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

net/publication/318361925

FE-based strength analysis of ship structures for a more advanced class

approval

Conference Paper · August 2016

CITATION READS

1 1,136

5 authors, including:

Jörg Rörup Ionel Darie

DNV GL, Hamburg, Germany Det Norske Veritas
22 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ISSC Benchmark Study - Fatigue Analysis of Ships View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jörg Rörup on 12 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


FE-based strength analysis of ship structures
for a more advanced class approval
Jörg Rörup1), Bartosz Maciolowski 1) and Ionel Darie1)
1)
DNV GL, Germany
Abstract
When designing a ship, structural analysis of the hull is per-
formed to ensure its structural integrity during operation. The
requirements for such analysis are defined in classification
rules and regulations. Apart from a prescriptive analysis
based on local requirements and the analysis of cross sec-
tions, a direct ship’s strength calculations using finite element
analysis (FEA) procedures are required for most ship designs.
The handling of FEA has accelerated during the latest dec-
ades as the tools become more user-friendly and it has become
important that the rules satisfactory support such application.
The new DNV GL rules provide generic procedures for differ-
ent types of FE analysis including global models, partial ship
modelling and fine mesh. The rule’s guidelines define appro-
priate modelling techniques including loading, boundary
conditions and mesh size for use with acceptance criteria in
the rules.
Keywords
Finite element analysis; partial ship model; cargo hold
model; global model; fine mesh model
Introduction
At least within the last decade all classification societies
require Finite Element (FE)-based strength analyses of
ship structures for the new building approval and it has
become important that the rules satisfactory support
such application. In recently developed DNV GL rules
procedures are available for all applicable FE-analysis.
Partial ship or cargo hold finite element analysis follows
the same concept for all ship types. With this common
procedure all hull girder structural members, primary
supporting members and bulkheads will be investigated
using all relevant stress components. Boundary condi-
tions and adjustment of global loads are discussed and
demonstrated.
Traditionally, cargo hold and global strength analysis in
ship design were dealt with separate FE-models and
analysis approaches. Requirements for model genera-
tion, in particular regarding mesh size, were significant-
ly different. With the DNV GL rules a new Advanced
Whole Ship Analysis (AWSA) procedure was devel-
oped which is based on analysing a global FE model
Proceedings of PRADS2016
4th – 8th September, 2016
Copenhagen, Denmark
with a mesh based on stiffener spacing. This model can
be generated with little effort based on an existing Basic
Design CAD model. The new approach reduces time
spent for FE-modelling and analysis while at the same
time increasing the quality of the results. Key success
factors for this approach are a common concept model
and an adapted tool set automating the analysis tasks.
For critical details where high stresses are expected, a
local structural strength concept is available in the new
rules using fine mesh models. The concept is demon-
strated by typical structural details.
Partial ship and local strength procedures are based on
the analysis standards set in Common Structural Rules
for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (CSR), IACS (2015).
In DNVGL Rules these standards are implemented to
other ship types than bulk carriers and oil tankers.
Partial Ship Structural Analysis
The partial ship structural analysis, respectively cargo
hold analysis, is used for the strength assessment of hull
girder structural members, primary supporting members
and bulkheads. The strength of complex girders system
with 3-D interaction should generally be based on FEA.
According to DNV GL rules a FEA of the cargo hold
area is performed mandatory for most designs, a least
when the ship length exceeds 150 meters. Typically
cargo hold FEA is focused on mid ship area, but if
deemed necessary for some ship types, the new concept
is applicable elsewhere in the cargo hold area.
Structural Model
With the model extent of three cargo hold lengths the
FE analysis is applicable for any location along the ship
length, as shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2. In both Fig-
ures only the port side of the full breath model is shown.
The element mesh has to follow the local stiffener sys-
tem as far as practicable; hence this mesh system is
characterized by following parameters:
 one shell element between every stiffener,
 at least 3 elements over the depth of girders, floors,
web frames and stringers
 all stiffeners are to be represented by eccentric
beams
 openings of about man hole size are to be mod- Boundary Conditions
elled by removing adequate elements
Boundary conditions in cargo hold model simulate con-
straints from the cut-out structures. They consist of rigid
links at model ends, point constraints and end-beams.
The rigid links connect the nodes on the longitudinal
members at the model ends to an independent point at
neutral axis in centreline. Rigid links in y and z are
applied at both ends of the cargo hold model so that the
constraints of the model can be applied to the independ-
ent points. In order to simulate the warping constraints
from the cut-out structures the end beams are to be ap-
plied at both ends of the cargo hold model. Under tor-
sional load, this out of plane stiffness acts as warping
constraint. End constraint beams are to be modelled at
Fig. 1: Midship cargo hold model of an ore carrier
the both end sections of the model along all longitudi-
nally continuous structural members and along the cross
deck plating. The bending moment’s adjustments are
applied by distributing longitudinal axial nodal forces to
all hull girder bending effective longitudinal elements.
The technical feasibility of using a cargo hold FE model
to investigate the torsional effects for open deck ships is
demonstrated in Rörup (2016).

Fig. 2: Foremost cargo hold model of a LNG carrier

Examples of FE mesh arrangement is illustrated on

Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Fig. 3: Example of FE mesh arrangement of cargo hold Fig. 5: Boundary constraints for cargo hold model
structure for a membrane type gas carrier ship

Load Cases
The wave loads introduced in DNV GL rules are with a
clear link to direct analysis, and this allows the capacity
formulas for yield and buckling to account for the phase
between the different load components like hull girder
bending, hull girder torsion, sea pressure and tank pres-
sure. The load formulation is following the so-called
equivalent design wave (EDW) approach as it was used
by GL for a long time in direct calculations and in CSR.
Fig. 4: Finite element mesh on web frame of an ore carrier
The EDW in DNV GL rules build on CSR as far as
possible but the EDWs for oil tankers and bulk carriers
are not fully applicable for all ship types. So it has been • hull girder horizontal bending moment
improved to be applicable also for other ship types, e.g. • hull girder torsional moment
also for small and slender ships. In this work 3D wave
load analysis and rule formulas have been compared, for
more than 100 ships covering a broad range of ship
types and lengths.
Each EDW maximizes a certain ship response and the
EDWs considered for strength assessment are:
 HSM: Vertical bending moment in head sea
 HSA: Acceleration in head sea
 FSM: Vertical bending moment in following sea
 OST: Torsion in oblique/stern quartering sea
 OSA: Acceleration in oblique/bow quartering sea
 BSP: Side shell pressure at water line in beam sea
 BSR: Roll in beam sea

A total of 11 pairs of EDWs are defined, and each pair

represents a wave crest phase and a wave through phase.
These EDWs are illustrated in Figure 6. The accelera-
tion EDWs OSA and HSA are not considered in fatigue
assessment.

Fig. 7: Hull girder components obtained from integrated

loads along the FE model

Fig. 6: Equivalent Design Waves (EDW)
Loads Application
For partial ship FEA the combination of the ship static
and dynamic load/EDW which are likely to impose the
most serious load regimes on the hull structure are to be
investigated. Each load combination requires the appli-
cation of the structural weight, internal and external
pressures and hull girder loads.
As partial ship FE model represents a part of the ship,
the local loads (i.e. static and dynamic internal and
external loads) applied to the model will induce hull
girder loads which represent a semi-global effect. This
may not necessarily reach desired hull girder loads, i.e.
hull girder targets. Therefore hull girder adjustments to
the rule targets are necessary by applying additional
forces and moments to the model.
Figure 7 illustrates one considered loading case of a gas
carrier in oblique sea conditions (OSA). Plots of hull
girder components are obtained from integrated loads
applied along the FE model. This enables to account the
necessary adjustments to reach the required targets.
Each hull girder component can be adjusted separately,
i.e.:
• hull girder vertical shear force
• hull girder vertical bending moment
Evaluation of Results
For strength assessment the partial ship analysis is in-
tended to verify the following:
 stress levels are within the rule criteria for yielding
failure mode. The acceptance criteria is developed
based the von Mises stresses extracted from the FE
model of standardised mesh size,
 buckling capability of plates and stiffened panels. The
Rules provides with two alternative applications of
closed form methods (CFM) represented by equations
and semi-analytical methods (PULS).
Yield and buckling strength assessment is to be carried
out within the evaluation area of the FE model. The hull
girder loads are controlled only within the middle hold
of three cargo hold model. Hence, typically the middle
hold represents the evaluation area.
The partial ship FE analysis is utilised for local fine
mesh analysis and the fatigue assessment of structural
details.
Implementation in Software
The increased complexity of loads and capacity formu-
las in DNV GL rules allows better control of safety
margins, but increase the dependency on efficient de-
sign tools. Both Nauticus Hull/GeniE and POSEIDON
have been updated to incorporate the new rules and the
tools are enhanced for improved efficiency. Main new
features include the following:
 new functionality for ship-specific modelling and
import of hull form from 3D design tools for efficient
modelling of the non-parallel cargo area
 improved mesh control with functionality for automat-
ic meshing and state-of-the-art tools for manual mesh
adjustments
 improved efficiency for generating local fine mesh FE
models of critical details
 automatic generation of corrosion additions, boundary
conditions and loads for cargo-hold FEA, including
both local pressures and global hull girder loads
 automatic yield, buckling and fatigue check according
to the new rules. Acceptance criteria for different
structural components are automatically accounted for
 improved functionality for import of FE models from
other FE systems (Patran/Nastran, ANSYS) and early
design tools like NAPA Steel
Fig. 8: Automatic buckling check in cargo hold analysis
Global Strength Analysis
The objective of a global strength analysis is to obtain a
reliable description of the overall hull girder stiffness
and to assess the global stresses and deformations of all
primary hull members for specified load cases resulting
from realistic loading conditions and the wave-induced
forces and moments. Generally, the purpose of the glob-
al analysis is not to judge on local stresses due to stiff-
ener- or plate bending, whereas the focus is at realistic
stiffness and deformation characteristic of the hull gird-
er. Global strength analysis may be required if the struc-
tural response of the hull girder cannot be sufficiently
determined by simple beam theory, e.g. for ships:
 with large deck openings subjected to overall tor-
sional deformation and stress response, as for con-
tainer ships
 without or with limited transverse bulkhead struc-
tures over the vessel length, as for Ro-Ro vessels
and car carriers
 with partly effective superstructure and/ or partly
effective upper part of hull girder, as for large Pas-
senger vessels
The dimensioning of complex ship structures with the
finite element method of the entire ship reflects the
actual loads computed for the ship by direct wave load
analysis.
Structural Model
For traditional global strength analysis with a girder
mesh spacing the grid points are located at the intersec-
tion of primary members. In general, the element size
may be taken as one element between longitudinal gird-
ers, one element between transverse webs, and one
element between stringers and decks. Stiffeners between
the existing grid points are lumped to neighbouring
nodes. Smaller openings like man holes are to be con-
sidered by a corresponding reduction in the element
thickness. Fig. 9 shows typical girder mesh spacing for
a container ship in for ship area.
Fig. 9: Typical coarse mesh for global FEA
Advanced Whole Ship Analysis
Since for novel, large or complex designs, a global FE
model is required and this model has different (coarse)
meshing requirements than the cargo hold FEA, this
global analysis is a major additional step both in terms
of effort and time. Any additional modelling or analysis
effort in the early design phase can be a significant
burden to the yard when it is not yet certain that the
newbuilding will be contracted. Therefore, modelling
effort should be kept at a minimum and the dimension-
ing process must be fast in order to quickly reach a
sufficient degree of certainty with regard to cost calcula-
tion.
With the introduction of CAD functionality into basic
Ship Design but also with more powerful FE pre-
processing capability the design process starts to
change. The reason is that a holistic description of the
vessel becomes available earlier in the process. It is
evident, that modelling of the steel construction should
be limited to only one model as far as possible. To
streamline the dimensioning process and reduce model-
ling effort, it is therefore a natural step to:
 consolidate the meshing requirements for global
and cargo hold FE model
 adapt the global analysis procedure to also cover
the cases so far contained in the cargo hold analysis
 procedure ShipLoad (Cabos, 2006; Rörup, 2008) was developed to
provide convenient software for performing all neces-
For this reason, a procedure for loading, computing and
sary steps of the load case generation process in reliable
assessing global FE models with stiffener mesh spacing
way. Based on the equivalent design wave (EDW) ap-
had to be developed. The new methodology has been
proach, this software identifies the most relevant load
termed Advanced Whole Ship Analysis (AWSA)
combinations for dimensioning a ship’s structure. By
Rörup (2016) and covers the requirements of both the
performing first-principle hydrodynamic computations
traditional global FE analysis and cargo hold FE analy-
for regular waves, ShipLoad determines wave induced
sis.
pressure and ship acceleration values. Structural loads
A common concept model should be re-used for all result from the acceleration of masses (inertial loads)
different analysis purposes and the analysis procedure and from external (wave-induced) pressure. ShipLoad
needs to be automated as far as possible. A common models the mass distribution of a ship and its cargo,
concept model can be: computes hydrostatic and hydrodynamic wave-induced
 a basic design CAD model if FE meshing and inter- pressures, and combines both load types to generate
face to prescriptive dimensioning are in place, balanced, quasi-static load cases.
 the rule calculation model if both prescriptive and Typical results of load computations are shown in Fig.
FE modelling and analysis are covered in the tool, 11 for a containership subject to the EDW that defines
 a Finite Element preprocessor model if it covers the wave loads causing maximum torsion of the hull girder.
required shipbuilding concepts and is interfaced to
prescriptive dimensioning.
The DNV GL rules are prepared for application of the
Advanced Whole Ship Analysis. Meshing requirements
and corresponding yield & buckling criteria are defined
accordingly. Since in the DNV GL rules the equivalent
design wave (EDW) concept is already used for the
prescriptive rule loads, equivalent EDWs as used in
traditional cargo hold FEA can be also applied in
AWSA for the embedded cargo hold FEA. The sole
difference is that in case of AWSA the EDWs are ap-
plied on basis of an individual direct wave load analysis,
instead of using accelerations and sea loads defined by
the rules.
Structural Model
For the new AWSA the entire ship is modelled with
stiffener mesh spacing. Compared to a coarse mesh
model, much higher IT-resources are necessary. Total
number of nodes and elements are increased about by
factor 8. Number of equations even by factor 16, thus
the finer mesh requires shells and beams with 6 degrees
of freedom (DOF) for each node, whereas the coarse
mesh model works with plane stress elements and truss-
es with 3 DOF. For a 14,000 TEU container ship
AWSA-model of Fig. 10 total DOF exceed a value of
1.4 Mio.

Fig. 11: Hydrodynamic pressures, sectional loads, and

Fig. 10: AWSA finite element model
Load Cases
The load generation for global FEA is an important step.
deformation/stresses for maximum torsion
Wave lengths that were analysed to obtain global loads
in regular waves ranged from 0.35 to 1.2 times ship
length. Wave headings ranged from 0 to 180 deg. at 30
deg. intervals. For each combination of wave length and
wave heading, 50 equidistant wave crest positions over
the ship’s length were considered. From a total of 9500
situations of the ship in regular waves, 40 design load
cases were selected for two static loading conditions,
namely, the maximum hogging condition and the mini-
mum hogging condition. They were selected by match-
ing vertical and horizontal wave bending moments as
well as torsional wave moments to design values given
in classification society rules DNV GL (2016a).
Beside the load cases of the traditional global FEA the
load scenarios of cargo hold FEA shall be investigated
with the AWSA-model, too.
Cargo hold FEA for a container ship is required for the
cargo hold in way of the mid ship section and for the
fuel oil deep tank area. Six respectively eight different
loading conditions must be investigated according to
DNV GL rules. When an embedded cargo hold FEA is
carried out with the AWSA procedure the load cases are
analysed by direct wave load approach and 16 different
still water conditions must be prepared instead of two
for the traditional global FEA. Therefore an interface
between the CAD-design program and ShipLoad is
essential to transfer all data describing the loading con-
ditions.
Usually the stability data prepared with a hull design
program (such as NAPA) is the basis for loading condi-
tion modelling in ShipLoad. Conceptually, hull design
program and ShipLoad loading conditions are similar,
namely assemblies of lightweight masses (referring to
geometric ranges) and cargo loads (referring to com-
partments or containers). Hence, it is straightforward to
export automatically most information from the hull
design model to ShipLoad.
Permissible Stresses
The permissible stresses need to be adjusted in order to
keep the safety level from the standard procedures. This
is due to the refined AWSA FE mesh. Beside effects
due to local stress concentrations, the higher detail
grade and the extended stress components considered
within an ASWA, as illustrated in Fig.12 are the reason
for this.
Fig. 12: Stress components considered in AWSA
The permissible stresses for cargo hold analyses can be
taken as a reasonable starting point in this respect.
However the effects of the global loads and load cases
to be considered within a global FEA and therefore
within an AWSA require tailored permissible stresses.
A procedure for the treatment and assessment of local
stress concentrations which become visible due to the
refined AWSA global FE mesh becomes essential in
this respect.
Derived from comparison calculations with standard
coarse mesh global FEA and stiffener mesh spacing
AWSA models the permissible stresses in DNV GL
(2016c) are increased by 10 % for AWSA, beyond that
a further increase by 6 % is acceptable in way of struc-
tural discontinuities.
Buckling Strength
For weight optimisation and safety of ship structures the
buckling analysis is an important task. With FEA the
realized bi-axial stress condition combined with shear
can cause buckling in plate fields already on a stress
level much lower than the permissible stresses for yield.
With DNV GL rules the closed form method (Hayward,
2016) is applicable and a systematic evaluation of all
structural members represented in the entire FE-model
are practicable in short time.
The closed form proof of sufficient buckling strength in
the DNV GL rules is based on the ultimate strength
concept where the proof for single plates and stiffeners
are made separately. In case of the former, plate
strength is evaluated for rectangular plates under linear-
ized stress distributions (both plate and stress distribu-
tions are idealised when necessary). The capacities of
plates under single stress components are calculated
which are then used in an interaction equation to calcu-
late plate capacity under combined in-plane loads. In
terms of stiffeners, the proof uses an equivalent (sinus-
oidal) lateral load to account for the bending stresses
which arise from second order effects (i.e. magnifica-
tion of initial deflections under in-plane loads). This
equivalent lateral load is combined with any actual
lateral load to obtain total bending stresses. These bend-
ing stresses are in turn combined with axial compression
stresses and warping stresses to obtain total stresses in
the attached plate and flange which are then compared
to the yield stress.
Compared to a standard coarse mesh global FEA the
buckling assessment revealed significant enhancements
in respect of both efficiency as well as quality. The
former is mainly due to reduced efforts for the prepara-
tion of the buckling analysis i.e. bucking field genera-
tion and the result evaluation. The latter is mainly due to
the higher detail and lower structural idealization grade
of the AWSA FE.
With the stiffener spacing mesh used in AWSA models
a much better idealisation of the structural members is
given and an improved stress distribution is represented.
Fig. 13: Buckling assessment in AWSA and global FEA
Particularly in way of structural discontinuities such as
man holes and brackets the stress distributions are more
realistic. E.g., in traditional global models a man hole in
stringer, girder or web frame was represented by apply-
ing 2/3 of the actual thickness on an element with
2.5m x 3m for determining more reasonable stresses.
But for correct buckling approach the actual plate thick-
ness must be considered retroactively and causes very
high additional manual assessment efforts. In case of
AWSA the man hole is considered by deleting an ap-
propriate FE-element, which gives much more realistic
stress distribution in way of the opening using the actual
plate thickness. Fig.13 illustrates the basic differences
between buckling assessment for fine mesh AWSA
procedure and standard coarse mesh global FEA.
Outcome from AWSA
The integration of the cargo hold analysis and the relat-
ed load cases into the global strength analysis – one of
the AWSA essentials – run smoothly without any con-
siderable problems. When comparing the integrated
AWSA approach with a standard cargo hold analysis
based on a 3-hold FE model it can be stated that in gen-
eral the results of both are very similar.
The ability to model the basic steel construction as a
concept model in early design phase is a key for the
reduction of design effort and time. This concept model
can be built through CAD software, FE pre-processor or
rule calculation software.
Through deriving both prescriptive and whole ship FE
model from this concept model, the AWSA procedure
leads to fast and reliable results when calculations are
covered by an integrated tool chain.
In the future design process, an iterative procedure start-
ing from the midship section, utilizing a CH model as
an intermediate step and ending in a model of the whole
ship will still be present. As the meshing requirements
for CH model and Whole Ship model agree, the same
concept model can gradually be built up.
Furthermore, the benefit of the AWSA procedure is that
eventually all design checks are covered by only one FE
model. This implies that:
 global analysis and (now embedded) CH analysis
are automatically performed on the same design re-
vision
 efforts for documentation and reporting are reduced
as one analysis covers all results
 effort for meshing is reduced as no coarse mesh
model is required anymore
 results are more realistic because of less model
idealizations
 higher level stress components are considered:
bending of girders and stiffeners are fully captured
 better load cases, as global model allows to utilize
direct hydrodynamic methods to determine loads
even for embedded cargo hold analysis
 buckling assessment is significantly streamlined
through matching POSEIDON and FE model, both
derived from one concept model, the assessment is
performed automatically for plate fields as well as
stiffeners,
Local structural strength analysis
For critical structural details where high stresses are
expected, a local structural strength concept is available
in DNV GL rules and it is required for some specific
details and ship types. This concept is a so-called fine
mesh FE analysis. The analysis is carried out for all FE
load combinations applied to the corresponding partial
and global FE analysis and has the scope to verify stress
levels in the critical locations to be within the accepta-
ble DNV GL’s criteria for yielding.
The fine mesh FE analysis is carried out by means of a
separate local FE model with fine mesh areas, in con-
junction with the boundary conditions obtained from the
partial or global ship FE model. The extend of the local
FE model is to be such that the calculated stresses at the
area of interest are not significantly affected by the
imposed boundary conditions and application of loads.
The boundary of the fine mesh FE model is to coincide
with primary supporting members, such as plate floors,
web frames, girders or stringers. Alternatively, to avoid
the effect of boundary conditions, the fine mesh areas
can be incorporated into partial or global ship FE model.
Fig. 14: Example of a local model for fine mesh analysis
The selection of critical location on the structural mem-
bers is based on the screening results of the partial or
global ship FE analysis. In general, locations as hopper
knuckles, frame end brackets, connections of deck and
double bottom longitudinal stiffeners to transverse
bulkhead, hatch corner areas or openings with maxi-
mum yield utilization factor are selected for the fine
mesh analysis. The screening tools based on yield utili-
zation factor and also the remeshing processes are au-
tomatically performed in DNV GL software.
Fig. 15: Example of fine meshed area for opening
The fine meshed areas where high stresses are expected
include shell elements with both bending and membrane
properties. The mesh size is to be not greater than
50mm x 50mm and should be sufficiently detailed to
capture area of high stress. In general, the extent of fine
mesh area is over than 10 elements in all directions from
 the area under investigation. Generally, the gradual
meshing from fine to course meshed areas is to be used
avoiding non-physical and abrupt stiffness changes. The
distorted elements (e.g. element’s corner angle less than
60° or greater than 120°) and triangular elements are to
be avoided in the fine meshed area.
If the fine mesh analysis is required for an opening
special considerations are to be given for the mesh dis-
tribution. Around the opening at least two layer of ele-
ments are to be modelled with mesh size not greater
than 50mm x 50mm (see Fig. 15).
Conclusion
Modern rules form a necessary partnership with soft-
ware tools. The increased complexity of loads and en-
hanced procedures for different types of FE analysis
including global models, partial ship modelling and fine
mesh allows an improved design process and class ap-
proval, but increase the dependency on efficient design
tools. Beside that the rules satisfactory support the ap-
plication of the finite element analysis, it is essential for
the designer to use efficient tools for his daily work.
For class approval the cargo hold analysis is the most
common FE concept and a full integration in the soft-
ware of following work steps are indispensable:
 generate FE-model including corrosion margins
 arrange and apply required local loads
 adjust the loads to the required hull girder loads
 yield check
 buckling evaluation with propositions for sufficient
scantlings
 screening for local structural strength analysis
 generate fine mesh models with boundary defor-
mations
 fine mesh model yield check
 documentation of all work steps
View publication stats
For the less common global FEA or AWSA the work
effort is once more higher than for cargo hold FEA and
accordingly the before mentioned handling by software
tools is here in almost the same manner relevant. Post
processing can be executed with similar tools as for
cargo hold FEA, but the load generation demands more
advanced software for direct wave load analysis which
is applicable for a structure engineer without expert
knowledge in hydrodynamics.
References
Cabos; Eisen; Krömer (2006) ‘GL.ShipLoad: An Inte-
grated Load Generation Tool for FE Analysis’, 5th
Conf. Computer and IT Appl. Maritime Ind. (COM-
PIT), Oegstgeest
DNV GL (2016a). DNVGL-RU-SHIP, “Rules for Clas-
sification, Part 3 Hull”, DNV GL, Oslo
DNV GL (2016b). Class Guideline DNVGL-CG-0127:
“Finite element analysis”, DNV GL, Oslo
DNV GL (2016c). Class Guideline DNVGL-CG-0131:
“Strength analysis of hull structure in container
ships”, DNV GL, Oslo
Hayward; Lehmann (2016) “Application of a new proof
of plate capacity under combined in-plane loads”
Proc. of PRADS2016, Copenhagen, Denmark
IACS (2015) “Common Structural Rules for Bulk Car-
riers and Oil Tankers CSR”, International Associa-
tion of Classification Societies, London
Rörup; Schellin; Rathje (2008) ‘Load Generation for
Structural Strength Analysis of Large Container-
ships’, Proc. of OMAE, Estoril, Portugal
Rörup; Doerk; Cabos; Kang (2015) “Advanced whole
ship analysis – a new generation of FE based
strength analysis for container vessels” International
Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuild-
ing 2015, Bremen, Germany
Rörup; Darie; Maciolowski (2016) “Structural strength
analysis for open decked ships” (submitted), Interna-
tional Conference on Ships and Offshore Structures
(ICSOS 2016) Hamburg, Germany