0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

26 Ansichten21 Seitensd

Nov 27, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

sd

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

26 Ansichten21 Seitensd

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Ocean Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

A. Campanile a, V. Piscopo b, A. Scamardella b

a

b

The University of Naples Federico II, Department of Industrial Engineering, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy

The University of Naples Parthenope, Department of Science and Technology, Centro Direzionale Isola C4, 80143 Naples, Italy

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 24 December 2014

Accepted 29 June 2015

Available online 17 July 2015

Time-variant residual strength of bulk carriers under corrosion wastage is investigated by Monte Carlo

simulation. A new formulation of the incrementaliterative approach is presented to account for

instantaneous neutral axis rotation, in case of asymmetrical damage conditions. Relevant incidence on

hull girder residual strength is preliminarily studied. Hence, two main aspects are investigated: the

former regards the correlation among input variables, commonly assumed as uncorrelated in classical

procedures. In this respect, three correlation models are considered: no correlation, full correlation, and

full correlation among variables belonging to the same group of compartments. Subsequently, a z-test is

performed and the hull girder residual strength probability density functions are determined for both

sagging and hogging conditions, as when correlation exists, LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem

cannot be applied. Three damage scenarios are analysed, according to the last requirements of

Harmonized Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, assuming as reference case

the bulk carrier section scheme, proposed in the last ISSC Report. Finally, the residual strength factor

distribution vs. time is determined, together with relevant lower/upper bound values, with certain nonexceedance probability level, that in turn depends on correlation among corrosion wastages of all

structural members.

& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Residual strength

Damage scenarios

Bulk carrier

Corrosion

Monte Carlo simulation

1. Introduction

During the last decades, due to increasing environmental and

safety concerns, several attempts have been undertaken by International Organizations, Classication Societies and researchers, to

increase ship performances after collisions or groundings, once

accidents occur. Even if ship collisions and groundings have been

traditionally related to damage stability or cargo spills from

damaged hulls (Hussein and Guedes Soares, 2009), attention has

been focused on hull girder residual strength performances, too. In

this respect, within the research programme Tanker Safety, the

Germanischer Lloyd developed the rst guidelines to evaluate the

absorbed plastic deformation energy in a ship-ship collision, based

on minimum hull-girder ultimate load capacity and damage

penetration depth (Egge and Bckenhauer, 1991). Ships were

classied, with regard to resistance against collision, by means of

the additional class notation COLL, followed by an index ranging

from 1 to 6 and indicating that a critical situation, such as the

rupture of cargo tanks with subsequent spillage of cargo or water

vincenzo.piscopo@uniparthenope.it (V. Piscopo),

antonio.scamardella@uniparthenope.it (A. Scamardella).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.06.060

0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

energy due to collision exceeds the one of a non-strengthened

reference ship by more than a specied value. Subsequently, the

American Bureau of Shipping introduced the additional class

notation RES and developed some guidelines for assessing the

hull girder residual strength for oil tankers (ABS, 1995a) and bulk

carriers (ABS, 1995b). They provide assumptions about types of

accidents to be considered, damage location and extension, as well

as residual strength check criteria, in terms of minimum residual

hull-girder section modulus and maximum allowable shear stress

in side shell platings. In the same years, the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) developed some guidelines to evaluate the

amount of oil spills from oil tankers (IMO, 1995, 2003), based on

damage locations and extensions, due to collision or grounding

scenarios. Subsequently, the Det Norske Veritas introduced the

additional class notation CSA-2, to be assigned to ship designs

complying with enhanced fatigue and ultimate limit state criteria,

including residual strength due to collision or grounding occurrences (DNV, 2009). Even if the CSA-2 notation was applicable to

all ships, guidelines were furnished only for tankers, LNG/LPG

carriers and containerships. Besides, in 2010 the International

Maritime Organization adopted the International goal-based ship

construction standards for bulk carrier and oil tankers (IMO,

2010a), mainly based on a ve-tier system, as proposed by

48

Nomenclature

A

hull girder sectional area

Ai

area of ith structural element section

b

damage penetration breadth

C1

annual corrosion rate

COV[MH] coefcient of variation of hull girder hogging capacity

COV[MS] coefcient of variation of hull girder sagging capacity

COVC1

annual corrosion rate coefcient of variation

d

damage penetration depth

E

maximum percentage error of Monte Carlo simulation

E[MH]

expected value of hull girder sagging

E[MS]

expected value of hull girder sagging

h

damage penetration height

Iy0

hull girder vertical moment of inertia

Iy0z0

hull girder product of inertia

Iz0

hull girder horizontal moment of inertia

IQR

inter-quartile range

MH

hull girder hogging capacity

MS

hull girder sagging capacity

n

iteration number of Monte Carlo simulation

nreq

required iteration number of Monte Carlo simulation

p

condence level of Monte Carlo simulation

RSF

hull girder residual strength factor

Bahamas, Greece and the International Association of Classication Societies (IACS), namely: (I) Goals; (II) Functional requirements; (III) Verication of conformity; (IV) Rules and regulations

for ship design and construction; (V) Industry practices and

standards. According to IMO resolution, residual strength check

will be mandatorily required for oil tankers and bulk carriers of

150 m in length and above, (i) for which the building contract is

placed on or after 1st July 2016, (ii) the keels of which are laid on

or after 1st July 2017, (iii) the delivery of which is on or after 1st

July 2020 (IMO, 2010b). Furthermore, in the relevant guidelines for

verication of conformity with goal-based ship construction

standards (IMO, 2010c), the IMO conrmed that rules have to

provide hull-girder residual strength reasonable levels after

damage, taking into account: (i) applied methodologies; (ii) ooding scenarios due to collision or grounding events; (iii) environmental conditions and periods of exposure, representative of sea

states in case of damage occurrences; (iv) acceptance criteria;

(v) validation of residual strength assessment procedure, through

the analysis of a range of representative ship designs and loading

conditions.

Finally, in 2014 IACS published the Harmonized Common

Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (CSR-H), in

accordance with IMO Tier (IV) requirements (IMO, 2010a), making

residual strength check mandatory for bulk carriers and oil

tankers, equal to or greater than 150 m in length (IACS, 2014a).

Hull girder residual strength criteria have been dened by structural reliability analysis, assuming that the annual probability of

failure, due to collision or grounding scenarios, shall be less than

the one of an intact ship in open sea, subjected to 25-year extreme

loads (IACS, 2014b). Strength check criteria have been determined

on the basis of the following key elements: (i) annual probability

of damage; (ii) probability of damage size; (iii) reduction in

capacity as a function of damage size; (iv) increase in still water

bending moment due to damage; (v) environmental conditions

when damage occurs; (vi) exposure time to environment, before

return to port. Residual strength check, prescribed by CSR-H, is

mainly based on the net scantling approach, which implies that

one-half corrosion additions have to be subtracted from the gross

T

Tc

tg

tr

yi

YG

zC

zCL

zG

zi

ZD

ZK

i

C1

x

i

x

time

coating protection life

as built thickness of ith structural element

corrosion wastage

horizontal coordinate of ith structural element centre

of mass

horizontal coordinate of hull girder section centre

of mass

condence coefcient for normal distribution

hull girder neutral axis vertical position at centreline

vertical coordinate of hull girder section centre

of mass

vertical coordinate of ith structural element centre

of mass

hull girder elastic section modulus at deck

hull girder elastic section modulus at bottom

neutral axis rotation about the horizontal

strain in the ith element

annual corrosion rate expected value

time-variant thickness expected value

correlation coefcient

stress in the ith element

time-variant thickness standard deviation

hull girder curvature

strength calculation is performed according to the incremental

iterative method, commonly applied for ultimate strength analysis,

deleting from the structural model all platings, stiffeners and

primary supporting members lying in the damage area, without

accounting for instantaneous neutral axis rotational shift, in case

of asymmetrical damage conditions. In this respect, two main

problems arise: the former is related to the incrementaliterative

method, not accounting for neutral axis rotation; the latter,

instead, concerns the corrosion wastage model and the hullgirder residual strength statistical properties, mainly related to

correlation among input variables.

As concerns the rst aspect, in the recent years several studies

on the assessment of hull girder residual strength in damaged

conditions have been carried out. Paik et al. (1998a) studied the

residual strength of hull structures, based on section modulus and

ultimate bending strength, developing a rapid procedure to

identify the possibility of hull girder failure after collision or

grounding damages, based on some closed-form formulas. Wang

et al. (2002) reviewed the state of art research on collision and

grounding, focusing on issues that relevant design standards need

to address: denition of accidents, scenarios, evaluation

approaches and acceptance criteria. Fang and Das (2005) applied

structural reliability analysis to damaged ship structures, presenting some limit state design functions and determining the hull

girder probability of failure. Hussein and Guedes Soares (2009)

studied the residual strength of three double hull oil tankers,

designed according to IACS Common Structural Rules (IACS, 2006a,

2006b). They analysed several damage scenarios at side and

bottom with different size, to derive the hull girder residual

strength lower bound values, which may be accounted for future

design. The progressive collapse method was applied together

with rule failure modes. Dec et al. (2012) proposed a framework

for the assessment of structural safety of ships under different

operational conditions, based on reliability and redundancy indicators applied to hull girder ultimate capacity, accounting for

ageing affects due to corrosion wastage, deriving several polar

plots of both reliability and redundancy indexes for different sea

states, ship speeds and heading angles. Alie (2012) and Alie et al.

(2012) investigated the incidence of neutral axis rotation on

residual hull girder strength for asymmetrical damaged ships

under longitudinal bending, applying the progressive collapse

method and nding an explicit expression of neutral axis rotation,

as a function of hull girder cross section biaxial curvature. After

performing a series of progressive collapse analyses on several

bulk carriers and oil tankers, it was found that residual hull girder

strength, considering the instantaneous neutral axis rotation, is

generally lower than the relevant one, obtained by constraining

the rotation, as it is commonly assumed in classical procedures.

Saydam and Frangopol (2013) provided a probabilistic framework

for performance assessment of hull girders, under sudden

damages, due to collision or grounding accidents. They combined

the effects of damage scenarios with progressive deterioration due

to corrosion by an optimization-based version of the incremental

iterative method applied to an oil tanker. Relevant reliability index

was presented in polar plots for different operational conditions.

Finally, Choung et al. (2014) investigated the ultimate strength of a

very large crude carrier, based on a probabilistic assessment of

damage extent, due to collision or grounding accidents. They

expressed the damage extent probability distribution as a function

of several non-dimensional parameters and furnished a polynomial expression for estimating the hull girder residual strength, at

different cumulative probability levels.

As concerns the latter aspect to be investigated and mainly

related to both applied corrosion wastage models and time-variant

hull girder ultimate strength statistical properties, some advances

can be cited in the last years. Akpan et al. (2002) developed an

approach for the risk assessment of ultimate strength of aging

ships, degraded by corrosion and fatigue, based on timedependent random function models for corrosion growth and

corrosion-enhanced fatigue cracks. Second-order reliability

method was applied to evaluate the hull girder reliability index.

Paik et al. (2003) developed some mathematical models for

predicting corrosion as a function of ship age, developing two

sets of time-dependent corrosion wastage models for 23 (34)

longitudinal member groups of bulk carriers (oil tankers), based

on statistical analysis of corrosion measurement data. Guo et al.

(2008) applied a semi-probabilistic approach to assess the timevariant ultimate strength of ageing tanker deck platings, by a nonlinear corrosion wastage model based on statistical analysis of the

American Bureau of Shipping corrosion wastage database. Ivanov

(2007) applied Taylor series expansion method to evaluate the hull

girder geometric properties in a probabilistic term. Wang et al.

(2008) presented a database of as-gauged thickness measurements and performed a statistical study of time-variant hull girder

strength for gradually degraded hull structures. Ivanov (2009,

2012) developed a procedure for calculating hull girder reliability,

based on a probabilistic format of cross-section geometric properties, presented as annual distributions for any given lifespan. Kim

et al. (2012) studied the ultimate strength of ve containerships to

investigate the impact of corrosion wastage throughout the entire

ship lifetime, based on double hull oil tanker corrosion requirements, applied as initial guidelines. Saad-Eldeen et al. (2013)

analysed the hull girder ultimate strength of corroded ship

structures, based on both experimental and numerical assessments, carrying out several tests on a box girder, under vertical

bending moment. Kim et al. (2015) applied various types of

industry corrosion additions to investigate the ultimate strength

performances of four bulk carriers, to understand relevant effects,

in terms of ultimate bending capacity. Finally, Campanile et al.

(2014) investigated the time-variant ultimate strength of bulk

carriers under corrosion wastage in intact conditions, applying

both Taylor series expansion method and Monte Carlo simulation,

mainly focusing on two main aspects, the former regarding the

49

correlation among input variables, the latter instead the applicability of LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem, in case of partial

or full correlation among input variables.

In the present paper statistical properties of bulk carrier

residual strength are investigated by Monte Carlo simulation,

focusing on both incrementaliterative method and correlation

among input variables. A new formulation of the incremental

iterative method is preliminarily proposed, to account for instantaneous neutral axis rotation, in case of asymmetrical damage

conditions. Equilibrium of axial forces and horizontal bending

moment is imposed to derive both neutral axis vertical position

and rotation above the horizontal. The incidence of neutral axis

rotation on hull girder sagging and hogging capacities, as well as

the minimum iteration number required to perform Monte Carlo

simulation, are preliminarily studied. The incidence of correlation

among corrosion wastages of different structural members is fully

investigated, despite of commonly applied procedures, where

input variables are assumed uncorrelated (ISSC, 2012). In this

respect, three correlation models among input variables are

assumed: (i) no correlation; (ii) full correlation; (iii) full correlation

among corrosion wastages of structural members belonging to the

same group of compartments. Time-variant residual strength

statistical properties are subsequently determined by the corrosion wastage model proposed by Paik et al. (2003). According to

CSR-H requirements, three damage conditions are analysed:

(i) side damage; (ii) asymmetrical bottom damage; (iii) symmetrical bottom damage. Monte Carlo simulation is applied to the

well-known ISSC bulk carrier (ISSC, 2012); sagging and hogging

ultimate capacity mean values and coefcient of variations (COVs)

are determined up to 25-year ship lifetime, with 2.5-year step. A ztest is performed to verify that hull girder residual strength

follows the normal distribution, independently from correlation

among input variables, as far as LindebergFeller Central Limit

Theorem cannot be applied when correlation among input variables exists. Moment vs. curvature diagrams are reported, together

with residual strength frequency histograms, derived by FreedmanDiaconis rule. The residual strength factor (RSF) distribution

vs. time is also investigated, with reference to the analysed

damage scenarios. Correlation among corrosion wastages of different structural elements is further discussed, with reference to

RSF lower and upper bound values, derived under a certain nonexceedance probability level. Finally, time-variant RSF plots are

reported for the analysed damage scenarios for both sagging and

hogging conditions.

Harmonized Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil

Tankers (CSR-H), in force from 1st January 2014, prescribe that

ship structural strength has to be checked against yielding and

buckling criteria (IACS, 2014a), including ultimate strength assessment of hull girder capacity. Furthermore, all ships having a length

greater than 150 m have to withstand still water and vertical wave

bending moments in damaged conditions, due to collision or

grounding scenarios. Residual strength calculations have to be

performed, to check the hull girder ultimate bending capacity,

accounting for structure plastic deformation and post-buckling

behaviour. For collision assessment, damage is assumed to be

located on ship side, from the freeboard deck downward, for a

distance of 0.75D and 0.60D for single and double side shell

arrangements and transversally inboard, for a distance equal to

B/16, having denoted by D and B the ship moulded depth and

breadth respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. For grounding assessment,

instead, damage is assumed to be located on the bottom, in the

most unfavourable transversal position, extending upward for a

50

Side shell arrangement

Double side

Height, h

0.75D

0.60D

Depth, d

B/16

B/16

Single side

Damage penetration

Damage penetration

Ship type

Oil tankers

Height, h

min(B/20;2)

min(B/15;2)

Breadth, b

0.60B

0.60B

Bulk carriers

distance equal to min (B/20; 2) and min (B/15; 2) for bulk carriers

and oil tankers and transversally for a distance of 0.60B. In any

case, damage penetration should not exceed the minimum rule

double side width and double bottom height, so that plates and

stiffeners of inner bottom and hull longitudinal bulkhead have to

be considered intact.

According to CSR-H requirements, residual strength check can

be performed by the incrementaliterative approach, mainly

based on the Smith method (Smith, 1977), under the following

assumptions (Hussein and Guedes Soares, 2009): (i) the ultimate

strength is calculated at a hull girder transverse section between

two adjacent webs; (ii) the hull girder transverse section remains

plane during each curvature increment; (iii) steel material behaviour is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic; (iv) the hull girder

transverse section is divided into a set of elements, acting

independently each one from other, namely longitudinal stiffeners

with attached platings, transversely stiffened plate panels and

hard corners. Furthermore, for residual strength calculations, the

following additional assumptions are undertaken in modelling the

damage area (IACS, 2014b): (i) stiffeners have to be considered

intact, unless the connection with the attached plating is included

in the damage extent; (ii) primary supporting members are

deleted from the model; (iii) neutral axis rotation is not taken

into account, even in case of asymmetrical damage condition. The

last assumption is slightly non-conservative, as it doesnt account

for hull girder capacity reduction due to neutral axis rotation, even

if it is partially balanced by a damage size larger than the most

probable one at failure, as obtained by structural reliability

analysis, carried out on a comparative basis between intact and

damaged conditions (IACS, 2014b). In this respect, as collision

events are more likely to occur in coastal areas, having more dense

trafc but less severe environmental conditions than open sea

(Rusaas, 2003), the wave bending moment is likely to be signicantly lower than for unrestricted service in North Atlantic

conditions with 25-year return period, due to short exposure

take place.

3. Theoretical background

3.1. Time-variant residual strength statistical properties

Damaged ship structures reliability analysis is generally carried

out by a time-independent rst order formulation, corresponding

to one-year operational conditions, accounting for uncertainties

due to hull girder ultimate capacity, as well as still-water and

vertical wave bending moments. In any case, mean value of hull

girder residual strength is determined by the incrementaliterative approach, on the basis of gross offered thickness, reduced by

one half corrosion addition, as a function of structural element

type and location. As concerns relevant statistical properties,

Mansour and Howen (1994) suggest that hull girder capacity

follows the normal distribution with COV 0.15; Fang and Das

(2005) suggest it is normally distributed too, with lower COV,

assumed equal to 0.10 (Teixeira, 1997); Hussein and Guedes Soares

(2009), instead, assume it follows the lognormal distribution, with

COV of 0.08 (Guedes Soares et al., 1996). Finally, a similar value,

ranging from 0.10 to 0.15, is suggested in the SSC-459 Report (SSC,

2011).

One of the rst attempts to evaluate the time-variant reliability

index has been performed only recently by Saydam and Frangopol

(2013), who applied a linear time-variant corrosion model, to

estimate the hull girder residual strength by the Latin-Hypercube

technique. Annual corrosion rates, in terms of mean value and

coefcient of variation, have been determined for several classes of

structural elements (Akpan et al., 2002): side shell platings and

stiffener webs; deck platings, deck and bottom stiffener webs;

bottom shell platings. Furthermore, as shown by Campanile et al.

(2014) for the time-variant ultimate strength statistical properties

elasto-plastic failure mode is applied for both lengthened stiffened

plate elements and shortened/lengthened hard corners.

The previous procedure can be easily applied when hull-girder

cross-section is symmetric and a pure vertical bending moment is

applied, as neutral axis remains horizontal and moves only

vertically during the progressive collapse behaviour. On the contrary, when the cross-section is damaged at asymmetric positions,

or horizontal and vertical bending moments are applied simultaneously, both rotation and translation of neutral axis need to be

taken into account. In this respect, several efforts have been

undertaken in the past to underline a suitable procedure for

ultimate strength analysis of asymmetric cross-sections. Smith

and Pegg (2003) modied the incrementaliterative approach,

accounting for a given ratio of biaxial curvature or moment, in

terms of secant modulus corresponding to actual bending

moment-curvature slope. zg and Barltrop (2008) combined

vertical and horizontal bending moments in the incremental

iterative approach, deriving several interaction curves for different

loading combinations. Choung et al. (2012) provided two convergence criteria, to nd translational and rotational locations of

neutral axis plane, for both intact and damaged ship conditions,

accounting for asymmetries due to material properties, applied

loads and hull girder cross-section geometry, based on both force

and moment equilibrium criteria, to be simultaneously veried.

Alie et al. (2012) proposed an incremental formulation of biaxial

bending collapse behaviour, furnishing explicit expressions of

neutral axis position and rotation, as a function of cross-section

rigidities that, in turn, depend on elements tangential axial

stiffness, by means of relevant stressstrain curves. It is noticed

that in any case torsional (Campanile et al., 2010) and shear effects

(Campanile et al., 2009a, 2009b) are commonly neglected.

All the above mentioned procedures furnish quite similar results,

in terms of hull-girder capacity. Anyway, it is possible to develop an

incrementaliterative method, taking explicitly into account the

cross-section geometrical asymmetries, due to collision or grounding scenarios. In this respect, let us consider an asymmetric hullgirder cross-section, as shown in Fig. 2, referred to a global

coordinate system Oyz, with z-axis lying in the ship symmetry

plane, previous to damage event.

Denoting by G(yG;zG) the structural centre of mass after damage

occurrence (represented by a grey area in Fig. 2), let us dene a

local reference systems Gy0z0 with axes parallel to the global

reference ones. Denoting by Iy0 (Iz0) the vertical (horizontal)

only depend on time, by means of the chosen corrosion model, but

also on the assumed correlation among corrosion wastages of all

structural elements. Particularly, they proposed three different

correlation models (all random variables independent; random

variables fully correlated; full correlation between groups of

variables belonging to the same category of compartments),

founding that ultimate hull girder capacity COV may vary up to

one order of magnitude.

At design stage, several scenarios in CSR-H Rules (IACS, 2014a)

are envisaged for both side and bottom damages, for which

strength calculations have to be performed. Anyway, during ships

operation, it is impossible to predict the time when damage will

occur. Therefore, in actual analysis the strength of damaged ship is

determined as function of that time; statistical properties of hull

girder residual capacity are determined accounting for timevariant corrosion wastage of structural elements. For the correct

evaluation of damaged ship strength, two main aspects have to be

further investigated: (i) neutral axis rotation has to be taken into

due consideration in the incrementaliterative approach; (ii)

corrosion wastages statistical properties of all structural elements

have to be properly accounted, to correctly estimate the timevariant residual strength COV, choosing the most appropriate

correlation model among input variables.

3.2. Modied incrementaliterative method

In the so-called incrementaliterative method (IACS, 2014a) the

moment-curvature curve is derived by determining the bending

moment M acting on the hull girder cross-section, due to the imposed

curvature , corresponding to the hull girder section rotation around

its instantaneous neutral axis, the vertical position of which is

determined by equilibrium of axial forces. Denoting by the strain

in any structural element, due to the imposed curvature , for a given

neutral axis position, relevant stress is derived from element stress

strain () curve, which takes into account the structural behaviour in

the non-linear elasticplastic domain. The neutral axis vertical position

has to be adjusted iteratively, till sums of forces above and below it are

equal, so that equilibrium is achieved. Sagging (hogging) ultimate

bending moment is the minimum (maximum) of the obtained

moment-curvature curve. Besides, according to CSR-H requirements

(IACS, 2014a), the load-end shortening curves for stiffened elements

refer to beam column buckling, torsional buckling and web local

buckling of anged proles/at bars, while plate buckling is

z0

51

n

y0

G

z CL

O

Fig. 2. Global and local reference systems.

52

3

i zi zCL yi tan cos

inertia, the angle (counter-clockwise positive) between the

neutral axis and the horizontal can be easily determined as follows

(Hughes, 1988):

tan

I y0z0

I z0

curve, neutral axis vertical position and rotation about the horizontal can be determined, satisfying both axial force and horizontal bending moment equations:

8

N

X

>

>

>

i Ai 0

>

>

<i1

4

N

X

>

>

>

>

i yi Ai 0

>

:

neutral axis moves vertically and rotates, depending on the

applied curvature , according to the following equation:

zna zCL y tan

at centreline and rotation about the horizontal, respectively. Due

to the applied curvature , the neutrairder transverse section

rotates about its instantaneous neutral axis, so that the axial strain

i in the ith structural element, having centre of mass Gi(yi;zi) and

i1

having denoted by N the number of elements which the crosssection is subdivided into. Eq. (4) can be iteratively solved,

adjusting for any curvature , both neutral axis vertical position

at centreline zCL() and rotation about the horizontal (), recalculating element strains, stresses as well as total sectional force and

moment, until both equations are satised. It is noticed that

Eqs. (2)(4) are coincident with the classical incrementaliterative

method (IACS, 2014a), in case of symmetric hull girder crosssections (0). Besides, it has been veried that deformation

reversal doesnt occur in all performed calculations.

Table 1

ISSC Bulk carrier main dimensions.

Length between perpendiculars

Rule length

Moulded breadth

Moulded depth

Design draft

285.0

281.3

50.0

26.7

19.8

m

m

m

m

m

24.5***

Straight Camber

**

Sp

13

17

ac

e:

87

12

.5*

11

11

10

16

.5*

Sp

2

14

ac

.5*

80

13

.5*

.0

**

18.0**

Web frame spacing (double bottom and hopper side tank): 2610

Top-side tank web frame spacing: 5220

CVK transverse stiffener spacing: 1305

(in mm)

e:

2

2

2

2

3

18

.5

*

8

8

Space: 880

20.5*

2640

2 2

2 2 2

2 2 2 2

2640

18.5*

Space: 880

3520

4400

3

12.5*

2790

12.5*

12.5*

6 6 6 6

7

7

2640

2 2

6 6 6

7

7

80

2640

2 2

6 6

7

7

R1

2 2

6 6

7

7

12.5*

6 6

5

5

12.5*

6 6

4

4

3

3

4

4

5

5

2 2 2 2 2

4400

2120

1800

3

3

4400

Space: 880

3100

Sp

a

17 ce:

.5 88

** 0

17

Type

Yield Stress (MPa)

Flat-bar

392.0

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Bulb-bar

235.2

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Tee-bar

352.8

Flat-bar

392.0

13

Yield Stress

*: 313.6 MPa

**: 352.8 MPa

***: 392.0 MPa

18.5*

Dimensions

390x27

333x9+100x16

283x9+100x14

283x9+100x18

333x9+100x17

283x9+100x16

183x32.5x9.5

283x9+100x17

333x9+100x18

333x9+100x19

383x9+100x17

383x10+100x18

283x10+100x21

300x27

14.5*

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

50

R6 1

4400

Space: 880

.5*

2400

14

18

9700

4000

1100

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

700

991

12320

Space: 880

53

thickness of platings and stiffeners reduces due to corrosion

wastage. According to CSR-H requirements (IACS, 2014a), only

one-half corrosion addition must be considered for hull girder

ultimate and residual strength check. One-side exposure wastage

allowances, determined on the basis of approximately 600,000

thickness measurement data, sampled from single hull tankers

and single side skin bulk carriers, with age ranging from 5 to 27

years, are generally considered appropriate for 25-year ship lifetime, if suitable hull structure maintenance programmes are

undertaken (IACS, 2014b).

Anyway, if a more reliable corrosion wastage estimate is

required, the easiest alternative to the deterministic net-scantling

approach is to base corrosion prediction on statistical analysis of

past data for comparable situations (Paik et al., 2003). In this

respect, corrosion models can be divided into two phases, the

former without corrosion occurrence due to coating protection,

the latter instead represented by an uncertain but constant

corrosion rate, which results in a linear decrease of plate thickness

with time (Yamamoto and Ikegami, 1998; Hu et al., 2004). Even if

non-linear corrosion models seem to be more appropriate than

linear ones, due to the nature of corrosion rate, decreasing with

time after coating degradation (Qin and Cui, 2003), few data are

available in literature, so that in the following the linear corrosion

model developed by Paik et al. (1998b) will be applied:

Several techniques can be applied to problems involving random variables, such as Taylor series expansion method, Latin

Hypercube sampling or Monte Carlo simulation, depending on

system complexity and computational effort. Monte Carlo method

has been extensive applied in the eld of operational research and

nuclear physics, where there are a variety of problems beyond the

available resources of theoretical mathematics (Hammersley and

Handscomb, 1975). Nowadays it is also widely applied in the eld

of structural mechanics, including ultimate strength of stiffened

panels (Garbatov et al., 2011), buckling of platings subjected to

non-uniform corrosion wastage (Silva et al., 2011) and hull girder

ultimate bending capacity (Vhanmane and Bhattacharya, 2011;

Campanile et al., 2014). The method is mainly based on the

generation of random values assumed as input variables, each

one with a given distribution. In case of one-dimensional

t r T C 1 T T c

Table 3

Comparative analysis between classical and modied incrementaliterative

approach.

T

Classical

(years) incremental

iterative approach

Up to

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

and C1 the annual corrosion rate, the expected value C1 and

coefcient of variation COVC1 of which have been determined by

Paik et al. (2003), for 23 different structural elements of single skin

bulk carriers, in the hypothesis of severe corrosion rate, corresponding to the 95th percentile of relevant probability function.

Hence, time-variant statistical properties at time T4 Tc can be

easily derived for any structural element (Campanile et al., 2014):

(

X t g C1 T T c

6

X C1 T T c COVC1

Modied

incremental

iterative

approach

Sagging

difference

Hogging

difference

E(MS)

(GN m)

E(MH)

(GN m)

E(MS)

(GN m)

E(MH)

GN m

(%)

(%)

12.427

15.927

11.911

15.140

4.150

4.940

11.902

11.379

10.861

10.341

9.827

9.319

8.812

15.402

14.874

14.339

13.802

13.264

12.725

12.186

11.405

10.910

10.417

9.911

9.422

8.940

8.457

14.599

14.069

13.529

12.975

12.425

11.870

11.312

4.176

4.121

4.089

4.163

4.120

4.064

4.022

5.217

5.414

5.644

5.989

6.330

6.722

7.167

Table 4

Minimum iteration number nmin as a function of sample size n.

probability function of annual corrosion rate follows the two

parameter Weibull distribution. Scale and shape parameters have

been derived as a function of mean values and coefcient of

variations given by Paik et al. (2003) for different structural

elements. It is noticed that Eq. (6) is in general approximated,

because the as-rolled steel product thickness, assumed as a

deterministic variable in actual analysis, follows a normal or lognormal distribution, which implies that the resulting probabilistic

distribution will follow neither the normal nor the Weibull

distribution and will vary with the ship life.

100

200

300

400

500

750

1000

1500

Case (I)

Case (II)

Case (III)

Sagging

Hogging

Sagging

Hogging

Sagging

Hogging

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

230

225

238

236

234

236

249

226

183

180

188

187

185

187

197

180

189

245

187

199

224

211

204

205

67

72

62

66

73

70

66

68

Table 2

Comparison with the methods for ultimate strength analysis reported by ISSC (2012).

Symbol

Method

Working organization

MH (GN m)

MS (GN m)

ANSYS (PNU)

ANSYS (ISR)

ABAQUS (CR)

ALPS/HULL (PNU)

CSR (BV)

CSR (CR)

CSR (PNU)

RINA Rules (UoG)

ISSC 2000 (Rigo)

Modied P-M (PNU)

CSR-H

FE elasto-plastic analysisANSYS

FE elasto-plastic analysisANSYS

FE elasto-plastic analysisABAQUS

FE progressive collapse analysis

Incrementaliterative approach

Incrementaliterative approach

Incrementaliterative approach

Incrementaliterative approach

Incrementaliterative approach

Modied Paik Mansour formula

Incrementaliterative approach

Indian Register of Shipping

China Corporation Register of Shipping

Pusan National University

Bureau Veritas

China Corporation Register of Shipping

Pusan National University

University of Genova

Rigo P. c/o University of Liege

Pusan National University

Actual calculation

17.500

18.326

18.396

16.602

14.822

18.338

18.360

17.482

18.714

16.576

18.364

15.800

17.726

16.855

15.380

11.521

14.921

14.500

13.952

14.340

14.798

14.708

54

problems, several techniques are available, such as the inversetransform one, among others (Kroese, 2011). In case of multivariate problems, instead, correlation among input variables has to

be investigated. In fact, while in case of uncorrelated variables,

each one can be easily generated by its own distribution, when

correlation exists, the random generation procedure has to be

properly varied, by means of several approximate techniques

(Kroese, 2011). Time-variant residual hull girder capacity is certainly a multivariate problem, as corrosion wastage of each

structural element can be regarded as a random variable. Hence,

correlation among input variables becomes a basic issue to be

investigated, as standard deviation of both sagging and hogging

capacities strictly depends on it (Devroye, 1986). In this respect,

Monte Carlo simulation will be applied, considering three different

correlation models among input variables:

relevant Weibull distribution.

Case (II): input variables are fully correlated. A uniform random

number q is preliminarily generated in the interval [0,1];

annual corrosion rate of each structural element is subsequently determined by relevant inverse cumulative distribution

function, evaluated at probability level q.

Case (III): input variables are partially correlated. Structural

elements are preliminarily subdivided into several compartment categories, namely double-bottom, hopper tank, wing

tank and transversely stiffened side shell in the examined case.

Full correlation ( 1) is assumed among elements belonging to

the same category of compartments, while no correlation

uniform random number qi is generated for each category of

compartments in the interval [0,1]; hence annual corrosion rate

for each structural element belonging to the ith group is

determined by relevant inverse cumulative distribution function, evaluated at probability level qi.

more general form of well-known LindebergLvy CLT) can be

applied in Case (I) only, as input variables are uncorrelated, but not

following the same distribution law (Hunter, 2011; Campanile

et al., 2014). On the contrary, when correlation exists, as for Cases

(II) or (III), a z-test (Sprinthall, 2011) needs to be performed, to

verify that hull girder residual strength follows the normal

distribution. In this respect, FreedmanDiaconis rule (Freedman

and Diaconis, 1981) is applied to estimate the optimum bin size

length of hull girder capacity frequency histograms:

B in size 2IQRxn 1=3

the data inter-quartile range (Graham and Cook, 1996). Finally, the

minimum iteration number nmin required to perform Monte Carlo

simulation can be determined according to Driels and Shin (2004):

nmin min n A : n Z nreq n

Limit value

Case (I) - Sagging

Case (I) - Hogging

Case (II) - Sagging

Case (II) - Hogging

Case (III) - Sagging

Case (III) - Hogging

1300

1200

1100

1000

nreq n

n min

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

n

Fig. 4. Minimum iteration number vs. sample sizecollision scenario.

function of hull girder capacity mean value condence level p and

maximum percentage error E:

1500

1400

100zc pCOVn 2

E

of variation, while zc(p) is a coefcient derived by the normal

distribution and depending on the assumed condence level p. If

Eq. (8) is satised and Monte Carlo simulation is run for nmin

iterations, the target function mean value will not differ more than

E from the true one, with probability level p. In the present study

Monte Carlo simulation has been performed by a dedicated code

developed in Matlab Mathworks (MathWorks, 2014), mainly consisting of two parts: the former is devoted to residual strength

analysis by the modied-incremental iterative method, accounting

for rule and time-variant corrosion wastage models; the latter,

instead, performs the statistical analysis of Monte Carlo results.

z, z 0

n

G

y0

5.693 m2

Sectional area

zG

yG

0.000 m

I y0

699.540 m

I z0

Product of inertia

Iy0z0

11.224 m

4

1811.702 m

0.000 m4

0.000 deg

z CL

11.224 m

ZD

44.625 m3

ZK

62.325 m3

MH

18.364 GNm

MS

14.711 GNm

55

1305 mm, because of brackets between oors.

4.1. Main data

The vessel selected as test case for time-variant residual

strength analysis by Monte Carlo simulation is a Capesize single

side bulk-carrier, the main dimensions of which are listed in

Table 1 and Fig. 3, where material properties, scantlings and frame

spacing are also detailed. The ship is longitudinally stiffened,

except for side shell platings comprised between the hopper and

wing tanks.

The hull has been extensively studied by Amlashi and Moan

(2008), who carried out a series of nonlinear FE analyses, under

various loading conditions. It has also been benchmarked in the

last ISSC Ultimate Strength Committee report (ISSC, 2012), where

ultimate hogging and sagging capacities have been determined by

several Working Organizations, by different techniques, namely FE

elasto-plastic analysis, incrementaliterative approach and modied Paik-Mansour formula. Actual values of gross scantling hull

girder capacity in intact condition are well in accordance with

nonlinear FE calculations. In fact, actual hogging and sagging

ultimate bending capacities are equal to 18.364 GN m and

14.708 GN m, respectively, while relevant FE values, derived by

full elasto-plastic analyses, range from 17.500 to 18.396 GN m for

hogging and from 15.800 to 17.726 GN m for sagging condition

respectively, as reported in Table 2.

It is noticed that, according to Fig. 3, the length of elements is

870 mm for side shell, 5220 mm for longitudinal stiffeners within

top side tank, 2610 mm within double bottom and hopper side

Table 5

Mean values and COVs of hull girder ultimate bending moment capacity - Intact

condition from Campanile et al. (2014).

T

Mean value

(years)

E[MS]

E[MH]

(GN m) (GN m)

Case (I)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

Up to

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Case (II)

Case (III)

14.708

18.364

14.100

13.490

12.890

12.290

11.700

11.110

10.510

17.680

16.960

16.260

15.550

14.810

14.100

13.360

0.073

0.153

0.262

0.338

0.440

0.562

0.679

0.044

0.094

0.157

0.202

0.295

0.345

0.461

0.805

1.738

2.589

3.769

4.940

6.228

7.330

0.803

1.567

2.687

3.743

4.959

6.326

7.879

0.777

1.595

2.559

3.760

4.939

6.000

7.280

0.517

1.099

1.625

2.396

3.159

4.086

5.619

z0

Before performing Monte Carlo simulation, the incidence of

neutral axis rotation is investigated. With reference to the collision

scenario detailed in the next paragraph, residual bending capacities are determined by classical (IACS, 2014a) and actual incrementaliterative approach. Table 3 reports time-variant residual

strength expected values, for sagging E(MS) and hogging E(MH)

conditions, up to 25-year ship lifetime, with 2.5-year step. Mean

values are determined replacing the gross thickness of any

structural element with the one at time T 4Tc, as obtained by

the rst of Eq. (6).

Sagging and hogging residual strength capacities decrease in

time, as predictable. Furthermore, if compared with classical

approach, the actual incrementaliterative method always leads

to slightly less hull girder capacities, with percentage differences

around 4% and ranging from 5% to 7% for sagging and hogging

conditions, respectively. In any case, obtained results are in

accordance with those ones derived by Alie et al. (2012), who

found that maximum residual strength reduction, due to neutral

axis rotation, is about 8% for a similarly sized single side bulk

carrier.

4.3. Minimum iteration number

The minimum iteration number required for Monte Carlo

simulation is preliminarily investigated with reference to the

collision scenario detailed in the next paragraph, assuming a

condence level p 95% and a percentage error E 1.0%. In all

cases, sagging and hogging capacities follow the normal distribution, according to the performed z-test, which implies that for the

assumed condence level zc is equal to 1.96. Table 4 reports the

minimum iteration number nmin required for Cases (I)(III), for

both sagging and hogging conditions, as a function of sample size

n, ranging from 100 to 1500.

The minimum iteration number required in Case (I), i.e. when

all variables are uncorrelated, is very low. On the contrary, when

full correlation exists, as in Case (II), the minimum iteration

number is about 300 for both sagging and hogging conditions.

Finally, Case (III) shows intermediate values, as partial correlation

among input variables is assumed. Similar results are also reported

in Fig. 4, where the minimum iteration number nmin is plotted. vs.

the sample size n. All points below the magenta curve satisfy

Eq. (9), while continuous and dashed lines refer to sagging and

5.036 m

zG

10.281 m

yG

-3.183 m

I y0

629.594 m4

I z0

1369.045 m4

Product of inertia

I y0z0

-129.892 m 4

n

G

Sectional area

-5.420 deg

y0

z CL

9.979 m

ZD

37.883 m3

ZK

61.241 m 3

MH

15.139 GNm

Ultimatesagging capacity

MS

11.911 GNm

z(m),

10

20

Neutral axis vertical shift

9

18

8

Bending moment

16

7

14

Neutral axis rotational shift

6

12

5

10

4

8

3

6

2

4

1

2

0

0

-1

-2

-2

-4

-3

-6

-4

-8

-5

-10

-6

-12

-7

-14

-8

-16

-9

-18

-10

-20

-2.5-2.25 -2 -1.75-1.5-1.25

-2.5

-1.5

-1 -0.75-0.5-0.25

-0.5

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5

-4

Curvature (1/mm)

x 10

(deg)

56

Table 6

Mean values and COVs of hull girder ultimate bending moment capacityside

damage (collision).

T

Mean value

(years)

E[MS]

E[MH]

(GN m) (GN m)

Case (I)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

Up to

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Case (II)

Case (III)

11.911

15.139

11.405

10.910

10.417

9.911

9.422

8.940

8.457

14.599

14.069

13.529

12.975

12.425

11.870

11.312

0.074

0.191

0.279

0.377

0.541

0.634

0.790

0.065

0.110

0.171

0.235

0.320

0.387

0.490

0.833

1.757

2.834

3.682

4.983

6.032

8.046

0.741

1.519

2.474

3.215

4.402

5.385

7.159

0.801

1.672

2.631

3.589

4.800

5.859

7.283

0.497

0.999

1.539

2.194

2.809

3.440

4.154

Monte Carlo simulation will be carried out, performing in all cases

1000 iterations, with 95% condence level and 1% maximum

percentage error.

Hull girder ultimate strength capacities in intact conditions are

reported from Campanile et al. (2014), while time-variant residual

strength analysis is performed for the following damage scenarios,

according to CSR-H requirements (IACS, 2014a):

1. Side damage (collision);

2. Bottom damage (1st grounding scenario);

3. Bottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).

For each damage scenario the reference section scheme, as well

as gross scantling sectional properties are reported. Time-variant

mean values and COVs of sagging and hogging hull girder

capacities are subsequently determined, up to 25-year ship lifetime, with 2.5-year step. Cases (I)(III) of Section 3.4 are considered to investigate the incidence of correlation among input

variables on hull girder statistical properties. Finally, after performing a z-test, frequency histograms obtained by Monte Carlo

simulation and best-t normal distributions are reported for both

sagging and hogging capacities after 25-year ship lifetime.

As previously said, ultimate strength analysis in intact conditions is necessary to carry out a comparative analysis with timevariant hull girder residual strength capacity, due to collision or

grounding scenarios. Statistical properties of ISSC bulk-carrier

longitudinal strength in intact conditions have been already

investigated by Campanile et al. (2014). Fig. 5 shows the analysed

section scheme, with relevant gross sectional properties, while

Table 5 reports detailed statistical analysis results.

The damage scenario for collision assessment is determined

according to CSR-H requirements for single side bulk carriers,

assuming a penetration height h20.175 m and a depth

d 3.125 m (see Fig. 1). Fig. 6 shows the analysed section scheme,

with relevant gross scantling properties. Damaged structures have

been deleted from the model (IACS, 2014a).

Sagging and hogging capacities are determined up to 25-year

ship lifetime, with 2.5-year step. Fig. 7 shows the hull girder crosssection behaviour as function of the curvature without corrosion

wastage (T rTc): black curve refers to the hull girder bending

capacity, while blue and red lines are relative to neutral axis

vertical z zCL() zCL(0) and rotational () (0) shifts, as

regards the elastic neutral axis values, when any structural

element composing the hull girder cross-section does not undergo

inelastic effects, such as yielding or buckling (Choung et al., 2012).

Mean values and COVs of hull girder sagging and hogging

capacities are reported in Table 6. Also in this case COVs increase

with time and substantially depend on the chosen correlation

model. While for Case (I) they reach a maximum value of 0.790%,

when full correlation among variables or groups of them exists, for

Cases (II) and (III), COVs reach a maximum value of 8.046% and

7.283%, respectively.

Finally, Fig. 8 shows sagging and hogging capacity histograms

at T 25 years, for Cases (I)(III). Frequency histogram bin size is

derived according to Eq. (9). In all cases data follow the normal

distribution (red curve), according to z-test null hypothesis that

they are a random sample from a normal distribution. In the same

graphs mean, standard deviation, skewness and excess kurtosis

are also reported. The last two parameters are equal to zero for the

normal distribution.

8

Mean=8.457 GNm

Std=0.067 GNm

Skewness=0.062

Kurtosis=0.205

1

0

6.5

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

10

10.5

11

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

10

Bending capacity (GNm)

13

13.5

14

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0

6

6.5

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

10

10.5

11

9.5

10

Bending capacity (GNm)

13

13.5

14

Mean=8.457 GNm

Std=0.616 GNm

Skewness=0.357

Kurtosis=-0.219

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

pdf

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

6.5

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

Mean=11.312 GNm

Std=0.470 GNm

Skewness=0.305

Kurtosis=-0.151

0.9

0.7

9.5

Mean=11.312 GNm

Std=0.810 GNm

Skewness=0.383

Kurtosis=-0.069

0.9

0.8

1

Mean=8.457 GNm

Std=0.680 GNm

Skewness=0.438

Kurtosis=0.078

0.9

Mean=11.312 GNm

Std=0.055 GNm

Skewness=-0.013

Kurtosis=0.104

57

10

10.5

11

9.5

10

Bending capacity (GNm)

Fig. 8. Frequency histograms for Cases (I)(III) at time T 25 yearsside damage (collision).

13

13.5

14

58

z0 z

a

y0

4.693 m2

Sectional area

zG

yG

-1.980 m

I y0

558.273 m4

I z0

1633.214 m4

Product of inertia

Iy0z0

121.697 m4

zCL

13.667 m

ZD

41.722 m3

ZK

41.295 m3

MH

13.453 GNm

MS

13.267 GNm

13.519 m

4.261 deg

(deg)

10

20

Neutral axis vertical shift

9

18

8

Bending moment

16

7

14

Neutral axis rotational shift

6

12

5

10

4

8

3

6

2

4

1

2

0

0

-1

-2

-2

-4

-3

-6

-4

-8

-5

-10

-6

-12

-7

-14

-8

-16

-9

-18

-10

-20

-2.5-2.25 -2 -1.75-1.5-1.25

-2.5

-1.5

-1 -0.75-0.5-0.25

-0.5

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5

-4

Curvature (1/mm)

x 10

z(m),

Fig. 9. Section scheme and gross sectional propertiesbottom damage (1st grounding scenario).

Fig. 10. Moment-curvature diagram at time T 0 yearsbottom damage (1st grounding scenario).

Table 7

Mean values and COVs of hull girder ultimate bending moment capacitybottom

damage (1st grounding scenario).

T

Mean value

(years)

E[MS]

E[MH]

(GN m) (GN m)

Case (I)

Case (II)

Case (III)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

Up to

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

13.267

13.453

12.681

12.137

11.584

11.034

10.497

9.966

9.238

12.900

12.195

11.606

10.979

10.329

9.723

9.212

0.112

0.176

0.270

0.355

0.462

0.564

0.681

0.114

0.300

0.381

0.416

0.517

0.658

0.794

0.838

1.682

2.752

3.819

4.786

6.216

7.400

0.969

2.030

3.277

4.615

5.780

7.557

8.882

0.708

1.493

2.244

3.238

4.138

5.068

6.680

0.703

1.478

2.288

3.217

4.257

5.602

6.545

Bottom damage scenario is assessed considering the damage

penetration height h and breadth b of 2.500 m and 30.000 m,

respectively (see Fig. 1). According to IACS (2014a) requirements,

damage area has to be located on the bottom, in the most

unfavourable transverse position. In the actual grounding scenario,

damage area involves the hopper tank and only partly the double

bottom, as shown in Fig. 9, where the analysed section scheme,

gross scantling sectional properties and damage section are

shown. Sagging and hogging capacities are determined up to 25year ship lifetime. In this respect, Fig. 10 shows relevant gross

section moment-curvature diagram. As well as in the previous

case, neutral axis rotational shift is appreciable when buckling

inception occurs.

Mean values and COVs of hull girder sagging and hogging

capacities are reported in Table 7. While for Case (I) COV reaches a

maximum value of 0.794%, maximum values for Cases (II) and (III)

are 8.882% and 6.680%, respectively. Finally, Fig. 11 shows sagging

and hogging capacity histograms at time T 25 years. Also in this

case data sampled from Monte Carlo simulation follow the normal

distribution (red curve), according to the performed z-test.

5.4. Bottom damage (2nd grounding scenario)

The second analysed grounding scenario is assessed considering the previous damage penetration height and breadth, locating

the damage area symmetrically respect to the ship symmetry

plane. Obviously, in this case there is no neutral axis rotation, as

shown in Fig. 12, where the analysed section scheme, as well as

the relevant gross scantling sectional properties are reported.

By a comparative analysis of gross scantling sectional properties listed in Figs. 9 and 12 for the asymmetrical and symmetrical

damage scenario, ultimate hogging and sagging capacities are

quite similar between them, which implies that the incidence of

damage area transverse location on hull girder residual strength is

almost negligible. Finally, Fig. 13 reports the gross-scantling

moment-curvature diagram for the analysed section scheme. It is

8

Mean=9.238 GNm

Std=0.063 GNm

Skewness=-0.019

Kurtosis=-0.188

7.5

8.5

9

9.5 10 10.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

11

11.5

12

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

7.5

8.5

9

9.5 10 10.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

11

11.5

12

Bending capacity (GNm)

Mean=9.238 GNm

Std=0.617 GNm

Skewness=0.213

Kurtosis=-0.194

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

7.5

8.5

9

9.5 10 10.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

11

11.5

12

Mean=9.212 GNm

Std=0.603 GNm

Skewness=0.274

Kurtosis=-0.164

0.5

0.4

Mean=9.212 GNm

Std=0.818 GNm

Skewness=0.302

Kurtosis=-0.136

0.5

0.4

Bending capacity (GNm)

Mean=9.238 GNm

Std=0.684 GNm

Skewness=0.249

Kurtosis=-0.057

0.9

Mean=9.212 GNm

Std=0.073 GNm

Skewness=0.072

Kurtosis=-0.003

Bending capacity (GNm)

Fig. 11. Frequency histograms for Cases (I)(III) at time T 25 yearsBottom damage (1st grounding scenario).

59

60

z,z 0

a y

0

4.605 m2

Sectional area

zG

yG

Iy0

543.429 m4

I z0

1730.274 m4

Product of inertia

Iy0z0

13.764 m

0.000 m

0.000 m4

0.000 deg

z CL

13.764 m

ZD

41.371 m3

ZK

39.480 m3

MH

13.122 GNm

MS

13.812 GNm

(deg)

10

20

Neutral axis vertical shift

9

18

8

Bending moment

16

7

14

Neutral axis rotational shift

6

12

5

10

4

8

3

6

2

4

1

2

0

0

-1

-2

-2

-4

-3

-6

-4

-8

-5

-10

-6

-12

-7

-14

-8

-16

-9

-18

-10

-20

-2.5-2.25 -2 -1.75-1.5-1.25

-2.5

-1.5

-1 -0.75-0.5-0.25

-0.5

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5

-4

Curvature (1/mm)

x 10

z(m),

Fig. 12. Section scheme and gross sectional propertiesbottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).

Fig. 13. Moment-curvature diagram at time T 0 yearsbottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).

Table 8

Mean values and COVs of hull girder ultimate bending moment capacitybottom

damage (2nd grounding scenario).

T

Mean value

(years)

E[MS]

E[MH]

(GN m) (GN m)

Case (I)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

COV

[MS]

(%)

COV

[MH]

(%)

Up to

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Case (II)

Case (III)

13.812

13.122

13.230

12.677

12.116

11.555

10.996

10.439

9.885

12.442

11.926

11.276

10.691

10.057

9.453

8.951

0.087

0.175

0.245

0.322

0.424

0.546

0.658

0.121

0.241

0.316

0.426

0.569

0.675

0.750

0.856

1.751

2.609

3.751

4.722

6.149

7.623

1.080

2.090

3.175

4.657

5.742

7.442

9.173

0.707

1.509

2.480

3.400

4.339

5.716

6.777

0.718

1.419

2.219

3.169

4.252

5.079

6.290

noticed that neutral axis rotational shift is always zero, independently from the considered curvature, as it could be predictable for

the analysed case.

Sagging and hogging mean values and COVs are reported in

Table 8 for Cases (I)(III): relevant maximum values are equal to

0.750%, 9.173% and 6.777%, respectively. It is noticed that maximum COV value is obtained for Case (II), the minimum value for

Case (I) and this relationship occurs for other intact and damage

conditions, as well. Finally, Fig. 14 shows sagging and hogging

capacity histograms at time T 25 years. Also in this case data

sampled from Monte Carlo simulation follow the normal distribution (red curve), according to the performed z-test.

Ship residual strength, due to collision or grounding scenarios

can be assessed in terms of the residual strength factor RSF(T),

dened as the ratio of time-variant hull girder capacity in

damaged conditions to the intact gross scantling one (Akpan

et al., 2002):

RSFT

M dam T

M int

10

can be determined as follows:

ERSFT

EM dam T

M int

11

12

value and coefcient of variation of hull girder sagging/hogging

capacity in damaged conditions, as determined in previous paragraphs (see Tables 68). As it was veried that the residual hull

girder capacity is normally distributed, independently from correlation among input variables, residual strength factor will be in

Mean=9.885 GNm

Std=0.065 GNm

Skewness=-0.001

Kurtosis=-0.027

1

0

7.5

8.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

Mean=9.885 GNm

Std=0.754 GNm

Skewness=0.382

Kurtosis=-0.070

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

7.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

7

7.5

8.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

6.5

7.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

1

Mean=9.885 GNm

Std=0.670 GNm

Skewness=0.284

Kurtosis=-0.257

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

7.5

8.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

Mean=8.951 GNm

Std=0.563 GNm

Skewness=0.274

Kurtosis=-0.257

0.9

0.7

6.5

Mean=8.951 GNm

Std=0.821 GNm

Skewness=0.401

Kurtosis=-0.103

0.9

0.8

Mean=8.951 GNm

Std=0.067 GNm

Skewness=-0.071

Kurtosis=-0.272

6.5

7.5

Bending capacity (GNm)

Fig. 14. Frequency histograms for Cases (I)(III) at time T 25 yearsbottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).

61

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

RSF

RSF

62

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

Time (years)

17.5

20

22.5

25

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

17.5

20

22.5

25

0.5

0.4

15

Time (years)

RSF

RSF

Time (years)

12.5

0.5

0.4

10

Time (years)

RSF

RSF

Time (years)

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

Time (years)

Fig. 15. Residual strength factor distribution vs. timeside damage (collision scenario).

63

Table 9

RSF mean, lower and upper bound values after 25-year ship lifetimesagging condition.

Damage scenario

Bottom damage (1st grounding scenario)

Bottom damage (2nd grounding scenario)

Mean value

Case (I)

Case (II)

Case (III)

RSF

RSF5%

RSF95%

RSF5%

RSF95%

RSF5%

RSF95%

0.575

0.641

0.672

0.568

0.633

0.665

0.582

0.648

0.679

0.499

0.563

0.588

0.651

0.719

0.756

0.506

0.570

0.597

0.644

0.711

0.747

Table 10

RSF mean, lower and upper bound values after 25-year ship lifetimehogging condition.

Damage scenario

Bottom damage (1st grounding scenario)

Bottom damage (2nd grounding scenario)

Mean value

Case (I)

RSF

RSF5%

RSF95%

RSF5%

RSF95%

RSF5%

RSF95%

0.616

0.502

0.484

0.611

0.495

0.478

0.621

0.508

0.490

0.543

0.428

0.411

0.689

0.575

0.557

0.574

0.448

0.434

0.658

0.556

0.534

corresponding to 5% non-exceedance probability level, can be

determined as follows:

RSFT 5% ERSFT 1 1:645COVRSFT

13

probability, becomes:

RSFT 95% ERSFT 1 1:645COVRSFT

14

for the side damage scenario. Sagging and hogging residual

strength factors are plotted for Cases (I)and (III): continuous

lines refer to RSF mean value, as determined by Eq. (11), while grey

areas represent the range between RSF lower and upper bound

values, as determined by Eqs. (13) and (14). Sagging and hogging

RSF values for both collision and grounding scenarios after 25-year

ship lifetime, are reported in Tables 9 and 10, together with

relevant lower and upper bound values, as determined for Case

(I)(III), respectively.

If input variables are uncorrelated as for Case (I), the range

represented by the grey area is very small, with RSF lower bound

values equal to 0.568 and 0.611, after 25-year ship lifetime, for

sagging and hogging conditions, respectively. On the contrary,

when full correlation exists, as for Case (II), grey areas become

wider, with RSF lower bound values equal to 0.499 and 0.543 for

sagging and hogging conditions. Finally, when full correlation

exists among variables belonging to the same group of compartments, as for Case (III), 25-year RSF lower bound values are 0.506

and 0.574, respectively. Similar results are reported in Figs. 16 and

17 for the two analysed grounding scenarios, with asymmetrical

and symmetrical damage penetrations, respectively. For the asymmetrical one (1st grounding scenario) represented in Fig. 16, RSF

lower bound values for sagging and hogging conditions, after 25year ship lifetime, are: 0.633 and 0.495 for Case (I), 0.563 and

0.428 for Case (II) and 0.570 and 0.448 for Case (III). For the

symmetrical damage one (2nd grounding scenario) represented in

Fig. 17, RSF lower bound values are: 0.665 and 0.478 for Case (I),

0.588 and 0.411 for Case (II) and 0.597 and 0.434 for Case (III),

which implies that the incidence of damage transverse position is

low, at least for the analysed section scheme.

Obtained results show that correlation among input variables

strongly inuences lower and upper bound values of time-variant

residual strength factor. In this respect, if the hypothesis of

uncorrelated variables is on the safe side, the full correlation

model is too much conservative. Hence, the assumption of partial

Case (II)

Case (III)

compartments, as assumed in Case (III), seems to be the most

suitable one. Besides, minimum sagging/hogging capacity residual

strength factors are recognized after 25-year ship lifetime for side

damage and symmetrical bottom grounding, respectively. In fact, if

partial correlation exists among input variables, RSF minimum

lower bound values reduce up to 0.499 and 0.434. The incidence of

damage transverse position, in the hypothesis of grounding

scenario, is very low.

7. Conclusions

Statistical properties of time-variant hull girder residual strength

have been investigated by Monte Carlo simulation, applying the

corrosion wastage model proposed by Paik et al. (2003) and a

modied-incremental iterative method, to account for instantaneous

neutral axis rotation, in case of asymmetrical damage conditions.

Relevant incidence on hull girder residual strength has been preliminarily investigated, while minimum iteration number, required to

perform Monte Carlo simulations, has been determined on the basis of

condence level of sagging/hogging capacity mean value and maximum allowable error. Three different damage scenarios have been

analysed up to 25-year ship lifetime, according to CSR-H (IACS, 2014a)

requirements: side damage, asymmetrical and symmetrical bottom

grounding conditions. Monte Carlo simulation has been applied to the

bulk carrier section analysed in the last ISSC benchmark study,

considering three correlation models among input variables: no

correlation, full correlation, and full correlation among variables

belonging to the same group of compartments. After an extensive

study on hull girder residual strength statistical properties, four main

results have been achieved:

(i) In case of asymmetrical damage conditions, the modied

incrementaliterative approach leads to hull girder capacity

percentage reductions between 4% and 7% for sagging and

hogging conditions, respect to classical Smith method (see

Table 3), in accordance with results obtained by Alie et al.

(2012) for a similarly sized bulk carrier.

(ii) Hull girder residual strength is normally distributed, independently from correlation among input variables and effectiveness of LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem that

cannot be applied when correlation exists.

(iii) Sagging/hogging residual strength COVs not only increase

with time, as it was predictable by the applied corrosion

wastage model, but they mainly depend on damage scenarios.

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

RSF

RSF

64

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

Time (years)

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

RSF

RSF

0.9

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

7.5

10

12.5

15

Time (years)

20

22.5

25

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

17.5

20

22.5

25

0.5

0.4

2.5

17.5

0.9

15

Time (years)

12.5

0.5

0.4

10

Time (years)

RSF

RSF

Time (years)

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

Time (years)

Fig. 16. Residual strength factor distribution vs. timebottom damage (1st grounding scenario).

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

RSF

RSF

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

RSF

RSF

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

RSF

RSF

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

Time (years)

17.5

20

22.5

25

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

17.5

20

22.5

25

0.5

0.4

15

Time (years)

Time (years)

12.5

0.5

0.4

10

Time (years)

Time (years)

65

17.5

20

22.5

25

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

Time (years)

Fig. 17. Residual strength factor distribution vs. timebottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).

66

and 10% and commonly applied in ship structural reliability

analysis in damaged conditions, may be avoided and full

statistical analyses need to be performed.

(iv) Residual strength factor is normally distributed too, with

lower and upper bound values, for given non-exceedance

probability levels, strictly depending on hull girder residual

strength COVs. Furthermore, in case of partial correlation

among input variables, minimum sagging and hogging lower

bound values have been recognized for side damage and

symmetrical grounding scenarios, after 25-year ship lifetime.

Actual results may be considered the rst step of a more

reliable evaluation of hull girder residual strength statistical

properties, as far as different hull girder sections and typologies

may be analysed under several damage scenarios and the incidence of residual strength COVs on ship structural reliability

analysis needs to be further investigated.

References

ABS, 1995a. Guide for Assessing Hull-Girder Residual Strength for Tankers. American Bureau of Shipping, New York, NY, United States.

ABS, 1995b. Guide for Assessing Hull-Girder Residual Strength for Bulk Carriers.

American Bureau of Shipping, New York, NY, United States.

Akpan, U.O., Koko, T.S., Ayyub, B., Dunbar, T.E., 2002. Risk assessment of aging ship

hull structures in the presence of corrosion and fatigue. Mar. Struct. 15 (3),

211231.

Alie, M.Z.M., 2012. Estimation of hull girder strength of asymmetrical damaged

ships in sagging. Prosiding Hasil Penelitian Fakultas Teknik 7 (1), 18.

Alie, M.Z.M., Fujikubo, M., Iijima, K., Oka, S., Takemura, K., 2012. Residual longitudinal strength analysis of ships hull girder with damages. In: Proceedings of

the 22nd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference ISOPE 2012,

pp. 831838.

Amlashi, H.K.K., Moan, T., 2008. Ultimate strength analysis of a bulk carrier hull

girder under alternate hold loading conditiona case study Part 1: Nonlinear

nite element modelling and ultimate hull girder capacity. Mar. Struct. 21 (4),

327352.

Campanile, A., Mandarino, M., Piscopo, V., 2009a. On the exact solution of nonuniform torsion for beams with axialsymmetric cross section. World Acad. Sci.

Eng. Technol. 31, 3645.

Campanile, A., Mandarino, M., Piscopo, V., 2009b. On the exact solution of nonuniform torsion for beams with asymmetric cross section. World Acad. Sci. Eng.

Technol. 31, 4653.

Campanile, A., Mandarino, M., Piscopo, V., 2010. On the inuence of the warping

shear stress on the hull girder strength. J. Ship Res. 54 (4), 231243.

Campanile, A., Piscopo, V., Scamardella, A., 2014. Statistical properties of bulkcarrier longitudinal strength. Mar. Struct. 39, 438462.

Choung, J., Nam, J., Ha, T., 2012. Assessment of residual strength of an asymmetrically damaged tanker considering rotational and translational shifts of

neutral axis plane. Mar. Struct. 25, 7184.

Choung, J., Nam, J., Tayyar, G.T., 2014. Residual ultimate strength of a very large

crude carrier considering probabilistic damage extents. Int. J. Naval Archit.

Ocean Eng. 6 (1), 1426.

DNV, 2009. CSADirect Analysis of Ship Structures. Det Norske Veritas, Norway.

Dec, A., Frangopol, D.M., Zhu, B., 2012. Reliability and redundancy assessment of

ships under different operational conditions. Eng. Struct. 42, 457471.

Devroye, L., 1986. Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation. Springer-Verlag.

Driels, M.R., Shin, Y.S., 2004. Determining the number of iterations for Monte Carlo

simulations of Weapon effectiveness. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA,

United States.

Egge, E.D., Bckenhauer, M., 1991. Calculation of the collision resistance of ships

and its assessment for classication purposes. Mar. Struct. 4 (1), 3556.

Fang, C., Das, P.K., 2005. Survivability and reliability of damaged ships after collision

and grounding. Ocean Eng. 32, 293307.

Freedman, D., Diaconis, P., 1981. On the histogram as a density estimator: L2 theory.

Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie Verw. Gebiete 57 (4), 453476.

Garbatov, Y., Tekgoz, M., Guedes Soares, C., 2011. Uncertainty assessment of the

ultimate strength of a stiffened panel. In: Proceedings of the 13th International

Conference on Marine Structures 2011 (MARSTRUCT 2011), Hamburg, Germany.

Graham, U., Cook, I., 1996. Understanding Statistics. Oxford University Press.

Guedes Soares, C., Dogliani, M., Ostergaard, C., Parmentier, G., Pedersen, P.T., 1996.

Reliability based ship structural design. Trans. Soc. Naval Archit. Mar. Eng.

(SNAME) 104, 357389.

Guo, J., Wang, G., Ivanov, L., Perakis, A.N., 2008. Time-varying ultimate strength of

aging tanker deck plate considering corrosion effect. Mar. Struct. 21, 402419.

Hammersley, J.M., Handscomb, D.C., 1975. Monte Carlo Methods. Methuen & Co.,

Ltd., London.

Hu, Y., Cui, W., Pedersen, P.T., 2004. Maintained ship hull girder ultimate strength

reliability considering corrosion and fatigue. Mar. Struct. 17, 91123.

Hughes, O., 1988. Ship Structural Design: A Rationally-Based, Computer-Aided,

Optimization Approach. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

(SNAME), Jersey City, NJ, United States.

Hunter, D.R., 2011. Statistics 553: asymptotic tools. Penn State Univ., 2011.

Hussein, A.W., Guedes Soares, C., 2009. Reliability and residual strength of double

hull tankers designed according to the new IACS common structural rules.

Ocean Eng. 36, 14461459.

IACS, 2006a. Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers. International Association

of Classication Societies, London, UK.

IACS, 2006b. Common Structural Rules for Oil Tankers. International Association of

Classication Societies, London, UK.

IACS, 2014a. Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers. International Association of Classication Societies, London, UK.

IACS, 2014b. Technical Report for CSR-H External Release on 2014-06-01. International Association of Classication Societies, London, UK.

IMO, 1995. Interim Guidelines for Approval of Alternative Methods of Design and

Construction of Oil Tankers Under Regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/

78Resolution MEPC.66(37). The International Maritime Organization.

IMO, 2003. Revised Interim Guidelines for the Approval of Alternative Methods of

Design and Construction of Oil Tankers Under Regulation 13F(5) of Annex II of

MARPOL 73/78Resolution MEPC.110(49). The International Maritime

Organization.

IMO, 2010a. International Goal-based Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers

and Oil Tankers. Resolution MSC.287(87). The International Maritime

Organization.

IMO, 2010b. Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the

Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended. Resolution MSC.290(87). The International Maritime Organization.

IMO, 2010c. Adoption of the Guidelines for Verication of Conformity with Goalbased Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers. Resolution

MSC.296(87). The International Maritime Organization.

ISSC, 2012. In: 18th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Fricke W.,

Bronsart R. (Eds.), ISSC Committee III.1: Ultimate Strength.

Ivanov, L.D., 2007. A probabilistic assessment of all hull girder geometric properties

at any ships age. Trans. R. Inst. Naval Archit. 149 (Part A3), 4592.

Ivanov, L.D., 2009. Challenges and possible solutions of the time-variant reliability

of ships hull girder. Ships Offshore Struct. 4 (3), 215228.

Ivanov, L.D., 2012. On the possibility of using the probabilistic presentation of the

hull girder elastic section modulus as representative of the probabilistic

presentation of all other hull girder geometric properties. Ship Technol. Res./

Schiffstechnik 59 (1), 2235.

Kim, D.K., Park, D.K., Kim, H.B., Seo, J.K., Kim, B.J., Paik, J.K., Kim, M.S., 2012. The

necessity of applying the common corrosion addition rule to container ships in

terms of ultimate longitudinal strength. Ocean Eng. 49, 4355.

Kim, D.K., Kim, S.J., Kim, H.B., Zhang, X.M., Li, C.G., Paik, J.K., 2015. Ultimate strength

performance of bulk carriers with various corrosion additionsShips Offshore

Struct. 10 (1), 5978, in press.

Kroese, D.P., 2011. Monte Carlo Methods. The University of Queensland, School of

Mathematics and Physics, Department of Mathematics.

MathWorks, 2014. Matlab User Guide R2014b. On Line Version at www.math

works.com.

Mansour, A.E., Howen, L., 1994. Probability-based ship structural safety analysis. J.

Ship Res. 38 (4), 329339.

zg, ., Barltrop, N.D., 2008. Analysis on the hull girder ultimate strength of a

bulk carrier using simplied method based on an incrementaliterative

approach. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 130, 2.

Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Yang, S.H., 1998a. Residual strength assessment of ships

after collision and grounding. Mar. Technol. 35, 3854.

Paik, J.K., Kim, S.K., Lee, S.K., 1998b. Probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model

for longitudinal strength members of bulk carriers. Ocean Eng. 25 (10),

837860.

Paik, J.K., Lee, J.M., Park II, Y., Hwang, J.S., Kim, C.W., 2003. Time-variant ultimate

longitudinal strength of corroded bulk carriers. Mar. Struct. 16, 567600.

Qin, S., Cui, W., 2003. Effect of corrosion models on the time dependent reliability of

steel plated elements. Mar. Struct. 16, 1534.

Rusaas, S., 2003. Final publishable Paper, HARDER Consortium Doc, No. 0-00-X2003-03-0, August 2003.

Saydam, D., Frangopol, D.M., 2013. Performance assessment of damaged ship hulls.

Ocean Eng. 68, 6576.

Saad-Eldeen, S., Garbatov, Y., Guedes Soares, C., 2013. Effect of corrosion severity on

the ultimate strength of a steel box girder. Mar. Struct. 49, 560571.

Silva, J.E., Garbatov, Y., Guedes Soares, C., 2011. Ultimate strength assessment of

aging steel plates subjected to random non-uniform corrosion wastage. In:

Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Marine Structures 2011

(MARSTRUCT 2011), Hamburg, Germany.

Smith, C.S., 1977. Inuence of local compression failure on ultimate longitudinal

strength of a ships hull. In: Proc. Int. Sym on Practical Design of Shipbuilding,

PRADS, Tokyo, pp. 7379.

Smith, M.J., Pegg, N.G., 2003. Automated assessment of ultimate hull girder

strength. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 125, 3.

Sprinthall, R.C., 2011. Basic Statistical Analysisninth ed. Pearson Education Group.

SSC, 2011. SSC-459 reliability-based performance assessment of damaged ships.

Ship Struct. Committee, 2011.

Teixeira, A., 1997. Reliability of Marine Structures in the Context of Risk Based

Design. University of Glasgow M.Sc. Thesis.

Vhanmane, S., Bhattacharya, B., 2011. Ultimate strength analysis of ship hull girder

under random material and geometric properties. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.

133, 3160231609.

Wang, G., Spencer, J., Chen, Y., 2002. Assessment of ships performance in accidents.

Mar. Struct. 15, 313333.

67

Wang, G., Lee, A., Ivanov, L., Lynch, T.J., Serratella, C., Basu, R., 2008. A statistical

investigation of time-variant hull girder strength of ageing ships and coating

life. Mar. Struct. 21, 240256.

Yamamoto, N., Ikegami, K., 1998. A study on the degradation of coating and

corrosion of ships hull based on the probabilistic approach. J. Offshore Mech.

Arct. Eng. 120, 121128.

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.