Operational profile of naval surface ships and lifetime

structural load analysis

G. Guzsvany, C. Flockhart, S.M Cannon.
Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
This paper describes recent research undertaken by the Defence Science and Technology
Organisation (DSTO) to provide the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) with an ability to
incorporate conditional probabilities within operation profiles of surface platforms. An
example calculation of extreme and fatigue load analysis demonstrates the importance of
realistic operational profile definitions.
NOMENCLATURE
Di

Fatigue damage due to short-term operating condition i

DL

Lifetime fatigue damage

Fp,i

Short-term peak probability distribution function, Eq.

Hs

Significant wave height of wave elevation process

Np,i

Number of peak responses in short-term duration Ti , Eq.

Np,L

Total lifetime number of peak responses summed over all short-term operating conditions.

Nf

Number of stress range cycles to cause failure at stress range S

Ns,i

Number of stress range cycles in short-term operating condition i

Vertical bending moment at section of interest

PL

Lifetime joint probability of , , , (Hs,Tz)

P1,m

Probability, for mission type m, of speed , conditional on , , (Hs,Tz).

P2,m

Probability, for mission type m, of heading , conditional on , (Hs,Tz).

P3,m

Probability , for mission type m, of loading condition , conditional on (Hs,Tz).

P4,m

Joint probability density, for mission type m, of sea-state parameters Hs, Tz, obtained from wave
scatter diagram databases available for the global regions of operation

Pm

Probability of mission type m.

Ps,i

Probability density of stress ranges for short-term operating condition i

RAOr,i

Response amplitude operator for ith operating condition

Fully reversed, zero mean, stress range

Sr,i

Power spectrum for response r in the ith operating condition.

Sw,(Hs, Tz)i

Wave elevation power spectrum for sea-state (Hs, Tz)i

Tz

Zero up-crossing period of wave elevation process

Section modulus at the location of interest

ith short-term operating condition (i, i, i, (Hs,TZ)i)

m,k

Material fatigue property constants

m0i m2i and m4i

Spectral moments of short-term response process.

Response variable

()

Complete Gamma function

Bandwidth factor, = 1
i

m2,2 i
m4,i m0,i

Weight distribution pattern parameter

Heading angle relative to the wave celerity

Ship speed

Wave encounter frequency

INTRODUCTION
Generally the specification for a naval ship will define the design lifetime, design speed
profile and the operational environment in which the ship is required to operate. The
combination of these parameters allows an operational profile for the ship to be
determined, which is then used together with other ship design details such as hull form
and weight distribution to calculate the expected lifetime extreme and fatigue loads. This
calculation is often done through the application of seaload computer programs or
alternately through rules based design as laid out by a Classification Society.
More recently, with the introduction of novel hull forms and the wider variety of tasks
being performed by naval ships including littoral operations [1], there has been a
requirement to undertake a risk-assessment based approach to the determination of the
structural adequacy of the hull. This implies the need for a probabilistic approach to define
a ships operational profile and to assess the risk of structural failure. Generally for
reasons of mathematical simplicity, the parameters defining the operation profile are
usually treated as being independent, except for the relationship between wave height and
period. In reality however there exist dependences between various parameters such as
ship speed, heading, sea-state and even the mission type and these will have a significant
impact on the assessed level of risk.
The focus of this research is the influence of a ships operational profile on structural risk
assessment. It is recognised that structural design requirements based entirely on
historical blue water sea-state statistics may not be appropriate. Ship motions as well as
long-term wave-induced extreme and fatigue loads are known to be sensitive to both ship
speed and heading, particularly in higher sea-states [2-4]. Thus an operational profile
which realistically accounts for the actual ocean areas of service as well as for sea-state
dependent speed and heading changes (generally a reduction in speed and the avoidance of
beam seas in heavy weather) is important to reduce the level of uncertainty in motion and
sealoads prediction [5].
Currently the tools available to RAN for operational profile definition in relation to ship
lifetime structural loading do not readily allow for the implementation of conditional
probabilities. In this paper a framework is given for the implementation of a probabilistic
ship operational profile model which allows for conditionality amongst operational
parameters. A case study of a naval frigate is provided in which lifetime extreme and
fatigue loads are predicted based on an operational profile model that includes dependency
of ship speed and heading in relation to sea-state. These loads are compared with loads
calculated on the basis of a nominal design operational profile that takes no account of the
dependency of speed and heading on sea-state.
OPERATIONAL PROFILE MODEL
A ships operational profile is defined as the possible combinations of ship speed ,
heading angle relative to the waves , ship load distribution , and sea-state (Hs,Tz) in
which the ship may operate and the percentage of time, or the probability, of each
combination. Each combination of , , , (Hs,Tz) is referred to as a short-term operating
condition or operating mode. An operational profile in effect defines a joint probability
density function P(, , , (Hs,Tz)) covering all possible short-term conditions. The sum of

the probabilities of each of the short-term operating conditions within the operational
profile will be equal to one.
For naval ships it useful to consider a range of mission or task specific operational profiles
covering both wartime and peacetime operations. For a given ship class and mission type,
m the sum of all the mission based operational profiles, each weighted according to the
probability of conducting that mission, will give the long-term or lifetime operational
profile. Thus a statistical model of the lifetime operational profile can be expressed
mathematically as
PL(v, ,,(Hs ,Tz )) =

No of mission
types

m=1

P1,m(v/ ,,(Hs ,Tz )) P2,m(/ ,(Hs,Tz )) P3,m( /(Hs,Tz )) P4,m(Hs ,Tz ) P5(m)

(1)

where Bayes chain rule [6] is used to reduce the joint probability to a product of
conditional probabilities. Eq.1 is mathematically exact with no simplifying assumptions
regarding the conditional relationships amongst operational parameters. In principle, Eq.1
can be established for a particular ship class by gathering the necessary conditional
statistics on the right hand side during operations at sea. However, data collection efforts
have rarely been undertaken, either for commercial or naval ships, which fully describe the
conditional terms in Eq.1 [2]. For example, most speed and heading data gathered
historically describe marginal (i.e. unconditional) speed and heading probabilities with no
conditionality either between these two parameters or on sea-state. A notable exception to
this can be found in the data collected for Dutch cargo ships [7].
It has been recognized [2] that some of the conditional terms within Eq.1 may be relatively
weak. As a means of simplifying the probabilistic model of the operational profile, the
following assumptions are made in the present work regarding independence among the
parameters;
is independent of , , (Hs,Tz)
is conditionally independent of given the sea-state Hs,Tz.
With these assumptions, Eq. 1 reduces to
PL(v, ,,(Hs ,Tz )) =

No of mission
types

m=1

P1,m(v/(Hs ,Tz )) P2,m(/(Hs ,Tz )) P3,m() P4,m(Hs ,Tz ) P5(m)

(2)

The independence of , would seem a reasonable assumption in the case of naval ships
which generally have relatively constant weight distributions between major upgrades.
Less certain however is the second assumption, which implies that speed and heading
choices are made independently in a given sea-state. The statistical data presented in [7]
for cargo ships indicate that speed and heading changes cannot be strictly considered as
independent decisions, particularly in the most severe sea-states. However, the dependency
between speed and heading for a given sea-state was considered to be relatively weak in
comparison to the dependency of speed on sea-state (P1) and heading on sea-state (P2). Eq.
2 is used in this paper for a case study analysis of lifetime sealoads on a RAN Naval frigate
where P1 and P2 are based on survey questionnaire responses of experienced ship
commanders. These load results are compared with those obtained by using speed and
heading probabilities which are assumed to be independent of sea-state.
A ships operational profile is described in this paper essentially as an empirical data
model defined by a small set of environmental and operational parameters. It should be
noted however that the actual model data will be the final result of decision making

processes made by the ships master aimed at maneuvering the ship in such a way as to
optimize the a set of mission/voyage objectives whilst maintaining acceptable motions and
sealoads on the ship. Such decisions will be a function of the commanders level of
situational awareness which in turn will depend on experience and judgment as well as
input from sensor/information systems onboard [8]. Modelling of these decision making
processes and their impact on the operational profile would involve the complex task of
formulating a comprehensive set of environmental and behaviour parameters which can
describe a range of mission objectives and constraints [9]. Since the aim of the present
work is to investigate the influence of the operational profile on sealoads, decision making
processes are not considered directly.
LOAD RESPONSE MODEL
Spectral formulation of short-term sealoads
To obtain extreme and fatigue loads acting on the global hull girder in response to
Gaussian sea waves, the well known linear spectral (frequency domain) approach is used
[10,11]. The long-term responses are obtained by the summation of the responses
contributed by each short-term operating condition (i, i, i, (Hs,TZ)i), each weighted
according to the probability of that short-term condition within the lifetime operational
profile.
In the spectral method, the zero mean value Gaussian random sea waves for a given seastate (Hs,Tz ) are described by a power spectrum of the wave elevation process. For a given
short-term operating condition (i, i, i, (Hs,TZ)i), the power spectrum for any load
response variable r (eg. hull girder bending and torsional moments, pressures, motion ) is
given by
S r ,i (e ) = RAOr ,i (e ) S w,i (e )
(3)
In the case study, a rigid-body strip theory seakeeping code ShipMo 7 [12] is used to
generate frequency domain RAOs for midships vertical bending moment. Linear
seakeeping codes have been shown to give very good predictions of wave-induced motion
and hull girder loads in low to moderate sea-states and for Froude numbers up to 0.4. In the
case of larger amplitude waves and non-slender hull forms, nonlinear effects may lead to
significant asymmetry between hog-sag bending loads which are not modeled in the linear
theory. Furthermore, certain operating conditions may result in slamming induced
nonlinear transient whipping loads not modeled in the linear theory. It has been shown that
both large amplitude wave and slamming effects can significantly influence long-term
predictions of extreme and fatigue loads [13-15]. Rigorous first principles modeling of
these nonlinearities would require recourse to numerically intensive time domain analysis
methods. Within the framework of the less rigorous but more efficient linear frequency
domain approach, semi-empirical correction methods have been developed to account for
slamming [16] and hog-sag asymmetry [15]. Since the focus of the present research is a
comparative study of the influence of the operational profile on global loads, a frequency
domain approach is used with no account taken of the above nonlinear effects.
For a given short-term linear response spectrum Sr,i(e), peak and extreme value statistics
may be derived as a function of the spectral moments mn,i of Sr,i(e) where

mn ,i =

n
e

Sr ,i (e ) de

(4)

Short-term Peak Value Statistics

The individual peak values (ie local maxima or minima) of the short-term response are
distributed according to the following probability distribution function
Fp ,i (r ) = 1 1 e
2
i

r2

2m
0,i

for 0.9

(5)

with corresponding probability density function,

r2

2m
r
Pp ,i (r ) =
1 i2 e 0 ,i for 0.9
m0,i

(6)

In the limit for a narrow banded process = 0, and Eq.5 becomes the Rayleigh distribution
[9].
Short-term Extreme Value Statistics
Assuming that each of the peaks of a short-term response process can themselves be
considered random variables each distributed according to Eq.5 , it can be shown that the
extreme peak value amongst a total of Np,i consecutive peaks is a random variable with the
following probability distribution
Fext ,i (r ) = 1 N p ,i (1 i2 ) e

r2

2m
0 ,i

(7)

where the relationship between Np,i and the duration, Ti , of operation within condition i, is
given by
N p ,i =

Ti
2

m4,i
m2,i

(8)

Characteristic Short-term Extreme Values

Design loads are typically chosen to correspond with the extreme value of response
characterized by a defined probability of exceedence. It can be shown that for large Np,i the
short-term extreme peak value, rext ,i / corresponding to a probability of exceedence
amongst extreme peaks, is given by the implicit expression

1 Fp ,i (rext ,i / ) =

(9)

N p ,i

where the peak distribution Fp,i is given by Eq.5. Eq. 9 implies that rext ,i / has a probability
of exceedence / N p ,i amongst all the peak values in process r (not just the extreme peak
in Np,i peaks). Substituting Eq.5 into Eq.9 gives
N p ,i 1 i
(10)
rext ,i / = 2 m0,i ln

Eq. 10 can alternately be derived directly from the short-term extreme value distribution of
Eq.7.

Lifetime Extreme and Fatigue Loads

The preceding expressions for short-term response referred to an arbitrary response
variable r. A further development is to derive the expressions for lifetime extreme and
fatigue loading considering the case of vertical bending moment M at a section of interest.

These expressions, derived following the lifetime weighted response method [10-11], are
used in the case study analysis to follow.
Lifetime Extreme Vertical Bending Moment
The lifetime characteristic extreme bending moment is obtained by first deriving the
lifetime peak bending moment probability distribution function Fp,L(M)
(11)
N p ,i Fp ,i ( M )

i =1
Fp , L ( M ) =
N p ,i = N p , L
i =1

For a total lifetime operational duration at sea TL, the short-term duration Ti spent in
operating condition (i, i, i, (Hs,TZ)i) is given by
(12)
Ti = TL PL (v, , , ( H s , Tz ))
th
where the joint probability PL(i, i, i, (Hs,TZ)i) for the i operating condition is given by
the operational profile Eq.2.
By using Eq.s 8 and 12, Eq.11 can be re-written in a more convenient form in terms of the
lifetime operational profile and the short-term spectral moments of the bending moment
process
m4,i
PL (vi , i , i , ( H s , Tz )i )
Fp ,i ( M )

m2,i
i =1
(13)
Fp , L ( M ) =
m4,i
PL (vi , i , i , ( H s , Tz )i )

m2,i
i =1
Analogous to Eq.9, the lifetime characteristic extreme vertical bending moment, Mext,i/
with probability of exceedence , is given by

1 FP , L ( M ext , L / ) =
N p,L

(14)

The value of M ext , L / can be obtained either by iterating directly on the numeric values of
Fp,L (M) from Eq. 13, or by first curve fitting Eq.13 with a Weibull distribution function
[10].
Lifetime fatigue damage due to Vertical Bending Moment
In this section we consider fatigue at the global hull girder level due to wave-induced
vertical bending calculated from rigid-body strip theory. The analysis precludes local
fatigue loads [17,18] as well as higher frequency hull girder fatigue loads due to waveinduced springing and slamming-induced whipping.
Analysis procedures for lifetime spectral fatigue initiation analysis applying the PalmgrenMiner fatigue damage law in conjunction with constant amplitude S-N fatigue life curves
(ie safe life analysis), are well established [10,11]. Given a fatigue life S-N curve for a
structural detail of interest in the form
(15)
N f Sm = k
it can be shown that the lifetime fatigue damage DL at a location of interest is given by
N
DL = Di = s ,i S m Ps ,i ( S )dS
(16)
i =1
i =1 k 0

Under the assumption s of linear strip theory, the stress range due to vertical bending
moment is given by
(17)
2M
S=
Z
where M is the peak Hog or Sag bending moment1.
To determine Ns,i and Ps,i in Eq.16, the assumption is generally made that the linear
bending moment process and hence the hull girder stress process, is narrow banded, hence
= 0. It then follows that the number of stress range cycles will equal the number of stress
peaks. Furthermore, the stress ranges will be Rayleigh distributed in the same manner as
stress peaks, with stress ranges equal to twice the stress peaks. From Eq.s 8 & 12 we
obtain
(18)
m4,i
T
N s ,i = L
PL (vi , i , i , ( H s , Tz )i )
2 m2,i
and from Eq.6 with = 0 we have
S2

S
8m
(19)
Ps ,i ( S ) =
e 0,i
4m0,i
Substituting Eq.s 18 & 19 into Eq.16 and carrying out the integration gives the following
analytical expression for lifetime fatigue damage in duration TL
T
1 m4,i
m
PL (vi , i , i , ( H s , Tz )i ) (m0,i ) m / 2
DL = L 23m / 2 + 1
(20)
k
2
i =1 2 m2,i
where mo,i and m2,i and m4,i are moments of the short-term stress process (not stress range
process). In the case of fatigue stress due to vertical bending moment M, Eq.20 can be rewritten as
T
1 m4,i
m
PL (vi , i , i , ( H s , Tz )i ) (m0,i ) m / 2
DL = L m 25 m / 2 + 1
(21)
k Z
2
i =1 2 m2,i
where mo,i and m2,i and m4,i are moments of the short-term vertical bending moment
process M.
CASE STUDY
In this case study we consider the extreme vertical bending moment and fatigue damage
for a RAN frigate type warship in response to two different operational profiles. The first
operational profile includes the dependence of speed and heading on sea-state. For the
second operational profile, no dependence of speed or heading on sea-state in considered.
An identical sea-state environment is used for both operational profiles.
Operational Profile 1
We consider an operational profile described by a single average lifetime mission type
m, and a single weight distribution . Thus P5 ( m) = 1 and P3 ( ) =1. From Eq.2, the
lifetime operational profile becomes
(22)
PL (v, , ,( H s , Tz )) = P1 (v /( H s , Tz )) P2 ( /( H s , Tz )) P4 ( H s , Tz )
1

This is not exactly true in practice as typically sagging bending moment is larger than the hogging bending
moment, however the assumption that MHOG=MSAG=M is used in line with strip theory assumptions.

where P(Hs,Tz) is obtained from available sea-sate statistical databases (wave scatter
diagrams) for the ships expected global ocean areas of operation. The Hs,Tz statistics for
each ocean area are combined and weighted according to percentage of the ships lifetime
expected to be spent in that area. In this case study this data is obtained from RANs
seakeeping standard, RAN document DEF (AUST) 5000 [19].
P(/(Hs, Tz)) and P(/(Hs,Tz)) were obtained from survey responses of experienced RAN
ship Commanders [20]. The survey questionnaire required the Commanders to indicate
their most typical choices of speed and heading given the sea-state. Since no particular
mission type or operational context was specified, these data are interpreted in this study to
represent lifetime average data. Three speed ranges and seven heading angles were
specified. The conditional probability data are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 2. P2 ( /( H s , Tz ))
Table 1. P1 ( /( H s , Tz ))
Probability of speed conditional on sea- Probability of heading conditional on seastate
state
Speed
(knots)
0 - 10
10 - 20
>20
Sum

Significnt Wave Height Hs

(m)
0 - 5
5 - 10
>10
0.15
0.35
0.75
0.6
0.1
0.05
1
1

0.7
0.3
0
1

Relative
Heading

(deg)
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
Sum

Significant wave height Hs (m)

0 - 5
0.1
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.1
1

5 - 10
0.1
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.2
0.25
0.1
1

>10
0.1
0.2
0.15
0
0.2
0.25
0.1
1

Operational Profile 2
For this operational profile we assume speed and heading are independent of sea-sate. Thus
Eq.2 becomes
(23)
PL (v, , , ( H s , Tz )) = P1 (v) P2 ( ) P4 ( H s , Tz )
where
P4(Hs,Tz) is the same as in operational profile 1.
P1() and P2() are marginal (unconditional) probability densities of speed and heading
respectively. In this case we assume uniform probability densities of speeds and heading
over the entire range considered. Thus P1() = constant and P2() = constant. This
assumption, often used in design studies, corresponds to a situation in which realistic
expected in-service distributions are unavailable.
Case Study Results
The lifetime distribution of peak vertical bending moment at a section of interest according
to Eq.13 is plotted in Figure 1. The characteristic extreme bending moment of Eq.14
corresponding to a probability of exceedence level = 0.01, is shown in Table 3 for the
two operational profiles based on 30 years of continuous service at sea. Table 3 also
indicates the lifetime fatigue damage calculated according to Eq. 21. As expected, the
number of lifetime load peaks or cycles is different for the two operational profiles.

Table 3. Comparison of Lifetime loads

No of cycles in 30 years
Extreme VBM [kNm]
DL

Operational Profile 1
1.32 E +08
176600
0.213

Operational Profile 2
1.46 E +08
185500
0.234

The results indicate that for the same sea-state environment, P4(Hs,Tz), the use of an
operational profile which more realistically accounts for the sea-state dependency of speed
and heading, leads to a reduction in extreme vertical bending moment of 5 % and an
increase in fatigue lifetime of 9.8%. Although the differences in extreme and fatigue
loading predicted for this case study cannot be generalised (magnitude or direction) for
other ships and seaway environments, the results do suggest that the operational profile
definition may be a significant contributor to uncertainty in wave-induced loads prediction
and subsequent risk assessment. As noted previously, the present analysis takes no account
of slamminginduced whipping responses which are known to contribute to fatigue
damage. Since slamming is expected only in certain operating conditions, the operational
profile would be expected to also have a significant influence on the slamming
contribution to fatigue.

Lifetime Probability of VBM Exceedence

1
0.1
0.01

Probability of Exceedence

0.001
0.0001
Operational Profile 1
Operational Profile 2

1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
1E-08
1E-09
1E-10
1E-11
1E-12
1E-13
1E-14
1E-15
1E-16
1E-17
1E-18
0

50000

100000

150000

200000

Dynamic Vertical Bending Moment Amplitude [kNm]

Figure 1. Lifetime Probability of VBM

250000

DISCUSSION
During the requirements definition phase of a surface ship acquisition project it is
necessary to define the operational profile to be able to determine the global hull girder
responses and to assess the structural adequacy of the proposed designs. In order for this
assessment to be meaningful, it is necessary that a realistic operational profile be
determined for the ship. For a naval ship, this operating profile should distinguish between
mission types as well as the more typical operating parameters such as sea-state, ship speed
and relative wave heading.
In this paper a systematic method for the development of ships operational profiles,
including consideration of conditional probabilities between operating parameters has been
described. By comparing operational profiles for a naval frigate, it is demonstrated that the
consideration of conditional probabilities has a significant influence on the evaluation of
both extreme load and fatigue life responses (approximately 5 and 10% respectively).
Further development of this method, and of the underlying probability data, will lead to
greater reliability in the load predictions and therefore to the reduction of risk associated
with future platform acquisitions.
The RAN is presently undergoing major surface combatant and support ship acquisition
programs. The hull structure for these ships will generally be built to commercial class
society warship rules. These new ships will provide an operational capability not
previously available to the RAN, and as the RAN seeks to take advantage of this greater
flexibility, the operational environments will vary from those of previous RAN ships. In
order to assess the technical risk of this shift in the design basis, the operational profile of
the ships must be redefined and the impact of these changes on hull structure re-assessed in
order to safely make full use of this enhanced capability.
The method outlined also allows for the consequences of major changes and upgrades to be
studied. Application of the method enables rapid evaluation of what if type scenarios to
consider the structural risk and reliability implications of the changes, whether they be as a
result of modifications or to changes in the operational requirements of the ship. For
example, the weight distribution for the ship used in the case study was assumed to be
constant. However it is generally expected that during the life of a naval ship, it will be
subject to some form of major upgrade that will result in significant changes to the weight
distribution. This will in turn influence the global bending moment and fatigue life
responses but these can be readily evaluated. Similarly the impact of changes to the mode
of operation of the ship (following an upgrade) can be evaluated based on the new
operating profile.
These outcomes however, will only be fully realised if the reliability of the underlying
information database is improved. The conditional probability data used for the case study
in this paper is based on the results of a survey questionnaire of RAN fleet commanders
and so the results are therefore somewhat subjective. A more reliable result would be
achieved with data obtained with the use of on-board instrumentation to simultaneously
record operational parameters throughout the life of a ship. The reliability would be
further improved through the fitting of instrumentation to multiple platforms in order to
consider multiple ship types, mission types and operating environments. This would
require the development of a data collection program to obtain these profiles for each class

of ship. Given the unique operational environment of the RAN fleet, it recommended that
such a program be initiated.
The methodology outlined in this paper has been implemented into a computer program to
enable rapid evaluation of alternative operational profiles to be compared. In parallel,
research is also being carried out in DSTO Maritime Platforms Division into the
application of realistic operational profiles to structural assessment methods such as the
ABS dynamic load approach (DLA). This approach utilizes direct engineering analysis to
evaluate the adequacy of scantlings and to identify potential areas of risk and will enable a
deterministic evaluation of different operation profiles to be considered.

CONCLUSION
Through the consideration of conditional probabilities between ship operational and
environmental parameters, this paper has presented a method for determining the impact of
different operational profiles on the lifetime extreme and fatigue loading of a ship. By
allowing for the dependence between speed and heading in relation to sea-state, it is shown
for the example given that the extreme load will vary by approximately 5% and the fatigue
life by approximately 10%.
These values may vary significantly depending upon the operational profile used and
clearly demonstrate of the importance of correctly defining the operational profile of the
ship in order to reliably evaluate the two principal structural adequacy criteria of extreme
load and fatigue life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of Mr Bernie Phelps in reading the manuscript
and providing many valued comments.

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

Nitschke S., 2005: Littoral warfare- a new name for an old mission, Naval Forces,
Vol. 26.
Guedes Soares, C., 1990: Effect of Heavy Weather Maneuvering on the WaveInduced Vertical Bending Moments in Ship Structures, J. Ship Research, Vol. 34,
No. 1, pp. 60-68.
Guedes Soares C. and Trovao, M.F.S., 1991: Influence of Wave Climate Modelling
on the Long Term Prediction of Wave Induced Responses of Ship Structures, In
Proc. The Dynamics of Marine Structures in Waves, Elsevier Science Pub.,
Amsterdam, pp. 1-10.
Jensen, J. J., Mansour, A. E. and Olsen, 2004: Estimation of Ship Motions Using
Closed-form Expressions, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 61-85.
IMO, 2005: Goal-Based New Ship Construction Standards Determination of
Actual Service Life , IMO, Maritime Safety Committee, 80th Session, Agenda Item
6, submission by International Association of Classification Societies (IACS),
March 2005.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Williamson J., 2005: Bayesian Nets and Causality Philosophical and

Computational Foundations, Oxford University Press, UK.
Van Sluijs, M.F. and Stijman, J.I., 1971: Observations on Waves and Ships
Behaviour Made on Board of Dutch Ships, Report No. 136 S, Netherlands Ship
Research Centre TNO.
Payer, H.G. and Rathje, H., 2004: Shipboard Routing Assistance- Decision Making
Support for Operation of Container Ships in Heavy seas, SNAME Trans. 2004.
Judea Pearl, 1998: Probability Reasoning and intelligent systems, Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers Inc., USA.
Bai Y., 2003: Marine Structural Design, Elsevier, UK.
Jensen, J.J., 2001: Loads and Global Response of Ships, Elsevier Ocean
Engineering Series, Vol. 4.
McTaggart, K.A., 1997: SHIPMO7 An Updated Strip Theory Program for
Predicting Ship Motions and Loads in Waves, DREA Technical Memorandum
96/243.
Gu X.,K., Moan T., 2002: Long term Fatigue Damage of Ship Structures Under
Nonlinear Wave Loads, Marine Technology, Vol.39. No.2, pp. 95-104.
Friis Hansen, P., 1994: On Combination of Slamming and Wave-Induced
Responses, Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 38. No.2, June 1994, pp. 104-114.
Jensen, J.J. and Mansour, A.E., 2003: Estimation of the Effect of Green Water and
Bow Flare Slamming on the Wave-Induced Vertical Bending Moment using Closed
Form Expressions, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Oxford.
Sikora, J., Michaelson, R.W., and Ayyub, B. M., 2002: Assessment of Cumulative
Lifetime Seaway Loads for Ships, Naval Engineers Journal, Spring 2002.
Ship Structure Committee, 1994: Probability based ship design; loads and load
combinations, Report Number SSC-373.
Ship Structure Committee, 1995: Ship Maintenance Project- Volume 1, Fatigue
Damage Evaluation, Report Number SSC-386.
DNPS, 2003: DEF (AUST) 5000, Volume 3, Part 6: Seakeeping.
DNA Technical Memo, 1996: FFG Fatigue Life Investigation, Report No.
A016158.