0
Research Papers: Structures and Safety Reliability

Dynamic Collapse Mechanism of Global Hull Girder of Container Ships Subjected to Hogging Moment

[+] Author and Article Information
Yasuhira Yamada

National Institute of Maritime,
Port and Aviation Technology,
Mitaka,
Tokyo 1810004, Japan
e-mail: yamada@nmri.go.jp

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 25, 2018; final manuscript received December 6, 2018; published online February 18, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Nianzhong Chen.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 141(5), 051605 (Feb 18, 2019) (15 pages) Paper No: OMAE-18-1109; doi: 10.1115/1.4042267 History: Received July 25, 2018; Revised December 06, 2018

The purpose of the present study is to investigate dynamic ultimate strength of global hull girder of container ships using large-scale nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA). A series of time domain nonlinear finite element (FE)-simulation is carried out using large-scale FE models of a 8000 twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) container ship where a hogging moment is applied to the midship section. Five types of finite element models (three full models, a half hold model, a one transverse model) are used. These models adopt elastoplastic material model, which includes strain rate effect. The hogging moment, which is modeled by sinusoidal impulse, is applied to these models, and collapse mechanism as well as dynamic hull girder ultimate strength is investigated by varying the load time duration. Moreover, effects of load time duration, mass inertia, strain rate, and analysis models are investigated in detail. It is found from the present study that ultimate strength as well as collapse mode is significantly dependent on load time duration of hogging moment.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Committee on Large Container Ship Safety Japan, 2015, “ Final Report of Committee on Large Container Ship Safety,” Japanese Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport, Tokyo, Japan. http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001081297.pdf
IACS, 2015, UR-S11A Longitudinal Strength Standard for Container Ships, International Association of Classifications Societies, London, UK. http://www.iacs.org.uk/download/4368
Tuitman, J. , and Malenica, S. , 2008, “ Some Aspects of Whipping Response of Container Ships,” 23rd International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies (IWWWFB), Jeju, South Korea, Apr. 13–16. http://www.iwwwfb.org/Abstracts/iwwwfb23/iwwwfb23_43.pdf
Derbanne, Q. , Lauzon, J. , Bigot, F. , and Malenica, S. , 2016, “ Investigations of the Dynamic Ultimate Strength of a Ship's Hull Girder During Whipping,” International Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding (PRADS), Copenhagen, Denmark, Sept. 4–8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318679860_Investigations_of_the_dynamic_ultimate_strength_of_a_ship's_hull_girder_during_whipping
Yamada, Y. , and Kameya, K. , 2017, “ A Fundamental Study of the Dynamic Response of Hull Girder of Container Ships Due to Slamming Load,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2017-61068.
Kotajima, S. , Kawamura, Y. , and Okada, T. , 2017, “ Numerical Simulation About Ultimate Strength of Container-Ship Hull Girder Under Dynamic Loading—Part 2,” Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) Annual Autumn Meeting, Hiroshima, Japan, Nov. 27–28, pp. 365–370.
Rajendran, S. , and Guedes Soares, C. , 2016, “ Numerical Investigation of the Vertical Response of a Containership in Large Amplitude Waves,” Ocean Eng., 123, pp. 440–451. [CrossRef]
Fang, C. , and Das, P. K. , 2005, “ Survivability and Reliability of Damaged Ships After Collision and Grounding,” Ocean Eng., 32(3–4), pp. 293–307. [CrossRef]
Yamada, Y. , and Ogawa, Y. , 2011, “ Study on the Residual Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Hull Girder of a Bulk Carrier Against a Sagging Moment After Ship Collision,” 3rd International Conference on Marine Structures (MARSTRUCT), Hamburg, Germany, Mar. 28–30, pp. 429–436.
LSTC, 2017, LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual Volume II, Material Models, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA.
Iijima, K. , Suzaki, Y. , and Fujikubo, M. , 2015, “ Scaled Model Tests for the Post-Ultimate Strength Collapse Whipping Loads Behavior of a Ship's Hull Girder Under Whipping Loads,” Ships Offshore Struct., 10(1), pp. 31–38. [CrossRef]
Smith, C. S. , 1977, “ Influence of Local Compression Failure on Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Ship's Hull,” International Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding (PRADS), Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 18–20, pp. 73–79.
BV, 2000, MARS2000 User's Guide, Bureau-Veritas, Marine Division Development Department, Paris, France.
Alfred Mohammed, E. , Benson, S. D. , Hirdaris, S. E. , and Dow, R. S. , 2016, “ Design Safety Margin of a 10,000TEU Container Ship Through Ultimate Hull Girder Load Combination Analysis,” Mar. Struct., 46, pp. 78–101. [CrossRef]
Okumoto, Y. , Takeda, Y. , Mano, M. , and Okada, T. , 2009, Design of Ship Hull Structures, Springer, Berlin.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Scope of analysis model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic view of moment curvature relation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Full ship model (M05, M08, and M09)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Finite element mesh in midship region in full ship model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

One transverse model (M10)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

1/2 hold model (M07)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Loading condition for full model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Loading condition for partial models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Analysis model of the midship section (shell plate)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Analysis model of the midship section (stiffeners)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Relationship between curvature and bending moment (gross scantling)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Relationship between curvature and bending moment (net scantling)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Typical stress distribution of bottom plate before buckling/ultimate strength

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Typical buckling of bottom plate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Buckling of longitudinal webs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Buckling of double bottom plate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Buckling of longitudinal web and double bottom (zoom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Two-section collapse mode

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

One-section collapse mode

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Time histories of vertical bending moment (load time duration = 2.0 s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Comparison of dimensionless ultimate strength with regard to finite element model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Comparison of dimensionless ultimate strength with regard to quasi-static value

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Relation between dimensionless collapse timing (Tu/T) and load time duration (T)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Effect of modeling and load time duration on the dynamic hull girder ultimate strength

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Calculation time depending on models and load time duration (T)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Definition of Tu and Tend

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Time histories of hull girder bending moment (T = 2.0s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Effect of strain rate on the dynamic hull girder ultimate strength

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Effect of strain rate on the dynamic hull girder ultimate strength

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Comparison of hull girder safety margin

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In