SNAME Transactions, Vol. 96, 1988, pp.

221-246

WPB-1307 at flank speed in calm seas

Structural Analysis of the U.S. Coast Guard

Island Class Patrol Boat
Edward S. Purcell, 1 Member, Stephen J. Allen, 1 Member, and Richard T. Walker, 1 Visitor

A structural analysis of the forward bottom plating of the Island Class patrol boat was performed
using a variety of techniques, including traditional calculations, finite-element modeling, reliability
analysis, tank testing, field testing, and pressure calculations. A test boat was driven at high speeds
and sea states, causing slamming and some dishing of the plating. Strain gages were used to
record the deformation, and accelerations were also recorded. These are compared with
accelerations and pressures measured in the towing tank. Measurements of the dished plating
were used to calculate an estimated pressure that would produce such a deformation. Comparisons
of model pressures and accelerations with field measured stresses and accelerations proved to
be quite difficult to make, due to the differences in data processing techniques. Recommendations
are made for structural improvements to the vessel, including plating thickness increases and
intercostal stiffening.

IN SUPPORT of the Vice President's D r u g Interdiction
Program, the U. S. Coast Guard initiated the construction
of 16 Island Class patrol boats in 1985 for use in offshore
patrol work. T h e missions of this craft, which is a devel-
o p m e n t of the existing Vosper-Thornycroft 33-m (110 ft)
design, are law e n f o r c e m e n t , surveillance, boardings and,
1 Ocean Engineering Branch, United States Coast Guard Re-
search and Development Center, Groton, Connecticut.
The views expressed herein are the opinions of the authors and
not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the
U.S. Coast Guard.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N.Y., November
9-12, 1988, of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MARINE
ENGINEERS.
221
w h e n necessary, search and rescue. Many of these craft
o p er at e in the harsh Gulf Stream e n v i r o n m e n t off the
nation's southeast coast, w h e r e drug traffic into the U n i t e d
States is most prevalent. Because of this severe operating
e n v i r o n m e n t , possible structural problems w e r e antici-
p at ed by the U.S. Coast Guard if the vessel w e r e d r i v e n
too hard in higher sea states. Thus, the i n t e n d e d service
of these n e w craft r e q u i r e d an analysis of the effects of
speed and sea state upon the hull structure.
Background
P r o c u r e m e n t of the Island Class Patrol Boat was initiated
in 1982 and is detailed by Latas [1]. 2 Th e existing Vosper-
2 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Thornycroft 33-m patrol boat, which had seen extensive
service in several navies, was chosen as the p a r e n t erai:t.
Vessel characteristics of the Island Class WPB are listed
in Table 1, and Fig. 1 shows its profile view. In these, the
m a x i m u m speed and range have b e e n intentionally omit-
ted. Since this was an existing design, the design loads and
structural strength were u n k n o w n to the Coast Guard. In
order to ensure reliable hull integrity over the 15-year
specified lifetime, a structural analysis p r o g r a m was un-
dertaken.
The structural analysis program consisted of the follow-
ing elements:
• F i n i t e - e l e m e n t model (FEM) of the hull shell plating
and associated structure, developed by U.S. Naval
U n d e r w a t e r Systems C e n t e r (NUSC) [2].
• Structural calculations by traditional methods, per-
formed by U. S. Naval C o m b a t a n t Craft E n g i n e e r i n g
Station [3].
• Towing tank testing and analysis using a ~ scale model,
conducted by the Davidson Laboratory of Stevens
Institute of Technology [4].
• Full-scale testing of Island Class patrol boat, con-
ducted by USCG R&D C e n t e r [5].
• Structural reliability analysis of a selected plating
panel [6].
• Review of all these efforts, with integi'ation of con-
clusions and recommendations.
The finite-element model analysis
A NASTRAN (National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration Structural Analysis) finite-element model (FEM)
of the complete shell plating was used to conduct struc-
tural analyses of the WPB subjected to h y d r o d y n a m i c plan-
ing loads, and is discussed in [2]. The FEM, which contains
over 5,000 elements, included all hull plating, five struc-
tural bulkheads, longitudinal and transverse stiffeners, and
a coarse representation of the superstructure. Figure 2
shows a schematic of the plating elements used in the
FEM. The i n t e n t of this analysis was to identify areas of
the bottom structure which might exceed yield strength
Fig. 1 Profile view of Island Class patrol boat
222 USGG Island Class Patrol Boat
Table 1 Vessel characteristlcsDIsland Class patrol boat
Length overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 ft-0 in.
Length between perpendiculars . . . . . . . 104 ft-0½ in.
Beam, molded at deck amidships . . . . . . 21 ft-1 in.
Depth, molded at deck amidships . . . . . . 10 ft-ll¼ in.
Drag in 104 ft-~ in. LBP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ft-0 in.
Draft, mean to design water line . . . . . . 6 ft-5¼ in.
Hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . steel
Superstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aluminum
Framing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . longitudinal
Design displacement
(7 ft-3 in. baseline draft) . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.12 long tons
Displacement, light ship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117.3 long tons
Complement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Provisions for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 days
Fresh water (100%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1760 gal
Fuel oil (95%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 382 gal
Main engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . two Paxman Valenta 16
RP200M V type; 3000
bhp at 1500 rpm {max)
Shaft horsepower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2910 shp @ 802 rpm
(max)
Propellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . two 49.6-in. dia, 61-in.
pitch (0.7R), 5-bladed,
skewed
Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . two Caterpillar 3304T, 99
kW
Maximum sustained cruising speed . . . . 26.0 knots (at half load)
as a result of operation at speed in severe sea conditions.
Additionally, results from this analysis could also provide
guidance during later full-scale testing for selection of bot-
tom panels i n s t r u m e n t e d with strain gages and acceler-
ometers. If additional structural analyses were required,
the FEM could focus on detailed areas. Using a fine mesh
in these detail areas would provide more detailed analysis
of specific geometries. Because the occurrence of yielding
in bottom plating or other hull structures was initially
considered a "failure," there was no n e e d to employ a
n o n l i n e a r (beyond yield) analysis. NASTRAN, as described
by Butler and Michel [7], was selected as the most exten-
sively used and d o c u m e n t e d FEM program for linear anal-
ysis.
 IHUUHJiUJJJJJJJlJJJJJJMJJJJJJJJiilJJIlUtlDaH

Fig. 2 Finite-element model of all hull platings, including transom [2]

Input to the FEM consisted of machinery and super-
structure loads, tankage loads, and hull pressure loads as
shown in Fig. 3. Machinery, superstructure and tankage
loads were developed from design drawings and required
only straightforward calculations of foundation loads, or
distributed loads in the case of tankage. However, the
selection of the bottom pressure loading requires some
explanation.
At the time of the FEM analysis, little information was
available as to the bottom pressure load distribution, that
is, its magnitude and variation with time and location. It
was intended that model testing conducted at the Dav-
idson Laboratory of Stevens Institute of Technology would
provide some additional information. But to exercise the
NASTRAN FEM, an initial static load distribution whose
effect upon the structure was equivalent to that of the
dynamic loading was needed. After a review of available
literature, a design method for development of this equiv-
alent static load distribution presented by Heller and Jas-
per [8] in 1960 was utilized. In this method an equivalent
static load distribution is developed from knowledge of
the heave acceleration at the center of gravity, vessel dis-
placement, waterline length, deadrise angle, and beam.
The equivalent static load formulation of Heller-Jasper
provides for both a longitudinal and transverse hull pres-
sure distribution. A discussion of the Heller-Jasper method
as well as modifications by later investigators is provided
by Silvia [9].
Other than the Heller-Jasper pressure distribution and
later work by Allen and Jones [10], there is little guidance
as to what the exact pressure distribution should be. Data
used by Heller-Jasper and later investigators had been
obtained from hard-chine planing craft. One problem with
using the Heller-Jasper method for the Island Class boat
is the fact that it has a rounded bilge and may be consid-
ered as a semi-displacement craft. One would expect the
pressure distributions between hard-chine and round-bilge
planing craft to be different. Nevertheless, it was consid-
ered that the Heller-Jasper distribution provided a starting
point for our analysis and subsequent model testing would
allow its refinement.
The actual pressure distribution used in the NASTRAN
FEM is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 from HelleroJasper. Design
pressure at a location on the vessel bottom is obtained
from the product of the impact factor "'F'" from Fig. 4 and
the value of pressure from Fig. 5. Thus, the transverse and
longitudinal distributions of pressure are accounted for.
Initially, the value of the peak pressure Po was set equal
to 15 psi. Since the analysis was linear, stress values ob-
tained could be factored up or down depending upon the
final value of Po.
The resulting stress and displacement data from the
above analysis were post-processed to provide graphic rep-
resentation of the NASTRAN output. Stress output is pre-
sented using the von Mises criterion, allowing comparison
of output with tensile stress data. Details of the yon Mises

SUPERSTRUCTURE
LOADS

OF HULL PLATE LOADS

AND STIFFENERS

\
BUOYANCY LOAD
ON EACH ~ETTED
PLANING LOAD NODE
AS PER HELLER
JASPER

Fig. 3 Schematic representation of loads applied to WPB hull [2]

USCG Island Class Patrol Boat 223

 1.0
N met. Based u p o n these results, the areas of most concern,
,/
u_ .50
--~'.25
0
100 80 60 40 20 0 the Naval Sea C o m b a t Systems E n g i n e e r i n g Station in
Percent of Length from Bow
Fig. 4 Impact factor as a function of distance from bow [8]
z frames, longitudinals, deck, and b o t t o m plating. Structures
p :Po [l+cos 2n(-'~ - -~)]
2
/ .~° \i
°°o"
Fig. 5 Geometry and notation of transverse load distribution [8]
m e t h o d m a y be obtained in [11]. Again, the failure crite-
rion is p r e s u m e d to b e yielding of any structural plating
element.
T h e hull steel is m a n u f a c t u r e d is accordance with British
Specification BS4360, T y p e 43A, which has a nominal yield
strength of 40 000 psi. T h e deck and superstructure are
aluminum, but w e r e not r e p r e s e n t e d in the FEM. Bottom
plating r a n g e d from 7 to 10 l b / f t 2 and a nominal thickness
of 0.16 in. was used for calculations involving the 7-1b plate
in the forward portion of the b o t t o m plating.
Von Mises stress contours throughout the hull plating
are shown in Fig. 6. Stresses in excess of 29 000 psi are
found in plating e l e m e n t s n e a r frames 13 and 17 (lightest
shades), based upon the 15-psi p e a k pressure loading. Be-
cause several yon Mises stress values w e r e close to the
yield stress of the plating steel, the analysis was r e p e a t e d
using a 25-psi p e a k pressure for input, with all o t h e r values
unchanged. F o r the Po = 25 input, yield values are ex-
c e e d e d in several plating e l e m e n t s near frames 13 and 17.
T h e results of the F E M analysis indicated that t h e r e was
i n d e e d the possibility of e x c e e d i n g plating yield strength
d e p e n d i n g u p o n the value of the p e a k pressure Po. Al-
though the exact pressure distribution n e e d e d r e f i n e m e n t ,
the overall objective for conducting the F E M analysis was
Fig. 6 von Mises stress distribution on entire hull plating for Po = 25 psi and
Po = 1 5 p s i [ 2 ]
224 USCG Island Class Patrol B o a t
that is, b o t t o m plating b e t w e e n frames 13 and 17, w e r e
identified.
Traditional structural analysis
Because the F E M analysis would not be c o m p l e t e d in
time to support the p l a n n e d full-scale testing, an analysis
utilizing traditional design p r o c e d u r e s was c o n t r a c t e d with
Norfolk, Virginia. T h e objective of this analysis was to
p r o v i d e m o r e guidance for p l a c e m e n t of strain gages in
the u p c o m i n g full-scale testing. The scope of this analysis
was limited to major hull structural c o m p o n e n t s such as
internal to the hull such as engine mounts or other foun-
dations w e r e not e v a l u a t e d for structural adequacy.
The analysis was divided among t h r e e categories. In the
first category, b o t t o m structure was analyzed for a d e q u a t e
thickness (plating), and a d e q u a t e section modulus (longi-
tudinals). In the second category, hull side structures (plat-
ing and longitudinals) w e r e also e x a m i n e d for a d e q u a t e
thickness and section modulus. A n d in the last analysis
category, the c o m b i n e d hull girder, longitudinal f r a m i n g
and plating b e n d i n g stresses w e r e c o m p u t e d .
B o t t o m structure
H y d r o d y n a m i c b o t t o m pressures w e r e d e v e l o p e d from
the same design m e t h o d of Heller-Jasper used in the F E M
analysis. H o w e v e r , in the F E M analysis, the peak design
pressure was assumed r a t h e r than calculated. Only the
distributions of longitudinal and transverse pressure pre-
sented by Heller-Jasper had b e e n used. In the traditional
analysis, the actual value of pressure on a given hull panel
was calculated based upon an equation originally pre-
s e n t e d by Heller-Jasper [8] and later discussed by Silvia [9]
to take a d v a n t a g e of the results of m o r e r e c e n t investi-
gations.
In o r d e r to develop a pressure distribution using the
modified Heller-Jasper m e t h o d , one must first calculate
the accelerations at the vessel's c e n t e r of gravity (CG).
H o g g a r d and Jones [12] r e v i e w e d several m e t h o d s for the
p r e d i c t i o n of vessel accelerations. In their review, an equa-
tion for the average of the one-tenth highest accelerations
at the CG was d e v e l o p e d from regression analysis of ex-
isting planing craft data. At the CG:
N x10C G = 7.0(H~lBpx)(1
~
+ r12) 1 (FNv)I(Lv/B vx )~2~
where
N i C G = a v e r a g e of ~ highest accelerations at CG, g
10
HI = significant wave height, ft
B,, = m a x i m u m chine b e a m , ft
 r = smooth-water r u n n i n g trim, deg
FNv = volumetric Froude n u m b e r = V~ [gV½]}
V= speed, knots
g = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 f t / s e c 2)
V= displaced volume, ft 3
L, = projected chine length, ft
To estimate NL CG u n d e r severe operating conditions,
]'0
a significant wave height of 10 ft and a speed of 24 knots
were assumed. W h e n these values, along with ships data
listed in Table 1, are e n t e r e d into the above equation, an
acceleration value of 0.91 g (in excess of gravity) will result.
Based u p o n the above value of N ± C G "~ 1.0 g, hydro-
d y n a m i c p l a n i n g pressures were the~ developed using the
m e t h o d of Heller-Jasper [8] as discussed by Silvia [9]. In
Silvia's paper the following formula, which has b e e n de-
rived from Heller-Jasper, is presented for the design pres-
sure for a bottom plating panel:
Po = f [ ( A , c o s f i ) / ( 1 4 . 5 5 L B x ) ] ( 1 + N=) + Pj,
design panel to the Spencer reference area must be found.
The Spencer reference area is found from
An = (25 A r ) / d (ft 2)
where Ar is the displacement in long tons (LT) and d is
draft in feet.
For the Island Class vessel, AR = [(25) (165.12)] / 6.48 =
637 ft 2. For a typical panel design area of 23 by 12 in., A
= 1.92 ft 2. Thus, A / A n = 0.003. F r o m Fig. 7 one finds
t h a t f = 0.7 for the ratio A / A R = 0.003. Using this value
o f f , the design pressure is then
Po = (23.9) (0.7) + 2.9 = 19.6 psi (135.1 kPa)
To estimate the m i n i m u m plating thickness r e q u i r e d for
the above panel, it is assumed that the plate is subjected
to a uniform pressure load of Po = 19.6 psi. For the con-
servative assumption that all edges are fixed, the m a x i m u m
stress may readily be found using a handbook formula.
Using Case 8 from Roark [13] the m a x i m u m stress is

where max = ( B , q b 2 ) / t ~
Po = bottom design pressure, psi where
f = load distribution factor
q = loading, psi
fl = deadrise angle, deg
h, = displacement, lb b = shorter plate dimension, in.
L = length on design waterline, ft t = plate thickness, in.
fl~ = handbook factor d e p e n d i n g upon plate aspect
Bx = m a x i m u m chine beam, ft
N, = heave acceleration at CG, g For the design plate 23 by 12 in., a = 23 in., b = 12
Ph = hydrostatic pressure, psi in., a / b = 1.92, and/3~ = 0.497 using the table for Case
Using fl = 12 deg and a value of N.. = 1 from the 8 in Roark. With a factor of safety = 1.1 r e c o m m e n d e d
Hoggard-Jones acceleration calculation for H~ = 10 ft and by Heller-Jasper, the m i n i m u m thickness required for the
bottom plating to resist yielding at 40 000 psi is
V = 24 knots, the above equation predicts a design pres-
sure Po = 2 3 . 9 f + 2.89 psi. The assumption is made that tR = [(1.1 × 0.497 × 19.6 × 122)/40000]-~
the Hoggard-Jones N1 CG value may replace the N~ heave tR = 0.197 in. (5.0 ram)
acceleration in the preceding equation.
The load distribution factor, f, takes into account the Thus the predicted hydrodynamic bottom pressure will
panel size and location, and is obtained from the Allen- result in stresses in excess of yield strength for a plate
Jones pressure reduction curve shown in Fig. 7. Before t h i n n e r than 0.197 in. Using the above method, all bottom
this curve can be used, the ratio of the actual area of the plating panels were reviewed. The results showed that,

1.00

I IIIII
\ IIIII
0.80 \
\ IIIII
o
0.60
IIIII
IIIII III
LI.
g
-.=

0.40
IIIII III
o,
III
0.20
III
IIIII ~" ~' ~ , . ~ ~ F; = 0.14

0 i IIIII
.001 .005 .01 .05 0.1 0.5 1.0
NAR
Fig. 7 Load distribution factor [9]

USCG Island Class Patrol Boat 225

based u p o n plating yield s t r e n g t h alone and assuming no
allowance for corrosion or r e d u c t i o n in thickness from
sandblasting, m a n y b o t t o m plating panels w e r e too thin.
As a check on the above calculation, the A m e r i c a n Bu-
reau of Shipping (ABS) criterion was used [14]. The ABS
equation for the m i n i m u m b o t t o m shell plating thickness
is
t = Sd~/362 + 0.08
where
t = thickness of b o t t o m shell plating, in.
S = frame spacing, in.
d = draft, ft
F o r the Island Class WPB
t = 24 × 7.2½/362 + 0.08
t = 0.26 in. (6.6 mm)
Thus if the ABS criterion w e r e a p p l i e d to the Island
Class WPB, the r e q u i r e d thickness would be 0.26 in., which
is considerably g r e a t e r than the nominal thickness of the
actual 7-1b plating [0.16 in. (4.1 mm)].
Bottom longitudinals w e r e e x a m i n e d using a similar pro-
c e d u r e and w e r e found to be a d e q u a t e throughout. See
the Heller-Jasper p a p e r for sample calculations.
Longitudinal strength
L o n g i t u d i n a l strength is m e a s u r e d by c o m p u t i n g the
longitudinal b e n d i n g stress 0-~:
0"~ = M b / S M
w h e r e Mb is the longitudinal hull b e n d i n g m o m e n t (ft-lb)
and S M the m i n i m u m section modulus at midsection
(in.2-ft).
T h e longitudinal hull b e n d i n g m o m e n t was calculated
using the formula from Heller-Jasper:
Mb = [ ( W L ) / 1 9 2 0 ] ( 1 2 8 i j J g -- 178 g c c / g -- 50)
where
gB = vertical acceleration at bow, f t / s e c 2
~)cc = vertical acceleration at CG, f t / s e c 2
W = displacement, lb
L = w a t e r l i n e length, ft
If the above accelerations are assumed to be the a v e r a g e
of the o n e - t e n t h highest, t h e n the N ± C G value of 1 g
10
previously calculated for the condition with a 10-ft signif-
icant wave height and 24 knots m a y b e used. A similar
calculation m a y also be d o n e for the acceleration at the
bow, as shown by Silvia [9], to yield the value N x B O W =
3.4 g. Thus 10
Mb = [(369869)(104)/1920](128 × 3.4 -- 178 -- 50)
Mb = 4 151 163 lb-ft
T h e calculation of the section modulus at midsection
follows the m e t h o d outlined in any standard naval archi-
t e c t u r e textbook. T h e m i n i m u m value of the section mod-
ulus was found to b e about the keel and is equal to 417
in.2-ft, which exceeds the m i n i m u m section modulus re-
q u i r e d by ABS standards listed in [14]. T h e resulting
p r i m a r y stress is then
o'1 = 4 151 1 6 3 / 4 1 7 = 9955 psi
226 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat
Secondary stress, 0" 2
Secondary stress 0"2 results from the b e n d i n g of b o t t o m
longitudinals d u e to h y d r o d y n a m i c pressure. To calculate
the secondary stress, the m e t h o d of Heller-Jasper was fol-
lowed. Details of the p r o c e d u r e m a y be found in that
r e f e r e n c e and will not b e r e p e a t e d here. I n p u t to the
p r o c e d u r e included N ± C G , which again was assumed to
10
b e equal to 1.0. T h e resulting 0-2-value is found to be 1017
psi.
Tertiary stress, 0"3
T e r t i a r y stress arises from the b e n d i n g of the plating
itself b e t w e e n stiffeners. C o m p u t a t i o n of 0"3 p r o c e e d s in
a fashion similar to the m e t h o d for c o m p u t i n g m i n i m u m
plating thickness. Heller-Jasper provides the following for-
mula:
o'3 = 5.46 k p ( b / h ) 2
where
b = shorter of p a n e l dimensions, in.
p = plating design pressure, psi
h = plating thickness, in.
k = coefficient which d e p e n d s u p o n b o u n d a r y con-
ditions, aspect ratio, and point of stress mea-
surement
W h e n the above formula is used with the Island Class
data, the resulting value of o"3 is 27 687 psi.
Following the m e t h o d of superposition used in [8], the
t h r e e stresses are added, giving a total of 38 659 psi. F o r
the plating yield s t r e n g t h of 40 000 psi, this gives a factor
of safety of 1.0, which is less than the value of 1.1 rec-
o m m e n d e d by Heller-Jasper.
Conclusions from traditional analysis
Results from the traditional analysis show that the bot-
tom plating scantlings are marginal w h e n based u p o n yield
strength. T h e i n a d e q u a t e thickness of several b o t t o m plat-
ing panels also results in a high value for tertiary stress,
o'3. E x c e p t for the b o t t o m plating, all other hull structural
e l e m e n t s are a d e q u a t e to m e e t the p r e d i c t e d h y d r o d y -
namic loads. As expected, the conclusions r e a c h e d from
this analysis a g r e e d with the F E M results in pointing to
several plating e l e m e n t s which might t e n d to yield. These
plating e l e m e n t s b e c a m e the subject of full-scale testing
with strain gages d e s c r i b e d later in this paper.
Model tests
O n e of the major uncertainties in both the F E M and
traditional structural analyses was the m a g n i t u d e and dis-
tribution of the h y d r o d y n a m i c pressures, especially d u e to
slamming, which occur on the vessel's b o t t o m structure.
Both the F E M and traditional analyses have utilized the
m e t h o d of Heller-Jasper [8] and Allen-Jones [10] for bot-
t o m design pressure despite the fact that these m e t h o d s
w e r e d e v e l o p e d from h a r d chine planing craft data. T h e r e
is not m u c h b o t t o m pressure data for round-bilge craft
such as the Island Class patrol boat.
Bailey [15] c o n d u c t e d limited m o d e l tests on round-
bilged planing craft. F i g u r e 8 from [ 15] presents the results
of several tests in which the m a x i m u m pressures are 12
psi in the b o t t o m plating region 30 p e r c e n t aft of the
forward p e r p e n d i c u l a r for a s p e e d of 30 knots and in a
significant wave height of 4 ft.
 0.3 L .

Location of Pressure Measurements

14
Ship length - - 100 ft +/~
S~i;i~,t4~a91 tons ~ Position
121
Fig. 9 k-scale Island Class model showing pressure gage
10 locations [4]
,=.~ %

a c c e l e r o m e t e r readings, as well as heave, pitch and re-

t~
0 I I I
10 20 30
Speed in Knots
0 1.0 2~0 3.0
I I I I
t I
0.5 0.75
Fig. 8 Slamming pressures experienced by round bilge hull in
irregular head seas [15]
In o r d e r to b e t t e r define the m a g n i t u d e and distribution
of the b o t t o m pressure on the Island Class hull, and its
variation with vessel loading condition, speed, and sea
state, a series of m o d e l tests was commissioned at the
Davidson L a b o r a t o r y of Stevens Institute of Technology.
In these tests, a ~0th scale m o d e l of the Island Class patrol
boat in which several pressure gages had b e e n installed
was t o w e d u n d e r various loading, speed, and wave height
conditions. T h e following p a r a g r a p h s contain a discussion
of the m o d e l and instrumentation, test p r o c e d u r e , and
results. Additional details of these m o d e l tests are docu-
m e n t e d by Burtness [4].
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n o f model
T h e ~0th scale m o d e l with installed pressure gages is
shown in Fig. 9. Each gage had a d i a m e t e r of ~ in. and
was m o u n t e d flush with the b o t t o m of the model. Eight
gages w e r e installed along the 5-ft buttock line, as shown
in Fig. 10. In addition to these eight gages, an additional
" p a n e l gage" d e v e l o p e d by the Davidson L a b o r a t o r y was
installed b e t w e e n frames 14.5 and 15. This p a n e l gage
m e a s u r e d the i m p a c t pressures on a one by 2-ft p a n e l (full
scale), 1.48 ft from the keel on the port side.
In addition to the above pressure gages, a c c e l e r o m e t e r s
w e r e p l a c e d at the bow, CG, and stern area. Data collected
during tests included all pressure and p a n e l gage readings,
sistance.
Rough-water test conditions
Tests were p e r f o r m e d in Pierson-Moskowitz sea states
with significant wave heights of 6.0 and 10.0 ft. Loading
conditions of the m o d e l were both light (295 800 lb) and
heavy (361 500 lb). A m i n i m u m of 70 wave encounters
was necessary to get statistically meaningful results. Speed
r a n g e d from 12 to 36 knots.
Rough-water test results
I i Results of the above m o d e l tests are s u m m a r i z e d in Figs.
40 50 11-16. In Fig. 11, the average of the ~ highest acceleration
at the CG is p l o t t e d against s p e e d for the light- and heavy-
4.0 V/'~- load conditions. As expected, the acceleration values in-
I
I crease with s p e e d : For the condition of 24 knots and HI
1.0 FN
= 10 ft the N 1 C G = 0.6 g (heavy displacement).
10
Figures 12-15 show the longitudinal distributions of ex-
t r e m e pressure along the 5-ft buttock line for combinations
of load and wave height. The pressure distribution is seen
to be the m a x i m u m for the heavy-load condition with a
10-ft significant wave height as shown in Fig. 15. The p e a k
pressures r e c o r d e d occur at a distance 100 ft forward of
the transom, which is b e t w e e n stations 0 and 1 high up
on the bow flare. The pressures c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the plat-
ing b e t w e e n frames 14.5 and 15 are r e c o r d e d by gage 4,
76 ft forward of the transom. T h e range of ~0th highest
pressures r e c o r d e d h e r e is a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 to 5 psi for all
load and speed combinations shown.
F i g u r e 16 shows a graph of e x t r e m e pressures r e c o r d e d
by the panel gage. As can be seen from this figure, the
m a x i m u m pressure occurs for the condition of light load
and 10-ft significant wave height, with a peak value of 13.8
psi (95.1 kPa).
C o n c l u s i o n s from model tests
Tile 13.S-psi value of e x t r e m e pressure r e c o r d e d by the
panel gage agrees with that r e p o r t e d earlier by Bailey [15]
for the c o r r e s p o n d i n g location, that is, a p p r o x i m a t e l y one
third of the hull length aft, but it should be n o t e d that the
tests w e r e at different speeds and sea states. Also, this value
is lower than that p r e d i c t e d by using traditional design
p r o c e d u r e (19.6 psi). Note that this pressure was calculated
using N ~ C G , not e x t r e m e acceleration.
10
T h e Nt CG acceleration from the m o d e l tests corre-

USCG Island Class Patrol Boat 227

 ~--Knuckle
A c c e l e r e m e t e r 14 ~y--Sprey Chine
Aecelerometer Aecelerometer Aecelerometer ~ 5' Buttock Line
( A f t Berthlns- F 13 (o;) -1 12 ( B r l d s e ) Gages

12'WL Deck at side

iO'
S'
_~._ !
6' ?
4' ===::e==== R.
v
2'
Base- (
l i n e 10 9 8 3 \ 2 1 0
PROFILE Panel Gage

VESSEL PARTICULARs

Lensth O v e r a l l - l l O ' O "

LenBth B.P. 104'1/2"
14'WL~
S t a t i o n SpaelnE 10.4042' (nu( ¢1e [
Beam (max) 21 ' 3 / 4 " 12'
~.. /
Scale Ratio 1:20
--" Spl ay 7"_~
10: !
eI

6g
,,

2I

Baseline
8' 6' 4' 2' ~ 2' ,' 6' 8'
BODY PLAN

Fig. 10 Pressure gage locations on Island Class WPB model [4]

sponding to the condition of heavy load, H ~ = 10 ft, and
speed of 24 knots, is 0.60 g, which is less~than the value
0.91 g predicted by the Hoggard-Jones formula for the
same conditions. However, if the acceleration formula de-
veloped by Savitsky and Brown [16] is used, a value of
N~CG = 0.66 will result, which is in excellent agreement
with the model test results.
Based upon this limited series of model tests, a rough
longitudinal distribution of pressure over the bottom sur-
face of the Island Class hull has been presented. This dis-
tribution is limited, however, to extreme pressures along
the 5-ft buttock line. There were insufficient data to ac-
curately develop a transverse pressure distribution, due
to model physical constraints which prevented installation
of additional transverse gages.

3.0
Significant ]
Load wave height (ft)l
2.5 o - - Light 6 I
n=
n - - Light 10 I
2.0 " - - Heaw 6
• - - Heavy 10

o 1.5

z 1.0 -.-Light 10"

..--Heavy 10"
.--Light 6'
0.5- ~Heavy 6'

; lo 15 2'0 2s 30 35 ,o
Steed (kno=)
Fig. 11 CG acceleration versus speed for island Class WPB [4]

228 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat

 ii
I" 4- 18kt , i
O 24 kt /'
• h 30 kt ...../
i.. <: 36kt ] !,/I
.e ,x. / V
/
i
III
, ~.~. /
, ".-<..?" "\,,-4,~-.... /

t, 0t ~ 2'0 ~ 4-'0 ~ 6'0 ' 8'0

Distance from Transom, ft

Fig. 12 Longitudinal pressure distribution along 5-ft buttock line, light load, 6-ft
wave [4]

In the following section on reliability analysis, methods
are used to infer the full-scale pressure loading from the
full-scale stress data.
Full-scale testing
In addition to the various analytical methods employed,
full-scale testing was u n d e r t a k e n to establish a relationship
b e t w e e n hull stress and acceleration measurements•
Two series of tests were conducted. The first was a brief
test of the first boat of the class in March 1986 as described
in [5]. More extensive testing was conducted in March
1987 aboard the n i n t h boat of the class, in the waters off
Cape Henry, Virginia and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
Many sea conditions were e n c o u n t e r e d , from fiat calm to
a 10-ft significant wave height. A free-floating wave buoy
was deployed each day of the testing to collect data and
transmit the information via V H F back to the vessel, where
it was recorded on magnetic tape. Processing and analysis
of the data are reported in [17]. Preliminary calculations
and results from the finite-element model indicated that
the forward machinery c o m p a r t m e n t shell plating would
have high stress and it was therefore decided to place
strain gages on this plating and some adjacent longitudinal
framing. Accelerometers were placed in this region and
also near the center of gravity to d e t e r m i n e the levels of
acceleration associated with any high stress recordings.
The p l a c e m e n t of strain gages is d e n o t e d in Figs. 17 and
18.
Strain gage amplifiers and signal conditioners were se-
cured in the bilge area of the forward m a c h i n e r y space
and data were transmitted via shielded cable to a tape
recorder. Details of the i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n are contained in
reference [5]. Accelerometers were placed both at bulk-

1.3

[ ] 12 kt ,:'/
ii •t- 18 kt i,A
io O 24kt i/,;,,
h 30kt ~,},'/
•~. ~ i1~t
X 36 kt ~t
~ 8
$ 7
o. e;
E
~ 5 --:'> "" .. . . . . . x ,,%, / / " / /
w . ~_.~ ... ....~ ',...)'~;/'
,,' j
4-

2 ,~-7------7---~a~'~- , . . . i . i i

0 20 4>0 ~7;0 8C, I O0

Distance from Transom, ft

Fig. 13 Longitudinal pressure distribution along 5-ft buttock line, light load,
10-ft wave [4]

USCG Island Class Patrol Boat 229

 11
.4"

I0
[] 12 kt ,/"~1"
"1- 18kt ....,"' ,,',
]
O 24kt I ,''
A 30 kt ~ /" ,
"i 7 X 36 kt //' /'/ 7 ~ \~
t4
>------..//,;I////I,
I
13. ¢ / / / /
t
E
s a - - ~ 1-~--~-~:/- ~--" /
LU
2
1 I

,2
l
~ r i r I z I ~ i I
,J 20 4-0 £,0 ~;C, 1 O0

Distance from Transom, It

Fig. 14 Longitudinal pressure distribution along 5-It buttock line, heavy load,
6-ft wave [41

h e a d 13 (station 3) and near the c e n t e r of gravity. A port-
able a c c e l e r o m e t e r was also used to r e c o r d peak
accelerations at various locations. T h e CG a c c e l e r o m e t e r
was m o u n t e d on a stabilized platform whereas the accel-
e r o m e t e r at station 3 was fixed to b u l k h e a d 13. H o w e v e r ,
the pitch angles that w e r e r e c o r d e d at the CG did not
vary m o r e than + 5 deg, so t h e r e is no significant differ-
e n c e in the readings of the stabilized versus the fixed
a c c e l e r o m e t e r d u e to pitch angle. T h e r e w e r e higher cor-
r e s p o n d i n g values due to the distance forward of the CG,
and less noise in the signal from the a c c e l e r o m e t e r at the
CG. All tests w e r e r e c o r d e d with the active fin roll sta-
bilization system in use and it is e s t i m a t e d that, as a result,
roll angles during test runs w e r e less than - 5 deg.
In this discussion, accelerations at the c e n t e r of gr~ivity
will b e considered as those m e a s u r e d from an acceler-
o m e t e r r e a d i n g zero g at rest. T h e m a x i m u m acceleration
r e c o r d e d at the CG during h e a d sea slamming was 1.19
g, as shown in Fig. 19. Note the negative gravity experi-
e n c e d before the major slam and the p e r m a n e n t high
stress level following the slam, indicating that d e f o r m a t i o n
of the b o t t o m plating has occurred. The d e f o r m a t i o n (Fig.
20) is well b e y o n d construction tolerances and later in-
spection r e v e a l e d c h i p p e d paint and rusting a r o u n d the
p a n e l boundary.
T h e g r a p h of acceleration in Fig. 19 Was r e c o r d e d over
the last 30 sec of a five-minute test run. The a v e r a g e of
the ten m a x i m u m values from each of the 30-sec records
is 0.99 g. In all other heading, s p e e d and sea state com-
binations, the average accelerations w e r e less than this
value and stresses w e r e m u c h less, as n o t e d in the following
section. Several a t t e m p t s have b e e n m a d e to analyze these
d a t a with r e g a r d to N ~ C G , with varying results. T h e data
are v e r y sensitive to analog filtering; for instance, the max-
i m u m value of 1.19 g is r e d u c e d to 0.78 g w h e n filtered
to 5 Hz. T h e counting of peaks b e t w e e n zero crossings is
also v e r y sensitive to filtering and in turn affects the sta-
tistic N ~ C G to the point w h e r e it is v e r y difficult to corn-

I ,~ T

0 12kt ",'~i/
14-
-I- 18 kt , ,~ ,,,
1.3
O 24 kt ; ,' ',
12 i ] "
'~1,1)
X 36kt iI;l /~ '~k
9 i~ /
I,,"/ t II
k
I
O.
)/,/; .~ 1
.\ /,X.,, ,,'~, '~
I: ./---"-.~ .,",,"d .,' ..... 1
C
Ill :,,~_..___ ....._ ...~,.. '\~.... .,,/... ,. ,.. i~.
I,,i.I ,-.-, -~-~....~.._------~..y ~ :..".~;. / /
~-_ ,., .;;;.- _. . . . . . . ~... ..,, .. ,,. ,/ t'i
'l ,j
4-
, ~ - - - ~~___-SS~~__..~-.,.~.
?~._~$ - . . . . . . . .... ., . .__--~,j' /'/~
+_ ~ ~ o.... ~ .... t
G-~-'- ~ ~ , , ~ i i i i
.7:0 4- 0 ,S0 ~ 0 I 0 C,

Distance from Transom. It

Fig. 15 Longitudinal pressure distribution along 5-ft buttock line, heavy load,
10-ft wave [4]

230 USCG I s l a n d C l a s s P a t r o l Boat

 I~" i .. - ~ _ ~

I
7~ ..~z / ./
• ~I" / ~., //
t/i ill I'

L./ ~ i -\ /,

i
12 ' 't~
' -~'0 24- 28 32 3,3
Speed (knots)

1- Light Load H1/3 - 10

A Heavy Load H1/3 ,, 10
O Heavy Load Hl/3 = 6
[] Light Load Hl/3 - 6

Fig. 16 Panel gage extreme pressure [4]

Fin Stab. Sewage

1

D
t Fr 17 Fr 13
T
Rn Stab.

I-I

Deck
t

'U L
6L
7L

. t_. Longitudinal=;

Potable Water v T Potable Water

/ -Strain Gauge Locations
7 lb. Shell Plating t
(.16"nora.)
S e c ~ n at Frame 15

Fig. 17 Forward machinery compartment

USCG Island Class Patrol Boat 231


BHD 13
i!iiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiii 10"
9 8000 psi in the longitudinals (including the "stillwater'"
!i~iiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiii~!iii!i!iiii~ii
i !i i i i!i i!i i i i i!!!!i!!ii i!
i !i i i!i i i i i i i i i i !
!iiiW~ij~i!iiz!i
ilililili!Ta~!~iiiii!ili
;i~i;iii~i;ili~i~i!!!i!ili!i!ii!i!i!ii!i!il;
i i li[i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i2i !!iy 1
~i~}ii~i~;ii:i!i!ili!iiiiiiiii!i!i!iiiiiiii:iii
iiiii!:!i!!i!~i:ii:iiiiiiiii::il
~i;~is:ilisiiiii:isiiiisi;i;ilri:i:iri:i:i
i!:ri~:~::~ii~i:iii::iii:iii: 22
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.........
:~i i i i i!i i i!i!i~)iiTramldu¢~
i !i i i i ilili!i!i i
(in wayA~
F~D p a r e full-scale accelerations with those of the model. An
a t t e m p t is being m a d e at this t i m e by the Coast G u a r d
and the Navy to standardize the software used to process
full-scale acceleration data.
The strain gages w e r e zero-balanced at dockside before
I "2
6
ii] A~,. (CH4) each day of testing. The calculated stress due to hydrostatic
pressure was 6000 psi at the c e n t e r of the panel that
y i e l d e d during slamming. Generally, in all conditions
iii ~i
FR 131/2 w h e r e slamming did not occur, stresses w e r e less than
12000 psi at the c e n t e r of the plating panel and less than
== == stress). D u r i n g slamming, however, several stresses over
20000 psi w e r e r e c o r d e d at the c e n t e r of the plating panel,
FR 14
with occasional impulses over 60000 psi. Graphs of the
'i
stress before and after the major slam indicated that the
gage was o p e r a t i n g correctly. The d e f o r m a t i o n was mea-
sured using a dial m i c r o m e t e r after the boat was hauled;
FR 14112
the results are shown in Fig. 20.
ili Stress at the edge of the panel can theoretically be twice
28i as great as at the center, and a comparison of Gage 5 with
T i 27 the c e n t e r rosette indicates a factor of about 1.6 in this
FR 15
i~ case. Note that Gage 5 (Fig. 18) is within 1 in. (25.4 ram)
of the edge but not at the theoretical edge.
W h e n "stress" is m e n t i o n e d herein, it is the equivalent
uniaxial stress as d e v e l o p e d in the following m a n n e r :
FR 151/2 1. Voltages from each of the t h r e e e l e m e n t s of the strain
gage rosette w e r e r e c o r d e d on m a g n e t i c tape.
2. The t h r e e voltages were simultaneously digitized,
c o n v e r t e d to strains by calibration factor, and inserted into
FR 16 the following equation to calculate the m a x i m u m and min-
i m u m principal stresses, o', and O'q:
O'p,q

.rS E2 -L-1- -[ s+eT] e3 1 +---~1x/(E, - c3) 2 + (2E2 - el - c3) 2]

BHD 17 m m
GL CH 8 CH 12 where
, \ \ E = modulus of elasticity
Acc~(C.G.) ~ (C.G.)
v = Poisson's ratio
Fig. 18 Placement of strain gages E = strain

7
x 104 6 -
Note: Estimated 6000 psi at rest,
5" (not included here)
4-

,= 3-
L T h r o t t l e s cut back
2-
1.

0 ; , I
10 "13me (seconds) 20 30

Stress in Bottom Plating (von Mises) - - W P B 1309, 11 March 87, Head Seas, 24 kts, Sea State 4

; I

i-1 (at rest reference is at zero g)

i !
-2
10 Time (seconds) 20 30
Fig. 19 Acceleration at CG and stress in bottom plating

232 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat


FR. 14
W a t e r Tank
0.133"
FR. 14 112 gJ
i-
0.207" 0.232" 0.120"
W a t e r Tank 0.229" 0.308" 0.178"
0.141" 0.209" 0.115"
FR. 15
Fig. 20 Bottom plating deformation measurements
3. T h e m a x i m u m and m i n i m u m principal stresses w e r e
t h e n inserted into the von Mises [11 ] equation to p r o d u c e
the equivalent uniaxial stress
2
4. This stress was continuously p l o t t e d as a function of
t i m e to p r o d u c e graphs such as Fig. 19.
T h e von Mises criterion used above neglects shear and
assumes that the thin plating is subjected only to tensile
stresses.
As an e x a m p l e of the relatively low plating stress re-
c o r d e d in sea state 3 (7.0 ft significant wave height), the
stress values are a r r a n g e d in histographic form in Fig. 21.
Similarly, for sea state 4 (9.5 ft significant wave height),
see Fig. 22.
Single strain gages w e r e located on the longitudinals
n e a r the c e n t e r of the forward m a c h i n e r y c o m p a r t m e n t ,
as n o t e d in Fig. 18, Gages 27 and 30. Stress is directly
p r o p o r t i o n a l to strain in this case and a sample plot is
shown in Fig. 23. In general, stresses in the longitudinals
w e r e m u c h lower than plating stresses and within ac-
c e p t a b l e limits.
Stresses in the keel bar are also m u c h lower than plating
stresses as shown in Fig. 24. These stresses are directly
p r o p o r t i o n a l to strain as m e a s u r e d by a single gage (No.
28). T h e n e g a t i v e values indicate that the top of the keel
b a r is in compression and that the vessel is sagging slightly
USCG Island Class Patrol Boat
t FWD
FR. 14
tn
FR. 14 1/2
(NominalPlating"rrddme~m.0.16'3
FR. 15
while u n d e r w a y , since the gage was z e r o e d with the still-
w a t e r b e n d i n g m o m e n t and hydrostatic pressure already
applied.
Structural reliability analysis
R e f e r e n c e [6] contains the c o m p l e t e reliability analysis
for a section of the shell plating in the forward m a c h i n e r y
space, and the highlights of that study are p r e s e n t e d
herein. P r e l i m i n a r y calculations had identified this as an
area of high stress and h e n c e it was selected for reliability
analysis.
Load profile development
Rather than use theoretical loads, the plating stress his-
tory from the field testing was c o n v e r t e d to a probability
density function similar to Figs. 21 and 22. Curve-fitting
techniques w e r e used to d e t e r m i n e that these distributions
w e r e mostly log-normal. T h e sea state associated with each
probability distribution was c o n v e r t e d to wave e n c o u n t e r s
at that p r o b a b l e stress level. This loading profile was t h e n
a p p l i e d to an operational matrix consisting of eight com-
binations of s p e e d and sea state in the h e a d sea condition.
Using an anticipated 15-year life at 2000 hr of operation
p e r year, a composite loading profile for the selected plat-
ing panel was developed.
233
 20
19
I p"] Test Data - - WPB 1309
18 /{ 13 MAR 87 - - Cape Henry
17
16 ]/1 Sea State 3 (H1/3 = 7 ft)
Head Sees - - 2 9 kts
15 r~ r~ 5-minute test
14 [ / I r/~ 30,000 data points
8c 13 r.~r~ Von Mises equivalent stress
I/~ J"/~ from strain gauge rosette at center
12 F./J ~ of Pace,, FR 14 1/2- 15, L1 - L2
11
, A i,/] m Note: Estimated 6000 psi at rest,
O
10 (not included here)
E
o~ 9
#. 8-
7
6
5
4
3 I/
2 k
1
0 . . . . . . . *'7- . . , ,
13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Stress (hundreds of PSI)

Fig. 21 Histograph--distribution of plating stress--state 3

Structural resistance
All these calculations were performed using loads from
An analysis of the structural resistance to this loading nonslamming conditions, since it was already known that
was then performed and a limit state equation was de- severe slamming could produce plate deformation. It can
veloped. F r o m the solutions to this equation, a probability be seen, therefore, that even without slamming, there is
of failure was determined where "failure," as before, refers a relatively high probability that yielding will occur over
to yield of the plating. For the panel of plating under the 15-year life if 7-1b plating is used.
consideration, the calculated probability of failure is 0.035 The resistance of the material, that is, the yield strength,
or 3.5 × 10 -~. In most structural engineering cases, it has is a r a n d o m variable. In order to realistically estimate the
been shown that a desirable value lies between 10 -3 and statistical characteristics of the yield stress, a n u m b e r of
10 -5, and that 0.035 is a relatively high value. For instance, carefully controlled tension tests were conducted, using
by using 9-1b plate in lieu of 7-1b plate, the value would samples of the plating provided by the shipbuilder. These
decrease to 3.1 × 10 -s, an acceptable level (see Fig. 25). samples were used to prepare ASTM (American Society

14
Test Data - - WPB 1309
13 17 MAR 87 - - Cape Hatteras
12 Sea State 4 (Ht/3 = 9.5 ft)
Head Seas - - 28 kts
11 5-minute test
10 30,000 data points
Von Mises equivalent stress
8 9- from strain gauge rosette at center
of panel. FR t4 1/2 - 15, L1 - L2
8-
Note: Estimated 6000 psi at rest,
7- (not included here)
c
E
6-
o.

5-

4-

i
1

0 m..----cTLr~
7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61
Stress (hundreds of PSI)
Fig. 22 Histograph--distribution of plating stress--state 4

234 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat

 x 10 3 Strain Gauge No. 30

¢L

! r

0 10 "Ii me (seconds) 20 30

Note: Estimated 6000 psi at rest,

(not included hare)

Strain Gauge No. 27

xl0 3
O

-1

-2
0 10 Time (seconds) 20 30

Fig. 23 Stress on Iongitudinals

for Testing and Materials) standard specimens for the ten-
sion tests• A summary of the results of these tests is given
in T a b l e 2.
Note the exceptionally high ductility as reflected in the
ratio of ultimate strain to yield strain. Twelve samples were
tested, ranging from 4-1b to 20-1b plate. In addition,
hundreds of thickness measurements were obtained from
the shipyard and a thickness distribution was analyzed for
each plate size.
Load effects
The load effects are functions of the different types of
loads, the geometry and dimensions of the boat, material
characteristics, and the boundary conditions for the plates.
In order to make the reliability analysis as straightforward
as possible, a means of relating the load effects to the yield
stress is required. Note, however, that yielding in a ma-
terial is a three-dimensional p h e n o m e n o n and must be

x 10 3 5 (Slamming)
4
3
2
-- I
u)
o. 0
-I
-2

I0 Time (seconds) 20 30

Note: Estimated 6000 psi at rest,

(not included here)

(No Slamming)

x 10 3
O

-2 1 .;
10 Time (seconds) 20 30

Fig. 24 Stress on keel bar

USCG Island Class Patrol Boat 235

 10 tensile in-plane forces. Mansour [18] presents a n u m e r i c a l
Note:
I solution to this equation for both compressive and tensile
Plating panel forces N~ A detailed description of that solution, the
Frame 14.5 - 15 __ b o u n d a r y conditions established, and the d e v e l o p m e n t of
Long. 1 - 2
the load effect terms are provided in [6].
The loads on the panel of plating can be generally di-
8 vided into those resulting from hydrostatics in stillwater,
and those resulting from ship's speed and motion. The
(n load information is provided principally by the strain-gage
m e a s u r e m e n t s taken during testing, where only the dy-
Q.
namic motions part of the load effect was measured. A
separate analysis p r e s e n t e d in [6] develops an estimate for
the stillwater loads. With this in mind, an algebraic ma-
nipulation of Mansour's solution into the form of the von
Mises yield criteria [11] allows the load effect terms to be
expressed as
10-s 10-4 10 .3 10 "2 10 "1 .99
= + 36p~k * ~-~ + 6Nxpk** -i5
Probability

Fig. 25 Probability of plate yielding in head seas

treated in a m a n n e r which accounts for that. For thin where

plates it is c o m m o n to assume a condition of plane stress,
L = m a x i m u m total c o m b i n e d stress at c e n t e r of
which allows the three-dimensional p r o b l e m to be r e d u c e d
plate
to two dimensions due to the very small thickness of the
N, = stillwater in-plane unit load, lb/in.
plate.
p = stillwater hydrostatic pressure
With regard to the case of yielding of the bottom plating
of a ship, the mathematical s t a t e m e n t of the p r o b l e m can t = plate thickness
be given by b = width of the plate (athwartship dimension)
Ap = effective dynamic pressure
74w = 1 ( p + N~-~x
32w2 + 2Nx~ ~32w + N~ ~W~oy2j k*, k** = algebraic combinations of Mansour's coeffi-
cients B and y

where The first t e r m in this equation represents the contri-

bution due to the stillwater condition. The third t e r m
74w = b i h a r m o n i c equation represents the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the d y n a m i c effects, and
w = plate deflection in z-direction the middle t e r m is an interaction t e r m resulting from the
p = u n i f o r m lateral pressure von Mises formulation of the problem.
D = plate flexural rigidity, given by Et3/12 ( 1 - v ) In order to make the limit state equation as simple as
E = modulus of elasticity possible and because longitudinal stress records from the
t = thickness of plate keel bar indicate that the variation in longitudinal b e n d i n g
v = Poisson's ratio stress is very small (relative to the stresses measured in
N~ = in-plane force on plate in x-direction the plate), all dynamic effects are c o m b i n e d into the Ap
N~ = in-plane force on plate in y-direction term. O n e should also note that the contributions of the
N~ = in-plane shearing force transverse force N~ and the shearing force Nx~ are consid-
ered to be small and are not included. This assumption is
Except in cases where the in-plane forces are explicitly
consistent with typical naval architecture design assump-
known, there are not m a n y closed-form solutions to this
tions.
equation. In ship structures, the principal application of
The terms N~, p, Ap, t, and b are all treated as r a n d o m
this equation is in the case of plating subjected to a large
variables. In order to make the solution of the limit state
compressive in-plane stress N , which brings with it the
equation more tractable, a slightly modified form is used
possibility of plate buckling. However, the case of interest
for the loading, L 2. The principal advantage is that it re-
in this paper presents a possibility of both compressive and
duces the n u m b e r of terms in the limit state equation:

Table 2 Summary of results of tension tests (BS-4360 steel, N~~ 6Nxb~k ** 36b4k *
Type 43A) Z = F~2 t2 t3 PI t4 P2

Coefficient of where
Property Mean Value Variationa
Fy = yield stress of material
Yield stress (ksi) 47.8 0.133 P, = ( p + Ap)
Yield strain 0.0020 0.361
Modulus of elasticity (ksi) 24,940 0.116 /°2 = (p2 + Ap2 + 2pAp) = /92
Ultimate strain
144.7 0.380 It should be noted here that e v e n though/'2 is the square
Yield strain of P~, the statistical distribution of each will not necessarily
Average percent reduction in cross-
sechonal area 61% 0.049 be the same. This results from taking the product of two
distributions. For this analysis it was found that P1 was
C0V = standard deviation divided by mean value. normally distributed while P~ was log-normally distributed.

236 USCG Island Class Patrol B o a t

The values of pressure are calculated using Mansour ([18],
p. 324). F o r the assumption of an isotropic plate with all
edges fixed, a value of/3 = 0.004 and y = 0.041 results
w h e n using Curve No. 6 in that reference. These values
are t h e n used to obtain values for k* and k**. The equation
then reduces to
N~2 + 0.0558 N~b~ P1 0.0993 b 4 Pz
Z F:
7 t3 t4
This equation is solved r e p e a t e d l y for various load con-
ditions. T h e resulting m e a n values of pressure are listed
in Table 3. Note that P~ = p ÷ Ap and r e p r e s e n t s the
sum of the hydrostatic and effective d y n a m i c pressures.
T h e m e a n value c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the condition of 24 knots
and 10-ft significant wave height (Test A108C) is 6.53 psi.
This is considerably lower than the design pressure pre-
viously calculated using the Hoggard-Jones and Heller-
Jasper equations, which resulted in a design pressure value
of 19.6 psi (135.1 kPa). T h e m e a n pressure value r e c o r d e d
on the p a n e l gage during the m o d e l tests at the same speed
and sea state was 1.74 psi (12.0 kPa).
T h e main loads a p p l i e d to the boat are the stillwater
load and the d y n a m i c loads. F o r each type of load t h e r e
are two types of load effects, namely, p r i m a r y and sec-
o n d a r y load effects. The p r i m a r y load effect is d u e to hull
bending. T h e secondary toad effect is due to plate action
in the area of interest. F o r any type, the load effect can
be expressed as
Load effect (e.g., stress) = [C(X)].[load] (e.g., pressure)
T h e coefficient C(X) is a transfer function from loads to
load effects. It d e p e n d s on loading, the g e o m e t r y and di-
mension of the ship, b o u n d a r y conditions at the location
of interest, etc. Both C(X) and the w a t e r pressure are
r a n d o m variables. T h e transfer function can be deter-
m i n e d using either analytical models or e x p e r i m e n t a l test-
ing. In this section the transfer function is d e t e r m i n e d
using naval a r c h i t e c t u r e p r e d i c t i o n models and the re-
c o r d e d stresses from full-scale testing.
In this study, only loads and load effects in head seas
are considered. No other h e a d i n g is considered because
the stress records indicate that they result in m u c h smaller
stresses than the head seas condition. Eight combinations
of ship s p e e d and sea state for the head seas condition are
considered, as s u m m a r i z e d in Table 4. The p e r c e n t a g e of
o p e r a t i o n in h e a d seas was estimated to be 20 p e r c e n t ,
the sum of the individual p e r c e n t a g e s listed in the table.
P r u d e n t seamanship dictated that the ninth test not be
carried out.
Reliability assessment
T h e probability of plate yielding at the location of in-
terest was d e t e r m i n e d using the Monte Carlo c o m p u t e r
simulation with variance r e d u c t i o n techniques. The prob-
ability of yielding is d e t e r m i n e d according to the limit
state equation. The statistical characteristics of the yield
stress F~, the p r i m a r y force Nx, the plate thickness t, and
the plate length b are s u m m a r i z e d in Table 5. The statis-
tical characteristics of the pressure terms P~ and P2 are
s u m m a r i z e d in Table 3.
Using RASCS, which is a simulation-based c o m p u t e r pro-
g r a m for reliability assessment [6], the probability of failure
according to the limit state equation is d e t e r m i n e d . T h e
resulting probability of failure r e p r e s e n t s the probability
of plate yielding due to one wave encounter. The resulting
probabilities of failure are designated as Pn, that is, prob-
ability of plate yielding due to one wave encounter.
The o c c u r r e n c e of waves is a stochastic process which
is without a m e m o r y . Therefore, it can be assumed to be
a Poisson stochastic process. T h e rate of wave e n c o u n t e r s
r, in waves p e r minute, d e p e n d s on the speed of the ship
and wave characteristics. T h e n u m b e r of wave e n c o u n t e r s
Nw in a life of 15 years and 2000 hr of operation p e r y e a r
is given by
Nw = 2000 (15)(60)(r)
T h e probability of failure P:,, due to n wave e n c o u n t e r s
can be d e t e r m i n e d assuming i n d e p e n d e n t events as fol-
lows:
Pf,, = 1 - ( 1 - Ps,)"
Theoretically, the ship may encounter zero to i n f i n i t e
waves during its life. H o w e v e r , the probability of any num-
b e r of wave encounters during life follows a Poisson prob-
ability distribution of rate n. T h e probability of failure Pf
during the life of the ship is given by
(~r)"
e: = ,,=o
~, e:,,T exp (--/~r)
Or it can be expressed as follows:
w h e r e r is the life of the ship in minutes, which is 2000
× 15 × 60 = 1 800 000 min. The probability of failure
can b e simplified to
Pr = 1 - exp ( - ~rP~ )
The probabilities of failure PC and Pf are d e t e r m i n e d
for e v e r y plate thickness and ship s p e e d / s e a state com-
bination. F o r e v e r y thickness, the probability of failure in
head seas is d e t e r m i n e d as the n o r m a l i z e d w e i g h t e d av-
erage of the probabilities of failure in life that c o r r e s p o n d
to that thickness. Each weight factor is the p e r c e n t usage
of the ship for the corresponding ship s p e e d and sea state
combination. The normalizing factor is the same for all

Table 3 Statistical characteristics of PI and P2 (psi)

Test P1 Pz
Designation Mean COV Distribution Mean C0V Distribution
P401 3.09 0.185 normal 9.85 0.363 log-normal
P403 3.10 0.180 normal 9.92 0.348 log-normal
P404 3.31 0.202 normal 11.37 0.407 log-normal
C714 3.68 0.165 normal 13.90 0.321 log-normal
C715 3.63 0.188 normal 13.64 0.380 log-normal
P311 3.71 0.152 normal 14.06 0.301 log-normal
A107 7.03 0.080 normal 49.70 0.160 log-normal
A108C 6.53 0.098 normal 43.03 0.193 log-normal

USCG Island Class Patrol Boat 237

 Table 4 Combinations of ship speed and sea state (head seas)

Ship Speed
Sea
State Low Medium High
Low Test P401 Test P403 Test P404
(1 and 2) (12 knots, 3 ft) (24 knots, 3 ft) (29 knots, 3 ft)
4% 1.7% 1%
Medium Test C714 Test C715 Test P311
(3 and 4) (12 knots, 8 ft) (24 knots, 8 ft) (29 knots, 7 ft)
4.7% 1.3% 0.7%
Hil~ Test A107 Test A108C No Test
h (12 knots, 10 ft) (24 knots, 10 ft)
5.3% 1% 0".3~
NOTES: 1. Wave height is H - t, the significant wave height.
2. Sum of all percentages is 20%, the estimate of time
spent in head seas.

thicknesses and is the total p e r c e n t usage of the ship in Conclusions and recommendations
h e a d seas, that is, 0.20. The resulting probabilities of plate
Certain portions of the b o t t o m plating of the USCG
yielding in h e a d seas as a function of thickness are shown
Island Class patrol boat have yielded (dished) during high-
in Fig. 25.
s p e e d s l a m m i n g events e x p e r i e n c e d during controlled
T h e full r a n g e of plate sizes is shown to d e m o n s t r a t e
tests. T h e d e p t h of the i n d e n t a t i o n is a p p r o x i m a t e l y twice
the m e t h o d , not to infer that lighter than 7-1b plate should
the plating thickness. A t t e m p t s w e r e m a d e to correlate
b e used. T h e gain of t h r e e orders of m a g n i t u d e b e t w e e n
the full-scale acceleration and stress m e a s u r e m e n t s with
7-1b and 9-1b plate cannot be ignored, h o w e v e r (3.499
the towing tank m o d e l acceleration and pressure mea-
E-02 to 3.096E-05). It changes the probability from a
surements, but difficulties w e r e e n c o u n t e r e d due to dif-
marginal condition to an a c c e p t a b l e level.
ferences in data collection and processing techniques. T h e
use of a finite-element m o d e l shows promise, but the pres-
sure profile used to load the m o d e l needs m o r e analysis
Pressure calculations from measured deflection and d e v e l o p m e n t .
The A p p e n d i x contains pressure calculations m a d e using T h e n e e d for discussion in several areas is apparent. T h e
the plating deformation from Fig. 20. These calculations use of the statistic, " a v e r a g e ~th highest acceleration," for
w e r e p e r f o r m e d at M.I.T. by T. Wierzbicki, u n d e r the a design criterion must be v i e w e d in the light of the ex-
direction of J. H. Evans. It is e s t i m a t e d that a d y n a m i c t r e m e values of stress r e c o r d e d d u r i n g s l a m m i n g excur-
pressure of 114 psi was r e q u i r e d to p r o d u c e that defor- sions. F o r example, towing tank data indicate that the ratio
m a t i o n and that the equivalent static pressure, uniformly of e x t r e m e acceleration to the average ~ t h highest is about
applied, would be 159 psi. This pressure far exceeds the 1.2, whereas the c o r r e s p o n d i n g ratio for stress in the plat-
design pressure values n o t e d in other portions of this pa- ing is about 10, from data taken during full-scale testing.
per. Note that this is a single m a x i m u m pressure value Estimates of the m a x i m u m i m p a c t pressure on the b o t t o m
and, as such, should not be used as an overall design cri- plating vary widely, including 13.8 psi from m o d e l testing
terion. A small a m o u n t of occasional d e f o r m a t i o n must be and 114 psi from calculations (Appendix).
a c c e p t e d if the vessel is to b e light e n o u g h to achieve As a result of the analysis and testing p r o g r a m , recom-
design s p e e d and p e r f o r m its mission. Problems arise, how- m e n d a t i o n s w e r e m a d e to increase the strength of the
ever, w h e n w i d e s p r e a d d e f o r m a t i o n occurs, leading to forward b o t t o m plating. F o r boats still u n d e r construction,
h y d r o d y n a m i c inefficiency and interior m a i n t e n a n c e an increase from 7-1b to 9-1b plate was r e c o m m e n d e d . F o r
problems. R e f e r e n c e is m a d e in the A p p e n d i x to the work existing boats, intercostal stiffening was a d v o c a t e d as a
of Loeser [20] w h e r e full-scale pressure testing of plating means of r e d u c i n g the aspect ratio of the b o t t o m panels
panels was conducted. In a p a n e l similar to the Island Class from 2:1 to 1:1, t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g the stress. O t h e r rec-
b o t t o m plating, a c e n t e r deflection of 2.4 in. was m e a s u r e d o m m e n d a t i o n s w e r e m a d e c o n c e r n i n g offsetting weight
u n d e r an a p p l i e d pressure of 1200 psi, without rupture. reductions in tankage and stores.
T h e r e is a n e e d to a g r e e on some standards for proc-
essing the data a c q u i r e d during full-scale testing. Selection
Table 5 Statistical characteristics of Fy, N., t, and b of transducers, signal conditioning devices, filters, and the
like, varies considerably throughout the testing c o m m u -
Random Distribution Mean nity. Comparison with m o d e l data is v e r y difficult due to
Variable Type Value COV Reference the variety of processing software and selection of statis-
/• normal
normal
47800 psi
-- 88 lb / in.
0.125
0.500
testing
Soares [19]
tics.
t, 4# normal 0.086 in. 0.0125 testing
t, 5# normal 0.112 in. 0.0125 testing
t, 6# normal 0.135 in. 0.0125 testing Acknowledgment
t, 7# normal 0.161 in. 0.0125 testing T h e authors wish to a c k n o w l e d g e the assistance of Mr.
t, 7.5# normal 0.177 in. 0.0125 testing
t, 9# normal 0.224 in. 0.0125 testing Orin Stark of the USCG Research and D e v e l o p m e n t Cen-
t, 10# normal 0.236 in. 0.0125 testing ter. His dedication to accuracy during his m a n y years of
t, 20# normal 0.486 in. 0.0125 testing field testing has e n a b l e d us to conduct our research with
b normal 11.75 in. 0.025 judgment confidence.

238 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat

 References
1 Latas, R. M. et al, "U.S. Coast Guard 110 ft. Island Class
Patrol Boats--Concept to Completion," Patrol Boats '86, Trans.
ASNE, March 1986.
2 Clark, J. H. et al, "A Structural Analysis of an Ocean-Going
Patrol Boat Subjected to Planing Loads," 15th NASTRAN User's
Colloquium, NASA Conference Publication 2481, May 1987.
3 Russell, M. J., "Structural Analysis U.S. Coast Guard Island
Class 110-ft WPB," Naval Sea Combat Systems Engineering Sta-
tion Code 61, 15 Aug. 1986.
4 Burtness, M. N., "Hydrodynamic Bottom Loading Distri-
bution on a Model of the 110 ft WPB Island Class Patrol Boat
Operating in Head Seas," Stevens Institute of Technology Tech-
nical Report SIT-DL-87-9-2584, Hoboken, N.J., Aug. 1987.
5 "'Strain Gauge Testing of USCGC FARALLON (WPB-
1301)," U.S. Coast Guard Resarch and Development Center Re-
port (Interim), Groton, Conn., May 1986.
6 White, G. J. and Ayyub, B. M., "Reliability Analysis of the
Island Class Patrol Boat," U.S. Coast Guard Research Publication,
Aug. 1987.
7 Butler, T. G. and Michel, D., "NASTRAN a Summary of
the Functions and Capabilities of the NASA Structural Analysis
Computer System," NASA SP-260, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, 1971.
8 Heller, S. R. and Jasper, N. H., "On the Structural Design
of Planing Craft," Quarterly Trans., RINA, July 1960.
9 Silvia, P. A., "Structural Design of Planing Craft, A State
of the Art Survey," SNAME Chesapeake Section, March 1978.
10 Allen, R. and Jones, R., "A Simplified Method for Deter-
mining Structural Design Limit Pressures on High Performance
Marine Vehicles," AIAA/SNAME, 1978.
11 Hill, R., The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford
University Press, London, 1964.
12 Hoggard, M. and Jones, M., "Examining Pitch, Heave and
Accelerations of Planing Craft Operating in a Seaway," High
Speed Surface Craft Exhibition and Conference, 1980.
13 Roark, R. J. and Young, W. C., Formulas for Stress and
Strain, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982.
14 "Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels Under 61
Meters (200 feet) in Length," American Bureau of Shipping, 1983.
15 Bailey, D., "Performance Prediction-Fast Craft," Occa-
sional Publication No. 1, RINA, 1974.
16 Savitsky, D. and Brown, P. W., "Procedures for Hydro-
dynamic Evaluations of Planing Hulls in Smooth and Rough
Water," Marine Technology, Vol. 13, No. 4, Oct. 1976.
17 "'Structural Analysis of the Island Class Patrol Boat," U.S.
Coast Guard Research and Development Center Report, Groton,
Conn., Oct. 1987.
18 Mansour, A. E., "Ship Bottom Structure Under Uniform
Lateral and In-Plane Loads," Schiff und Hafen, Vol. 5, 1967.
19 Guedes Soares, C., "Probabilistic Models for Load Effects
in Ship Structures," Publication No. UR-84-38, Norwegian Insti-
tute of Technology, Trondheim, June 1984.
20 Loeser, H., "Investigation of the Plastic Deformation of
Flat Plates Under Lateral Load," Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis,
M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass., 1954.
21 Sawczuk, A., "On the Initiation of the Membrane Action
in Rigid-Plastic Plates,"Journal de Mecanique, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1964,
pp. 15-23.
22 Jones, N., "Damage Estimates for Plating of Ships and Ma-
rine Vehicles," PRADS--International Symposium on Practical
Design in Shipbuilding, Tokyo, Oct. 1977, pp. 121-128.
23 Jones, N., "A Theoretical Study of the Dynamic Plastic
Behavior of Beams and Plates with Finite Deflections," Inter-
national Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 7, 1971, pp. 1007-
1029.
24 Jones, N., "Slamming Damage," Journal of Ship Research,
Vol. 17, No. 2, June 1973, pp. 80-86.
25 Hooke, R. and Rawlings, B., "An Experimental Investiga-
tion of the Behavior of Clamped Rectangular Mild Steel Plates
Subjected to Uniform Transverse Pressure" in Proceedings, In-
stitution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 42, 1969, pp. 15-23.
26 Hughes, O. F., "Design of Laterally Loaded Plating--Uni-
form Pressure Loads," Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 25, No. 2,
June 1981, pp. 77-89.
27 Symonds, P. S. and Frye, C. W. G., "On the Relation Be-
tween Rigid-Plastic and Elastic-Plastic Predictions of Response to
USCG Island Class Patrol Boat
Pulse Loading," International Journal of Impact Engineering,
Vol. 7, No. 2, 1988.
28 Wierzbicki, T., Chryssostomidis, C., and Wiernicki, C.,
"Rupture Analysis of Ship Plating Due to Hydrodynamic Wave
Impact" in Proceedings, Ship Structure Symposium, Arlington,
Va., Oct. 15-16, 1984.
29 Nagai, T. and Chuang S.-L., "'Review of Structural Response
Aspect of Slamming," Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 21, No. 3,
Sept. 1977, pp. 182-190.
30 Evans, J. H., "Preliminary Design Estimation of Hull Gir-
der Response to Slamming," TRANS. SNAME, Vol. 90, 1982.
31 Frankland, J. M., "Effects of Impact on Simple Elastic
Structures," David Taylor Model Basin Report 481, April 1942.
32 Hovgaard, W. "Structural Design of Warships," The United
States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Md., 1940.
33 Sellers, M. L. and Evans, J. H., "Bulkhead Plating," Journal
of Ship Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, Dec. 1959.
Appendix
An analysis of the permanent deformation of a
bottom panel of plating on the USCG Island
Class patrol boat 3
An analysis has been performed on the bottom plating of the
Island Class 110-ft patrol boat to estimate the hydrodynamic pres-
sure which caused deformation and permanent set in a panel of
plating of one of the boats when undergoing tests at sea. For
purposes of the analysis, strain-gage information was provided for
the panel of plating most severely affected, also the amounts of
permanent set at nine points on the panel. The maximum per-
manent deflection, at the center of the panel, was 0.308 in. A
mean uniform plating thickness of 0.161 in. had been determined
and several tensile stress-strain curves for samples of the steel
used were made available.
The test panel was located between web frames at frames
14~ and 15 and between longitudinal Locations Nos. 1 and 2. At
Location 2 a longitudinal bulkhead provided the panel support
instead of a light longitudinal as at Location 1. Thus, the panel
had dimensions of 23½ in. in the fore-and-aft direction and 12 in.
in the athwartship direction. It was very slightly concave from
the exterior, was one panel removed from the bar keel, and about
28 percent of the vessel's waterline length from the stem. The
space inboard at the time of the test was void.
According to the dynamic strain records, even a number of
substantial instantaneous peak strains translating to stresses at the
center of the panel on the order of 20 000 psi were insufficient
to cause an automatic baseline shift of the strain recorder until
one very large slam was experienced. This resulted in a baseline
shift of about 34 000 psi. Thereafter the throttles were cut and
the vessel slowed.
It has been assumed, therefore, that the plastic deformation of
the panel plating occurred during the one impact and within a
time span of about 2½ to 3 sec as indicated by the strain and
acceleration records immediately preceding and following the
major slam. At the time of the slam the vessel was traveling into
head seas at approximately 24 knots in a state 4 sea having a
significant wave height of 10 ft. None of the panel boundaries,
including the No. 1 longitudinal, showed signs of permanent de-
formation.
There were several rigorous analyses of the plate deflection
problem in the sixties and seventies. The basic approach of the
so-called rigid-plastic hinge line method was developed by Wood
and extended to large deflection problems by Sawczuk [21].4 Jones
extended the solution even further by including inertia effects
[22-24]. Hooke and Rawlings [25] performed a thorough exper-
imental study which confirmed the validity of the theoretical
predictions. The application of the above-mentioned methods to
the damage prediction of ship's plating was discussed by Hughes
in reference [26].
The effect of pulse shape on the magnitude of permanent plastic
deflection of structures was discussed by Symonds and Frye [27]
and by Wierzbicki et al. [28].
3 Performed by J. H. Evans & T. Wierzbicki, M.I.T., May 1988.
4 References cited are included in regular listing above.
239
 The problem of slamming damage of ship hulls was analyzed
by, among others, Jones [24] and Nagai and Chuang [29].
Summary of calculations
Input parameters (see Fig. 26): P1
Plate length, a = 23.5 in.
Plate width, b = 12 in.
Plate thickness, h = 0.161 in.
Static yield stress, o"v = 47 800 psi
Measured maximum p e r m a n e n t deflection at the middle of the
plate:
~c,~
Fig. 27 Pressure pulse representation
(W/)dy n = 0.308 in.
Calculated values:
General procedure
Plate aspect ratio b/a = 0.5
Maximum dimensionless deflection (wJh)dy, = 1.91 The present calculations are based on the general theory of
dynamic response of a plate strip subjected to exponentially de-
Unknown: Calculate the most probable peak pressure ampli- caying pressure [28] and earlier results on moderately large de-
tude Pl which caused the plate in Fig. 26 to deflect p e r m a n e n t l y flections of statically loaded square and rectangular plates
by the a m o u n t (Wf)dy n. developed in references [21] and [23].
The amplitude of dynamic pressure can be expressed in the
Discussion of loading following way.
The hydrodynamic pressure of the affected area of the hull
resulted from the combination of the hydrodynamic impact of
the waves on a vessel traveling at 24 knots into a state 4 sea
(horizontal velocity) and the slamming impact of the hull (vertical where
velocity). In-plane loadings in the plating are believed to be very
small, so only the lateral loading (vertical) will be assumed to have Pl = peak load
caused the deformation. Pc = critical quasi-static pressure necessary to produce
The extent of damage to ship's plating from the hydrodynamic plastic bending load limit of plate
impact depends not only on the peak pressure (pressure ampli-
tude), P], but also on the shape of the entire pressure pulse. Beside
WJ)dr, = normalized p e r m a n e n t dynamic deflection
P], the transient pressure pulse can be characterized by the rise f ( - ) = function accounting for large deflections and mem-
time to and pulse duration t~. Previous studies on slamming pres- b r a n e resistance
sures for high-speed vehicles in waves have d e t e r m i n e d that the R = dynamic load factor
pulse shape can be well approximated by the exponential function
(see, references [24, 28]): Using the definition of the dynamic load factor [see equation (9)],
equation (2) can be rewritten in the equivalent form
t
p(t) = P,e-7,, (1) Wj 1
P, = pcf(~)wheref(--~WJ)= f[(--~)dy -~] (2a)
The rise time is very short and the meaning of the characteristic
time ta which defines the initial deeay rate of the pulse is shown where w//h is the equivalent normalized static deflection.
in Fig. 2 7 - - a two-parameter representation of the pressure pulse: Each of the factors appearing in equations (2) and (2a) will now
Pl = magnitude p a r a m e t e r be discussed separately.
ta = shape p a r a m e t e r
Critical quasi-static pressure Pc
F r o m the data provided by the Coast Guard it is not possible to Following Sawczuk [21] and Hughes [26], the formula for Pc is
find a unique pair [ Pl, td }. Therefore, assumptions will be made
regarding the pulse duration. 48 M0
F r o m the results published in the literature [29] and our own Pc = b2 [x/'3 + ~2 _ ~]2 (3)
experience [28] we assume that the most probable duration of
the pressure pulse is in the range where M, = (o-~h2/4) and is the fully plastic bending m o m e n t
td = 50 to 500 ms and ~ = b/a is the plate aspect ratio• For a square plate a = b,
~ = 1, and
Thus, calculations will be run for the lower bound ta = 50 ms
and u p p e r bound ta = 500 ms separately. pc- a2 - 12o-~
An additional assumption made in almost all analyses of similar
problems is that the dynamic pressure is uniformly distributed
over the surface of the plate. In the case of the Island Class l l 0 - f t patrol boat, ~k = 0.5 and
from equation (3) we find that

Pc = 12o'~ a 2.36 (4/

The coefficient 2.36 represents the increase in strength of the

rectangular plate with one side half as long as the other.
Effect of large deflections and membrane forces
The expression for the function f(W//h), derived by Sawczuk
[21] has the form

f(-~Z)=2~Z 1 ' ~ ' ) ( 1 - 3 ~ ) (5)

Fig. 26 Panel dimensions

240 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat

where

This formula is valid in the range W f / h > 1. In the case of a

square plate, t~ = 1 and equation (5) reduces to
1
f = -h- + 3 Ws (6)
h
In the case of plating under consideration, t~ = 0.5 and { = 0.65, o ± 2__ .L 4
SO n n n "~
= 1.252 w , 0.748 Fig. 29 Dynamic load factor (DLF)
~ + 3 Ws (7)
h
2
or, in expanded form R -- - - (10)
rr 1
! 0.748 1+----
2 7ta
S ~-h-j = 1.252 \ h )dyn = + 3(Wi _I
(7a)

k h )~. B where the parameter 7 is defined as

Finally, an approximate expression for f ( W J h ) , derived in ref-
erence [28] on the basis of a purely m e m b r a n e response of a plate
strip, is
f -- 5 h
A comparison of predictions of equations (6), (7), and (8) is shown
in Fig. 28. This solution is valid for the plate fully restrained
against in-plane motion at the outer boundaries. We believe that
the panel which suffered the damage of Ws = 0.308 in. satisfied
this condition of full end fixity.
From Fig. 28 [or from equation (7)] we find that f ( W s / h ) =
2.52 if W J h = 1.91. The coefficient 2.52 represents the increase
in the plate resistance due to m e m b r a n e effects. The plate strip
model [equation (8)] predicts a slightly higher value, f ( W e ~ h ) =
2.54.
Dynamic load factor, R (DLF)
The concept of dynamic load factor is similar as in elasto-dy-
namics; however, the formulas for R in the case of rigid-plastic
structures are different. We define R as
R - (Wf)dy, under a particular pressure amplitude, Pl
Wi
A detailed analysis of the dynamic load factor under various load-
ing conditions was recently presented by Symonds and Frye in
reference [27]. We shall adopt here an approximate formulation,
developed in reference [28].
It was found in a one-degree-of-freedom model, and with the
blast pulse shape assumed (to = 0), that
/,,.
/ derived by Frankland [31]. Again tl is the pulse duration and T
q the natural period of vibration of the system. The figure illustrates
y2 _ 12o'~
#=p (11)
and p and t' denote respectively the mass density of the plate
(inertia effects) and the characteristic dimension of the structure.
(8) In the case of a rectangular plate it is reasonable to assume
a+b
e - 2 ~ 18 in. (12)
Taking p = 7.45 X 10 -4 lb s e c 2 / i n / , the parameter ~/calculated
from (11) and (12) is
~-['l12X 47.8 × 103 = 1.54 × 103 1
"~]
31 = X 7.45 X 10 -4 sec
According to equation (10), the dynamic load factor depends on
the product ")ltd. A plot of the function R versus 1 / ~/td is shown
in Fig. 29. The limiting case td ~ ~ corresponds to a suddenly
applied rectangular pressure pulse. As in elastic structures, R is
then equal to 2. Another limiting case, td ~ O, represents the
ideal impulse loading.
According to previous estimates for the pulse duration, two
values of td should be considered
(9)
7td = 0.050 × 1.54 × 10 s = 77
yta = 0.500 × 1.54 × 103 = 770
The range of variation of 7ta is shown in Fig. 29 by the shaded
zone. It is clear that in all cases the corresponding value of the
dynamic load factor effectively is R = 2. The reason for such a
high (actually maximum) value is that the dynamic pressure was
assumed to be applied instantaneously with zero rise time
to = 0. In reality the rise time is always finite and the dynamic
load factor will be lower. See Fig. 30. In the absence of actual
measurements of rise time, to, it is difficult to give a precise
estimate of R.
Figure 31 is from [30] and is of elastic dynamic load factors
the fact that as h / Tgrows large, the DLF for steep fronted pulses

SY ~t ....
I / *
/ l

0
t ÷
I Z 3

Fig. 28 Comparison of predictions Fig. 30 Pulse with finite rise time

USCG Island Class Patrol Boat 241

 PULSE SHAPES

.t_L____~_ .kL___k
~[ to ~ I--t,--q I--t,-.q ~.--t,-.q-" ~-t,---I

i,ot Y
g

_ _ _ 2_--

o.,..,.,,c <.o.o .cTo, s CO.F)

I I I I I l I I
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

',/r (..,> ,o/T)

Fig. 31 Pulse shapes and DLF

(to = 0) approaches 2 whereas for more gradually applied pulses Conclusion

(to > 0) the DLF approaches a value of one. [Xo is the static
displacement of a mass under a particular force and x(t) is the
dynamic displacement under a pulse whose peak value equals
the force statically applied.]
Under the present circumstances three different solutions will
be given depending on the magnitude of rise time to:
R = 2 for instantaneous pressure to = 0
R = 1.5 for a finite rise time of pressure pulse to
R = 1 for very slowly increasing pressure to ~ o0
Determination of pressure amplitude
Having d e t e r m i n e d all components in equation (2), we are in
a position to give estimates on the amplitude of the hydrodynamic
pressure loading which caused the plate to deflect permanently
by the given amount.
From equation (4) we calculate
(0.161~ 2
P c = 12 × 2.36 × 47.8 × 103 × \ 2 3 . 5 ) = 63 psi
The final calculations are given in Table 6.
Our best estimate for the dynamic pressure (rise time finite) is
P~ = 114 psi. If the rise time is long enough and approaches a
static approximation, the pressure must be higher than PI = 159
psi to reach the same p e r m a n e n t set. If, on the other hand, the
loading is applied instantaneously (to = 0), the pressure amplitude
to reach 0.308-in. p e r m a n e n t set would be 92 psi.
Discussion
The present findings are in full accord with the results published
in the open literature. For example, reference [29] reports on a
p e r m a n e n t set of about 0.275 in. (7 ram) on the hull of a high-
speed aluminum craft. The estimated peak pressure of the pulse
of 10-ms duration was 92 psi. Hydrodynamic pressures as high as
200 to 300 psi were quoted by Nagai as well as Kawakami and
Keil. One of the present authors conducted a scale-model test on
the effect of breaking waves. When converted to actual dimen-
sions, the hydrodynamic pressure was found to be 330 psi [28].
Assuming realistically short rise time of pressure, our best es-
timate for the amplitude of hydrodynamic loading is
PI = 114 psi

Table 6

Static Dynamic Dynamic

to ~ oo to > 0 to = 0 Units

Pc 63 63 63 [psi]
from eq (4)

(W}),y. 1.91 1.91 1.91 "'"

R 1 1.5 2 ...
w~ w; 1
1.91 .1.27 0.955
h R

f 2.52 1.80 1.46

from eq (Ta)
[psi]
P, = pcf(W/~ 159 114 92
\n]

242 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat

versus the equivalent static pressure to cause the same defor-
mation of approximately 63 × 2.52 = 159 psi. The present anal-
ysis also gives additional information on the initiation of fully
plastic response.
The so-called plastic collapse pressure necessary to develop the
fully plastic bending moment of the plate can be obtained by
dividing the dynamic pressure amplitude by the coefficient of
membrane action
114
m
Ppl..ti~ b~.d,.g 2.52
q
45.2 psi
The end of the elastic range and the so-called first yield is reached
at the pressure
45.2
P,,,t y,e~d- 1.5 - 30 psi
As one point of reference, a few experiments quoted by Hov-
gaard [32] are of interest. Thin flat plates, both square and rec-
tangular, were loaded with increasing hydrostatic pressure and
periodically the maximum deflection was measured, with the load
on and after its removal. Initially, the deflection was "strictly
proportional to the pressure" until the yield point was reached
"somewhere in the plate." Thereafter, a permanent set began to
appear "increasing slowly until it amount(ed) to about 18% of the
total deflection." "After that the permanent set increas(ed) rapidly
and both curves (of deflection versus pressure) rose steeply, ap-
proximating to straight lines." During that last phase the elastic
deflection, represented by the separation between the two de-
flection curves, remained "fairly constant" and at extremely high
pressures it was "but a small fraction of the total deflection."
Evidently as a result of Hovgaard's influence, the U.S. Navy
adopted plating thicknesses for ordinary subdivision bulkheads
which permit a permanent set of 18 to 20 percent of the total
Discussion
Hung-Chi Lee, Member
[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discusser and
not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or the De-
partment of the Navy.]
I would like to congratulate t e e authors for an excellent
p a p e r p r e s e n t i n g analysis, m o d e l testing and field testing
of the structure of the Island Class patrol boat. As a f o r m e r
project manager, I appreciate the value of this c o m p re-
hensive p a p e r to anyone pursuing the design of high-
speed, lightweight boats.
This discusser would like to make some suggestions for
future d e v e l o p m e n t :
In order to have a m o r e c o m p l e t e set of pressure dis-
tribution data for the c u r v e d boat, it will be necessary to
h a v e m o r e pressure data from the existing model. This
includes m o r e pressure gage locations and a g r e a t e r range
of both speed and wave height.
E n l a r g e d details of the higher stressed areas, including
labeled contours, should be provided.
Additional figures should be p r o v i d e d showing details
of the results of the analyzed stress and the m e a s u r e d stress
in both the full scale and m o d e l tests, respectively.
What problems w e r e e x p e r i e n c e d during both the full-
scale and m o d e l tests, and what w e r e the m e th o d s used
in o v e r c o m i n g t h em ?
Steven H. Cohen, Member, and Debabrata Ghosh,
Member
[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discusser and
not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the
U.S. Coast Guard.]
USCG Island Class Patrol B o a t
deflection [33]. This requirement can be expressed as:
h = 0.001443 b
where
h = plating thickness, in.
b = lesser panel dimension, in.
H = pressure head, feet of seawater
For a 12-in. panel under an equivalent static pressure head of
358 ft (159 psi) as found above, this results in a plating thickness
of 0.33 in.
In spite of the fact that the final applied pressure heads w e r e
at least 5~ times those when yielding first occurred in the thick
plates and on the order of 17 times in the thin plates, nooe of
the plates ruptured nor "showed a crack."
Loeser [20] attempted to explore the upper limits of plate panel
strength experimentally by means of nine test pieces of differing
shape and aspect ratio. One panel in particular had quite similar
characteristics to those of the Island Class test panel. Loeser's
panel was 26 by 13 by ~6 in. and was of ordinary medium steel.
At a test pressure of 1200 psi (2700 ft of seawater) the loaded
deflection at the panel center was 2.412 in. At a pressure of 1270
psi (2857.5 ft of seawater) the seal of the test tank failed and the
test had to be halted.
Metric Conversion Factors
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 in. = 2.54 cm
1 ft 2 = 0.0929 m 2
1 ft 3 = 0.0283 m 3
1 psi = 6.895 kPa
1 lb = 0.45kg
1 gal = 3.7.8.5 L
1 hp = 0.7457 kW
T h e structural design of high-speed boats has b e e n the
subject of various papers over the years and each has
b r o u g h t an increased level of understanding of the hull
loading conditions and structural reliability. T h e authors
in studying the Island Class structure have co n t r i b u t ed to
this effort and are to be congratulated.
T h e Island Class was p r o c u r e d based on a " p a r e n t c r a f t "
c o n c e p t and was driven by the n e e d to p r o cu r e drug in-
terdiction vessels in a very short t i m e frame. T h e overall
approach necessitated that specific craft features, includ-
ing the structure, follow the p a r e n t craft design. Th e struc-
tural design of the Island Class e v o l v e d from the designer's
e x p e r i e n c e and had p r o v e n successful to m er i t the con-
struction of 23 boats worldwide. H o w e v e r , the hull struc-
ture b e c a m e a m a t t e r of growing c o n c e r n as the Coast
Guard's operational d em an d s increased and the fleet size
e x p a n d e d beyond original plans. In two and a half years,
the Coast Guard has put m o r e operational hours on its
first four Island Class boats than all previous 23 boats have
a c c u m u l a t e d in 20 years.
While t h er e are some variations in c u r r e n t m e t h o d o l o g y
for structural analysis, each addresses t h r ee basic elements:
load d e t e r m i n a t i o n , load r ed u ct i o n based on panel loca-
tion, size and allowable stress. T h e authors' focus on the
loads show how difficult they are to d e t e r m i n e and how
they vary widely b e t w e e n full-scale m e a s u r e m e n t s , m o d e l
tests, and empirical predictions. In the context of this
study, the full-scale trial m e a s u r e m e n t s as used by the
authors are certainly most applicable. These data used in
conjunction with the assumed operational profile given in
Table 4 have allowed the authors to project structural
reliability. H o w e v e r meaningful, this approach departs
243
somewhat from the general design philosophy for small
high-performance craft where the structural design is a
function of the crew's operational limits.
Some designers joke that boats have two speeds: " o n
and off." It is not surprising that boats are run to the crew
limits where a punishing ride is the only good reason to
slow down. Though continuous slamming beyond 1 g can
be minimized by p r u d e n t seamanship, continuous opera-
tion at more moderate levels of acceleration are very hard
to ensure despite the designer's strident attempts to place
sea state limits on the craft. Small craft designed under
the general premise that the structural design limit is to
exceed the limits of the crew is taking both a practical
view and conservative approach. Designers will argue over
how high the limit should be, but most agree that 1 g is
a lower limit. For structure in high-performance military-
type craft m u c h higher accelerations are used.
In this regard, would the authors c o m m e n t on the sen-
sitivity of their results to the assumed operational profile
in Table 4 and how it relates to the crew limits? Would
the authors also discuss the basis for using head-seas con-
ditions only (which represent 20 percent of the operational
time) especially since stillwater bending loads have been
mentioned by the authors as one of the main loads applied
to the hull? Also, the authors might check the midship
section calculation noting that the deckhouse should not
be considered to be effective structure. ABS criteria, for
instance, include only the deckhouse structural elements
which are continuous over 40 percent of the vessel length.
Robert Curry, Member
The authors are to be congratulated for an excellent
paper, extending established theory through practical ap-
plication to full-scale tests and providing the slamming
pressure assessment from set-in plating in the Appendix.
In that it has provided answers to some important ques-
tions and directed attention to others, it is a milestone
paper that is now, and will be in the future, a very valuable
reference on the subject.
For in-house guidance for planing craft, we at ABS use
a m e t h o d of predicting slamming load developed from
Heller and Jasper [ 34 ] and Savitsky and Brown [ 35 ] (ad-
ditional references follow some discussions). For the sub-
ject boat running at 26 knots in 12-ft seas this m e t h o d
gives a vertical wave-induced acceleration at LCG of 0.63
g and a corresponding design pressure of 18.95 psi, which
for 40 000-psi yield strength steel gives a required bottom
shell thickness, in the critical area forward of amidships,
of 0.19 in. A second pressure prediction method that we
also use is that given by Allen and Jones [ 36 ]. This m e t h o d
requires the specification of a design wave-induced impact
load factor (wave-induced vertical acceleration at LCG)
often provided by designers or in specifications as an op-
erational limit. For general application we normally use a
m i n i m u m of 1.0; however, for patrol boats a value of at
least 2.0 would seem appropriate. In this case the design
pressure is about 42 psi, probably a bit high for a round-
chine boat, and resulting thickness for 40 000 psi yield
plating with 12-in. spacing of longitudinals is 0.27 in. if
yield is limited to a point at the middle of the long edge
of plate panel. A thickness of 0.22 in. would, with this
design pressure, indicate some local plastic response of the
plate panel at the center of the long edges of the panel.
The acceptance criteria of yield stress at the midpoint of
a long plate edge with these design pressures were de-
veloped from a n u m b e r of existing patrol boats of U.S. and
E u r o p e a n design.
244 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat
As this ABS in-house guidance is being adopted in pro-
posed ABS Rules for high-speed craft, shortly to be dis-
tributed for industry review, this paper is a valuable source
of correlation that will certainly be considered.
One extremely important fact in the results is the ver-
ification that the plate panel maximum p e r m a n e n t set of
0.308 in. was apparently due to one single impact in the
order of 1.0 g. In previous work that ABS has done to
predict slamming pressures from set-in plating, there was
very often the question of whether the set-in had been
caused by one impact or by the cumulative effect of a
n u m b e r of impacts. A very important fact is that none of
the bottom longitudinals, even those adjacent to the set-
in plate panel, showed signs of deformation. If it has not
already been done, it is suggested that the ultimate bend-
ing strength and stability of the longitudinal adjacent to
the set-in plate panel be predicted and the pressure cor-
responding to the ultimate load be c o m p a r e d with the
pressures given in Table 6 in the Appendix. As the plate
panel area and shell area supported by the longitudinal
are the same, a direct comparison of pressures would seem
appropriate.
On a more general point, when considering high-speed
vessels of this type, encountering extreme conditions and
extreme loads, it would seem conservative to presume that
the occurrence of plate yielding be considered a "failure."
Presumably because of their use of quote marks, it is also
the opinion of the authors that limitations of analytical
methods should not establish "failure" levels.
The equation referred to in the ABS Rules is essentially
for normal-strength steel (34 000 psi yield) displacement
hulls; some reduction in the thickness could have been
given for the use of 40 000-psi yield strength steel. It also
seems that there may have been a misinterpretation as far
as the value of S is concerned. Should the authors wish to,
we would be pleased to provide more detail on the fore-
going.
Additional references
34 Heller, S. R. and Jasper, N. H., "On Structural Design of
Planing Craft," RINA July 1960.
35 Savitsky, D. and Brown, P. W., "Procedures for Hydro-
dynamic Evaluations of Planing Hulls in Smooth and Rough
Water," Marine Technology, Vol. 13, No. 4, Oct. 1976.
36 Allen, R. and Jones, R., "A Simplified Method of Deter-
mining Structural Design Limit Pressures on High Performance
Marine Vehicles," AIAA / SNAME.
Martin Burtness, Member
I wish to congratulate the authors on an excellent paper
combining numerical predictions and structural analysis
with model and full-scale testing. As a m e m b e r of the
testing community, I always appreciate an opportunity to
compare model test results with full-scale trials.
Would the authors c o m m e n t on the applicability of the
various prediction techniques used for estimating accel-
erations? The Hoggard-Jones formula, for instance, has no
d e p e n d e n c y on deadrise angle, which would seem to be
a dominant factor. In addition, most prediction techniques
are based on hard-chine planing craft, while the Island
Class has rounded bilges.
The full-scale testing analysis performed on this vessel
brings to light a problem facing the testing community,
that of standardized data processing techniques. The au-
thors note that signal filtering drastically affects the ex-
treme and N~l~0accelerations and makes comparisons with
model test results very difficult. A 5-Hz low-pass filter was
a t t e m p t e d , but a p p a r e n t l y filtered out the high-frequency
slamming events which are of p r i m a r y concern. The
Ocean E n g i n e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e of the 18th ITTC con-
d u c t e d a " D a t a Analysis C o m p a r a t i v e Exercise" which
investigated the different data analysis techniques being
used to h e l p standardize data filtering and processing tech-
niques or p r o v i d e some guidance for the e n g i n e e r in ana-
lyzing data.
W h e n c o m p a r i n g e x t r e m e values b e t w e e n m o d e l and
full-scale test results, caution must be exercised. Generally,
70 wave e n c o u n t e r s are considered necessary to p r o v i d e
statistically meaningful results in an irregular seaway. This
value is a trade-off b e t w e e n statistical accuracy and bud-
geting. Therefore, an e x t r e m e value m e a s u r e d from m o d e l
tests is only 1 1 / 70th highest o c c u r r e n c e and should not
be confused with the e x t r e m e value e x p e r i e n c e d by the
full scale w h e r e thousands of waves are e n c o u n t e r e d .
In light of the results and e x p e r i e n c e obtained from this
p a p e r , I hope furthdr progress can be m a d e toward stan-
d a r d i z i n g data processing techniques.
J. Harvey Evans, Member
P e r h a p s it is all too obvious, but I feel the great value
of this p a p e r overall is, first, in its thorough coverage of
the m a n y analysis aspects of the complex p r o b l e m to be
solved. Then, the p r o c e d u r e s followed and their relation-
ship to each other have b e e n carefully explained. Best of
all, the j u d g m e n t s m a d e en route to quantitative solutions
have b e e n clearly stated and the numerical results from
each of several approaches have b e e n c o m p a r e d so that,
in the future, all m a y benefit and m o r e refined design
estimates m a y be made. At the v e r y least, it has b e e n m a d e
m o r e clear w h e r e our k n o w l e d g e is most tentative. All this
is something of a r e c i p e for a good design p a p e r and this
one fills the bill so very well.
T h e i n d e n t a t i o n and p e r m a n e n t set of bow plating turns
out to b e the m a t t e r of greatest c o n c e r n and perhaps,
without overstating the case significantly, it should be said
again that first yielding is not failure. In fact, criterion
for the u p p e r limit of permissible deformation still needs
to be defined. And, in specific terms, the criterion m a y
vary with the vessel and the service. Will it be the like-
lihood of fatigue in the panel? Should the fatigue criterion
not take into account w h e t h e r or not the panel is in way
of a tank space? Or is the deterioration of h y d r o d y n a m i c
p e r f o r m a n c e or loss of s p e e d a m o r e critical concern? Or,
also as n o t e d in the p a p e r , are subsequent m a i n t e n a n c e
p r o b l e m s of greatest i m p o r t a n c e and a limiting factor?
Finally, to e m p h a s i z e the reserve of panel strength de-
v e l o p e d as m e m b r a n e stresses take over from b e n d i n g in
this highly nonlinear behavior, a few n u m b e r s from the
p a p e r can now b e m o r e closely related. First yielding of
the 23 X 12 X 0.16-in. plating panel has b e e n e s t i m a t e d
from [13] to occur at a static pressure of 14.3 psi w h e n
the m a x i m u m deflection (at the c e n t e r ) has r e a c h e d 42
p e r c e n t of the thickness.
T h e limit p r e s u m e d to be the m a x i m u m allowable for
U.S. Navy transverse bulkheads (from the last formulation
of the A p p e n d i x ) will be r e a c h e d at a static pressure of 38
psi w h e n the total m a x i m u m deflection will be about half
the thickness and about 20 p e r c e n t of this will r e m a i n
after the pressure is r e m o v e d .
Although Loeser's panel, as cited in the Appendix, was
slightly heavier, it had not r u p t u r e d u n d e r pressure of 1200
psi and the m a x i m u m deflection had r e a c h e d almost 13
times the thickness.
C o r r e s p o n d i n g to these values, the static equivalent
USCG Island Class Patrol Boat
pressure resulting in 0.308 in. of p e r m a n e n t set in the
Island Class boat was calculated to be about 159 psi. While
a somewhat m o r e refined calculation can b e m a d e (taking
into account the vibration frequency of the panel), the
r e l a t e d peak d y n a m i c pressure has b e e n e s t i m a t e d as 114
psi as noted.
In o r d e r to further increase our a p p r e c i a t i o n for the
strength of such thin panels, perhaps the authors would
be willing to add information on subsequent d a m a g e ex-
perience.
In any case, m y thanks for a v e r y worthwhile p a p e r and
the o p p o r t u n i t y to c o m m e n t on it.
Pin Yu Chang, Member
We would like to congratulate the authors for their ex-
cellent p a p e r about an i m p o r t a n t subject. F o r all high-
s p e e d boats with.light structure, the structural strength is
m o r e critical and must be designed by m o r e accurate
structural analysis. Using a finite-element m o d e l ( F E M ) is
the best m e t h o d available.
W e agree with the authors that linear structural analysis
is a d e q u a t e by the failure m o d e they use. But the sea loads
u p o n the hull structure at high s p e e d and in heavy w e a t h e r
are mostly nonlinear, especially the loads due to slamming.
W e strongly r e c o m m e n d that after t h e linear analysis has
b e e n done, a nonlinear analysis should be carried out. T h e
nonlinear sea loads can b e d e t e r m i n e d by the nonlinear
time domain program, ROSAS4, which we r e c e n t l y h e l p e d
to d e v e l o p for the initial version originated by the D a v i d
Taylor Research C e n t e r (DTRC).
In addition, a d y n a m i c analysis should also be c o n d u c t e d
to take the d y n a m i c responses into consideration. Such an
analysis can be h a n d l e d by NASTRAN with a d y n a m i c
finite-element model. We have c o n d u c t e d such d y n a m i c
analyses for the Canadian patrol frigate, with results show-
ing significant i m p r o v e m e n t s over the static, or the so-
called quasi-static, approach.
Authors' Closure
T h e authors a p p r e c i a t e the interest shown by the dis-
cussers and offer the following response.
Dr. Lee has p o i n t e d out the necessity for m o r e pressure
taps in the m o d e l and we must note that the w o o d e n m o d e l
is s o m e w h a t restricted in that respect. Plastic models have
b e e n constructed with m a n y m o r e taps and n e w pressure-
sensitive mesh products show promise in this area. In hind-
sight, we p r o b a b l y should have collected m o r e pressure
data than we did.
E n l a r g e d details of the higher stressed portions of the
hull w e r e obtained, and the n u m e r i c a l o u t p u t was of value,
but the color p a t t e r n s broke down u n d e r the fine mesh
detail and w e r e very h a r d to read.
With respect to p r o b l e m s associated with full-scale test-
ing, we can offer p l e n t y of insight. W e have o v e r c o m e
several difficulties in the strain m e a s u r e m e n t field, such
as hull p r e p a r a t i o n , space humidity, cable capacitance,
t e m p e r a t u r e compensation, gage b o n d i n g and electro-
m a g n e t i c interference. W e e x p e r i m e n t e d in o t h e r areas,
such as t h e r m a l l y i n d u c e d hull stress, w h e r e data are
sparse. O n e evening, after testing, we w a t c h e d the boat
"cool d o w n " b e t w e e n the hours of 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., as
reflected by the exponential g r a p h of stress in the plating.
In a later test, a r e f e r e n c e gage, t a p e d to the hull, but not
b o n d e d to the steel, showed no such m o v e m e n t . W e oc-
casionally e x p e r i m e n t e d with re-zeroing the gages while
underway, holding the boat on a single wave (stern sea)
245
d u r i n g the process. T h r o u g h all of this testing, w e p u t a the n e w p a p e r by P a y n e [37], w h e r e our sentiments about
p r e m i u m on personnel who could m e e t the physical chal- the variation in pressure predictions are reinforced. In
lenge and come back with reliable data. C o n d u c t i n g trials r e g a r d to the 5-Hz low-pass filter, w e feel that it is nec-
in a heavy sea can b e stressful for people, as well as for essary to omit the high-frequency deck vibrations that do
the boat. not directly c o n t r i b u t e to the whole b o d y CG acceleration
Mr. Ghosh has p r o v i d e d some useful c o m m e n t s and during slamming. W i t h r e g a r d to the use of e x t r e m e val-
b a c k g r o u n d on the o p e r a t i o n of the boats. With r e g a r d to ues, our test data w e r e g a t h e r e d for each cell in the matrix
the structural reliability analysis, w e a p p l i e d m e a s u r e d (Table 4) for about 100 wave e n c o u n t e r s (5 minutes). If
stresses and pressures ( d e r i v e d from those stresses) in con- w e had the ability to c o m p a r e one-tenth highest accel-
junction with Table 4 to project structural reliability. At eration values before publication, we would have done so,
no time w e r e we c o n c e r n e d with a design approach; only but only r e c e n t l y did we acquire the p r o p e r software. W e
with the application of observed data. The results are very h o p e that we can soon publish the comparison of the m o d e l
sensitive to the o p e r a t i n g profile (Table 4), especially to data with the full scale.
the assumption of 1 p e r c e n t o p e r a t i n g time at 24 knots in Professor Evans has p o i n t e d out the n e e d to establish
a 10-ft significant wave height (head sea). Stress levels are an u p p e r lirrlit for permissible d e f o r m a t i o n and a r e q u e s t
highest in this cell of the matrix and we feel it is a con- to add information on d a m a g e experience. O n e of the
servative assumption that the average boat will spend 30 patrol boats was g r o u n d e d at high s p e e d during a chase
hr p e r year in those sea conditions. This condition is close and the b o t t o m plating in the forward m a c h i n e r y space
to the " c r e w l i m i t " that Mr. Ghosh suggests. H e a d seas was i n d e n t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y one inch just f o r w a r d of the
w e r e chosen for the analysis because the r e c o r d e d stresses transverse frames, without rupture. About 20 ft ~ of 7-1b
at all other angles (bow, b e a m and following) w e r e v e r y plating (0.16 in. nom.) was c r o p p e d out and n e w plating
low i a b o u t 10 to 20 p e r c e n t of the h e a d seas values). The w e l d e d to the existing framing, which had not suffered
midship section calculation was c h e c k e d and found to be any visible damage. Conversely, after our testing, which
a d e q u a t e (344 in.2-ft versus 252 r e q u i r e d by ABS). The p r o d u c e d indentations of 0.308 in., no repairs w e r e made.
assumptions c o n c e r n i n g this calculation are n o t e d in ref- S o m e w h e r e in b e t w e e n , t h e r e is a n e e d for a definition of
e r e n c e [3] of the paper. No deckhouse e l e m e n t s are in- "a_cceptable d a m a g e . "
c l u d e d in this calculation. Dr. Chang notes that d y n a m i c finite-element analysis
Mr. Curry has p o i n t e d out some correlation with other would be desirable in this case. W e agree, because any
m e t h o d s of calculation of b o t t o m pressure. Again we have m e t h o d that can m o r e c o m p l e t e l y simulate reality is going
the p r o b l e m of d e t e r m i n i n g which " a c c e l e r a t i o n " is re- to help the designer of such a complex structure. O u r
q u i r e d - m a x i m u m , average or o n e - t e n t h highest. A n o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e with the static finite-element analysis has
p a p e r , by P a y n e [ 37 ], has r e c e n t l y b e e n published on this shown that the selection of p r o p e r stiffness in the b u l k h e a d
subject, noting the variation in pressures p r e d i c t e d by cur- e l e m e n t s is a very difficult task. With m o r e t i m e and
r e n t formulae. W e i n t e n d to analyze our data further, now money, we m a y have b e e n able to refine those calculations
that w e have the same algorithms that w e r e used to cal- and a g r e e m o r e closely with the r e c o r d e d stresses.
culate o n e - t e n t h highest accelerations in the towing tank. In conclusion, we wish to point out that several portions
W e had, indeed, m i s i n t e r p r e t e d the value of S in the for- of the data collected during the full-scale testing are still
m u l a as Mr. Curry has p o i n t e d out. After further consul- u n d e r g o i n g analysis. W e have a n o t h e r d e f o r m a t i o n event,
tation, we have a p p l i e d the formu!a, t = 0.0028 (S) x/-V, a comparison of the one-tenth highest accelerations in the
for planing hulls, w h e r e S is the smaller of the p a n e l di- towing tank with the full-scale data, a look at the variation
mensions. Correcting for the difference in steels (30 ksi of the angle of principal stress in the plating and a com-
versus 39 ksi) and using S = 12 in., V = 26 knots, we get parison of the stress at the e d g e of the panel versus the
a r e q u i r e d t = 0.15 in. This, we feel, is still too thin, based center. W e h o p e that some of these subjects will be the
on testing e x p e r i e n c e and the lack of any corrosion allow- topics of future papers.
ance. W e feel that 9-1b plate (0.22 in. nom.) is a p p r o p r i a t e
for the region subjected to slamming pressure.
Mr. Burtness points to the p r o b l e m of h a r d - c h i n e d ver- Additional references
sus round-bilge hulls and the applicability of various for- 37 Payne, P. R., "A Discussion of the Design Pressures Ap-
mulas. W e a g r e e that deadrise angle must b e a c c o u n t e d propriate to the Bottom of a Planing Boat," Ocean Engineering,
for in a r e - e n t r y slamming calculation and refer him to Vol. 15, No. 5, 1988.

246 USCG Island Class Patrol Boat