Chapter 4

Torsional Strength

Following Chap. 2 “Longitudinal Strength of Hull Girder” and Chap. 3 “Transverse

Strength of Ship”, in this chapter torsional strength is explained referring the actual
damages.
A ship, which has smaller large openings in its upper deck like a tanker, has
enough torsional strength, and no damage caused by torsion has been reported. A
bulk carrier and a container ship have large openings in the upper deck and a hull
structure designer has to pay attention to the torsional strength.
As in the case of buckling, the torsional strength can be understood easily and
clearly by means of a paper model. In Photo 4.1 and 4.2, two paper models are
shown. One is with a slit throughout the upper deck in a longitudinal direction,
which has very low torsional rigidity, as shown in Photo 4.1. And the other is with
large openings in the upper deck which shows tension and compression at the hatch
corners as shown in Photo 4.2. Actually damage such as buckling and cracking at
the hatch corner are caused by torsion as explained in the following sections.

Photo 4.1

M. Mano et al., Design of Ship Hull Structures, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-88445-3 22, 417

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
418 4 Torsional Strength

Photo 4.2

4.1 Structural Damage Due to Torsion (Example No. 1)

A 750 TEU container vessel (175.0 × 25.2 × 15.3 × 9.724 m, 28,000 HP) was sailing
in the north pacific ocean from Oakland in North America to Kobe in Japan in the
winter season, when she suffered heavy weather damage in the area of the bow
structure. The damage was cracks in the starboard shell plate and buckling in the
region of the upper deck, forecastle deck and shell plating on the port and starboard
side. After investigations, the reason for the damage was concluded to be that the
bow structure was twisted counter-clockwise around the longitudinal axis of ship
due to a large impact wave load on the large bow flare.
Figure 4.1.1 shows the port side shell plate where buckling occurred. The buck-
ling was induced by a shearing force, judging from the fact that the direction of
buckling is not straight upwards but inclined aft-wards. Accordingly the damage

Fig. 4.1.1 Buckling of port

side shell plating
4.1 Structural Damage Due to Torsion (Example No. 1) 419

Fig. 4.1.2 Deformation of

FR.154 Cross Section

was caused not by an upward force due to a wave impact load but by a counter-
clockwise torsional moment around the longitudinal axis which was induced by a
wave impact load acting on the starboard bow flare.
Figure 4.1.2 shows the deformed shape of the bow structure by FEM analysis at
frame 154, in the forward-looking direction. The result shows that the cross section
was twisted counter-clockwise due to the wave impact load acting on the starboard
bow flare.
Figure 4.1.3 illustrates the buckling of the forecastle deck plate of the subject ves-
sel. A counter-clockwise torsional moment resulted in the buckling of the port side
fore corner of the hatch opening and the starboard aft. We have to pay attention that
the buckling of the forecastle deck might have been induced not only by torsional
moments but also by horizontal bending moments which bent the bow structure in
the port direction due to a starboard side wave impact load.

Fig. 4.1.3 Buckling of

forecastle deck plating
420 4 Torsional Strength

4.2 Structural Damage Due to Torsion (Example No. 2)

When a fully-loaded bulk carrier of 250,000 DWT, with ore cargo was sailing from
Brazil to Korea via the Cape of Good Hope, she encountered rough seas in the Indian
Ocean and she suffered structural damage to the deck area between hatch openings.
According to the log data, the wind was force 8 grade on the Beaufort scale and the
significant wave height was 7 m. The ship’s speed was 7–8 knots and she proceeded
with a rolling motion of 12–15◦ . The waves and winds were coming from ahead at
65◦ to starboard. Such heavy weather continued for 7 days and after the bad weather
the above damage was found [18].
It happened in the return voyage of her maiden voyage and the wind class was
around 3 Beaufort everyday during the maiden voyage except for the damage pe-
riod. The distribution of damage is shown in Figure 4.2.1. There is no damage fore
and aft of the No.6 hold, because No.6 is an empty hold and because the deck plate
thickness fore and aft of the No.6 hold is thicker than that at the other holds. Fig-
ure 4.2.2 shows the scantlings of the deck plates where buckling occurred. Buckling
took place in the transition area of 13–25 mm thick plate. From the distribution of
buckling, it was deduced that the damage was caused by a torsional moment which
created a clockwise twisting at the bow and a counter-clockwise twisting at stern.
This deduction can be justified by the fact that the vessel encountered the winds and
waves from 65◦ starboard ahead, and such winds and waves generate a torsional
moment of a clockwise twisting at the bow and a counter-clockwise twisting at the
stern.
This structural damage was investigated in detail and stress measurements on the
vessel were carried out. Based on the analysis, the reinforcement of the deck struc-
ture was performed as shown in Figure 4.2.3 and the following 4 recommendations
were made:
1) Since a bulk carrier is thought to have sufficient torsional strength, stress due to
torsional deformation of the ship had been neglected. However, in cases where
she carries ore in holds and in cases where large hatch openings whose breadth
exceeds 50% of ship breadth are provided, special reinforcement is to be consid-
ered for deck structures against torsional deformation of the ship.
2) In investigating the strength of the deck structure between the hatches, additional
consideration is needed where the deck structure is subjected to bending due to a
lateral load in the transverse bulkhead.

Fig. 4.2.1 Buckling of deck plating between hatchs of 25,000 DWT bulk carrier
4.2 Structural Damage Due to Torsion (Example No. 2) 421

Fig. 4.2.2 Scantling of deck

plating of between hatches

Fig. 4.2.3 Reinforcement for buckled deck plating between hatches

3) The number of transverse bulkheads, that is the number of cargo holds, is to be

carefully investigated, because this directly affects the compressive strength of
the deck between hatches as well as the torsional strength of the ship.
4) From the view point of the strength of the deck between hatches, homogeneous
loading of ore cargo in holds is to be avoided. In spite of this, alternate loading
of ore is not preferable because it induces high stress in the double bottom.