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

net/publication/272942929

WHIPPING RESPONSES AND WHIPPING EFFECTS ON DESIGN BENDING

MOMENTS OF A LARGE CONTAINER SHIP

Conference Paper · September 2012

CITATIONS READS

6 721

4 authors, including:

Yongwon Lee Nigel White

Lloyd’s Register Group Limited University of Southampton
38 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 149 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

whipping and springing of container ships View project

Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yongwon Lee on 01 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology 2012
Tokyo, JAPAN

WHIPPING RESPONSES AND WHIPPING EFFECTS

ON DESIGN BENDING MOMENTS OF A LARGE CONTAINER SHIP

Yongwon Leea, Nigel Whitea, Zhenhong Wanga and Jun-Bum Parkb

a
Marine Product Development, Lloyd's Register, London, UK
b
Technology Centre Korea, Busan, South Korea

ABSTRACT

The demand for larger container ships has increased dramatically in the last few years as world
trade continues to grow and with the marine industry requirement for more energy efficient ships.
One of the critical issues for large container ships is the vibration of the hull girder due to wave
impact which leads to excitation of whipping responses of the ship’s hull girder. Fluid Structure
Interaction (FSI) models are used to investigate nonlinear wave actions and wave induced global
loads acting on a large container ship. This paper presents an analysis procedure to determine
values of wave induced bending moments considering the effects due to whipping suitable for
design application. The analysis for predicting structural capacities has been carried out by
computing the ultimate longitudinal strength of the container ship. Further the assessment of the
safety against failure due to excessive maximum loads is accomplished in Ultimate Limit States
(ULS).

KEYWORDS

Nonlinear ship motion; hydroelasticity; slamming; whipping; structural vibration; wave induced
bending moment; container ship; ultimate strength; Ultimate Limit States

1. INTRODUCTION

The whipping phenomena can be a critical issue for the design and operation of large container
ships. Recently the important contribution due to the global wave induced hull vibration on
container ships has been investigated from full scale measurements and model tests. Whipping of
a ship is the rapid flexing of the hull girder as a consequence of a wave impact on the hull. This
usually results in high frequency cyclic oscillations of the hull girder which results in increased
vertical wave induced bending moments and shear forces compared to linear theory. High
whipping responses are usually driven by bow flare impacts due to large bow flare angles and
high speed or by bottom slamming. Occasionally stern counter slamming can lead to high
whipping responses. The oscillations of the whipping responses usually decay rapidly after
several wave periods due to damping effects. Whipping is primarily a strength issue. It is not a
fatigue issue as the whipping induced vertical bending moment oscillations usually damp out
quickly and hence the total number of whipping cycles in the ship’s life is small1.
In this paper Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI) models are used to investigate whipping
responses and whipping effects on design bending moments. For idealising the ship and handling
1
the flexible modes of the ship structure, a boundary element method and a finite element method
are employed for coupling the fluid and structure domain problems. The hydrodynamic module
takes into account nonlinear components of Froude-Krylov and restoring forces. This fluid
structure interaction model is also coupled with slamming loads to predict wave loads due to
whipping effects. Vibration modes and natural frequencies of the ship hull girder are calculated by
idealising the ship structure as a non-uniform Timoshenko beam. The numerical tools were validated
by using model scale measurements of the WILS II JIP. The comparisons were presented by Lee et al2,3.
A 13,000 TEU container ship has been used for the study. The design waves for whipping
analysis were determined based on Lloyd's Register’s ‘Guidance Notes on the Assessment of
Global Design Loads of Large Container Ships and Other Ships Prone to Whipping and
Springing’. Wave induced bending moments considering the effects due to whipping suitable for
design application are computed by using the design waves from irregular wave approach.
Correction factors of hogging and sagging are introduced to determine design bending moments1.
The limit state design (LSD) concept and their applications are introduced. A procedure to
estimate the structural ‘capacity’ of the proposed design can be described in the form of its overall
ultimate strength capabilities. The ultimate strength of the hull girder of the sample vessel is
determined by employing LR.PASS routines. In addition the comparisons of the ‘demands’ in
structural design to the ‘capacities’ in the form of its ultimate strength are performed in ultimate
limit states (ULS). The hull girder structure will be evaluated whether it’s ‘safe and viable’
regarding longitudinal strength against structural demands due to whipping.

2. NUMERICAL APPROACH

The mathematical model of hydroelasticity theory for ships was first developed by Bishop and
Price4. They used two dimensional strip theory for the hydrodynamic model and a Timoshenko
beam model as simplified model of the ship hull girder. Since the mathematical model was
introduced in 1970s, many other investigators have examined the existing method, extended the
two dimensional theory to the three dimensional theory and further developed nonlinear
hydroelasticity theories employing nonlinearities and impact5,6,7,8,9.
The linear hydroelastic model employs linearised boundary conditions. However it is
important to allow for the hull flexibility as well as the influence of large waves in terms of
associated nonlinearities. In order to take into account nonlinearity of springing and whipping
responses due to large waves, the time domain computations were used. The nonlinear numerical
model in time domain is based on the method in Cummins10 and Ogilvie11. The equation of
motion which is solved in the time domain is the Cummins equation. The Cummins equation
transfers the frequency domain to time domain9,10:

(a + A )⋅ &p&(t ) + (b + B )⋅ p& (t ) + ∫
∞ ∞
−∞
t
K (t − τ ) ⋅ p& (t ) dτ + (c + C ) p (t ) = Fh (t ) + Fs (t ) (1)

where:
A∞ is infinite frequency added mass matrix
B ∞ is infinite frequency damping mass matrix
K (t ) is retardation function of time
Fh (t ) is wave excitation vector and includes incident wave and diffraction
Fs (t ) is slamming force vector

The retardation functions can be calculated using the frequency domain damping
coefficients11:

2
K (t ) =
2
π∫
[B(ω ) − B ]⋅ cos (ω t ) ⋅ dω
∞

0
e
∞
e e
(2)

The motion equation (1) is integrated in time using the Runge Kutta 4th order scheme after the
calculation of the retardation functions. There are many nonlinear effects which are missing in the
linear hydroelastic model. High whipping responses are usually driven by bow flare impacts or by
bottom slamming or other impacts. Here Froude-Krylov forces, restoring forces due to nonlinear
effects of hull form and slamming forces are considered. For predicting slamming forces,
Generalised Momentum Theory is implemented in this study. The details can be found in
Tuitman12.

3. NUMERICAL MODEL FOR A SAMPLE VESSELE

The generated hydrodynamic mesh and main dimensions of the 13,000 TEU container ship are
presented in Figure 1. This hydrodynamic mesh was used for the three dimensional hydrodynamic
analyses based on PRECAL. The mesh has about 3,200 panels for the below waterline portion
with an approximate maximum panel length of 2.7 m. The draught and mass distributions of the
full load condition were applied to match the design.
The structural idealisation of the container ship was by a non-uniform Timoshenko beam
model. Fifty beam elements were employed in modal and hydroelastic analysis. Here the
idealisation considered only the vertical bending modes. 1.5 % of the structural damping
coefficient for the first vertical bending mode (2 nodes vibration) was assumed in computations.
The computed natural bending frequency of the 1st vertical bending wet modes is 0.498 Hz which
is shown in Table 1 with following 4 natural frequencies of vertical bending modes from modal
analysis.

LBP (m) 350.000

Breadth (m) 48.000
Draught (m) 15.400
Cb 0.700
Displ. (tonne) 182985

Figure 1: Surface discretisation of the 13,000 TEU container ship

TABLE 1
NATURAL FREQUENCIES OF FIRST 5 VERTICAL BENDING MODES (in Hz)
Natural frequencies Natural frequencies
Mode No.
of dry modes of wet modes
1 0.698 0.498
2 1.608 1.173
3 2.680 1.986
4 3.829 2.889
5 5.057 3.896
3
4. WHIPPING RESPONSES

Design waves for whipping analysis in the strength assessment can be determined based on
Lloyd's Register’s ‘Guidance Notes on the Assessment of Global Design Loads of Large
Container Ships and Other Ships Prone to Whipping and Springing’. In this document, two
methods for determining the design waves of whipping responses are introduced. Here a critical
sea state in irregular waves is employed for predicting design bending moments due to whipping1.

4.1 Critical sea states in irregular waves

The equivalent design sea state (EDS) is defined as the sea state which has the maximum
contribution to the 10-8 probability of exceedance of long term vertical wave bending moment
amidships. After long term analysis based on North Atlantic wave scatter data listed in IACS Rec.
No. 34, several critical sea states (ISSC spectrum) having the most contributions to the 10-8
probability of exceedance of long term vertical wave bending moment amidships are presented in
Table 2. From Table 2, the equivalent design sea state (EDS) for time domain simulation is
therefore chosen as an ISSC spectrum with Tz=11.5s and Hs=14.5m1,13.

TABLE 2
INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION OF PROBABILITIES OF SEA STATES TO 10-8 VALUES
Tz (s)
9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5
13.5 4.02%
14.5 2.74% 4.93% 3.69%
Hs (m)
15.5 3.00% 4.44% 4.03%
16.5 3.36%

4.2 Whipping responses using irregular wave approach

For computations in irregular waves, the wave induced whipping (2 to 5 nodes vertical vibration)
responses due to bow slamming impacts as well as wave exciting forces and restoring forces due
to hull shape variation about the mean waterline were accounted for in time domain. The linear,
non-linear wave loads and the loads induced by the whipping vibration are superimposed over
each other to determine total bending moment and the hogging and sagging ratio. In order to take
into account nonlinearity of whipping responses due to wave impact, nonlinear hydroelastic
TDWHIP was used, designated “Whipping” in following figures.

Example of counting for extremes

1.0E+07

5.0E+06
VBM (kNm)

0.0E+00

-5.0E+06

Linear Linear count

-1.0E+07
Nonlinear Nonlinear count

Whipping Whipping count

-1.5E+07
150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200
Time (sec)

Figure 2: Count example for extremes of bending moment signal

4
 The maximum expected bending moments are obtained by extrapolating the realisation of
extremes using a three parameter Weibull fit. The peaks and troughs in the bending moment
signals for linear, nonlinear and whipping analysis are counted by employing the Peak Count
Algorithm based on mean crossing period of the rigid-body, counted by identifying one
peak/trough per crossing of the mean value of the rigid ship. A typical example of peak/trough
count for the bending moment of linear (rigid body), nonlinear (rigid body) and whipping
(flexible body) signals is displayed in Figures 2. The probabilities of exceedance of the
hogging/sagging vertical bending moments and their Weibull fit curves are shown in Figure 3.
The maximum expected bending moments in 3 hours and hogging/sagging correction factors are
presented in Table 3.
Hogging VBM Sagging VBM

Linear count Nonlinear count Whipping count Linear count Nonlinear count Whipping count
Llinear fit Nonlinear fit Whipping fit Linear fit Nonlinear fit Whipping fit
1.0E+00 1.0E+00

1.0E-01 1.0E-01
P(x>My)

P(x>My)
1.0E-02 1.0E-02

1.0E-03 1.0E-03

1.0E-04 1.0E-04
0.0E+00 2.0E+06 4.0E+06 6.0E+06 8.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.2E+07 0.0E+00 3.0E+06 6.0E+06 9.0E+06 1.2E+07 1.5E+07 1.8E+07
My(kNm) My(kNm)

(a) Hogging bending moments (b) Sagging bending moments

Figure 3: Weibull fit of probability level

TABLE 3
MAXIMUM EXPECTED VBMs IN 3 HOURS (10 6 kNm)
Linear Nonlinear Whipping Nonlinear/Linear Whipping/Linear
EDS
VBM VBM VBM correction factor correction factor
ISSC spectrum Hog 7.845 7.343 11.12 0.94 1.42
Tz=11.5s
Hs=14.5m Sag -7.845 -11.22 -15.51 -1.43 -1.98

In nonlinear analysis, the correction factor for hogging is 0.94 for this ship. The correction
factor for sagging is -1.43 and is 15% greater than the standard rule sagging correction factor. In
nonlinear whipping analysis, the correction factor of hogging is 1.42 and this is 50% greater than
the standard rule hogging correction factor. The correction factor of sagging is -1.98 and is 60%
greater than the standard rule sagging correction factor.

4.3 Design bending moments

The design values of vertical wave induced bending moments due to nonlinear effects of hull
shape and whipping are to be used for structural assessment as follows1,14,15:

• Rule buckling requirements for stiffeners. For this application the buckling factor β in
Lloyd’s Register’s Ship Rules, Pt 3, Ch 4, 7.5 is be taken as 1.0 for longitudinal
stiffeners.
• Ultimate strength assessment, similar to procedures in the IACS Common Structural
Rules for Double Hull Oil Tankers (CSR-DHOT).

The design values of vertical wave bending moments including whipping are to be taken as
follows1:
5
VBM NL− H = f fH −W M wo for hogging
VBM NL−S = f fS −W M wo for sagging (3)

where,
3h
M WH
f fH −W = is whipping hogging correction factor.
3h
M VL
3h
M WS is whipping sagging correction factor.
f fS −W = 3h
M VL
M wo is the rule wave bending moment value excluding the hog and sag correction factor and
the longitudinal distribution factor.
3h
M WS is the maximum value of the “probable maximum whipping sagging moment in 3 hours”
from the time domain simulation including whipping of the EDS.
3h
M WH is the maximum value of the “probable maximum whipping hogging moment in 3 hours”
from the time domain simulation including whipping of the EDS.
3h
M VL is the maximum value of the “probable maximum linear bending moments in 3 hours”
from the non linear time domain simulation without whipping of the EDS. This can be
derived from short term statistical analysis using the EDS.

The rule value of the linear design vertical wave induced bending moment amidships (Mwo)
was 8.626 GNm. For this design, the maximum and minimum values of the SWBM in the loading
manual have been reviewed and these provided 7.35 GNm for hogging and 3.0 GNm for sagging.
Hence this ship always has a considerable hogging bending moment in the still water condition.
Whipping hog/sag correction factors and maximum wave induced bending moments due to
nonlinear effects and whipping are given in Table 3.

5. ULTIMATE STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

Caldwell (1965) defined the ultimate longitudinal strength of a ship as ‘the bending moment
which will break the back of the hull girder’ in his pioneering work in the field of the ultimate
strength of a ship’s hull girder16. This strength criterion was introduced as an approach in order to
complement conventional longitudinal strength assessment based on elastic bending analysis.
However the classical linear beam calculations had been used for many years. Intensive
experimental works on the collapse behaviours of rectangular box girders were carried out. The
test results suggested that elastic stress analysis might not be an appropriate guidance to evaluate
the ultimate structural bending capability of hull girders17,18,19.
Ultimate strength can be determined by focusing the attention on the conditions at the final
bending failure of the hull girder. The failure takes into account the yielding of the tension parts as
well as buckling of the compressed parts. The elastic and plastic behaviour are considered for
computing ultimate strength. Safety margin of the structure can be then obtained comparing this
ultimate strength to the maximum bending moment. Ultimate strength assessment technique is
applied in this design analysis20,21. The ultimate longitudinal strength assessment was carried out
along the following procedure using LR.PASS routines developed by Lloyd’s Register21,22.

• The midship cross-section is divided into elements which are assumed to act
independently.
• The vertical curvature of the girder is assumed to occur incrementally; corresponding
increment element strains are computed based on the assumption that plane-sections

6
 remain plane and the bending occurs about the instantaneous elasto-plastic neutral axis
of the cross-section.
• Element incremental stresses are derived from the element strains using the stress-strain
curve (or load shortening curve) of each element.
• Element stresses are integrated over the cross-section to obtain the bending moment at
the applied curvature, hence allowing the bending moment versus hull girder curvature
response to be derived.

The results of the detailed computations on ultimate longitudinal strength assessment using
LR.PASS routines will be provided in the following sections.

5.1 Ultimate strength on stiffened panel

The shape of the moment-curvature curve in its final stages is strongly influenced by the
post-buckling and stress-strain relationships of the compressed parts of the structure. Evidently
knowledge of the form of these stress-strain relationships is an essential requirement in predicting
ultimate strength of marine structures.
LR.PASS program P20202 was used for calculating the ultimate strength of stiffened
compression panels and generating their stress-strain curves in accordance with the method
described by Rutherford and Caldwell21. At the same time LR.PASS program P20202 was
correlated with ULSAP23,24. The following three collapse conditions are investigated, and the
minimum value obtained from these three calculations determines the ultimate strength21,22.

• Failure initiated by plate compression

• Failure initiated by stiffener tension
• Failure initiated by stiffener compression

The stiffened panel properties used for comparative studies and the ultimate strength
computed by ULSAP and LR.PASS are given in Table 4. The stress-strain curves on stiffened
panel types 1 and 2 using LR.PASS are presented in Figure 4.

TABLE 4
ULTIMATE STRENTH COMPARISONS OF STIFFENED PANELS
Ultimate strength
Panel Plating (mm) Web (mm) Flange (mm) (N/mm^2)
type length breadth thickness depth thickness breadth thickness ULSAP LR.PASS
1 1875 577 14 300 12 100 12 338.7 331.5
2 1875 577 20 300 12 100 12 358.4 357.2
(where, Plating: P1 = LR 315, P2 = LR 355; Angle: LR 355)

(a) Panel type 1 (b) Panel type 2

Figure 4: Stress-strain curve on stiffened panels

7
5.2 Ultimate strength on hull girder
LR.PASS P20203 program examines the ultimate strength of hull girders under pure bending
using the method described in Rutherford and Caldwell21. The program is also able to carry out
the progressive collapse analysis. Stress-strain curves for the various stiffened elements can be
input directly or alternatively retrieved from files previously created by the LR.PASS P20202
program. The hull girder is modelled as a finite number of discrete stiffened plate elements, and
stress-strain curves are defined for each. The idealised cross-section model geometry is assumed
to be symmetrical about the ‘vertical’ centre-line. In the P20203 program, a positive vertical
bending moment or curvature indicates a hogging condition i.e. tension in the elements above the
neutral axis22. RulesCalc software, implemented with P20202 and P20203 programs, was used for
the calculations. The element idealisation of the mid-ship section of the container ship is shown in
Figure 5. The results of the ultimate strength calculations are given in Figure 6 in the form of the
vertical bending moment curvatures.

Figure 5: Element idealisation of the midship section of the container ship

The ultimate strength gross capacities calculated are as follows:

• MU = 24.045 GNm for hogging

• MU = -20.534 GNm for sagging

Figure 6: Vertical bending moment curvature of the vessel

8
 The rule requirement specifies that net scantlings based on half the standard deduction for
corrosion are to be used. For the deck plating (which is the limiting criteria for sagging ultimate
strength), the deck plating is in excess of 70mm and the standard corrosion deduction is 1mm. For
the bottom shell, the standard corrosion deduction is 2.1mm and hence the gross thickness in the
ultimate strength calculation is reduced by 1mm or approximately 5%. As the current ultimate
strength software for non CSR ships only uses the gross scantlings, then a 5% reduction was
applied to the gross capacity values. This will be conservative for the sagging capacity and fairly
neutral for the hogging capacity.

The ultimate strength net capacities have been taken as 95% of the gross capacities as follows:

• MU = 22.843 GNm for hogging

• MU = -19.501 GNm for sagging

6. DESIGN EVALUATION IN ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

The structure must be considered to maintain an acceptable margin of safety against such
demands, the safety factor taking into account for various uncertainties due to natural variability,
inaccuracy in procedures used for the evaluation and control of loads or load effects, uncertainties
in structural resistance (capacity) and its determination, and also variations in fabrication
procedures. Here a ‘demand’ stands for load effect, and a ‘capacity’ stands for strength necessary
to resist that load effect. The safety factor based design criterion of a structure under such loads
applied can be expressed as follows20:

Dd ≤ Cd or safety measure = Cd / Dd ≥ 1 (4)

where, Dd and Cd are respectively the design ‘demand’ and the design ‘capacity’. The level of
safety of a structural component is determined whether the design load effect (Dd) does not
exceed the design capacity (Cd).
There are two types of relevant structural design methods, i.e. allowable stress design (ASD)
concept and limit state design (LSD) philosophy. The ASD concept is carried out so that the
stresses resulting from the design loads should be kept under a certain working stress level which
is usually determined based on past experiences. The LSD philosophy is based on the limit state
which represents a condition that the structure fails to its intended function. It is recognised that
the LSD is a better basis for structural design because it is more effective to determine the safety
measure of any structure. A limit state is a condition beyond which a structure or a part of a
structure exceeds a specified design requirement25,26.
The partial safety factor-based design criterion for a structure under multiple types of loads
applied can be expressed as follows15,25,26.

Cd
γ s Ls + γ w Lw ≤ (5)
γr

where:
Ls is static loads of the considered structure
Lw is wave induced loads of the considered structure
Cd is the design capacity of the considered structure
γ s is the partial factor with respect to static loads
γ w is the partial factor with respect to wave induced loads

9
γ r is the partial factor with respect to design capacity, especially
given by characteristics of materials

Table 5 shows the load factors and the resistance partial factor used in design assessment1.
Ultimate strength assessment results are given in Table 6. Here ultimate strength assessment using
non-linear wave loads (rigid body) is also presented.

TABLE 5
LOAD AND CAPACITY FACTORS
Load factor Capacity factor
γs γw γr
1.0 1.2 1.1

TABLE 6
ULTIMATE STRENGTH ASSESSMENT RESULTS (GNm)
γ s Ls ULS criteria Safety
γ L γ L C /γ
s s w w
+ γ w Lw d r
γ s Ls + γ w L w d ≤ C d / γ r measure
Hog 7.35 9.730 17.080 20.766 Yes 1.216
Nonlinear
Sag 3.00 -14.802 -11.802 -17.728 Yes 1.502
Hog 7.35 14.699 22.049 20.766 No 0.942
Whipping
Sag 3.00 -20.495 -17.495 -17.728 Yes 1.013
(where, load components are all bending moments)

7. CONCLUSIONS

The design bending moments due to whipping of the hull girder were determined by multiplying
the design rule bending moments and correction factors of hogging and sagging based on the
Lloyd's Register’s Guidance Notes. The correction factors of hogging and sagging of a 13,000
TEU container ship were predicted by employing time domain nonlinear whipping analysis and
an Equivalent Design Sea State (EDS). For design evaluation, the comparisons of the ‘demands’
in structural design to the ‘capacities’ in the form of its ultimate strength were accomplished in
ultimate limit states (ULS).
In nonlinear whipping analysis, the correction factor of hogging was 1.42 for the ship and this
factor is 50% greater than the standard rule hogging correction factor. The correction factor of
sagging was -1.98 and is 60% greater than the standard rule sagging correction factor. These are
significantly greater than the standard IACS based rule wave bending moments.
For the sagging condition, assessment of the ultimate longitudinal strength of the hull girder
shows that the ship just complies with the design criteria. However the hull girder of the container
ship was evaluated as ‘not safe and not viable’ to withstand the hogging condition regarding
longitudinal strength against structural demands. The structural damping of the first vertical mode
in nonlinear whipping analysis was assumed as 1.5% for the case study. In order to reduce the
whipping effects on design bending moments for hogging and sagging conditions, around 2.0% of
the structural damping is recommended for the design. In ultimate limit states, the safety measures
for the hull girder were investigated as 0.942 in hogging and 1.013 in sagging.
Further studies of analysis of more ships with model tests and full scale measurements have
been carried out. Improved treatment of impact loads and improved understanding of hull girder
structural damping issues have been also investigated. These research works are currently being
carried out and will be reported.

10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Lloyd’s Register. The opinions expressed in this
paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of Lloyd's Register Group.
Lloyd's Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and
collectively, referred to in this clause as the ‘Lloyd's Register Group’. The Lloyd's Register Group assumes no
responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information
or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd's
Register Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is
exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.

REFERENCES

1. Lloyd's Register, Guidance Notes on the Assessment of Global Design Loads of Large
Container Ships and Other Ships Prone to Whipping and Springing, Draft Version 1.1, 2011.
2. Lee, Y., White, N.J., Wang, Z.H., Hirdaris, S.E. and Zhang, S.M., Comparison of Springing and
Whipping Responses of Model Tests with Predicted Nonlinear Hydroelastic Analyses, 21st Intl
ISOPE-Conf, Maui, Hawaii, USA, 2011.
3. Lee, Y., Wang, Z.H., White, N.J. and Hirdaris, S.E., Time domain analysis of springing and
whipping responses acting on a large container ship, 30th Intl OMAE-Conf, Rotterdam,
Netherland, 2011.
4. Bishop, R.E.D. and Price, W.G., Hydroelasticity of Ships, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1979.
5. Bishop, R.E.D., Price, W.G. and Wu, Y., A General Linear Hydroelasticity Theory of Floating
Structures Moving in A Seaway, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., A316, pp.375-426, 1986.
6. Wu, M.K. and Moan, T., Linear and Nonlinear Hydroelastic Analysis of High Speed Vessels, J
of Ship Research v.40, no.2, pp.149-163, 1996.
7. Xia, J. and Wang, Z., Time Domain Hydroelasticity Theory of Ships Responding to Waves, J of
Ship Research v.41, no.4, pp.286-300, 1997.
8. Hirdaris, S.E., Price, W.G. and Temarel, P., Two and Three-Dimensional Hydroelastic Analysis
of A Bulker in Waves, J Mar Structs v.16, no.8, pp.627-658, 2003.
9. Tuitman, J.T. and Malenica, Š, Fully Coupled Seakeeping, Slamming and Whipping
Calculations, Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment, v.223, no.3,
pp.439-456, 2009.
10. Cummins, W.E., The Impulse Response Function and the Ship Motions, Schiffsctechnik v.47,
pp.101-109, 1962.
11. Ogilvie, T.F., Recent Progress Toward the Understanding and Prediction of Ship Motions, 5th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Bergen, Norway, pp.3-128, 1964.
12. Tuitman, J.T., TDWHIP Theory Manual, CRS Working Group, 2008.
13. IACS, Standard Wave Data, IACS Rec. No. 34, 2001.
14. Lloyd’s Register, Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships, Part 3, 2011.
15. IACS, Common Structural Rules for Double Hull Oil Tankers, Section 2, 2010.
16. Caldwell, J.B., Ultimate Longitudinal Strength, Trans RINA, pp.411-430, 1965.
17. Smith, C. S., Influence of Local Compressive Failure on Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of
Ship’s Hull, Proc Intl Symp Practical Design in Shipbuilding, Tokyo, 1977.
18. Dow, R. S., Hugill, R. C., Clark, J. D., and Smith, C. S., Evaluation of Ultimate Ship Hull
Strength, Proc Extreme Loads Response Spectrum Symp (SNAME), Arlington, VA, Oct. 19-20,
pp.133-148, 1981.
19. Ostapenko, A., Strength of Ship Hull Girders under Moment, Shear and Torque, Proc Extreme
Loads Response Symposium (SNAME), Arlington, VA, Oct. 19-20, pp.149-160, 1981.
20. Paik, J.K. and Thayamballi, Ultimate State Design of Steel-Plated Structures, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., ISBN: 0-471-48632-9, 2002.
21. Rutherford, S. E. and Caldwell, J. B., Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of Ships: A Case Study,
11
 SNAME Annual Meeting, 1-2 Nov, San Francisco, Ca, USA, SNAME Trans, v.98, pp.441-471.
ISSN 0081-1661, 1990.
22. Paik, J. K., ALPS/ULSAP user’s manual, Pusan National University, 2004.
23. Paik, J. K. and Seo, J. K., Ultimate Limit State Assessment of Steel Plates: A Benchmark Study,
Pusan National University, 2004.
24. Lloyd’s Register, LR.PASS programs manual, 1992.
25. DNV, Offshore Standard DNV-OS-C101: Design of Offshore Steel Structures - General LRFD
method, 2004.
26. Lee, Y., Incecik, A. and Chan, H.S., Prediction of Global Loads and Structural Response
Analysis on A Multi-Purpose Semi-Submersible, 24th Intl OMAE-Conf, Halkidiki, Greece, Jun.
12-16, 2005.

12

View publication stats