.S. and Liu, D. (2001). Ultimate
limit state design of ship stiffened panels and grillages, Trans. SNAME, 109.
Paik, J.K. and Kim, B.J. (2002). Ultimate strength formulations for stiffened panels under
combined axial load, in-plane bending and lateral pressure: a benchmark study, Thin-Walled
Structures, 40(1): 45-83
Paik, J.K., Wang, G., Kim, B.J., Thayamballi, A.K. (2002). Ultimate limit state design of
ship hulls, Trans. SNAME, 110.
Paik, J.K., Kim, B.J., Kim, C.W. and Hong, S.J. (2003). A procedure for the ultimate
longitudinal strength assessment of ships, Submitted for publication in International Journal of
Maritime Engineering, RINA.
-231-

Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Structures

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Structures

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Structures

Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Structures

2. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Plating

2.1 Buckling / Ultimate Strength Design Procedure

2.2 Geometric and Material Properties

2.4 Modeling of Fabrication Related Imperfections

2.5 Buckling Based Capacity

2.5.2 Validity of the Johnson-Ostenfeld Equation

2.5.4 Effect of Residual Stresses

2.5.5 Effect of Lateral Pressure

2.5.7 Effect of In-plane Bending

2.6 Ultimate Strength Based Capacity

2.5.3 Effect of Rotational Restraints

2.5.8 Elastic Edge Shear Buckling

2.6.3 Ultimate Strength Equation for Edge Shear

2.7 Comparison between Buckling and Ultimate Strength Based Capacities

3. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Stiffened Panels and Grillages

3.1.2 Panel Material Properties

3.1.4 Load Effects

3.1.5 Fabrication Related Initial Imperfections

3.1.3 Panel Boundary Conditions

3.2 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode I

3.2.1 Combined Longitudinal Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.2.2 Combined Transverse Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.3.1 Combined Longitudinal Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.3.2 Combined Transverse Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.4.1 Combined Longitudinal Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.4.2 Combined Transverse Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.5.1 Combined Longitudinal Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.5.2 Combined Transverse Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.6 Ultimate Strength Formulations for Collapse Mode V

3.6.1 Combined Longitudinal Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.6.2 Combined Transverse Axial Stress and Lateral Pressure

3.7 Ultimate Strength Formulation for Collapse Mode VI

3.8.1 Ultimate Strength Characteristics of Longitudinally Stiffened Panels in Ships

3.8.2 Ultimate Strength Characteristics of Ship Grillages Comparisons with the

4. Ultimate Limit State Design of Ship Hulls

4.2 Progressive Collapse Characteristics of Typical Merchant Ships

4.2.1 Progressive collapse behavior under vertical moment

4.2.3 Effect of horizontal moment

4.3 Closed-Form Ultimate Strength Formulation for Ship Hulls

4.4 Ultimate Limit State Design Format

Published Papers Related to This Study

= length of plating, spacing between two adjacent transverses (frames)

A x , A y = cross-sectional areas of a single x - or y -stiffener with attached effective

= effective length of the plating corresponding to length a

= a e at plate ultimate limit state

A sx , A sy = cross-sectional areas of a single x - or y -stiffener

= breadth of plating, spacing between two adjacent longitudinals

= breadth of the stiffened panel, spacing between two adjacent longitudinal

= effective width of the plating corresponding to breadth b

= be at plate ultimate limit state

= breadths of x - or y -stiffener flange

= moments of inertia of x - or y -stiffener with attached effective plating

= torsion constants of x - or y -stiffener flange

J wx , J wy = torsion constants of x - or y -stiffener web

= radius of gyration of longitudinals with attached effective plating

= length of the stiffened panel, spacing between two adjacent transverse

frames (or bulkheads)

= equivalent plate thickness

= thicknesses of x - or y -stiffener flange

t wx , t wy = thicknesses of x - or y -stiffener web

= section moduli of x - or y -stiffener with attached effective plating