Comparison of residual strength-grounding damage index diagrams for tankers produced by the ALPS/HULL ISFEM and design formula method

  • cc icon
  • ABSTRACT

    This study compares the Residual ultimate longitudinal strength ? grounding Damage index (R-D) diagrams produced by two analysis methods: the ALPS/HULL Intelligent Supersize Finite Element Method (ISFEM) and the design formula (modified Paik and Mansour) method ? used to assess the safety of damaged ships. The comparison includes four types of double-hull oil tankers: Panamax, Aframax, Suezmax and VLCC. The R-D diagrams were calculated for a series of 50 grounding scenarios. The diagrams were efficiently sampled using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) technique and comprehensively analysed based on ship size. Finally, the two methods were compared by statistically analysing the differences between their grounding damage indices and ultimate longitudinal strength predictions. The findings provide a useful example of how to apply the ultimate longitudinal strength analysis method to grounded ships.


  • KEYWORD

    Grounding damage , R-D diagram , Residual ultimate longitudinal strength , Grounding damage index , Double hull oil tankers.

  • 1. 2012 A computer program for progressive collapse analysis of ship hulls. google
  • 2. Brown A.J. 2002 Collision scenarios and probabilistic collision damage. [Marine Structures] Vol.15 P.335-364 google doi
  • 3. Hong L., Amdahl J. 2012 Rapid assessment of ship grounding over large contact surfaces. [Ships and Offshore Structures] Vol.7 P.5-19 google
  • 4. Hughes O.F., Paik J.K. 2010 Ship structural analysis and design. google
  • 5. 2003 Revised interim guidelines for the approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers. google
  • 6. Kim D.K. 2013 Condition assessment of damaged ships and ship-shaped offshore structures. google
  • 7. Kim D.K., Kim H.B., Zhang X., Pedersen P.T., Kim M.S., Paik J.K. 2012a Development of a relationship between residual ultimate longitudinal strength and grounding damage index diagram for container ships. [Proceedings of 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Artic Engineering (OMAE 2012).] google
  • 8. Kim D.K., Park D.K., Kim H.B., Seo J.K., Kim B.J., Paik J.K., Kim M.S. 2012b The necessity of applying the common corrosion addition rule to container ships in terms of ultimate longitudinal strength. [Ocean Engineering] Vol.49 P.43-55 google doi
  • 9. Kim D.K., Park D.K., Park D.H., Kim H.B., Kim B.J., Seo J.K., Paik J.K. 2012c Effect of corrosion on the ultimate strength of double hull oil tankers ? Part II: hull girders. [Structural Engineering and Mechanics] Vol.42 P.531-549 google doi
  • 10. Nguyen T.H., Garre L., Amdahl J., Leira B.J. 2011 Monitoring of ship damage condition during stranding. [Marine Structures] Vol.24 P.261-274 google doi
  • 11. Paik J.K. 2003 Innovative structural designs of tankers against ship collisions and grounding: A recent state-of-the-art review. [Marine Technology] Vol.40 P.25-33 google
  • 12. Paik J.K. 2007a Practical techniques for finite element modeling to simulate structural crashworthiness in ship collisions and groundings (Part I: Theory). [Ships and Offshore Structures] Vol.2 P.69-80 google
  • 13. Paik J.K. 2007b Practical techniques for finite element modeling to simulate structural crashworthiness in ship collisions and groundings (Part II: Verification). [Ships and Offshore Structures] Vol.2 P.81-85 google
  • 14. Paik J.K., Amdahl J., Barltrop N., Donner E.R., Gu Y., Ito H., Ludolphy H., Pedersen P.T., Rohr U., Wang G. 2003 Collision and grounding, Final report of ISSC V.3. [International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress.] google
  • 15. Paik J.K., Kim D.K., Park D.H., Kim H.B., Kim M.S. 2012 A new method for assessing the safety of ships damaged by grounding. [International Journal of Maritime Engineering] Vol.154 P.1-20 google
  • 16. Paik J.K, Kim D.K, Park D.H, Kim H.B, Mansour A.E., Caldwell J.B. 2013 Modified Paik-Mansour formula for ultimate strength calculations of ship hulls. google doi
  • 17. Paik J.K., Thayamballi A.K. 2003 Ultimate limit state design of steel-plated structures. google
  • 18. Paik J.K., Thayamballi A.K., Yang S.H. 1998 Residual strength assessment of ships after collision and grounding. [Marine Technology] Vol.35 P.38-54 google
  • 19. Park D.H., Kim D.K., Kim H.B., Zhang X.M., Seo J.K., Kim B.J., Paik J.K., Kim M.S. 2012 A study on estimation of ultimate residual longitudinal strength of grounded commercial ships. [The Annual Spring Meeting of Society of Naval Architects of Korea.] google
  • 20. Pedersen P.T. 1994 Ship grounding and hull-girder strength. [Marine Structures] Vol.7 P.1-29 google
  • 21. Pedersen P.T. 2010 Review and application of ship collision and grounding analysis procedures. [Marine Structures] Vol.23 P.241-262 google doi
  • 22. Samuelides M.S., Tabri K., Incecik A., Dimou D. 2008 Scenarios for the assessment of the collision behavior of ships. [International Shipbuilding Progress] Vol.55 P.145-162 google
  • 23. Samuelides M.S., Ventikos N.P., Gemelos I.C. 2009 Survey on grounding incidents: Statistical analysis and risk assessment. [Ships and Offshore Structures] Vol.4 P.55-68 google
  • 24. Simonsen B.C., Friis-Hansen P. 2000 Theoretical and statistical analysis of ship grounding accidents. [Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Transactions of the ASME] Vol.122 P.200-207 google doi
  • 25. Simonsen B.C., Tornqvist R., Lutzen M. 2009 A simplified grounding damage prediction method and its application in modern damage stability requirements. [Marine Structures] Vol.22 P.62-83 google doi
  • 26. Tabri K., Broekhuijsen J., Matusiak J., Varsta P. 2009 Analytical modeling of ship collision based on full scale experiments. [Marine Structures] Vol.22 P.42-61 google doi
  • 27. Wang G., Arita K., Liu D. 2000 Behavior of a double hull in a variety of stranding or collision scenarios. [Marine Structures] Vol.13 P.147-187 google doi
  • 28. Wang G., Spencer J., Chen Y. 2002 Assessment of a ship’s performance in accidents. [Marine structures] Vol.15 P.313-333 google doi
  • 29. Ye K.Q. 1998 Orthogonal column latin hypercubes and their application in computer experiments. [Journal of the American Statistical Association] Vol.93 P.1430-1439 google doi
  • 30. Zhang A., Suzuki K. 2006 Dynamic finite element simulations of the effect of selected parameters on grounding test results of bottom structures. [Ships and Offshore Structures] Vol.1 P.117-125 google
  • 31. Zhang S. 2002 Plate tearing and bottom damage in ship grounding. [Marine Structures] Vol.15 P.101-117 google doi
  • [Table 1] The main differences between previous studies and the present study.
    The main differences between previous studies and the present study.
  • [Fig. 1] The general procedure for the development of the R-D diagram (Paik et al., 2012).
    The general procedure for the development of the R-D diagram (Paik et al., 2012).
  • [Fig. 2] Nomenclature for blunt and sharp rock shapes (Paik et al., 2012).
    Nomenclature for blunt and sharp rock shapes (Paik et al., 2012).
  • [Fig. 3(a)] Probability density distribution of the location of grounding damage (p1) in the direction of the ship’s breadth, normalised by ship breadth (IMO, 2003).
    Probability density distribution of the location of grounding damage (p1) in the direction of the ship’s breadth, normalised by ship breadth (IMO, 2003).
  • [Fig. 3(b)-2] Probability density distribution of the height of grounding damage (p2), normalised by ship depth (IMO, 2003).
    Probability density distribution of the height of grounding damage (p2), normalised by ship depth (IMO, 2003).
  • [Fig. 3(c)-1] Probability density distribution of the breadth of grounding damage (p3), normalised by ship breadth (IMO, 2003).
    Probability density distribution of the breadth of grounding damage (p3), normalised by ship breadth (IMO, 2003).
  • [Fig. 3(d)-3] Probability density distribution of the assumed angle of the rock (p4) (Paik et al., 2012).
    Probability density distribution of the assumed angle of the rock (p4) (Paik et al., 2012).
  • [Table 2] Cross-sectional data of target structures.
    Cross-sectional data of target structures.
  • [Fig. 4] Configuration of the mid-ship sections of four types of double-hull oil tankers and their principal dimensions (Kim et al., 2012c).
    Configuration of the mid-ship sections of four types of double-hull oil tankers and their principal dimensions (Kim et al., 2012c).
  • [Fig. 5] Design formula (modified P-M) models assembled using the plate-stiffener combination (PSC) models for the four types of double-hull oil tankers (Paik et al., 2013).
    Design formula (modified P-M) models assembled using the plate-stiffener combination (PSC) models for the four types of double-hull oil tankers (Paik et al., 2013).
  • [Fig. 6] Intelligent-supersize FEM (ALPS/HULL) models for the four types of double-hull oil tankers (ALPS/HULL, 2012).
    Intelligent-supersize FEM (ALPS/HULL) models for the four types of double-hull oil tankers (ALPS/HULL, 2012).
  • [Fig. 7] Schematic view of presumed stress distribution-based method (Hughes and Paik, 2010).
    Schematic view of presumed stress distribution-based method (Hughes and Paik, 2010).
  • [Fig. 8] Previous benchmark result for a typical double-hull VLCC as illustrated in Fig. 4(d) (Paik et al., 2013).
    Previous benchmark result for a typical double-hull VLCC as illustrated in Fig. 4(d) (Paik et al., 2013).
  • [Fig. 9] Variation in the ultimate longitudinal strength of a Panamax class double-hull oil tanker with the amount of grounding damage to the outer and inner bottom.
    Variation in the ultimate longitudinal strength of a Panamax class double-hull oil tanker with the amount of grounding damage to the outer and inner bottom.
  • [Fig. 10] Variation in the ultimate longitudinal strength of an Aframax class double-hull oil tanker with the amount of grounding damage to the outer and inner bottom.
    Variation in the ultimate longitudinal strength of an Aframax class double-hull oil tanker with the amount of grounding damage to the outer and inner bottom.
  • [Fig. 11] Variation in the ultimate longitudinal strength of a Suezmax class double-hull oil tanker with the amount of grounding damage to the outer and inner bottom.
    Variation in the ultimate longitudinal strength of a Suezmax class double-hull oil tanker with the amount of grounding damage to the outer and inner bottom.
  • [Fig. 12] Variation in the ultimate longitudinal strength of a VLCC class double-hull oil tanker with the amount of grounding damage to the outer and inner bottom.
    Variation in the ultimate longitudinal strength of a VLCC class double-hull oil tanker with the amount of grounding damage to the outer and inner bottom.
  • [Table 3] Comparison of correction factors.
    Comparison of correction factors.
  • [Table 4] The four grounding damage parameters for 50 grounding damage scenarios (Paik et al., 2012).
    The four grounding damage parameters for 50 grounding damage scenarios (Paik et al., 2012).
  • [Fig. 13] The R-D diagrams for the double-hull oil tanker.
    The R-D diagrams for the double-hull oil tanker.
  • [Fig. 14] The obtained R-D diagrams for the double-hull oil tankers under the hogging bending moment.
    The obtained R-D diagrams for the double-hull oil tankers under the hogging bending moment.
  • [Fig. 15] The obtained R-D diagrams for the double-hull oil tankers under the sagging bending moment.
    The obtained R-D diagrams for the double-hull oil tankers under the sagging bending moment.
  • [Fig. 16] Comparison between the R-D diagrams for double-hull oil tankers produced by the intelligent-supersize FEM (ALPS/HULL) and those produced by the design formula (modified P-M) method.
    Comparison between the R-D diagrams for double-hull oil tankers produced by the intelligent-supersize FEM (ALPS/HULL) and those produced by the design formula (modified P-M) method.
  • [Fig. 17] The deviation between the grounding damage indices (GDI) obtained by the design formula method and the intelligent-supersize FEM.
    The deviation between the grounding damage indices (GDI) obtained by the design formula method and the intelligent-supersize FEM.
  • [Fig. 18] The deviation between the residual ultimate longitudinal strength analysed by the design formula method and the intelligent-supersize FEM.
    The deviation between the residual ultimate longitudinal strength analysed by the design formula method and the intelligent-supersize FEM.