Chapter 4 Loads on marine structures

4.1 General
For performing reliability analyses of marine structures, certain specific load and
strength data are necessary. Prior to estimating the loads acting on ships or marine
structures, a statistical representation of the environment is necessary. This includes
waves, wind, ice, seismic effects and currents. The last four items are more important
for fixed offshore structure than for floating vessels. The environmental information can
then be used as input to determine the loads acting on the structure. Typically, an input/
output spectral analysis procedure is used to determine the short-term loads, as loads
in a specific sea condition (stationary condition). The required transfer function is
determined from first- or second-order strip theory using the equations of motion of the
vessel, or from a towing tank experiment. In offshore structures, Morisons equation is
usually used to determine the wave load transfer function.
Prediction of the loads in stationary sea conditions (spectral analysis) is not sufficient
for the reliability analysis. Extreme values and long-term (lifetime) prediction of loads
and their statistics are more valuable. For this purpose, order statistics and statistics of
extremes play a very important role. Gumbels theory of asymptotic distributions is
often used in this regard. In the long time prediction, the fatigue loads, i.e., the cyclic
repetitive loads which cause cumulative damage to the structure, must also be
considered. Methods of combining the loads, such as static and dynamic, including
high- and low- frequently loads, should be considered. In nature, many of these loads act
simultaneously, therefore their combination must be evaluated for a meaningful
reliability analysis.
In assessing the reliability of ship structures, two general loading situations may be
used: short-term or long-term analysis. At the design stage, if the route of the ship is
known and if that route is more or less permanent, then the probability of failure can be
predicted using long-term analysis. If, on the other hand, the ship is likely to take a
variety of routes during its lifetime, then short-term analysis can be used to obtain the
probability of failure under one or more conditions that are considered to be the severest
the ship may encounter during its lifetime.
The criterion usually used in the short-term analysis is to consider the single most
severe sea condition (a sea condition with a specified return period, or more
appropriately, a sea condition with a specified encounter probability) and subject the
vessel to this condition for a specified period of time.
These short- and long-term analyses will naturally produce different final results for the
safety margins. Therefore, care must be taken when comparing safety margins of
different ships, i.e., the method and criterion used in predicting the loads acting on the
ship will have a considerable impact on the resulting safety index. To further amplify
this point, the long-term distribution of the wave loads acting on a ship may be
determined by tracing the expected route/s of the ship during its lifetime. Based on
ocean wave statistics along the route/s, the long-term (lifetime) wave load probability
distribution for the entire history may be determined. In the short-term analysis, extreme
load distribution is predicted on the basis of criteria such as one extreme sea storm of a
specific encounter probability and duration, or a short-term operation in a specific
location under severe sea conditions. It should be noted that there is a fundamental
difference between computed results based on these two avenues. In the short-term
80

analysis, the computed probabilities of failure are conditional probabilities given the
occurrence of an extreme wave load per selected criterion. Care must be taken in this
case in determining the response of the ship to this extreme load since non- linearity will
play an important role. In the long-term analysis, the resulting probabilities of failure
are associated with the entire history of the expected loads acting on a ship during its
lifetime, and are dependent upon the selected route/s likely for the ship.
The procedure of ship structural reliability analysis for the short-term analysis is as
follows:
a) From ship route (if known), obtain ocean wave statistics, and a specified
encounter probability (or return period) determine the design storm condition
(see section 4.3).
b) Calculate the rms value of the wave bending moment in the design sea
condition, using either second order strip theory, or towing tank experiment.
Calculate also the Stillwater bending moment (see section 4.3).
c) Estimate the strength parameters for each failure mode (see Chapter 5)
d) Calculate the probability of failure or the safety index for each failure mode.
The resulting probabilities are conditional probabilities. They are conditioned on
encountering the design storm.
In general, the long-term procedure entails the determination of the probability
distribution of the maximum load during the lifetime of a ship taking into consideration
the wave statistics along the ship route, loading conditions, speed, and heading. The
procedure is particularly important for fatigue reliability analysis, where the entire
history of loading should be determined. In that fatigue case, the long-term distribution,
instead of the maximum load distribution, is required and is usually assumed to be
Weibull. Several procedures have been proposed in the literature for determination of
the lifetime maximum load distribution. Although their details may vary (sometimes
depending on the ship type), most of them have common characteristics as follows:
a) Define the mission profile of the ship which includes
1) ship route
2) expected total years of service
3) number of days per year the ship is expected to be at port and underway
4) nominal cruising speed and maximum operating speed in each sea state,
and the corresponding fraction of time during operation
5) distribution of ship headings
6) distribution of loading conditions
b) From the ship route and available wave statistics, obtain the frequency of
occurrence of different sea conditions the ship will encounter in each of the
geographic areas (zones).
c) On the basis of the above, determine the frequency of encountering different sea
conditions, loading conditions, speeds, and headings.
d) Determine the wave loads in each sea condition, loading condition, speed, and
heading using first- or second-order strip theory.
e) Use an extrapolation procedure to determine the distribution of the maximum
load in a lifetime.
4.2 Review of computational methods of loads on marine structures
This section will present an overview of load computational methods (ISSC,
COMMITTEE I.2, 2003).
81

4.2.1 Environmental Loads on Ships

With regard to the general loads analysis problem, linear strip theory methods for ship
motions and loads predictions, long the workhorse of the industry, are readily being
supplanted by three-dimensional methods both linear and non-linear. The flow field
around a ship and the resulting motions and loads due to incident waves constitute a
three-dimensional non- linear problem. The complete solution of this kind of problem
may be accomplished by using computational fluid dynamics methods to solve NavierStokes equations or by using a viscous solution for the near field and an inviscid
solution for the far field. The potential flow formulation is a practical alternative
approach to a viscous solution.
Although strip theory methods continue to be used, three dimension potential methods
are rapidly gaining ground. However, the methods currently available do not appear to
be sufficiently robust to simulate a full range of hull geometries and operating
conditions.
Continuing improvements to the computational speeds of computers have made nonlinear time-domain methods more applicable to the design process. However, designers
must continue to balance the need for computational accuracy against computational
effort. The use of lower level methods as a filter, from which more extensive
investigations using higher order methods are made, is still the most pragmatic approach
for designers.
Ships with flat transom sterns and significant bow flare may be prone to parametric
rolling in head seas. Such events can introduce loads on containers and lashing systems
that are far higher than those normally predicted by classification rules. Non- linear
motion and loads programs can effectively be used to predict whether such events will
occur. However, a good estimation of roll damping is required.
Since the downward forces of green water offset hydrostatic restoring moment, green
water will tend to reduce vertical bending moments. However, green water will
significantly increase local structural loads.
Wind loads can represent a significant part of the total design load for high-speed ships.
4.2.2 Environmental Loads on Offshore Structure
The computation of linear 3D bodies in waves is considered a mature technology. For
most structures, this can be done very efficiently on state-of-the-art computers.
Remaining challenges are related to the hydroelastic response of very large floating
structures. From a practical point of view, it is also important to find ways to
incorporate realistic damping estimates (viscous effects) to predict realistic response
levels near resonance. This is of particular importance to mixed type structures, for
example, truss spars.
Also, the coupling between CAD (Computer Aided Design) geometry representation for
input of body geometry and output pressures and forces in standardized FEM (Finite
Element Method) formats would help practical engineering. This is particularly
important in time-domain analyses of slamming and extreme load predictions.
The topic of trapped modes has received considerable attention. State of the art linear
programs seem able to handle the problem, even for very large structures. The
understanding of actual resonance frequencies has also matured. It is also recognized
that trapped or near trapped waves are found for structures with (almost) axis symmetry,

82

for example, a floating platform with four columns. Computation of the real wave
elevation, including the effects of non-linearities associated with trapped waves,
remains a challenge.
The capability to predict second-order forces on large volume structures has been
available for several years. However, it seems to be a challenge to compute local
quantities as velocities and wave elevation accurately. This requires careful
discretization of the boundary value problem. Perturbation to 3rd-order does not seem to
be an accurate way to handle the ringing problem. Fully non- linear potential theory
based on computations indicates that the 3rd-order forces are over-predicted in the
perturbation scheme, while the fully non- linear formulation gives similar forces as
measured. It is assumed that viscous forces play a minor role in the ringing problem.
Most programs do not handle breaking waves.
It still seems there is a long way to go before the NWT (New wave theory) becomes a
practical tool for engineering. Realistic Reynolds numbers are not obtained. However,
use of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) techniques is a possible option to estimate
viscous damping effects.
CFD methods are being used to address VIV (Vortex-induced Vibration)- induced
fatigue. However, while the use of such methods is supported by classification
societies, it is realized that the general application of CFD to the design process is still
aways off.
From the fact that several methods for computing the hydroelastic response of a VLFS
(Very Large Floating Structure) are used, linear analyses seem to work well. A
remaining challenge is obviously non- linear computations to obtain better response
estimates close to resonance.
The need to explore increasing water depths requires that designers now address issues
related to slender bodies and coupled response in the relevant environments. This has
led to innovative testing techniques such as hybrid model testing. Such methods
provide a means to assess the behavior of new design concepts in a realistic way, but
do not provide the designer with insight as to the physical causes of such behavior.
In addition to modeling difficulties, the need to operate in ever increasing water depths
requires a better understanding of possible areas of operations. For example, current
fluctuations may manifest themslves as both a VIV- induced extreme load as well as a
fatigue load. Although designers may use a current profile, such profiles typically
assume constant direction over depth. A more rigorous handling of such fluctuations,
where probabilities of curent speed as a function of depth would be preferable.
However, such a scatter diagram will require extensive in-situ measurements.
4.2.3 Hydrodynamic Impact Loads
The hydrodynamic impact problem for ships manifests itself in both a global (whipping)
and local response. In predicting the global whipping response, it is important that the
instantaneous free surface elevation be properly taken into account but local
hydroelastic effects can be neglected. However, hydroelasticity may be an issue for
local structure. Typically, the importance of hydroelasticity will be a function of
natural frequency of both the structure and the duration of the slam load. Thus, the
structural designer should take the time to estimate these quantities before suggesting a
design load. In addition, when performing model tests, the experiment should be set up
such that not only impact pressures but also structural strains are measured.

83

Although 2D methods continue to be used to solve the local hydrodynamic impact

problem, 3D methods are beginning to be used. However, full implementation into the
design process will require additional computer capacity.
Green water and deck impact loads are major design considerations. In estimating
design loads, probabilistic estimates are required. Towards that end, exceedence
probabilities for waves overtopping the structure appear to follow an exponential curve.
When overtopping does occur, the problem becomes similar to the dam break problem
with a non- zero initial horizontal velocity. As the presence of structure along the deck
will effect velocity magnitude and phases, calculations derived solely from using
maximum crest velocity would result in an under-designed structure.
Sloshing loads in tanks can be estimated as lo ng as the free surface flows inside the tank
are correctly simulated. Both 2D and 3D methods are available for predicting such
flows.
Although, extensive efforts have been made in developing a variety of numerical
techniques for simulating 3D liquid movement in partially- filled tanks they are not
sufficient to be successfully used in design practice. The main shortcomings are related
to the non- linearity in equations governing motion of liquids, non- linear condition on
free surface, flow separation during motion of liquid in tank, considerable solubility of
air in real flow in tanks, occurrence of cushions when liquid strikes a tank wall,
dynamic flow interaction with flexible tank structure, random occurrence of pressure
impulses, necessary work required in preparing data and time-consuming computations
and potentially unstable solutions. Due to these difficulties, two-dimensional models
are mainly considered.
In applying 2D methods, dynamic loads are determined with sufficient accuracy;
however, it is difficult to determine impact pressure and pressure impulses.
Irrespective of whether a 2D or 3D method is used, frictional forces in the liquid may be
neglected, as it is of minor importance in comparison to inertia force occurring in liquid
motion in a moving tank. This makes it possible to apply Eulers equation to describe
liquid motion.
Sloshing loads in a tank, which are generated by random motion of the ship, are smaller
than loads generated by harmonic excitation with the same rms amplitude of excitation.
Extreme realistic load and loads having influence on fatigue strength need to be
considered in designing the tank structure.
There is a need to develop design formulas which would make it possible to estimate
sloshing loads during initial stages of design and which could also be used as safety
standards.
4.2.4 Probabilistic Methods
Except for moderate seas where linear theory is most applicable, there is no one
universal method which could be used for the prediction of short-term extreme
responses. This shortcoming is due to strong non- linearities in environment and ships
geometrical properties. In most cases, an iterative approach has to be taken to
determine the best fit for the short-term response peaks. The general Gamma
distribution, general Pareto distribution, three parameter Weibull distribution and
Gumbel distribution can be considered for various applications and successfully
applied.

84

Since there exists a range of possible options for looking at short- and long-term load
statistics, the application of any one method can be complicated and strongly depends
on personal experience of an engineer or scientist, the method used for estimate of
distribution parameters and the sample size. The possibility of process standardization,
sensitivity of long-term predictions with respect to type of short-term peak probability
distribution, and uncertainty in log-term predictions should be further investigated.
4.2.5 Experimental Uncertainty, Verification and Validation of Numerical Codes
There has been some progress in the development and practical implementation of
experimental and numerical uncertainty procedures. Efforts of experimental and CFD
communities are reflected in fact that some sort of validation analysis accompanies
more and more publications of measured and computed data.
The verification and validations procedure and their practical applications for viscous
fluid flow codes (RANS) seem to be better organized than for codes based on potential
flow theory. The viscous fluid flows simulations are usually accompanied by detailed
quantitative verification and validation procedures, when validation of inviscid /
irrotational-based codes mostly means qualitative comparison to published measured
data or semi-empirical calculations.
Efforts to create a new generation of benchmark data for validation purposes are
required. Experiments designed by experimentalists and code developers, carried out
according to specified procedure, including measurement of all required parameters
with required accuracy are needed. The procedure should consider and include
statistical aspects of model handling with respect to course-keeping (manual and/or
autopilot) and power delivery (constant speed or revolutions).
Standardization of experimental uncertainty procedure: identification of all possible
elemental error sources, common methods for calculation of certain properties, and
standardization of experimental procedures are required for consistent interpretation of
experimental results and uncertainties associated with those experiments.
While the process of determining experimental and numerical uncertainty is all well and
good, there are some practical concerns. For example, in order to address errors
associated with experimental technique, multiple runs require to be performed. In an
ideal situation, tests performed within a linear regime should be repeated at least 3
times. These tests should be repeated on not only on different days but with different
test crews as well. For tests where non- linearities are expected, a minimum of 5 repeat
tests are necessary.
Once such data become available the next question is, what is a reasonable level of
verification and validation of numerical methods? In theory, a series of convergence
studies, followed by comparisons with regular and irregular wave data would suffice.
However, in practice this may not be practical. For instance, how many convergence
studies should be done? Is one set, performed for one wavelength sufficient, or are
more required? And what role should full scale trials play, if any, in the validation
process? Then comes the question of hull forms to be studied. Is a validation against
one set of model tests for a specific hull form represent validation or just a documented
solution? From a pragmatic standpoint, code validation will be limited to what the user
is willing to pay for. However, a minimum threshold and some basic guidelines need to
be developed.
4.3 Loads
85

4.3.1 Return periods and encounter probabilities

Return periods and the associated wave heights are important to determine the
probability of the structure encountering a design storm that has a specified return
period. This probability of encounter will depend on the lifetime of the structure, i.e., on
how long the structure will remain at the location where the return period and the
associated wave height are calculated. If the structure life is long, the probability of
encounter will be higher.
This part will present a procedure for calculating ship/storm encounter probabilities that
can be used as a better basis for establishing design criteria. The encounter probabilities
involve the life of the structure, as well as wave statistics, in the region of operation.
Return periods involve wave statistics only, and do not involve the life of the structure.
In the next section, the encounter probability in any ocean zone is developed as a
function of the return period of a design wave and the life of the structure. A method of
calculating return periods for specific wave heights is described as well. The method is
based on extrapolating wave data at the site and depends on the probability distribution
of wave heights at that location.
4.3.1.1 Encounter probability
The encounter probability is the probability that a particular wave height will be
encountered during the portion of a structures lifetime spent in a zone. The encounter
probability of a specific wave height (or a sea state characterized by a significant wave
height), not only depends on its return period R, but also on the life of the structure, L,
in years. In this section, the encounter probability in an ocean zone i will be considered.
The probability that a wave height x will not be encountered during the portion of a
structures lifetime Li spent in zone i will be called non-encounter probability Pnei . If
the distribution function FYi (x ) of the annual maximum wave heights is available, then
from order statistics, the non-encounter probability is:
Pnei = P[ no exceedence of x in life Li ]

= P[Yi x ] = [ FYi ( x)] Li

(4.3.1)
where
Yi is maximum wave height during time Li
Li is time spent in zone i in years
FYi (x ) is distribution function of the annual maximum wave height in zone i
The distribution function of the annual maximum wave height can be written in terms of
the distribution function of the individual wave heights Fxi ( x) , using, again, order
statistics as:
FYi ( x ) = [ Fxi ( x )] ki
(4.3.2)
where k i is the number of wave peaks (cycles) in zone i in one year. Thus equation
(4.3.1) can be written
Pnei = {[ Fx i ( x)] k i }Li
(4.3.3)
The return period of a wave height x is defined as the average length of time between
exceedence. The waiting period w in years between exceedence in zone i has a
probability law given by (Borgman):
P[Wi = w ] = FYwi 1 ( x)[1 FYi ( x )]
(4.3.4)
86

and the average waiting period, i.e., the return period, is:
Ri = E[W i ] = [1 FYi ( x )] 1

Ri = [1 ( Fxi ( x )) ]
ki

(4.3.5)
(4.3.6)

The relationship between the non-encounter probability and the return period Ri can be
obtained as follows:
Pnei = (1 Ri 1 ) Li
(4.3.7)
and the probability of encounter Pei is:

Pei = 1 (1 Ri1 ) Li
(4.3.8)
The return period Ri of a wave height x , in any zone i can be estimated from:
n
Ri = i y 0
(4.3.9)
n0
and
n i = [1 Fxi ( x)] 1
(4.3.10)
where
n 0 is total number of wave data collected in zone i
y 0 is number of years of data collection in zone i
n i is expected number of waves in zone i necessary to exceed wave height x
n i can be calculated from equation (4.3.10) for any value of design wave x .
The procedure for determining the ship/ storm encounter probability in any zone i can
be summarized as follows:
a) Use wave data in zone i to determine the form and the parameters of the
distribution function of wave heights Fxi (x ) , using any method of parameter
estimation, e.g., methods of moments, or regression analysis.
b) For the prescribed design wave height (or sea state characterized by a significant
wave height) predict the number of waves necessary to exceed the design wave
height using equation (4.3.10).
c) Using equation (4.3.9) to estimate the return period associated with the design
wave height or significant wave height.
d) Determine the probability of encounter in zone i form equation (4.3.8) and
information on how long the ship operates in zone i , i.e., Li .
4.3.1.2 Ship routes and the associated encounter probabilities
In order to determine the probability of encountering a wave height (or a specified sea
state) along a ship route, the zones and the harbour are considered as members in a
series system. A series system is defined as a system in which a state of encounter
occurs if an encounter occurs in any of its members. Similarly, the system nonencounter probability Pne can be realized only if mutual non-counter takes place in all
zones, i.e.,
n
(4.3.11)
Pne = P Ai
i=1
where Ai is the event of no encounter in zone i , P[ Ai ] = Pnei .
87

 is the intersection or mutual occurrence of the events Ai .

n is the total number of zones, including harbour.
The system (overall) probability of encounter Pe is simply given by:

Pe = 1 Pne
If Ai are assumed statistically independent, then:
n

i =1

i =1

(4.3.12)

Pne = P( Ai ) = Pnei

(4.3.13)

and
n

Pe = 1 Pnei

(4.3.14)

i =1

On the other hand, if Ai are assumed perfectly correlated, then:

Pe = max[ 1 P( Ai )] = 1 min P ( Ai ) = 1 min Pnei
i

(4.3.15)

Thus, the bounds on the system encounter probability Pe are:

n

1 min ( Pnei ) Pe 1 C Pnei

i

(4.3.16)

i =1

These bounds are tight if the non-encounter probability in any of the zones is
dominated.
If the members of a series system are equally corrected, then an extension of the work
by Stuart, summarized in Structural Reliability and Its Application (Thoft-Christensen
and Baker, 1982) leads to the following system probability of encounter:
n
+ t
Pe = 1 i
(4.3.17)
(t )dt
1
i =1
where i cab be calculated from:

i = 1 ( Pei ) = 1 (1 Pnei )
(4.3.18)
and is the standard Gaussian cumulative distribution and density function,
respectively.
is the correlation coefficient.
4.3.2 Wave loads and load combinations
Estimating wave- induced loads is one of the most important tasks in ship design.
Principles of Naval Architecture (Lewis, Ed., 1988-89) suggests that there are four
methods by which wave- induced loads can be determined:
a) approximate methods
b) strain and/ or pressure measurements of full scale ships
c) laboratory measures of loads on methods
d) direct computation of wave induced fluid loads.
The above methods have their own advantages and limitations, respectively. For marine
design and marine structural reliability analysis, a simple and relatively accurate method
is more important. To calculate wave loads, the Second Order Strip Theory (SOST) is
usually used.
The following section will describe a simple formulation for determining slightly nonlinear extreme wave loads and load combinations. Then non- linear hogging and sagging
88

bending moments are given. The extreme wave-induced bending moment, M w , is

calculated using Second-order Strip Theory.
The following will give a simple format of load combination.
A simple format was adopted for the load combination:
f c = f 1 + Kf2
f1 > f 2
(4.3.19)
where f 1 , f 2 are the individual extreme loads and K is a load combination factor
defined by:
m
K = r mc (1 + r 2 + 2 12 r ) 0.5 1
(4.3.20)
r
where 12 is the correlation coefficient between the two load components.

r = 1 is the ratio of the standard deviations of the loads.

2

mr =

ln v01T
ln v 02T

mc =

ln v0 cT
ln v02T

v 0i is ratio of zero up-crossing of the load processes, i = 1,2, c .

i is standard deviation of the loads, i = 1,2
A formulation for calculating the correlation coefficient 12 is given in Mansour, 1994.
In linear theory, the most probable extreme value of a load peak depends only on the
first two moments of the underlying process probability distribution. The mean can be
set to zero, without loss of generality, therefore the most probable extreme value
depends only on the standard deviation of the process. For ocean loads with Rayleigh
distribution peaks, the most probable extreme value is given by
f i = i 2 ln v0 iT
(4.3.21)
By introducing a non- linearity parameter (see Mansour and Jensen, 1995), equation
(4.3.21) becomes:
f i = i i 2 ln v0 iT
(4.3.22)
where the non-linearity parameter is defined by:

i ( 2 ln v 0iT 1)

i = k i 1 +
+ i ( 2 ln v0iT 3)
(4.3.23)
(5.8 + 2 i ) 2 ln v0i T 30

i = 1 + 1 .5( i 3) 1
(4.3.24)
2

i i2
+
k i = 1 + 0.5
(4.3.25)

+
3
54
i

The difference between sagging and hogging moments manifests itself in the sign of the
skewness , i.e., is positive for sagging and has the same value but with a negative
sign for hogging.
An extreme value of a load f associated with exceedence probability can be
determined by:
89

f = 2 ln v 0T

(4.3.26)

where

v0
(4.3.27)
ln( 1 ) 1
The most probable extreme value is associated with an exceedence probability
= 0.6321.
In order to estimate the most probable extreme value of a slightly non-linear load (see
equation (4.3.22)), the non-linearity parameter needs to be evaluated first. Evaluating
means determination of the skewness and kurtosis . Both of these moments are
shown (Mansour and Jensen, 1995) to depend on the significant wave height H S , the
zero up-crossing period of waves Tz , ship geometry, ship speed V , and heading angle
, i.e.,
= ( H S , Tz , shipgeomet ry ,V , )
(4.3.28)
= ( H S , Tz , shipgeomet ry ,V , )
(4.3.29)
v 0 =

m0
m2
m0 , m2 are the sea spectral moments.
Furthermore, the skewness and kurtosis have the following relations with H S :

= f (T z , shipgeomet ry, V , )
(4.3.30)
Hs
3
= g (T z , shipgeomet ry, V , )
(4.3.31)
H s2
The units used for the significant wave he ight H S are metres. The zero up-crossing
period, Tz , is expressed in seconds. Charts of the skewness and kurtosis as a function of
each parameter are shown in Figures 2.1.11 to 2.1.36 of the literature SSC-398. H S and
Tz are not independent and the relation between H S and Tz is given by:
where T z = 2

Hs
(4.3.32)
g
The charts for frequently occurring pairs of H S and Tz can be referred to Figures
2.1.38 to 2.1.41 of the literature SSC-398.
T z = 11.12

The following is a summary of the nomenclature in Section 4.3:

= Coefficients, polynomial series
ai
= Deck plan area
ADK
= Waterplane area
AW P
= Block coefficient
cb
= Flare coefficient
cf
ci
E[.]

= Coefficient, Hermite series

= Expected value
90

fi
fc
f
H i ( )
H i* ( )

Hs
k
K
K
L
mr , mc
m n ,i
M (t )
M 0 (t )
Ni
r

Re(.)
S x ( ), S c ( )
T
Tz
U (t )
V
zf

0i
ij

c
l

= Characteristic value of response (stress or deflection) to load

component i
= Combined response (stress or deflection)
= Extreme value associated with exceedence probability
= Frequency response function for load component i (transfer
function)
= Conjugate complex of H i ( )
= Significant wave height
= Scaling factor
= Load combination factor for two correlated load response
= Cumulant
= Ship length
= Ratio referred to equation (4.3.20)
= nth spectral moment of component i response
= Bending moment process
= Normalized bending moment process
= Number of peaks associated with load component i

= Stress ratio 2
1
= Real part of a complex function
= Wave and combined response spectra, respectively
= Time of exposure
= Zero up-crossing period of waves
= Standard Gaussian process
= Ship speed
= Vertical distance between ADK and AW P
= skewness
= Kurtosis
= Refer to equation (4.3.24)
= Non-linearity parameter
= Band width parameter
= Standard deviation
= Mean value
= Rate of zero up-crossing of load process i
= Correlation coefficient between to response components i
and j
= Non-linear standard deviation
= Standard deviation of the combined response
= Linear standard deviation
= Ship heading angle
= Frequency

91

4.3.3 Slamming loads

Slamming loads are significant in many types of ocean-going vessels, e.g. those with
fine form, low draft, and high speed. The calculation of slam effects (stresses) requires
the consideration of hull flexibility. The maximum slam loads typically do not occur
when the wave- induced loads are the largest, and such lack of perfect correlation needs
to be considered in the calculation of combined load effects. Another characteristic is
the marked non- linearity of slam loads with respect to the wave height, resulting in the
hull girder response being significantly different for the hogging and sagging parts of
the wave cycle. The treatment of slamming in ships is often semi-empirical, relying on
insights gained from in-service data and measurements, and includes large uncertainties
related to the methods themselves, effect of operational factors and load combinations.
The calculations of slamming loads are based on a time-domain approach. The
following is a simplified approach to combined slam- and wave-induced loads.
In the case of slamming- and wave- induced stresses, the combined stress extreme value
f c for a seastate, heading and speed, is given on the basis of the SRSS rule (SSC398,
page2-69), by:

fc =

f w2 + f sl2

where f w and f sl are the individual (wave and slam related) extreme stresses, with the
two processes assumed uncorrelated (in terms of frequency, not intensity) because of
their typical frequency separation.
4.4 Probabilistic methods
The ship design process requires knowledge of extreme lifetime loads. The loads can
be obtained from a variety of processes. The non- linear predictions combined with the
extreme of random process theory and long-term statistics are the preferable methods.
The fully non- linear simulations, though available, are still in development /
improvement, verificatio n and validation stages. The partially non- linear and linear
codes are still the most popular tools for loads calculations. The 14th ISSC (2000c) VI.1
Extreme Hull Girder Loading Special Task Committee presents very comprehensive
overview of approaches for estimate of short-term extreme values and prediction of
lifetime design loads. Based on the complexity of the hydrodynamic wave process and
length of available time series, different statistical methods can be applied to estimate
short- and long-term extremes.
In the linear cases, the wave loads in random sea can be calculated from linear potential
theory in frequency domain. The loads process follows Gaussian distribution and its
peaks are Rayleigh distribution. The Hermite transformation of a standard Gaussian
process can be employed to model the slightly non- linear problem. The extreme values
can be calculated using formulas similar to linear Rayleigh distribution, which includes
parameter-representing non- linearity of the process (skewness and kurtosis). For strong
non- linear process, wave- induced loads must be calculated using time-domain methods
and statistical analyses are conducted on actual load peaks obtained from load~time
histories. Sagging and hogging moment peaks should be treated separately. The threeparameter Weibull distribution is the most successful in modelling the wave- induced

92

load statistics (Wang, 2001). The pdf of the three-parameter Weibull distribution is
given by:

f ( x ) = cc ( x )c 1 e [ ( x )]
Where x=0, c is the shape parameter, ? is scale parameter, and d is location parameter.
The advantages of the Weibull model for distribution of vertical bending moment are
summarized as follows:
The calculation of distribution parameters is relatively simple,
It is sufficient for representing non- linearities in sagging and hogging moments for
various types of ships and operating conditions,
It gives good distribution of peak values around the tail area for reliable estimate of
extremes, and
It allows for estimate of non- linearities by straightforward comparison to Raleigh
distribution.
Tawn and Heffernan (2001) analyzed statistical methods for short-term distribution of
impact pressure loads from seakeeping model experiments with bulk carriers. The
analysis involved vertical pressure loads inserted on the top of the most forward cargo
hold during operation in various environments. Two statistical models were considered:
the Weibull and generalized Pareto distributions. The quality of fit of both distributions
was assessed using P-P (fitted probability vs. sample probability) and Q-Q (fitted
quantile vs. sample quantile) diagnostic plots assuming threshold pressure of 5 kPa. In
the case of this experiment, the P-P plot shows slightly better fit of Pareto distribution,
and Q-Q plot demonstrate superior fit of Pareto distribution. Specifically, the Weibull
model overestimates probability of large impact occurrence, which is crucial when
extrapolating to obtain desired extremes. The generalized Pareto distribution fit the
pressure impact data better that the Weibull distribution for all examined experimental
cases.
Lu at el. (2002) examines four statistical models for prediction of the most probable
extreme value of jackup structure responses due to excitation of random wave motions.
The methods are compared in terms of calculated extremes and their sensitivity to
structural stiffness, simulation time step and random seed techniques. The analyses
were conducted for two typical jackup structures. The extreme value is defined as one
with exceedence probability of 10-3 , which reflects a storm of 3 hours persistence. The
four applied methods are: drag/inertia parameter method, three parameter Weibull
distribution, asymptotic Gumbel distribution and Hermit transformation. In the
discussion of results the authors indicate that from the accuracy point, the three last
methods provide reasonably close predictions. The Gumbel distribution is described as
theoretically most accurate, if enough simulations are generated, and the Hermit
transformation as the most robust and efficient. Results of sensitivity analysis are not
conclusive and authors indicate need for more research in those areas.
c

93

In order to estimate the lifetime extreme value of ship response, a long-term analysis
has to be performed. This approach requires that the long-term peak distribution of
maxima is obtained as a weighted sum of short term probabilities of exceedence in all
possible combinations of mean wave periods, significant wave heights, heading angles
and speed. When the linear process is considered the short-term responses can be
calculated using the superposition method. To obtain non- linear responses, timedomain simulation or experimental data are required. This leads to an expensive, time
consuming and unpractical process.
Sagli (2000), Videiro and Moan (1999), and Baarholm and Moan (2001) present the
contour line approach and demonstrate that the long-term load extremes for marine
structures can be estimated in efficient manner by considering only a few short-term sea
states, instead of determining responses for all sea states. The initial step in analysis is
to calculate coefficients of contribution CR(si) for linear responses.
CR ( si ) =

Q R ( R > rD | si , 0 , u0 ) f H S ,TP ( hsi , t si ) wsihi t i

QLT ( rD )

where:
QR(R>rD|si,0 ,u0 ) is the short term cumulative probability distribution,
fHs,Tp(his,tsi) is long-term joint probability distribution,
wsi is weight function,
? hi, ? ti are grid size,
QLT (rD) is long-term probability of exceedence.
The values of those coefficients are used, to establish the sea state with the maximum
value of CR(si), which is then used in an iterative process of more complicated nonlinear analysis. The sea state with the maximum CR(si) and all sea states with
significant coefficient of contribution are established based on non- linear runs. The
desired extreme design value can then be calculated.
Guedes Soares and Dogliani (2000) investigated the effects, during a double bottom
tanker voyage, of loading condition changes on distribution of still-water bending
moment at midships. Significant differences with respect to still water loads between
departure and arrival conditions were observed, even if the differences in the
displacement and mean draft were small. Assuming that the departure and arrival loads
can be described by a normal distribution and that the change between departure and
arrival is linear, the authors conclude that the still water loads at a random point in time
can be obtained from a Gaussian distribution. The mean and standard deviation of that
distribution can be calculated as the average of mean and standard deviation at
departure and arrival.
Wu and Hermundstad (2002) propose a new approach to estimate long-term probability
of exceedence of non- linear sagging and hogging moments at midships for the S-175
containership. They applied time-domain simulation code to calculate short-term non94

linear wave-induced loads. The generalized gamma distribution was used to fit shortterm peak distribution and a simplified long-term procedure was used to obtain
probability of exceedence of sagging and hogging values given by DNV rules. The
applied generalized gamma probability density distribution has the form:
c cr cr 1 ( y ) c
u y e
,0 < y <
( r )
? (r) is gamma function, and c, r and are distribution parameters.
The first step is to select an appropriate wave scatter diagram. In the traditional method,
the initial number of significant wave height and modal period combinations could be
large and require a number of time-consuming non-linear simulations. From the
practical point of view, it is desirable to conduct as few simulations as possible. So, the
first step of the new process includes simulations for head seas and the most probable
mean HS and TP values for each sea state. This process allows for identification of the
most critical sea states and then additional runs for variation of headings and TP for the
critical sea states. The long-term probability of exceedence for the non- linear process is
determined from:
c
( y1 ) c( r 1) e ( y1 ) n
P( y > y1 ) =
P( ) P( H S , T1 )
( r )

HS
T1
g ( y) =

where P() is probability of heading

P(H S, T1 ) is joined probability of sea state characterized by significant wave
height and mean wave period.
Seven sea states were initially considered, and final calculations were conducted for
additional seven different wave headings and two modal periods.
4.5 Conclusions
In this chapter, loads on marine structures are introduced. For marine structural
reliability analysis, the following procedure should be taken for short-time term
conditions:
1) From ship route (if known), ocean wave statistics, and a specified encounter
probability (or return period) determine the design storm condition.
2) Calculate the rms value of the wave bending moment in the design sea condition
using either second order strip theory, or towing tank experiment. Calculate also the
stillwater bending moment.
3) Estimate the strength parameters for each failure mode.
4) Calculate the probability of failure or the safety index for each failure mode.
For the long-term procedure, reliability analysis entails the determination of the
probability distribution of the maximum load during the lifetime of a ship, taking into
consideration the wave statistics along the ship route, loading conditions, speed, and
heading. The procedure is particularly important for fatigue reliability analysis, where
the entire history of loading should be determined. In that fatigue case, the long-term
distribution, instead of the maximum load distribution, is required and is usually
assumed to be Weibull. The procedure proposed for determination of the lifetime
maximum load distribution is as follows:
95

1) Define the mission profile of the ship.

2) From the ship route and available wave statistics, obtain the frequency of
occurrence of different sea conditions the ship will encounter in each of the
geographic areas (zones).
3) On the basis of the above, determine the frequency of encountering different sea
conditions, loading conditions, speeds, and headings.
4) Determine the wave loads in each sea condition, loading condition, speed, and
heading using first- or second-order strip theory.
5) Use an extrapolation procedure to determine the distribution of the maximum
load in a lifetime.
To calculate wave loads, the Second Order Strip Theory (SOST) is usually used. This
chapter describes a simple formulation for determining slightly non- linear extreme wave
loads and load combinations. Then non-linear hogging and sagging bending moments
are given. The extreme wave- induced bending moment is calculated using Second-order
Strip Theory.

96