Aalto University

School of Engineering
Kul-24.4120 Ship Structural Design (P)

Lecture 7 – Hull Girder Bending, Shear and Torsion

Kul-24.4120 Ship Structures
Response

Lecture 5:
Tertiary Response: Bending
of plates and stiffeners, σ3 Design Philosophy

Loads
Lectures

Lecture 6: Response Strength

Bending of web frames, Lectures Lectures
girders and grillages, σ2

Lecture 7: Lecture 8:
Hull girder bending, torsion Ship vibrations, σ1 – σ3
and
shear, σ1
 Contents
•  The aim is to give understanding how basic beam theory for bending,
shear and torsion of thin-walled sections is applied to ship structural
design

•  Motivation

•  Bending response of hull girder

•  Shear response hull girder

•  Prismatic beam models for torsion of

•  Passenger ships and deviation from basic beam theory

•  Finite Element Analysis

•  Literature

1.  DNV, Rules for Classification of Ships, Part 3, Chapter 1.

2.  Gere & Timoshenko, Strength of materials, 1980. Pp 188-192, 209-215, 351-353

3.  Hughes, O.F., Ship Structural Design. SNAME, 1988.

4.  Lamb, Ship Design and Construction

5.  PNA, Vol I, Ch. IV Strength of Ships.

6.  Ylinen, Kimmo- ja lujuusoppi osa I

7.  Bleich, H.H., Nonlinear Distribution of Bending Stresses Due to Distortion of the Cross Section.
ASME Applied Mechanics Division, 1952.

8.  Fransman, J., The Influence of Passenger Ship Superstructures on the response of the Hull Girder.
RINA ,1988.

9.  Naar, H., et. al, A Theory of Coupled Beams for Strength Assessment of Passenger Ships. Marine
Structures, 2004

10.  Hughes, O.F., ”Ship Structural Design”, SNAME 1988

11.  Jensen, J.J., ”Load and Global Response of Ships”, DTU, 1999.

12.  Parnes, R. ”Solid Mechanics in Engineering”, Wiley 2001.

Weekly Exercise
Exercise 7: Hull Girder Response -
Given 24.02.2015 09:00, Return
02.03.2015 09:00
•  Calculate the hull girder normal
stress response in bending using
basic Euler-Bernoulli beam theory
(spreadsheets based on Tables
created earlier).
•  Discuss the vertical distribution of
normal stresses and reasons for
the possible differences and
correctness of the result.
•  Discuss, how would you control
shear stresses and torsion in your
ship?
•  Report and discuss the work.
Motivation
Bending of Bulk Carrier MS Lassia
•  November 1999 139,800 dwt M/S Lassia was
discharging some 126,000 tonnes of iron ore 
shipped from Mauritania when the incident
occurred.

•  First reports cast doubt on how well the  operation
to unload the ore from the ship, which has five
holds, was planned and managed.

•  Both aft and bow of the 273 m long ship were above
sea level on Friday night, but the mid-section is
reportedly lying on the seabed, suggesting  she has
severely buckled.

•  It is believed that 30,000-40,000 tonnes of  ore
remains on board.

•  Lesson learned is that hull girder is thin-walled
structure which can fail even without wave loads
being active, i.e. according to basic beam theory


Mtot=Mwave+Mstill water
Motivation
Torsion of Hull Girder
•  Pressure variation around the hull can
cause torsional moment to hull-girder
–  Ship and wave directions are different
–  Horizontal reaction force introduced which does
not act in shear centre
•  Torsion can cause
–  Significant normal and shear stresses
–  Significant deformations in the hull
•  The analysis methods M=F*d=p*A*d
–  3D-FEM
–  Application of theory of prismatic thin-
walled sections under torsion ps≠pp
Hierarchy
primery structure laivapalkki
hull girder

bulkhead

secondary str bouble bottom

floor

long.
frame
tertiary str.

Tension in bottom and compression deck is called sagging and

the alternative hogging!
 Equilibrium of External Loads
Starting point is the beam element qdx
equilibrium equations
↑ −qdx + Q − (Q + dQ ) = 0 Q Q + dQ
dx
↵M + qdx + (Q + dQ )dx − (M + dM ) = 0
2 M M + dM
Simplifying these give
(NOTE! dx*dy is very small)
dQ
↑ −qdx = dQ ⇔ −q =
dx
dx dM
↵ − q dx + Qdx + dQdx − dM = 0 ⇔ Q =
2 #"! dx
#"! ≈0
≈0

Thus, we obtain the well-known relation

d 2 M dQ
= = −q
dx 2 dx
External Loads"

•  Still water bending moment MS and shear force QS:

–  All load and ballast conditions MUST be considered
–  Ship leaving and entering harbour should be checked
–  Loading and unloading should be checked
–  The rule book has minimum requirements based on regression formulae, but the real
values have to be calculated
–  Positioning of cargo and bulkheads should be such that the loads are not excessive
•  Wave bending moment MW and shear force QW::

–  Are usually based on North-Atlantic and lifetime of 108 waves
–  Sagging moment is always larger than hogging, especially with
•  Small block coefficient
•  Large speed
•  Strong V-shape
 Pure Bending of Hull Girder

•  During 19th century it was observed that the hull girder of tankers and bulk-carriers
follows basic Euler-Bernoulli beam theory

•  In pure bending:

–  the shear force is zero, i.e. Q = 0, and bending moment is constant M=constant, dM/dx=Q

–  planes remain planes in deformation

–  Relative strain is linearly proportional to the distance from neutral axis (axis of zero strain)

dw du d 2w
u = −z ⋅ ⇒ εx = = −z ⋅ 2
dx dx dx
•  The stress becomes

d 2w z, w dw
σ x = Eε x = − Ez 2 u = −z
dw sd

•  and the bending moment

d 2w dw
M x = − EI 2 −
dx
dx
•  and the deflection
w

d 2w M
= −
dx 2 EI x, u
The Section Modulus

•  The bending moment due to external

load
M T = MSW + M W
•  The section modulus
IY
WB =
zB z
IY z
WD = D
zD
•  and the normal stress
y
M z
B
σB = T
WB
MT
σD =
WD
 Calculation of Section Modulus

•  Basic beam theory is assumed, so those
elements which do not follow the
assumptions need to be removed
•  Discontinuities in stress need to be taken
into account
•  Openings
•  Discontinuities in structures
•  Effective breadth and width (buckling)
•  Etc.
•  Note! Solid deck

•  Nominal stresses are calculated, i.e. Shear lag

Opening
stress peaks are analysed separately area
•  Usually only half ship is presented in 30°
drawings but both sides contribute to
section modulus

Not accounted due to lack of material

Not accounted due to lack of stress

in shear lag area
 Calculation of Section Modulus

Part No. Parts Young's Modulus True Breadth Breadth Height Local N.A. Area 1. Moment Local I Steiner

n E btrue b=E/Eref*btrue h e A=n*btrue*t S=A*e I0=n*btrue*h3/12 IS=A*e2

[-] [-] [GPa] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m4] [m4]
Bottom 2 210 7,000 7,0000 0,016 0,008 0,224 0,002 4,78E-06 1,43E-05

Keel, middle 1 210 0,016 0,0160 1,400 0,700 0,022 0,016 3,66E-03 1,10E-02

Keel, bilge 2 210 0,016 0,0160 1,400 0,700 0,045 0,031 7,32E-03 2,20E-02

Bilge 2 210 0,016 0,0160 1,400 0,509 0,070 0,036 1,31E-02 1,82E-02

Side stringer 2 210 1,400 1,4000 0,012 5,000 0,034 0,168 4,03E-07 8,40E-01

Deck, normal steel 2 210 1,400 1,4000 0,014 9,000 0,039 0,353 6,40E-07 3,18E+00

Deck, stainless steel 2 190 5,600 5,0667 0,014 9,000 0,142 1,277 2,32E-06 1,15E+01

Tanktop, stainless steel 2 190 5,600 5,0667 0,018 1,400 0,182 0,255 4,92E-06 3,58E-01

Tanktop, normal steel 2 210 1,400 1,4000 0,016 1,400 0,045 0,063 9,56E-07 8,78E-02

Side 2 210 0,014 0,0140 7,600 5,200 0,213 1,107 1,02E+00 5,75E+00

Inner side 2 190 0,016 0,0145 7,600 5,200 0,220 1,144 1,06E+00 5,95E+00

Longitudinal bulkhead 1 190 0,018 0,0163 7,600 5,200 0,124 0,644 5,96E-01 3,35E+00

Total 1,360 5,095 2,703 31,054

Entire Cross-Section
Reference Young's Modulus 210GPa
Neutral axis, N.A.=S/A 3,75m (from bottom surface of bottom plate)

Elements, I0,tot 2,70m4

z
Elements, IS,tot 31,05m4
z
D
In 33,76m4 = It.tot + Is,tot

I 14,67m4 = In - n.a.2 * Atot

y
z
B
Zdeck 2,79m3

Zbottom 3,92m3
 Required Section Modulus
•  The required section modulus is obtained by W [m 3 ]
26

considering
24
–  The total bending moment (wave + still water)

22
–  The allowed stress

•  The allowed stress is typically σl = 175f1 at 0,4 L 20

from the mid ship and is typically 75% from the 18

L = 200 m
yield stress of the material (175/235=75%)
B = 30 m
16
•  Material parameter f1 is valid for materials with CB = 0.7

yield stresss up to Re= 400 N/mm2 and it includes 14

influences of
12
–  Reduced stiffness in structures made of high strength steels

10
–  Reduced fatigue strength in structures made of high strength 0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000
steels

•  The section modulus must be calculated at MSW [tonm]
different locations to account the hull form
changes

•  In rule books there are two parts in minimum
requirement

–  Minimum which does not depend on still water bending
moment

–  Minimum which depends on still water bending moment

 Required Section Modulus
•  The required section modulus is obtained by
considering

–  The total bending moment (wave + still water)

–  The allowed stress

•  The allowed stress is typically σl = 175f1 at 0,4 L
from the mid ship and is typically 75% from the
yield stress of the material (175/235=75%)

•  Material parameter f1 is valid for materials with
yield stresss up to Re= 400 N/mm2 and it includes
influences of

–  Reduced stiffness in structures made of high strength steels

–  Reduced fatigue strength in structures made of high strength
steels

•  The section modulus must be calculated at
different locations to account the hull form
changes

•  In rule books there are two parts in minimum
requirement

–  Minimum which does not depend on still water bending
moment

–  Minimum which depends on still water bending moment

 Strength Deck

•  Usually decks are dimensioned based on water pressures, cargo loads or local
loads

•  Since the decks participate in longitudinal bending of hull girder they
experience also membrane type tension and compression

•  Due to this the edges of opening need to be rounded or strengthened (notch
problem)

luukun aukon pyöristys lujuuskannessa

luukun nurkan timanttilevy
l 1 ≥ 2 l2
1,6 t
t 1:3

l2

mallireuna
 Shear Stress
• 
The external load (F, q) on the beam causes shear force that is equal to the shear stress
(τ) intgerated over the shear area (A)

Q = ∫ τdA
•  which was excluded in the previous derivations

•  shear stresses can be very significant especially at L/4 and 3L/4

•  this can cause additional deflection on beams

–  Called shear deflection

–  Significant in beam with low L/h (<10)
z
l
–  Significant in composite beams

x σ
F
τ
 Shear Stress

•  The stress resultant R due σ at left end is 
 z
1 1z
M M
z 1
M
R= ∫ σ x dA = ∫ ηdA = ∫ η dA = S

z I
z Y
I Y z I Y

•  where S is the static moment of shaded area:

z1

S = ∫ ηdA
z
•  on the right end the stress resultant is
z

M + dM
1
M + dM
R + dR= ∫ ηdA = S z dx b
z
IY IY
σ z

•  so the difference is
R τ
R+dR z2 dA
dM
dR= S Q + dQ M + dM η
IY Q τ z
M
x z1 CG y
 Shear Stress

•  This has to be in balance with the shear stress τ integrated over area bdx which gives:

S
τbdx = dM
IY
•  Taking into account the relation between bending moment and shear force gives

dM

=Q
dx
•  So the shear stress is:


QS
τ=
IY b

•  The shear flow is

QS
q = τt =
IY
Simple Ship
A Box Beam
• 
Ship dimensions are such that it can be considered as Q

thin-walled section (e.g. t/b=20mm/20000mm)

t
•  With cross-section with one closed cell the calculation D

is started at symmetry line (vertical in the picture)

since there the shear stress and therefore the static
t
moment is zero
h2
S

H
N.A.

h1

t
B

2b
Simple Ship
A Box Beam (Half Model)

•  The horizontal members have constant
distance to neutral axis → static moment
increases linearly

•  At deck it is and corresponding corner A
value
s
1

 S ( s1 ) = ∫ h2t D ds1 = h2t D s1

0


S A = h2t Db
•  At the side the static moment is (parabolic)

s 2
1
S ( s2 ) = S A + ∫ (h2 − s2 )t S ds2 = S A + (h2 s2 − s22 )t S
0
2
•  The maximum is at neutral axis, i.e. s2 = h2

1 2
S max (h2 ) = S A + h2 t s
2

Static moment at thin-walled section

 Extension to More Complicated Structure
Including Corner Effects

•  The input and output at corner point (A) 1
needs to be the same for shear flow
(analogous to fluid flow)

q3A = q1A + q2A

•  so for static moment we get

€ S3A = S1A + S2A
2 A

3
Static moment at thin-walled section
with corners
Extension to More Complicated Structure
Including Corner Effects

•  Previous calculations assumed that there exist Simplified tanker cross-section
location of zero static moment and shear flow

–  Symmetry plane

–  Free end

•  Due to this the problem was statically defined

•  In ships usually we usually have more closed cells
and therefore we do not know enough initial
conditions, i.e. more unknowns than equations and
statically undefined problems

•  The solution is obtained by

Opened simplified tanker cross-section
1.  cutting cell BCDE open so that we have one more location of zero
shear force

2.  adding constant shear flow q1 to that cell to account the influence of
cutting the cell open

3.  calculating the shear flow for open cells as before, i.e. ABE, BCDE
and FE (ABE+BCDE at corner E)

4.  Calculating q1

QS0
5.  Summing the the shear flows, i.e. q=q0+q1 q0 =
IY
Calculation of the Unknown Shear Flow q1

•  The unknown shear flow q1 is calculated by considering that the
the total shear flow q = q0 + q1 does not warp the cross-section,
i.e.

1 1 q
∫ γds = 0 ⇔ G ∫τ ds = G ∫ t ds = 0
•  Substituting the total shear flow gives

q0 + q1
∫ ds = 0
t
•  Since the unknown is constant we can take it out from the intgeral
and write

ds q
q1 ∫ = − ∫ 0 ds,
t t
•  Solving for unknown gives

q0
∫ t ds
q1 = −
ds
∫t
•  So the total shear flow is

⎡ S ⎤
Q ⎢ ∫ t0 ds ⎥
q= ⎢ S 0 − ⎥.
I Y ⎢ ds ⎥ Can be extended to multiple cells
⎣⎢ ∫ t ⎦⎥
Torsion of thin-walled section
Classification Society Approach
 Passenger Ship
Influence of Long Super Structure to Bending Stresses

•  The structure of passenger ship hull consists of hull and long SS President Wilson aluksen pääkaaren
superstructure
suhteellisen venymän jakautuma.

•  Measurements (Vasta, 1949 and Fransman, 1986) on hull

girder bending showed that the strains are not linearly
distributed in vertical direction as indicated by basic beam
theory, i.e.

d 2w

ε x ≠ −z ⋅
dx 2
•  The picture shows that the difference is most significant at the
interesection between hull and supestructure, but also inside
the superstructure the distribution is not linear

•  Although the example is very old the same findings apply to
modern passenger ship → response is however much more
complicated

•  Techiques to solve the problem

–  Analytical methods based on beam theory (Bleich, Naar)

–  Analtytical methods based on plane stress theory (Fransmann)

–  Finite Element Method

Efficiency Index
•  Efficiency index can be used to describe
the participation of superstructure to
load carrying

σ −σ P

η= 0
σ 0 −σ F
•  When index is

–  0 the superstructure is ineffecive

–  between 0 and 1 the superstructure is partly
effecive

–  1 the superstructure is fully effective

σ 0 −σ F
η (σ P = σ F ) = =1
σ 0 −σ F
σ −σ 0
η (σ P = σ 0 ) = 0 =0
σ 0 −σ F

•  This can be derived also for single

decks, i.e. deck efficiency

Reasons for not Linear Strain/Stress
Distribution

-  Non-linearity in strains is caused by

–  Vertical flexibility of hull/superstructure-interface,
e.g. web frames carry the superstructure

–  Shear flexibility of hull/superstructure-interface, e.g.
large openings in side shell and bulkheads

-  Non-linearity in stress is caused by

–  The same reasons as for strains

–  Use of different materials in the superstructure and
hull

Not valid, shear ”sliding” occurs

u1 = − z1w'
τ ≈0
u2 = − z 2 w'
Main Frame
Modern Main Frame and Longitudinal Strength

•  Due to length of modern passenger ships the Cabin Spaces

longitudinal strength issues (σ1-level) have become in Superstructure
important

•  Therefore the role of superstructure has also become
more important can be for example 60% of the total
height
longitudinal strength
members
in Superstructure
M TOT
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 % Main frame
distribution of
normal stress
in cross section
stair stair stair
tower tower tower
Main Deck
Bleich’s Model
Two Beams, with Vertical Coupling
Total moment of inertia

I = IS + IH + I A kansirakennus

Influence of membrane forces runko

AH AS
I A = a2 L
AH + AS

zs
c.g.
αS a
c.g.
A B
a
zCG z
C.G. αH a
zh
c.g. c.g.
Bleich’s Model - Fundamentals
•  Equilibrium between hull and superstructure
L/2 x

MS
N S = −T , M S = α S aT
NH = T, M H = − M + α H aT NS
T
•  If we assume that the two beam follow basic beam T
theory separately we obtain
MH

NH
N S ( x) M S ( x)
σS = + zS q-jakautuma
AS IS ulkoinen kuorma
Q-jakautuma

•  So that at the interface

Q(x)
N H ( x) M H ( x)
σH = + zH
AH IH M-jakautuma
•  Which gives the shear force as
M(x)

σS =σH
Without shear force With shear force
T T
α H aI S
T= M
IS IH IS IH u1 = − z1w' u1 = − z1w' τ ≈ 0
AS
+
AH
(
+ a 2 α H2 I S + α S2 I H ) τ ≈0
u2 = − z 2 w' T u2 = − z 2 w' T
 Bleich’s Model - Stresses
•  The stress is obtained using the stress of beam
theory σΝ and correcting with Δσ

- +
σ = σ N + Δσ
•  Where according to beam theory

M
σN = z
I
where z is from entire cross-section center of
gravity (fully effective superstructure)

•  The correction terms for the superstructure and
hull are (partly effective superstructure):

σN Δσ σ
IA µ (α S − µα H )
ΔN S ΔM S ΔN S = −ΔN H = M
Δσ S = + zS a (1 + µ )(α H I S + µα S I H )
AS IS
µ
ΔM S = − MI S
ΔN H ΔM H (1 + µ )(α H I S + µα S I H )
Δσ H = + zH
AH IH µ2
ΔM H = MI H
(1 + µ )(α H I S + µα S I H )

€ IS +αS I A
µ=
IH +αH IA
 Naar’s Method (CB-method)
ConStruct Uses
•  Basic idea is the same in Bleich’s
method
–  Shear spring to account sliding between
beams
–  Vertical spring to account vertical
deformations
•  Each beam follow simple beam
theory
•  A system of coupled beams by
springs is established and solved
•  Issues to be considered
–  Amount of Coupled beams: accuracy vs.
Solution time
–  Coupled beam division, i.e. high flexibility
requires more beams, e.g. Superstructure
with many CB’s while hull with only few
–  Rule of thumb: CB’s should be meshed so
that the cut vertically bulkheads at mid-
span
Naar’s Method
Comparison of Coupled Beam Theory (ConStruct) and FEM

Solid line, 3D-FEM

Points, ConStruct
Naar’s Method
Comparison of Beam Theory and Coupled Beam Theory
(ConStruct)
Fransman’s Method
Plane Stress Based Method
3D FEM
New Ideas
Cabin Spaces General Spaces
in Superstructure in Superstructure
longitudinal strength
members
in Superstructure

Main frame
Split the Super-structure
Stress-Free Superstructure
No long decks, no extension of them, no stress J
No long decks, no extension of them, no resistance to load L
How should the design be done?
 Simplified Torsion Analyses
Classes
•  The torsion problems can be divided into
two classes based on strength of materials

–  de Saint Venantin torsion, i.e. the axial
deformation is allowed – thin-walled closed
section

–  warping torsion, i.e. the axial deformation is
restricted – thin-walled open section

•  While in the first case the deformation
(warping) is restrained by the ”closed”
section in the latter that is done by the ends
on the beam

de Saint Venant Torsion for Closed Section
•  The closed thin-walled section is loaded by external
torsional moment MT

•  Since the section is thin-walled the shear stress τxs at
the thickness of a wall can be considered contant

–  s denotes the local coordinate along the path of the closed
section

–  x is the longitudinal coordinate

•  The external moment has to be in equilibrium with

the internal torsion moment, i.e.

N
M T = lim ∑ (τ xs,i ⋅ ti ⋅ Δsi )ri = ∫ τ xs ( s )r ( s )t ( s )ds
N →∞
i =1
$!#
! !" !
= Fi

= ∫ τ xs ( s )t ( s )r ( s )ds = ∫ q xs ( s )r ( s )ds
$!#! "
= q xs ( s )
•  where

–  r is the moment arm

–  t is the thickness and

–  q is the shear flow q=τt

–  integration is carried out along the path over the cross-section

 de Saint Venant Torsion and Thin-Walled Section

•  The torsion rigidity decreases significantly when the

section is cut open since at the location of opening the
shear stress has to be zero

∫t τdt = 0
•  The equation for twisting moment gives



M T
GΘ = τ
Id
•  When it is subsitututed to the equation of shear stress

τ max = GΘt
€ •  we get 


MT
τ max = t
Id MT
MT

•  where

1
€ Id = ∑
3 i
si ti3

€
 Example 2.

•  The ship from previous example is cut open from the middle of the deck and we define the twist

 1 2
I d = ∑ si ti3 = t 3 ( B + D) = 2,2110 - 4 m 4

3 i 3
•  The relation to closed section is 

I d ,closed
≈ 10 6
I d , open
•  Maximum shear stress  τ MT 285.5MNm MN
max = t = 0.02m = 25825

Id 2.211⋅10 − 4 m 4 m2 Cut
•  Twist

= M T = 16 rad
Θ
GI d m
•  These results are unrealistic! L = 157,20 m

B = 25,75 m
D = 15,85 m
t = 20 mm
C w= 0,70
 3D FEM

•  The theory was derived for prismatic
structures
•  In reality
–  the hull form changes along x
–  There are transverse cofferdams
restraining the deformation
•  The methods presented can be
modified to account these changes but
in practice 3D FEM is needed when
the analysis progresses from concept
to basic design
Summary

•  Hull girder bending can be assessed using beam theory

with extension to
–  Hull-superstructure interaction
–  Omitting large openings
•  Shear stresses can be assessed using theory of thin-
walled shells
–  Bending
–  Torsion of open and closed sections
•  The hull girder can deform also in the plane of sea
surface