See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245363831

Stern slamming of a LNG carrier

Article  in  Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering · August 2009

DOI: 10.1115/1.3124131

CITATIONS READS
13 301

5 authors, including:

Jan Oberhagemann Michael Holtmann

DNV GL DNVGL
20 PUBLICATIONS   139 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ould el Moctar Thomas Erling Schellin

University of Duisburg-Essen DNV GL SE
124 PUBLICATIONS   668 CITATIONS    96 PUBLICATIONS   865 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WAVELODS View project

Passive and active cavitation control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Erling Schellin on 10 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Jan Oberhagemann
e-mail: jan.oberhagemann@gl-group.com
Michael Holtmann
e-mail: michael.holtmann@gl-group.com
Ould el Moctar
e-mail: ould.el-moctar@gl-group.com
Thomas E. Schellin
e-mail: thomas.schellin@gl-group.com
Germanischer Lloyd AG,
Vorsetzen 35,
Hamburg 20459, Germany
Daewoong Kim
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine
Engineering Co. Ltd.,
541 Daewoo Center Building
Namdaemunro 5-Ga,
Jung-Gu 656-714, South Korea
e-mail: daewoong@dsme.co.kr
Stern Slamming of a LNG Carrier
Rational assessment of stern slamming of a large twin screw liquefied natural gas (LNG)
carrier comprised prediction of hydrodynamic impact loads and their effects on the
dynamic global structural behavior of the hull girder. Linear theory obtained regular
equivalent waves that caused maximum relative normal velocities at critical locations
underneath the ship’s stern. Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes computations based on the
volume of fluid method yielded transient (nonlinear) hydrodynamic impact (slamming)
loads that were coupled to a nonlinear motion analysis of the ship in waves. At every time
step of the transient computation, the finite volume grid was translated and rotated,
simulating the actual position of the ship. Hydrodynamic loads acting on the hull were
converted to nodal forces for a finite element model of the ship structure. Slamming-
induced pressure peaks, typically lasting for about 0.5 s, were characterized by a steep
increase and decrease before and after the peak values. Shape and duration agreed
favorably with full-scale measurements and model tests carried out on other ships, indi-
cating the plausibility of our numerical predictions. Hull girder whipping was analyzed to
investigate dynamic amplification of structural stresses. Short-duration impact-related
slamming loads excited the ship structure to vibrations in a wide range of frequencies.
Excitation of the lowest fundamental eigenmode contributed most to additional stresses
caused by hull girder whipping. Although, for the cases investigated, longitudinal stresses
and shear stresses caused by quasisteady wave bending were uncritical, we obtained a
significant amplification (up to 25%) due to the dynamic structural response.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.3124131兴
Keywords: stern slamming, LNG ship, whipping, RANS

1 Introduction needed to be computed in a transient way. Slamming loads ob-

tained with the RANS method served as boundary conditions for
At the bottom of the stern section of a ship, high amplitude
transient finite element 共FE兲 computations.
short-duration impact-related slamming loads may occur when
this part enters the water at a small angle of inclination. These 2 Fluid-Structure Coupling
loads may not only cause local damage of the hull structure, but
also increase hull girder loads that contribute to long-term fatigue To assess effects of hull girder whipping due to slamming, in-
of the hull girder structure. Our objective was to assess stern teractions between the dynamic structural behavior and the sur-
slamming for a modern LNG carrier under two loading condi- rounding fluid flow had to be accounted for. Therefore, we per-
tions. Particularly the flat areas between propeller shafts may be formed transient coupled computations that combined
subject to stern slamming. Figure 1 shows the stern region of this computational fluid dynamics 共CFD兲 and computational structural
ship, seen from below, and Table 1 lists principal particulars. dynamics 共CSD兲 methods 关5兴. Whipping is dominated by the low-
The relative velocity between the ship’s hull in the stern region
and the water surface normal to the hull surface 共normal relative
velocity兲 was the criterion to identify critical situations with re-
spect to severe slamming. A linear panel code using zero-speed
Green functions and a forward speed correction 关1兴 obtained
transfer functions of ship motions in regular waves. A consecutive
seakeeping analysis, based on these transfer functions and the
wave climate of the North Atlantic according to IACS Recom-
mendation 34 关2兴, yielded maximum normal relative velocities.
Equivalent regular design waves, leading to the same relative ve-
locities, were identified. Based on these regular equivalent design
waves, input parameters were defined for Reynolds-averaged
Navier–Stokes 共RANS兲 simulations 关3兴 coupled with the compu-
tation of the nonlinear ship motions in these waves. The computed Fig. 1 Stern region of the LNG carrier, seen from below
pressures were relevant for a comparison with design pressures
according to classification society rules 关4兴. Table 1 Principal particulars of the LNG carrier
The impulsive nature of slamming caused hull girder structural
vibrations, known as whipping, in a wide range of frequencies.
The lowest fundamental modes were significant. Structural vibra- Length between perpendiculars 303.0 m
Beam at waterline 50.0 m
tions as well as slamming impacts were dynamic phenomena that
Design speed 19.5kn
Draft 共ballast condition兲 9.4 m
Draft 共design condition兲 11.7 m
Contributed by the Ocean Offshore and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manu- Metacentric height 共ballast condition兲 14.0 m
script received July 3, 2008; final manuscript received October 5, 2008; published Metacentric height 共design condition兲 6.7 m
online June 2, 2009. Assoc. Editor: Rene Huijsmans. Paper presented at the ASME Longitudinal gyradius 共ballast condition兲 75.3 m
27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Enginering Transverse gyradius 共design condition兲 16.3 m
共OMAE2008兲, Estoril, Portugal, June 15–20, 2008.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2009, Vol. 131 / 031103-1
Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 2 Locations of investigated slamming loads
est hull girder natural frequencies. At such low frequencies, there
is a time lag between excitation and structural response. Hence,
the influence of hull girder vibration on impact loads is relatively
small, and the coupling here was done in a one-way manner. The
influence of structural deformations on the surrounding flow was
assumed small and was thus neglected.
The RANS solver COMET 关6兴 computed fluid dynamics pres-
sures, and the finite element software package ANSYS 关7兴 per-
formed the structural analysis. Hydrodynamic forces and moments
acting on the ship’s hull were converted to nodal forces for the FE
model. Mass inertia forces and moments were also added to nodal
forces, allowing computations to be carried out in a ship-fixed
coordinate reference frame.
3 Computational Procedure
The computational procedure consisted of the following four
steps.
1. A linear seakeeping analysis to obtain transfer functions of
normal relative velocities at previously defined critical areas
underneath the ship’s stern.
2. Based on these results, a statistical analysis combined with
certain operational restrictions to determine maximum nor-
mal relative velocities and selection of regular design waves
for stern slamming led to these same normal relative veloci-
ties.
3. Computation of RANS based slamming pressures coupled
with predictions of nonlinear ship motions in selected design
waves.
4. Numerical simulations of hull structural response caused by
slamming loads to determine dynamic amplification of hull
girder stresses due to whipping.
The principal idea of this procedure was to find regular waves,
so-called design waves, that can be assumed to cause an impact
event leading to the long-term statistical maximum.
For the seakeeping analysis, discretization of the ship’s hull
consisted of 4290 triangular and quadrangular surface panels.
Computations for the ballast condition as well as the design con-
dition were carried out for 13 wave encounter angles ranging from
␮ = 0 deg 共stern waves兲 to ␮ = 180 deg 共head waves兲 at 15 deg
intervals for 30 wave periods ranging from 5.0 s to 18.0 s and for
six different ship speeds ranging from vship = 0.0 kn to vship
= 19.5 kn.
Since accurate potential theory based prediction of slamming
pressures in high waves is not possible, we instead assumed that
the highest relative velocities between water and hull normal to
the hull surface resulted in maximum slamming pressures. There-
fore, standard spectral techniques together with the linearly com-
puted transfer functions of ship motions were employed to specify
031103-2 / Vol. 131, AUGUST 2009
Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
regular design waves for stern slamming. As a matter of fact, our
procedure only results in extreme events and does not allow for
long-term statistical distributions of slamming pressures.
At the moment of water entry, maximum relative normal ve-
locities were computed for 20 critical areas underneath the ship’s
stern region, as shown in Fig. 2. Because of symmetry about the
ship’s centerline, only locations on the port side were investigated.
To account for 360 deg of wave encounter angles, computed ship
motions were mirrored about the ship’s vertical center plane.
Long-term statistical analyses were performed, assuming equal
distribution of wave encounter angles for each given loading con-
dition and ship speed. Short-term statistics relied on Pierson–
Moskowitz seaway spectra with a cosine squared distribution of
wave energy about the primary wave direction. For long-term sta-
tistics, frequencies of occurrence of sea states were accounted for.
The applied probability of exceedance was 10−8 for 17 years of
operational time. Multiplication of transfer functions for normal
relative velocities with the corresponding maximum wave ampli-
tudes yielded complex response spectra of normal relative veloci-
ties. Values of maximum normal relative velocities were always
taken at the peak of the response spectra.
A subsequent analysis determined amplitudes of regular design
waves for each combination of wave encounter angle, wave pe-
riod, and ship speed. Amplitudes of these regular waves were
chosen to meet the long-term statistical value of normal relative
velocities. Some restrictions based on operating experience with
similar ships were introduced to avoid unrealistic design waves.
• Wave steepness must not exceed a value of 0.156, corre-
sponding to a ratio of wave height to wavelength of 0.1.
• Except at zero forward speed, maximum acceleration on the
bridge deck must not exceed the acceleration of gravity.
• Depending on the ratio of forward speed V to design speed
V0, the propeller tip must not emerge for V ⬎ 1 / 3 V0, or the
propeller emergence should not exceed one-third of the pro-
peller radius for V = 1 / 3 V0. At zero speed, this criterion is
invalid.
• Wave heights greater than 15 m are only allowed for ship
speeds of less than one-third design speed.
• For critical locations that do not emerge, maximum normal
relative velocity is set to zero.
As a representative sample, here for the ship in the ballast con-
dition, Fig. 3 shows plots of maximum normal relative velocities
that resulted for different ship speeds and wave encounter angles
observing these restrictions. Circles display maximum relative ve-
locities obtained from long-term statistical analyses; line con-
nected curves, relative velocities restricted by wave amplitudes
based on operating experience. These velocities act on the critical
area located 6.0 m to port from the centerline bottom of the ship
and a distance of 1.77 m from the aft perpendicular.
The ballast loading condition always resulted in higher maxi-
mum normal relative velocities than the loaded 共design兲 condition,
and the zero speed cases always gave higher values than other
ship speeds. This was because wave height restrictions depended
on ship speed and high relative velocities occurred together with
high relative motions, causing parts of the propeller to emerge.
For the RANS computations, we selected three regular design
waves that caused maximum normal relative velocities, all for the
ship in ballast condition at zero forward speed. The location of the
corresponding critical area is the one for the representative
sample. Table 2 lists the selected wave parameters.
The RANS code not only computed slamming pressures, but
also solved the nonlinear ship motion equations by imposing ini-
tial and boundary conditions according to the regular design
waves. For each design wave, volume grids consisting of tetrahe-
dral cells were created. As a sample, Fig. 4 shows the volume grid
for wave 2.
For wave 2, the volume grid comprised 1.5⫻ 106 cells and
covered a fluid domain extending two ship lengths aft and three
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 3 Maximum normal relative velocities obtained from long-term statis-
tics and restricted by wave amplitude

ship lengths forward of the ship’s center of gravity, two ship 4 Slamming Pressures
lengths to port and starboard of the ship’s centerline, and 200 m
Computed time series of slamming pressures are shown in Fig.
above and one ship length below the calm waterline. We refined
7. For waves 1 and 2, pressures reach similar peak values of about
the grid in the region of the water-air interface and stretched the
305 kPa. The duration of peaks and the slope of pressure curves
cells toward the outlet boundaries and in the regions far from the
after the first peak are similar. Shape and duration of these pres-
free surface. Stretching cells toward the outlet boundaries numeri-
sure traces generally agreed favorably with full-scale as well as
cally damped outgoing waves and avoided reflections. Distur-
model test measurements carried out on other ships 关8–10兴. Al-
bances of the flow field caused by the ship’s hull were also nu-
though the pressure time history for wave 3 resembles the time
merically damped toward the boundaries. Boundary faces on the
histories from waves 1 and 2, pressures were significantly lower.
hull surface in the critical stern region had a size ranging from
The peak pressure from wave 3 was only about 25% of the peak
0.2 m2 to 0.25 m2, allowing for an accurate representation of the
pressure from waves 1 and 2.
pressure distribution. About 4000 time steps with a time step size
We integrated pressures acting on an area of 235 m2 in the
of 0.02 s were computed, corresponding to 80 s of simulation time
stern region. Figure 8 displays several impact peaks for wave 2
or about six wave encounter periods.
and lists the associated time-integrated impulses 共I兲 over an inte-
For wave 1, the finite volume grid created was similar to the
grid for wave 2. However, because of symmetry 共stern wave con- gration interval of 0.7 s for this area. Shape, duration, as well as
ditions兲 we modeled only the port side of the hull and the sur- the integrated hydrodynamic impulse agreed well with those of
rounding fluid domain. Thus, the number of grid cells was re- similar studies, where we compared computations with model test
duced to about 700,000. Again, about 4000 time steps with the measurements 关10兴.
same time step size were computed, corresponding to about six As a further comparison, Fig. 9 presents time histories of com-
wave periods. puted and measured pressures acting in the stern region of a large
For wave 3, the volume grid also consisted of 700,000 grid containership at zero speed in regular following waves having a
cells, and because of symmetry 共head wave conditions兲 we mod- height of 19.6 m and a period of 16.0 s 关10兴.
eled only the port side of the fluid domain. Regions of refined and Although computed pressure peaks varied, experience showed
stretched cells were adjusted to reflect head wave conditions. that computations and measurements yielded similar integrated
Again, about 4000 time steps with the same time step size were
computed, corresponding to about six wave periods.
Figure 5 shows comparative time histories 共t is time兲 of heave
共at the ship’s center of gravity兲 and pitch motions and accelera-
tions computed with the panel code 共thin lines兲 and the RANS
solver 共thick lines兲 for the LNG carrier under wave 1 conditions.
Figure 6 displays the time history of the corresponding 共RANS
computed兲 normal relative velocity acting at the center of the
critical area referred to in Fig. 3.

Table 2 Selected design waves

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3

Wave amplitude 共m兲 14.2 14.2 12.2

Wave period 共s兲 13.5 13.5 12.5
Wave encounter angle 共deg兲 0 15 180
Fig. 4 Volume grid for wave 2

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2009, Vol. 131 / 031103-3

Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 5 Time histories of heave and pitch motions „upper graph… and accel-
erations „lower graph…

Fig. 6 Time history of normal relative velocity

031103-4 / Vol. 131, AUGUST 2009 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 7 Time histories of computed slamming pressure in †kPa‡ Fig. 8 Impact peaks of hydrodynamic force
for wave 1 „highest values…, wave 2 „somewhat lower values…,
and wave 3 „lowest values…

Fig. 9 Time histories of computed and measured pressures in the stern

region of a large containership

Fig. 10 Computed pressure distribution for wave 2 occurring at time of peak slamming
pressure

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2009, Vol. 131 / 031103-5

Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 11 Time histories of vertical acceleration „highly oscillat-
ing curve… in †m / s2‡ and vertical force „other cuve… in †kN‡ at
stern „upper graph… and at bow „lower graph… for wave 1
Fig. 12 Frequency spectra of vertical acceleration at stern „left… and at bow „right… for wave 1
031103-6 / Vol. 131, AUGUST 2009
Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
pressure impulses. These impulse loads excite hull girder whip-
ping and they are independent of single peak pressures.
In the computations, stern slamming occurred only between the
two propeller axes. The pressure distribution shown in Fig. 10,
here for wave 2, is typical for the pressure distribution acting at a
time of the peak slamming pressure.
5 Whipping Analysis
Impact-related short-time loads excite ship hull structural vibra-
tions, known as whipping, in a wide range of frequencies. These
vibrations increase structural stresses above stress levels caused
by stillwater and wave-induced loads. Coupled CFD and CSD
analyses were performed, using the hydrodynamic loads obtained
by the RANS computations as transient loads acting on the FE
model of the ship structure. The FE model consisted of 263,000
elements and considered a total of 575,000 nodal degrees of free-
dom. The mass distribution of the light-ship weight was com-
pleted by adding masses of filled and partially filled tanks.
We performed transient FE computations for one wave encoun-
ter period and found that the excitation of the lowest fundamental
eigenmode contributed most to the additional stresses caused by
hull girder vibrations. Of interest were accelerations at the ship’s
bow and stern, longitudinal stresses at the ship’s midship section,
and torsional stresses at the one-quarter and three-quarter ship
stations.
We selected large amplitude waves with periods where the
probability of exciting whipping responses of the ship structure
was relatively high. These waves caused not only maximum slam-
ming pressures, but also high shear forces, bending moments, and,
for wave 2, torsional moments acting on the ship‘s stern section.
Slamming loads obtained from RANS computations were con-
verted to nodal forces for the FE model. Two-dimensional Lewis
form hydrodynamic masses were distributed to appropriate shell
nodes. A total hydrodynamic mass of 19,359 t resulted in the
transverse direction and 199,024 t in the vertical direction.
For wave 1, the simulated time ranged from 22.6 s to 36.1 s.
Results for wave 1 are presented in Figs. 11–16. Figure 11 shows
time histories of vertical accelerations 共av兲 at the ship’s stern and
at the ship’s bow. For convenience, the vertical slamming force
共Fz兲 is also plotted. Although the influence of slamming on the
acceleration at the bow is significant, it is less than at the stern.
High frequency vibrations were not observed at the bow. The
Fourier decomposition of vertical accelerations for both locations,
shown in Fig. 12, indicates the dominance of the two vibration
modes of 0.79 Hz and 3.59 Hz at the stern. The second peak at
3.59 Hz almost vanishes at the bow. In Fig. 13 effects of the
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 13 Hull girder modes at eigenfrequencies of 0.79 Hz „upper graph… and 3.59 Hz
„lower graph… for wave 1

fundamental vibratory hull girder modes with eigenfrequencies of
0.79 Hz and 3.59 Hz are seen to be more pronounced in the ship’s
stern region. Superposition of ship motion induced vertical accel-
erations and slamming-induced accelerations, shown in Fig. 14,
depicts the influence of the dynamic contribution to total accelera-
tions.
Computed time histories of midship longitudinal stresses in the
hull girder, plotted in Fig. 15, consist of the quasistatic wave-
induced bending stress, the dynamic slamming-induced vibratory
stresses, and the total longitudinal stress. The maximum value of
the dynamic slamming stress is seen to be about 22% of the maxi-
mum value of the quasistatic bending stress. The slamming event
occurred at the time when the hull girder stress level due to wave
bending was low, as seen in Fig. 16 共upper graph兲. Therefore, the
maximum total longitudinal stress turned out to be only slightly
larger than the maximum quasistatic longitudinal stress. The lower
graph of Fig. 16 shows the hull at the moment of maximum lon-
gitudinal stresses in the hull girder.
For wave 2, the simulated time ranged from 61.5 s to 75.0 s.
Frequency spectra of computed vertical accelerations also re-
vealed three- and four-node eigenmodes of vertical hull bending at
1.41 Hz and 1.81 Hz, respectively. Our results indicate that no
torsional or other asymmetric eigenmodes were excited although
wave 2 共wave encounter angle of 15 deg兲 caused a relatively small
torsional moment to act at the ship’s stern. Computed time series
of vertical accelerations in Fig. 17 show a relatively larger influ-

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2009, Vol. 131 / 031103-7

Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 14 Time histories of elastic „highly oscillating curve…, rigid body „thicker curve…, and superimposed
„total… vertical acceleration „curve oscillating about the thicker curve… in †m / s2‡ at stern „left… and at bow
„right… for wave 1

ence than for wave 1 of the slamming-induced dynamic contribu-
tion. The corresponding stress analysis yielded longitudinal hull
girder stresses. The maximum slamming-induced dynamic stress
was about 23% of the maximum quasistatic wave bending stress.
Similar to the wave 1 case, the slamming event occurred at the
instant of time when the total hull girder bending stress was al-
most zero.
For wave 2, we evaluated shear stresses at three stations on one
side of the ship. Similar to longitudinal stresses, maximum
slamming-induced 共dynamic兲 shear stresses did not occur at times
of maximum quasistatic wave-induced shear stresses. Neverthe-
less, dynamic effects led to increased total shear stresses of up to
25% at the ship’s quarter stations.
For wave 3, slamming pressures were not found to be critical
共see Fig. 7兲 and their effects, therefore, were not separately inves-
tigated.
6 Discussion and Concluding Remarks
To assess the relevance of slamming in the ship’s stern region,
we assumed that the relative velocity between the ship’s hull and
the water surface was the governing criterion to identify critical
slamming situations. The relative angle between the water surface
and the ship’s hull was an important parameter that was consid-
ered by looking at the velocity component normal to the hull
surface.
For this LNG carrier, we relied on one-way coupling to analyze
hull girder whipping in waves because the influence of structural
deformation on hydrodynamic load predictions is believed to be
small. However, future investigations based on two-way coupling
will have to verify this assumption.
For waves 1 and 2, computed hydrodynamic slamming pres-
sures were characterized by pronounced peaks lasting about 0.5 s.

Fig. 15 Time histories of longitudinal midship quasi-static wave bending

stress „unidentified curve…, slamming stress „curve identified by 22593
kN/ m2…, and superimposed „total… stress „curve identified by −105939
kN/ m2… in †kN/ m2‡ for wave 1

031103-8 / Vol. 131, AUGUST 2009 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 16 Longitudinal stress distribution in kn/ m2 at time of maximum midship dynamic
stress amplification „upper graph… for wave 1

Fig. 17 Elastic „highly oscillating curve…, rigid body „thicker curve…, and superposed „total… vertical
acceleration „curve oscillating about the thicker curve… in †m / s2‡ at stern „left… and at bow „right… for
wave 2

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2009, Vol. 131 / 031103-9

Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 For wave 3, although the pressure time history was qualitatively
similar, its pressure peak value was only about 25% of the peak
values from waves 1 and 2. Shape and duration of these pressure
traces agreed favorably with full scale measurements carried out
on other ships, indicating the plausibility of our numerical predic-
tions.
The investigated regular design waves were chosen to cause
stern slamming, not high hull girder loads. For the three cases
investigated, the quasistatic hull girder stress analysis demon-
strated that longitudinal and shear stresses caused by wave bend-
ing were uncritical. The hull girder whipping analysis showed that
dynamic stress amplifications of up to 25% occurred. This dem-
onstrated the necessity to consider dynamic amplifications of the
structural response due to hydrodynamic impact loads. Further
investigations are required to quantify the impact of whipping on
structural scantlings.
References
关1兴 Papanikolaou, A. D., and Schellin, T. E., 1991, “A Three-Dimensional Panel
Method for Motions and Loads of Ships With Forward Speed,” J. Ship Tech-
nology Research, 39共4兲, pp. 147–156.
031103-10 / Vol. 131, AUGUST 2009
Downloaded 21 Sep 2009 to 85.177.148.164. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
View publication stats
关2兴 IACS, 2001, Standard Wave Data Recommendation No. 34, International As-
sociation of Classification Societies Ltd., London.
关3兴 El Moctar, O., Brehm, A., and Schellin, T. E., 2004, “Prediction of Slamming
Loads for Ship Structural Design Using Potential Flow and RANSE Codes,”
Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St. John’s,
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, Vol. 4, pp. 116–129.
关4兴 Germanischer Lloyd, 2007, Rules for Classification and Construction, I – Ship
Technology, Part 1 – Sea-Going Ships, Chapter 1 – Hull Structures, Hamburg.
关5兴 El Moctar, O., Schellin, T. E., and Priebe, T., 2006, “CFD and FE Methods to
Predict Wave Loads and Ship Structural Response,” Proceedings of the 26th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome.
关6兴 Star-CD, 2002, COMET User Manual 2.0, CD-Adapco, Nürnberg.
关7兴 Müller, G., and Groth, C., 2002, Practical Application of FEM Code ANSYS,
Vol. 1, 7th ed., Expert, Renningen, Germany.
关8兴 Schellin, T. E., and el Moctar, O., 2007, “Numerical Prediction of Impact-
Related Wave Loads on Ships,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 129共1兲,
pp. 39–47.
关9兴 El Moctar, O., Brunswig, J., Brehm, A., and Schellin, T. E., 2005, “Computa-
tion of Ship Motions in Waves and Slamming Loads for Fast Ships Using
RANS,” Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Fast Sea Trans-
portation, St. Petersburg, Russia.
关10兴 Oberhagemann, J., el Moctar, O., and Schellin, T. E., 2008, “Fluid-Structure
Coupling to Assess Whipping Effects on Global Loads of a Large Container-
ship,” Proceedings of the 27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul,
South Korea.
Transactions of the ASME